Hi Thijs, On Tuesday 20 May 2008 13:40, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > I think your blog post with title "stolen" suggests malice and is not > representative of the real severity of the issue. I suggest that you add a 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. Yes, it was my intention have a strikingly subject to get the attention/awareness of the issue. > 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, sorry. With kind regards, Jan. -- Never write mail to <waja@spamfalle.info>, you have been warned! -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GIT d-- s+: a- C+++ UL++++ P+ L+++ E- W+++ N+++ o++ K++ w--- O M V- PS PE Y++ PGP++ t-- 5 X R tv- b+ DI- D++ G++ e++ h-- r+++ y+++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Attachment:
pgpE3xM2buYgM.pgp
Description: PGP signature