Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support

[Dan Sugalski]

At 07:09 PM 9/27/00 -0400, James Mastros wrote:
>From: "Dan Sugalski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Nathan Wiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 4:08 PM
> > 'no taint' and 'use taint' shouldn't affect whether data is tainted--the
> > rules for that should stay in effect. What they should alter instead is
> > perl's response to tainted data while they're in effect. In a 'use taint'
> > block perl should check, while in a 'no taint' block it shouldn't.
>Couldn't have said it better myself.  And god knows I've tried.  <G>
>
>It might be nice if the result of a calculation was never tainted when the
>calculation was in a 'no taint' block.

Yerk. No, that's bad. The data is still tainted--the fact that it flowed 
through a "no taint" block doesn't make it any more trustworthy. Tainting 
really can't be dealt with like that.


                                        Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk