On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 23:28 -0400, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> On 10/18, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Ahem. Let us do this the other way round. *Why* do you believe this is
> > warranted, *why* do you believe our mass-check contributors might have
> > their internal and trusted networks set up incorrectly? This is crucial.
>
> I'm not confident there is a problem. The possibility occurred to me and I
> thought I'd ask that it be checked.
So you're calling this without evidence, and actually even without
suspicion.
What about doing at least some minimal research first? You could check
ruleqa results.
> > Mass-check contributors are handpicked. We do *not* accept any result,
> > unless we believe we can trust the contributor.
>
> Of course.
>
> Do you think it's not worth checking?
I don't think this cold-calling without suspicion was warranted. I'd
assume those who contribute to the mass-checks are smart enough to set
up their production system *and* mass-check system.
While you are certainly right that this must be set up correctly, I
believe the way you brought up the topic leaves room for improvement.
Anyway, with most mass-check contributors, this is the wrong list
anyway...
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
