|
Re: Why MD5 Headers are Imperative: msg#00462network.syndication.atom.protocol
> >-1. This is vast overkill, as shown by other responses on this thread. > I'm sorry, Paul, but this is why I was afraid to be so presumptuous as to start a Pace. I was afraid that it would immediately get shot down in a flurry of "-1's" without anyone stopping to consider the underlying problem it brings up regardless of what they think of my posting style, list seniority, solution or other irrelevancies. What other responses, aside from James agreeing with this message, claim that this is vast overkill? Julian challenged my assumptions, started to see that I may indeed have a point, and agreed to disagree -- you're my next commenter, would you care to elaborate on your position as to my problem as pertains to its technical merit? -EJB |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | Re: PaceOnlyMemberURI: 00462, Eric J. Bowman |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Why MD5 Headers are Imperative: 00462, Eric J. Bowman |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Why MD5 Headers are Imperativei: 00462, Eric J. Bowman |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Why MD5 Headers are Imperative: 00462, Paul Hoffman |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |