On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 10:17 +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > I disagree with this characterisation. Well I guess we won't come to an agreement here. I've had a short glance over the discussion that the IETF WG and upstream had about the bug you've mentioned, and it seems that both seemed to think the current use of that is rather hacky > Please stop making personal attacks on them. It hasn't been my intention to do so, I guess that must be a misunderstanding. > You claim it's dangerous, which is not the same thing as it being known > to be dangerous. I disagree that there is a realistic danger in > accepting LC_*. Well, I guess upstream is on my side here :) > Sure. That doesn't cause any technical issues other than some spurious > error messages, Or corrupted character display in things like vi, which one may or may not notice and work with that content. > and in my experience it's often been a reminder for > users to get their sysadmins to enable the relevant locales, which ends > up in a better place than doing nothing would have done. Wouldn't that be the same argumentation when people notice that some custom variables they need to be sent/accpeted aren't? They notice it - they have to properly configure it. Okay maybe I just misunderstand something here and the two similarly looking situations are completely different. Best wishes and bye, Chris.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature