Re: [dev] [ii] exposed password on process monitoring

From: Truls Becken <>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:48:06 +0200

On 2012-04-19, at 23:03, Kurt H Maier wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:27:04PM +0200, Truls Becken wrote:
>> So for the user they seem to have the same effect.
>> Perhaps 2) is partly the reason they do 1), by the way.
> Let's not make the fantastically naive mistake of assuming this userbase
> is sufficiently large to comprise a statistical universe, much less
> begin throwing pompous shit about "the user" into this discussion.

I was thinking of IRC users in general.

> You have absolutely no proof that such servers are "the most popular"
> and no reason to claim shitty server-specific behavior is any reason to
> start crapping all over things defined in an actual RFC.

Granted, although there is a list somewhere of the 4-5 "most popular" networks.

Anyway, thanks for clearing this up for those of us that did not fully understand the relation between the two kinds of authorisation.

I conclude that I have no current need for PASS, but that's just because it is not required by any server I use at the moment.

Received on Fri Apr 20 2012 - 08:48:06 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Apr 20 2012 - 09:00:07 CEST