> For those of us who don't read email with a web browser it would be > kind to include urls in the text. Sorry, bad habit (as many of you know!). FWIW, here's the latest: You recently fixed the "<< previous | index | next >>" navigation at: http://mojo.skazat.com/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi/archive/dadadev/20050819162502/ , but need to match that fix on the index pages [e.g.: http://mojo.skazat.com/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi/archive/dadadev ] where, as of this writing, "next >>" ...Continue Reading

Thus sayeth Shane Clintberg, at 5:05 PM on 8/19/05: >You recently fixed the "<< previous | index | next >>" navigation here, but >need to match that fix here (where, as of this writing, "next >>" brings you >back in time rather than forward). For those of us who don't read email with a web browser it would be kind to include urls in the text. -- curmudgeon ...Continue Reading

Thanks for the warning.   > If anyone has any more issues they'd like taken care of before  > Monday   Here's a quick one that I won't have time to get to:   You recently fixed the "<< previous | index | next >>" navigation here, but need to match that fix here (where, as of this writing, "next >>" brings you back in time rather than forward). Post: mailto:dadadev@PROTECTED Unsubscribe: http://mojo.skazat.com/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi/u/[list ...Continue Reading

I'm planning on the next alpha release of Dada Mail for next Monday, so this is a heads up! If anyone has any more issues they'd like taken care of before Monday, please let us know and if you have any projects you're working on, try to wrap them up into some sort of usable state by 11:59pm this Sunday. Cheers, ...Continue Reading

> That would be consistent with their recognition/acknowledgement of > 2.10 > alpha 1's fix. And I'm betting that a daily Google alert for > "security bug" > or somesuch would be all the company would need to be notified of that > page's existence. Then by me stating that, "Secunia's vulnerability reporting methods are bug-ridden" would also be in Secunia's advisory? :) (Ah, only in dreams. ) Because this email is being archived and syndicated, both being fully searchabl ...Continue Reading

> I'm sure whoever did will contact you personally, and if not, a > query to > secunia.com should do the job. I doubt it. Usually, if they do, they tell me they've found a security problem - but never give me an example on how this problem could affect the program in the real world (something, anything). This chap didn't even give me that. The worst is when the person gives you an ultimatum - "You have x days to fix this problem or else..." Yeah, thanks. This is even worse. The problem ...Continue Reading

> Hey did anyone report this? Is it possible that "reported by vendor" refers to this?: http://mojo.skazat.com/download/testing_2_10_0_alpha1.html That would be consistent with their recognition/acknowledgement of 2.10 alpha 1's fix. And I'm betting that a daily Google alert for "security bug" or somesuch would be all the company would need to be notified of that page's existence. ...Continue Reading

> Hey did anyone report this? Not I -- my only communication on security stuff has been directly with you, by personal email. I trust this is the usual practice for such things. I'm sure whoever did will contact you personally, and if not, a query to secunia.com should do the job. ...Continue Reading

> Hey did anyone report this? Not me... Alfred ...Continue Reading

Hey did anyone report this? http://secunia.com/advisories/16435/ Cause I didn't - although it says, Provided and/or discovered by: Reported by vendor. Usually, when a so called, "vulnerability" is discovered, I get like, a "heads up" so I can confirm or clarify what's going down. The way this vulnerability is worded wrong. That's all. Anyone? Justin Simoni ...Continue Reading