From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: C file recoginzed as image file
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 23:54:25 +0200
Message-ID: <u7ivvj27i.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <loom.20070105T152213-693@post.gmane.org>	<m23b6pzg3g.fsf@gmail.com>	<m2y7ohy0s1.fsf@gmail.com>	<f7ccd24b0701051102n4866b1cbi35465c3a22291ba4@mail.gmail.com>	<jwvlkkgyhcv.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org>	<E1H3OzT-0001gy-8M@fencepost.gnu.org>	<jwvzm8vwg89.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org>	<E1H3n7j-0003vK-7u@fencepost.gnu.org>	<jwvfyalsgw2.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org>	<m38xgdilqc.fsf@kfs-l.imdomain.dk>	<uejq5i9ku.fsf@gnu.org>
	<jwvslel2lpe.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org>	<45A2D32A.8020804@gmail.com>
	<E1H48IA-0004Fo-L5@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<45A3650B.80504@gmail.com> <45A3771B.5070108@gnu.org>
	<45A38409.9080402@gmail.com>
Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org
X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1168379678 23785 80.91.229.12 (9 Jan 2007 21:54:38 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 21:54:38 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: dooglus@gmail.com, c.a.rendle@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 09 22:54:37 2007
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org
Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165])
	by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1H4OvU-00022U-JX
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 22:54:36 +0100
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1H4OvT-0006iP-Ui
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 16:54:36 -0500
Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1H4OvH-0006ho-Ke
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 16:54:23 -0500
Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1H4OvG-0006hP-RL
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 16:54:23 -0500
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H4OvG-0006hH-Kl
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 16:54:22 -0500
Original-Received: from [192.114.186.66] (helo=romy.inter.net.il)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1H4OvF-0005HY-Qi
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 16:54:22 -0500
Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-229-122-127.inter.net.il
	[84.229.122.127]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA)
	with ESMTP id GTV06956 (AUTH halo1);
	Tue, 9 Jan 2007 23:54:19 +0200 (IST)
Original-To: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: <45A38409.9080402@gmail.com> (lennart.borgman@gmail.com)
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:65081
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/65081>

> Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 13:01:13 +0100
> From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>
> CC:  rms@gnu.org,  dooglus@gmail.com,  lekktu@gmail.com, 
>  c.a.rendle@gmail.com,  emacs-devel@gnu.org,  monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, 
>  storm@cua.dk,  eliz@gnu.org
> > 
> > it does not 
> > make sense to use a completely different set of image libraries on MS 
> > Windows than on other platforms.
> 
> In my opinion it definitively does. It enhances the security for the users.

Who says that Microsoft libraries are more secure than the ones we
use?  There's no evidence that this is even remotely true.