In article <[log in to unmask]>,
 Bruce Toback <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
] Subject:      Re: Security reply
] Joe Campbell writes:
] >your mouth and blab this, would you?  I thought not.  This must imply that
] >you believe one of us HP3000-L members would make this information public.
] >I think you have just insulted every member of this discussion group!
]
] HP3000-L is a public discussion group with uncontrolled access. ANYONE
] can subscribe to it, and in addition, it is gatewayed to a Usenet
] newsgroup which can be read anonymously by anyone with Usenet access.
] If there is information you may have with should NOT be disclosed to
] the public at large, it should NOT be disseminated via the HP3000-L
] mailing list.
 
IMHO Joe was under the impression that Isaac was saying that if SM's
were told privately by HP, they would discuss it on HP3000-L.  Again
IMHO, Isaac was saying HP3000-L should not be the notification means.
 
IMNSHO HP should publicly admit a problem exists, privately disclose
details of the problem (including proposed solutions) to customers,
and let the customer choose what (if anything) to do.  And in my
opinion, the solution should NOT require an MPE upgrade.  If it does,
HP should pay for non-prime time RC support if the customer's normal
operations would suffer doing the upgrade in prime time.
 
--
Regards  --  Tony B. Shepherd  --  [log in to unmask]
 
This opinion is worth what you paid for it, and if it proves to be wrong,
all monies paid will be cheerfully refunded upon presentation of receipt.