Re: merge outgoing patch

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Christopher Chan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Never said he owes us anything. It does, however, seem to me that over the
> years he has been through a lot in pushing out his software based on his
> programming principles with all those who do not like to be shown up as
> being lesser in some way coming to attack him. Add to that lot the really
> less skilled who smear DJB as being a crackpot or egotistic and those who
> would like make themselves look like they are better than DJB by claiming to
> have made modifications that make say djbdns even more secure and higher
> performing.

I've never seen the slightest indication that he's ever been even
mildly perturbed by any criticism.  I've never met him, though, so for
all I know, he's been crying tears into his beer among close friends.
I doubt it, though.

He has a very good, but not perfect, security track record.  He
recently paid out to Matthew Dempsky on the djbdns security guarantee.
 He denied Guninski's claim on the qmail guarantee, but he admits
there was a "potential overflow
of an unchecked counter".  The code does occasionally need the odd patch.

> Yeah, high time ISC is shown for what it is. Here's to an update to
> djbdns-1.05!

Why wait, though?  At this very moment, there are four different forks
to choose from.  If none of them are to your liking, there has been
much discussion on this very list regarding patch selection.  You can
easily pick those that suit your taste and roll your own update.

Also, I think maybe if I do a good enough job of inflating Matthew
Dempsky's ego, he'll clean up the dnscurve forwarder or publish a
DNSCurve patch for tinydns.  I honestly believe that he knows the code
better than anybody other than Dan himself.