On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 12:00:07 +0200, Dale Amon wrote:
>
> I'd like a black and white clarification of the impact
> of the change so I know for certain whether to be
> incredibly pissed off at the packager or not:
>
> "If I were to dselect today, would I still
>be able to print to fil
Has anyone invited our Mozilla packager to participate in this
discussion?
--
Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabootu's Minister of Proofreading
http://www.jabootu.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTE
* Don Armstrong:
> Perhaps I've missed something, but everything that I've read in the
> threads so far amounts to people either assuming that there's an issue
> and not defining it, or attempting to figure out where the issue is.
This summary is correct as far as I can see. No real security iss
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Michael B Allen wrote:
> My impression was that the PostScript generator had the security
> issue
Can someone please state, for the record, definitively and precisely
what this "security issue" is?
The fact that PS is a turing complete language isn't a security issue,
beyond
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 11:19:03 -0400
Greg Folkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Excuse the cross posting, but many are "discussing" on all of these
> lists.
>
> On Sat, 2004-07-10 at 06:47, Magnus Therning wrote:
> > >
> > > "If I were to dselect today, would I still
> > >be able to print to f
On Saturday 10 July 2004 5:47 am, Magnus Therning wrote:
> >I'd like a black and white clarification of the impact
> >of the change so I know for certain whether to be
> >incredibly pissed off at the packager or not:
> >
> > "If I were to dselect today, would I still
> > be able to pr
Excuse the cross posting, but many are "discussing" on all of these
lists.
On Sat, 2004-07-10 at 06:47, Magnus Therning wrote:
> >
> > "If I were to dselect today, would I still
> > be able to print to file a website page
> > as ps?" [Y/N]
>
> Yes. Printing PS to a file is still p
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 12:47:18PM +0200, Magnus Therning wrote:
> Yes. Printing PS to a file is still possible.
Thanks. I had visions of all sorts of extra work in
order to just stand still. Now I can forget about this
and go back to writing my mail address verify
daemon...
--
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 10:47:08AM +0100, Dale Amon wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 06:38:49PM -0500, Brad Sims wrote:
>> If you want postscript back; simply grab the source deb and roll your own;
>> just edit rules under the debian folder. Delete the '--with-xprint' and
>> '--disable-postscript'
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 06:38:49PM -0500, Brad Sims wrote:
> If you want postscript back; simply grab the source deb and roll your own;
> just edit rules under the debian folder. Delete the '--with-xprint' and
> '--disable-postscript' lines and do 'dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot'. However
> I did g
On Thursday 08 July 2004 7:18 pm, Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
> Googling and searching the bug database only yielded a vague claim about a
> remote exploit (bug #247585). I also asked over on debian-user and while
> the flurry of replies showed that the removal decision was controversial
> if not unpo
Hello all,
I have just discovered that the old-style printing option
"PostScript/default" is gone from Firefox and probably Mozilla (I don't
use Mozilla). Apparently a major reason for this is that the PostScript
printing engine that was removed has security problems.
Does anyone have any solid r
12 matches
Mail list logo
