RE: securety related question...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Bill
> maltby - LFS Related
> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 1:51 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: securety related question...
>
>
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Soft Skulled Person wrote:

<snip>

> > at-all solution equally soft-skulled).  To sum up, I am
> perfectly willing
> > to consider any non-soft-skulled solution for how to deal with something
> > like qmail,
>
> Dump it. I've always distrusted/disliked arrogant behaviour by those who
> "... are standards unto themselves...". DJB falls into this category, even
> going so far as to (apparently) believe his stuff is so good that no
> quality documentation is needed. Of course, your problem will still be
> there.
>

Yes, I've been meaning to investigate alternatives, but haven't gotten
around to it.  We'll see.

> > and, while one person has provided a helpful solution that gets
> > me part way there, no one has given me a solution that is
> completely non-
> > soft-skulled.  And it looks like I am too soft-skulled to think of a
> > solution on my own.  So, in the absence of further guidance, I
> am going to
> > try the soft-skulled solution, at least on a temporary basis, since none
> > of the alternatives seem less soft-skulled.
>
> ROTFLMAO! :-)) Ahhh, Bob! It will now take me another 30 minutes before I
> can feel sleepy enough to do what I should have done two hours ago - turn
> in for the night!
>

Oh no, I didn't want to be responsible for sleep deprivation :-)

> Just to make sure there is clear understanding - you could see my reply
> was saying that the suggestions were *not* necessarily "soft-skulled" and
> that one who would arbitrarily deem it so was possibly the "soft-skulled"
> one?
>

Yes, fully understood.  Yours was simply the last post in the thread,
that's all.  It also took me about 1.5 seconds to realize the "arrogant
behaviour" above wasn't mine, but I got that too :-)  I have frequently
found your posts helpful, and always the model of diplomacy...

> Item 2: "soft-skulled" = malleable = amenable to change in form or
> function. There may be the seeds of creativity there. And survivability. I
> point out that infants less than about a year of age are less susceptible
> to concussion injuries to the brain because their skull has not yet joined
> all pieces and hardened. Unfortunaetly, many older individuals have
> excessive hardening of the skull, resulting in less creativity and higher
> risk of (self-inflicted) injury.
>

Yes, in fact, it is ironic that I have been soft-skulled of late, as I
have on at least one occasion been told that my skull is so hard it must
be made of a substance previously unknown to science...perhaps I am aging
in reverse!

> > BK
>
> Stay the course.
>

OK, you too, and get some sleep :-)

> --
> Bill Maltby
> [email protected]
>

BK

Bob Kimmel
Bendheim Center for Finance
Department of Economics
Princeton University
[email protected]

-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to [email protected]
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-security' in the subject header of the message