Re: ping Walt, bug about add-on verification override
- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 07:54:17 -0500
- From: Disaster Master <disasterlistmanager@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: ping Walt, bug about add-on verification override
On 2/8/2017, 6:29:20 PM, Sailfish
> My bloviated meandering follows what Disaster Master graced us with on
> 2/8/2017 10:56 AM:
>> On 2/8/2017, 1:19:08 PM, Sailfish
>> <NIXCAPSsailfish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> My bloviated meandering follows what Caver1 graced us with on 2/7/2017
>>> 4:32 PM:
>>>> One, if known and Mozilla allowed it, they could be held culpable if a
>>>> non-verified add-on compromised the browser and user's system.
>> That is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
> Truly? You have been quite prolific on this newsgroup for a while now
> and yet you claim THIS to be the ridiculous thing you've ever heard?
I'm not participating in a newsgroup, I'm participating in an email list
Yeah, I guess I could have clarified 'in the last 2.57 days' to be more
accurate. I do hear a lot of really ridiculous things on a regular basis
fro a small number of vocal people.
>> The user has to jump through considerable hoops to do this. There is no
>> way that Mozilla could be held accountable for what that user decided to
>> do on their own.
> For most who have been involved with Mozilla, the instructions provide
> in the bug (and ghacks link) are fairly easy-peasy.
But they are very specific steps that the individual user must first
fine, then decide to take themselves.
No way Mozilla could even remotely be considered liable for said users
actions, and I think even the 9th curcus judges would laugh that out of
court and probably even sanction any lawyer stupid enough to file such a
> Also, comment 13
> pretty much explains why there's a problem with having the hole open.
That is a totally separate question from whether Mozilla could be held
> alt>Help>Restart With Add-ons Disabled...
Still doesn't explain what PD means.
general mailing list