On 21 September 2011 00:59, Peter N. M. Hansteen <pe...@bsdly.net> wrote: > ropers <rop...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Is this (still) true/required? (Why?) >> Or is it complete nonsense? > > If intense development was happening in that area at the time, it may > have made sense. But it's been some years and it's almost certainly no > longer relevant.
Thanks, Peter. :) For the record: I've also noticed that Symantec fucked up the line breaks of the examples in the article. It was originally published at SecurityFocus.com (which Symantec purchased in 2002) and only later moved over to symantec.com. (See here: <http://web.archive.org/web/20100916223659/http://unsafebits.com/2010/03/11/g oodbye-mostly-securityfocus/> ) The original article with correct line breaks can still be seen here: <http://web.archive.org/web/20060502093925/http://www.securityfocus.com/infoc us/1859?ref=rss> Symantec. :-/ 'Nuff said. :-|
