nanog mailing list archives
Re: AOL Non-Lameness
From: Jim Popovitch <jimpop () yahoo com>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 18:40:01 -0400
On Mon, 2006-10-02 at 18:30 -0400, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
All, this seems seriously NON-lame to me. Of course, testing and fixing the bug before it was put out there would have been less so.
Testing something like this would be difficult without duplicating everyone's email into a development system (thus possibly opening AOL up to a bad public relations or security problem). I'm sure that there were some initial tests. But given the complexity of differing emails it seems to me it would be hard to robustly test in development alone.
But think of this! A large company has actually admitted that it was wrong and backed out a problem! Isn't this what everyone always complains SHOULD be done? ;-) ;-) ;-)
Kudos to AOL for responding quickly, and for doing this on a Monday instead of a Friday afternoon. -Jim P.
Current thread:
- Re: AOL Non-Lameness, (continued)
- Re: AOL Non-Lameness Rick Kunkel (Oct 02)
- Re: AOL Non-Lameness up (Oct 02)
- Re: AOL Non-Lameness Steven Champeon (Oct 02)
- Re: AOL Non-Lameness Ian Mason (Oct 02)
- International phone numbers (was Re: AOL Non-Lameness) Etaoin Shrdlu (Oct 02)
- Re: International phone numbers (was Re: AOL Non-Lameness) Joel Jaeggli (Oct 02)
- Re: International phone numbers (was Re: AOL Non-Lameness) Rick Kunkel (Oct 02)
- Re: International phone numbers (was Re: AOL Non-Lameness) Joe Abley (Oct 03)
- Re: International phone numbers (was Re: AOL Non-Lameness) Joe Abley (Oct 03)
- Re: AOL Non-Lameness Bill Woodcock (Oct 02)
- Re: AOL Non-Lameness Jim Popovitch (Oct 02)
- Re: AOL Non-Lameness Simon Waters (Oct 03)
- Re: AOL Non-Lameness Barry Shein (Oct 03)
- Re: AOL Non-Lameness Randy Bush (Oct 03)
- Re: AOL Non-Lameness J. Oquendo (Oct 04)
- Re: AOL Non-Lameness Thomas Leavitt (Oct 04)
- Re: AOL Lameness Steve Atkins (Oct 02)