On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:57:47AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > I'm the current flyspray maintainer ... and I should say I don't know > what to do with that bug [1] > > Upstream, and I agree on the fact that the problem is not flyspray's > fault. Should I close the bug ? or let it live with wontfix for years ? > or should I reassign the problem to privoxy ? Weird one. Does the bugfix suggested break anything? Perhaps you could make it a config setting -- if the user *wants* to accept screwed up cookies, then let them. That being said, it looks like privoxy has the ability to stop doing this (rather weird) thing, so to me that would be the preferred option -- something already has this ability. This is one of those bugs which, I think, has no ideal solution. Your judgment ultimately has about as much weight as anyone else's -- probably more, since you're the maintainer. > I do not like long-living bugs ;) Neither do I. So I just don't look at them any more... <grin> - Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature