From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juanma Barranquero Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: GnuTLS for W32 Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 16:47:56 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87hb0b77nr.fsf@lifelogs.com> <8739bvs27m.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87ty4b4329.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87hb0b3yoe.fsf@lifelogs.com> <6ED011D5-E185-44C6-BB31-A445A4E5F83A@gmail.com> <87wr976otx.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87ipkq6yy5.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87boqi6tzz.fsf@linux-hvfx.site> <87ehve3ul8.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87lipl22xm.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87boqh20ha.fsf@lifelogs.com> <877h151x01.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87y5tkzzwp.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87r4zczwbq.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1325864928 11114 80.91.229.12 (6 Jan 2012 15:48:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:48:48 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 06 16:48:44 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RjC28-0008Fn-6O for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:48:44 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41618 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RjC27-000259-Nt for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 10:48:43 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:42416) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RjC24-00024n-4N for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 10:48:41 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RjC22-0005wi-JV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 10:48:40 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-pz0-f41.google.com ([209.85.210.41]:65304) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RjC22-0005te-9V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 10:48:38 -0500 Original-Received: by dakl33 with SMTP id l33so1500166dak.0 for ; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 07:48:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DFB8n3ssUa9Y3sZpFxG9LWi/iLa1XBbMq/As8A0r098=; b=pMtC5P4T/EvoTrjYlUoDNxdKVtKWDZxwNX/1h+Sl6P/OWQ8uK+v0FIdFfy7SYLzaYQ fjsOI8dnP/CkO3JMt3+mpmOjpxh4h0at/g4RnJNn+TsFigAGbd2RlZtx8Alwj1TxaSrd NKrmC6Pg4LsrnVudqGHr6HN/hOw8qg9/HB6T0= Original-Received: by 10.68.73.135 with SMTP id l7mr16300275pbv.57.1325864917181; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 07:48:37 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.142.247.28 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 07:47:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87r4zczwbq.fsf@lifelogs.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.210.41 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:147401 Archived-At: 2012/1/6 Ted Zlatanov : > I don't think those are as risky, but even if I did it doesn't really > support your point. It does support my point that if we do it for GnuTLS, we should do it for other libraries. Of course, I believe we shouldn't. > That's a very tough comparison. =C2=A0I'm listing "extensible layout engi= nes > with embedded interpreters and flexible package managers" which Apache > has never been, never mind that it's not interactive with the user since > it's a daemon. It could still check and write a log entry for the administrator. Or it could have a module, accessible only to some authenticated user, that listed recommended upgrades. It doesn't. And it's not necessarily a daemon. You can start it in batch mode to check things. It could have an option to check upgrades in that case. It doesn't, either. > None of my proposal aims to make users feel secure, but rather > to tell them when they are not. And, as soon as they have upgraded, the users feel secure again. Particularly on Windows, where most people is not very security-conscious. Anyway, I think the dead equine has been beaten to a pulp and turned into fertilizer. We don't really advance anything rehashing the same arguments again and again, IMHO. YMMV. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Juanma