>>>>> "BLH" == Brian L Heess <dmbong@commline.com> writes:
BLH> Tom and Jason, I just want to voice my opinion that both of Tom's
BLH> examples were AWESOME!!! :)
Ummm, OK. I don't see what you're saying here. Is the mechanism that's
currently implemented in 2.0 not enough, or am I missing something?
Look, that scheme just won't work because it's hard to make secure and
impossible to reduce to a single scan of the message. (Plus I think it's
even more difficult to understand than what's there now, and I'm agonizing
over how to document _that_.) Please try to comment on what is there in
the code today. It does most of those things in a way that makes it secure
and in a way that can be made fast. If it's not enough then we can talk
about extending it, but I think it's counterproductive to ignore the
current implementation completely.
- J<
References:
|
|
