1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1TLydY-0003Fs-BC
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:55:56 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.212.169 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.169; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wi0-f169.google.com;
Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com ([209.85.212.169])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1TLydS-0005Mu-OU
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:55:56 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f169.google.com with SMTP id hq4so5329366wib.4
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.201.156 with SMTP id b28mr14738061weo.4.1349884544579;
Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.216.236.30 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSkVRx3Tk-7ufMDb3a44eTK=6COOh_FBWqrmwH4ogFhgA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAS2fgTVp7PhdJMfz-huyOsp=6Ca9wH6cVkedMgntXnK+ZpDXg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP0bx7c1sm+9o6iXx_OnSdRH6a0jRNQcRb2Z3qbf0KFKiw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgQjeSBJGOr+qH7PQpTB5cx1rdaPCC2e=2J7OG=5Pby5GA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP3u7Nyq0qZDxwgdOmqM=OqVmAYaj-YBDFwY6Ps-XTc46A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgSkVRx3Tk-7ufMDb3a44eTK=6COOh_FBWqrmwH4ogFhgA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:55:44 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Jjx7iuLkOJbYKnQ1edCD0uQmjQY
Message-ID: <CANEZrP3Ei8tU=r_gp5K1fPGFe4gvX02gp+yuQRi0cwHhLLTe8g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
0.0 T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT Fill in a short form with personal
information
-0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1TLydS-0005Mu-OU
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
electrum.desktop@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Electrum security model concerns
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:55:56 -0000
> I tried in IRC and got no response. These messages are copying the
> only contact email address I could find.
Forum private message may work better.
> I think this is very hard because this matter is rapidly politicized.
> There are some in the community who will instantly allege misconduct
> when there is a mis-agreement.
Yeah, but that's only an issue if it ends up being an intractable
disagreement between the people who are reviewing changes to the core
site. The clients page itself was contentious but we still arrived at
something reasonably professional looking and moved on.
> discussion here... instead of, e.g. starting the process to remove it
> from the bitcoin.org clients page.
I don't think it should be removed. At most the description should be
updated to point to a discussion of the tradeoffs of that class of
apps (same for BitcoinSpinner).
|
