(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] damerell.livejournal.com at 05:26pm on 05/03/2008
I don't think I'd trust email allegedly from them either, but it would be interesting in and of itself if a damerell+foo address given only to a particular organisation leaked to the bad guys.
[parent entry] [link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] bugshaw.livejournal.com at 05:40pm on 05/03/2008
I'm really glad I gave a foo@bugshaw address to PayPal. I've only ever had legitimate emails to it.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] crazyscot.livejournal.com at 05:41pm on 05/03/2008
Is there some reason why you don't want to use 0damerellk.foo@ ?
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] damerell.livejournal.com at 05:42pm on 05/03/2008
As detailed above, it seems unwise to put large sums of money in an online-administered account with people who can't fix a trivial bug.
[link] [parent] [reply]
rmc28: Rachel in hockey gear on the frozen fen at Upware, near Cambridge (Default)

(no subject)

posted by [personal profile] rmc28 at 09:07pm on 05/03/2008
I have heaps of trivial bugs I'm not allowed to fix before the important ones (though it's even worse at the moment while we go through a "9-month" major system upgrade that I fully expect to overrun).
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] damerell.livejournal.com at 10:01am on 06/03/2008
OK, so maybe they're snowed under with non-trivial bugs. Also not very encouraging.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] naath.livejournal.com at 11:53am on 06/03/2008
Yes, that would be 'interesting'. I wonder if it's possible to do anything nasty to them should such a thing happen...
[link] [parent] [reply]

April

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
    1
 
 2
 
 3
 
 4
 
 5
 
6
 
 7
 
 8
 
 9
 
 10
1
 11
 
 12
 
13
 
 14
1
 15
 
 16
 
 17
 
 18
 
 19
 
20
 
 21
 
 22
 
 23
 
 24
 
 25
 
 26
 
27
 
 28
 
 29
 
 30