Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-stanbol-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-stanbol-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 64E44FE7D for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2013 21:07:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 69739 invoked by uid 500); 6 Apr 2013 21:07:34 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-stanbol-dev-archive@stanbol.apache.org Received: (qmail 69639 invoked by uid 500); 6 Apr 2013 21:07:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@stanbol.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@stanbol.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@stanbol.apache.org Received: (qmail 69630 invoked by uid 99); 6 Apr 2013 21:07:34 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 06 Apr 2013 21:07:34 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of hsuvarna@gmail.com designates 209.85.219.47 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.219.47] (HELO mail-oa0-f47.google.com) (209.85.219.47) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 06 Apr 2013 21:07:28 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id o17so4997879oag.6 for ; Sat, 06 Apr 2013 14:07:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=EpJKyW3QE7fh6AYISV2kmTef50yETd3BbK2H082wfhA=; b=iIXq8ZKC0ZngJUENjzqU4+264bgpVIdOCvARhDeCKvf60JEccyn+mp9WyYgpMRqLDk wNz+vKjE1VUpdTWZYAem8I4mba4iw6SuUg/RL4JfwHM+0SL4BqHXam2TlfAl5rGrP+bW jIouyDQouC5ahu7V9h59YJmmlA8pcrLi4Reb0Vu1tCaHfZt1KGMBTPm4TKpq8TzsIddj zfZvUYjk/PZ/fQuLhG0GaZyhHj9JZ5Y0DpnnHlkVGfIK9iZNyRHqEq5IENmyL1PGrm+c 5ab0QA0NabPG6oIikg2Z4V/khRSGg4N7k+XQZNgzfFqh0nG+YhPfwlEfRmk3jlSINlXL 7PgA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.16.164 with SMTP id h4mr7869721oed.23.1365282427251; Sat, 06 Apr 2013 14:07:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.188.40 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Apr 2013 14:07:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 14:07:07 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [POLL] make "-no-security" the default From: harish suvarna To: dev@stanbol.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013a125a18322c04d9b7963a X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --089e013a125a18322c04d9b7963a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Security is of big concern these days so letting the developer know about vulnerable code is good. So the exception makes sense when temp files are written. But considering that this feature came later than some of the engines and engines causing the failure is of concern, until everything is taken care make I vote for -no-security default. On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Danny Ayers wrote: > On 5 April 2013 16:18, Reto Bachmann-Gm=FCr wrote: > > > Hi Danny, > > > > What about having a big "disable security" button in the user manager > which > > would grey out everything (after a confirm dialog) but leave a "enable > > security" button? > > > > I'll look into it. > > I'm not so sure how useful this would be in the context of the current > discussion, but I can imagine it being useful for tracking down config > problems. > > -- > http://dannyayers.com > > http://webbeep.it - text to tones and back again > --=20 Thanks Harish --089e013a125a18322c04d9b7963a--