From: | Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Sir Mordred The Traitor" <mordred(at)s-mail(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: @(#)Mordred Labs advisory 0x0007: Remove DoS in PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2002-08-26 19:01:23 |
Message-ID: | 200208261501.23009.lamar.owen@wgcr.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Monday 26 August 2002 02:51 pm, Dann Corbit wrote:
> I want to make it clear that I think the best way to report a problem is
> with formal, rigorous, complete structure. That structure should be
> known to the receiving body. If there is a procedure or standard form
> for producing the needed information, it is better to follow the
> standard procedure.
Ok, let's do that then. SOP is to use the bug reporting form contained on the
website, which posts a bug report to pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, which is the
canonical bugreport list. That is if we want to get that formal.
> But standardized or not,
> it can still contain information of great value.
Yes, it can. I can use steganography to issue an RPM release announcement,
too. But will it be effective? :-)
If it isn't read, it won't be acted upon. His announcements have been a
difficult read, that's all. The substance is OK; the presentation is lacking,
IMHO.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-26 19:01:37 | Re: LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-26 18:53:45 | Re: LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? |