On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 19:06, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 00:12 -0400, Paul Iadonisi wrote: > > Something else to note about this fake security alert. Red Hat > > publishes an SPF record, > > That is an unfortunate error of judgement on their part. Let's not > compound it by advocating the fundamentally flawed snake oil which is > SPF in an inappropriate forum. /me makes note to remind himself that David Woodhouse is also on this list ;-) Sorry. Though have been a bit of an SPF advocate, I am aware of the flaws and have had *some* second thoughts, lately. However, I beg to differ that simply mentioning it as a possible benefit to some people is inappropriate. This isn't politics or religion we're talking about, it is technology. I could also call any discussion of Mono in Fedora Core inappropriate for my own reasons, but really it's just a matter of opinion on a *technology* issue. And who are you to call Red Hat's publishing of an SPF record an error in judgement? Especially if they have no forwarding issues, it may be an entirely appropriate and beneficial thing for Red Hat to do. Given that they've had it published for a least a few months, I've got to wonder if it might, in fact, be accomplishing exactly what Red Hat wants. Your position on SPF is pretty well known for those who know your postings on the matter. Please don't use the weak (in this case, at least) 'off-topic' argument to suppress any discussion of it. -- -Paul Iadonisi Senior System Administrator Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux. GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
