Le Lundi 24 Janvier 2005 11:41, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit : > Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I'm the current flyspray maintainer ... and I should say I don't > > know what to do with that bug [1] > > > > Upstream, and I agree on the fact that the problem is not > > flyspray's fault. Should I close the bug ? or let it live with > > wontfix for years ? or should I reassign the problem to privoxy ? > > > > I do not like long-living bugs ;) > > > > > > [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=281307 > > -- > > ·O· Pierre Habouzit > > ··O > > OOO > > http://www.madism.org > > One problem I see here is that other projects can DOS flyspray. > Create a webpage and set a broken flyspray cookie in it. > > It's ok for flyspray to complain about broken cookies but then it > could remove or overwrite them with sane values so users can > continue.
mmmmmmkay. I've 0.9.7-1 ready for upload, so I'll do sth in that direction for -2. but I think other project that cad DOS flyspray are ill projects, since "empty" cookie is ok. putting garbage into the cookie is a stupid behaviour. anyway, you're right. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O OOO http://www.madism.org
pgpuIk1ilmzO3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
