North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: AOL Non-Lameness

  • From: Jim Popovitch
  • Date: Mon Oct 02 18:46:46 2006
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024;; h=Received:Subject:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Mime-Version:X-Mailer:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=WeHlk2jrIt7p+E1j5MQsHRzDDfsjTAQGoOf3s5TdqqDwkz6T1XY2mU9qrPcNKors3p0DsmEJsfG+kqA76DGVGgn2O5pdFB82dSeL0/XsM7lfq6SWrhYurJc3KgW969hNGmKFu4KBnlG/0j4Ipuw8PGqIpUZOLzB/uEFlUS5qpyg= ;

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.