Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!gatech!rutgers!mit-eddie!ll-xn!vlsi!malpass
From: malpass@vlsi.ll.mit.edu (Don Malpass)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: bugs
Message-ID: <206@vlsi.ll.mit.edu>
Date: 10 Nov 88 15:13:46 GMT
References: <4648@bsu-cs.UUCP> <36085@clyde.ATT.COM> <4670@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: malpass@ll-vlsi.arpa.UUCP (Don Malpass)
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington MA
Lines: 27

In article <4670@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>
>If I find some shortcomings (ahem) in a submission, which of the
>following two alternatives is better?
>
>-- posting it and simply documenting bugs that I find
>
>-- or not posting it and sending feedback to the author and waiting for
>him to either fix it or ask me to go ahead and post anyway....
>In the second case I risk offending the author again, ... delay postings,....

I'd vote for the second, in spite of the added effort (easy for ME to
say - it's YOUR effort).  It feels more courteous to give the author the
chance to select the first option.

On a somewhat related subject, is there a permanent repository of names
(perhaps with lengths, dates, crc's and other identifying
characteristics) of programs that are KNOWN to be either viruses or
trojan horses or otherwise contaminated?  After last week's
"conciousness raising" I think such a "history list of dangerous code"
could be of value.  I doubt that it would generate an undesirable
challenge for somebody to get listed in "the top 10" out of some sick
desire for notoriety.
-- 
Don Malpass   [malpass@LL-vlsi.arpa],  [malpass@spenser.ll.mit.edu] 
  The Malpass Principle:  Given a binary choice, the statistical
    probability of doing the right thing is 31.7% - on good days.