Re: updates bind9 package for etch?
On Tuesday 20 May 2008 14:11, Jan Wagner wrote:
> malice or not, if the old L would have answered with false (in which way
> ever) answers, there would be a significant part of users affected. Users
> (of users) of a stock bind9 right out of stable are also affected.
True, but it doesn't, so there's nothing affected.
> > bit more nuance to it. We're getting multiple mails of people already
> > that read your post without reading ICANN's and think there's something
> > dangerous going on.
> WTF?!? I can't get, that people don't read the refered document, if they
> are so worried. It was not my intention to provide misleading informations,
I don't promote people not reading well, but it's unfortunately a fact of
life. Stolen has a denotation of malice and bad faith, so I think it's
desirable not to use such inflated terminology to start with. Of couse it's
your blog so you put on it what you want, but I think it would be better for
everyone to pick words that accurately describe the issue we're under, and
not something "just to get attention". But anyway, this gets off topic. I'll
just keep replying to those people emailing us that there's no security issue