A question:How many of you who are sycophantically supporting Joe's position, actually saw / read the thread?
Jon Freeman made some valid points about how the security of the Mudcat was flawed in the past. He expressed a deal of frustration that he was unable to persuade Max and Joe to implement sensible safeguards.
NOTHING that he said compromises current mudcat security.
It is however a little critical about Joe Offer, maybe that's why it's gone.
I've got the original thread cached, so if you want to see what the (non) fuss is about, I'll mail you a copy
paulmcfadden@hotmail.com
Paul
I suppose you're entitled to your opinion, Paul. People who have been around here for a while have learned to trust me, and they know I don't censor things because they make me look bad. In fact, I am very reluctant to censor anything.
Certainly, Jon made valid points. He is an excellent programmer, and he is a good person. However, I think his public disclosure of Mudcat technical information presents a serious risk to Mudcat. There have been flaws in the security of Mudcat. Usually they have been fixed as soon as we could come up with a solution to them. Sometimes, we did not fix the problem exactly as Jon specified, and most of the time we did not reveal to him what we did. Jon's messages serve to publish our weaknesses so that others can do us harm before we have a chance to fix the problem. They also serve to damage the trust people have in Mudcat, by making problems seem much more serious than they were.
I suppose Mudcat would be more secure if we made it a closed, members-only Forum. Certainly, that would be more secure - but at what price? We want to remain open to anyone who wants to talk about folk music. That does involve a risk.
It is my opinion that Jon's statements make that risk greater, and I ask him to please stop.
I'm at a disadvantage here because I simply cannot reveal every personal and technical matter I know something about. Take my word - it's time for Jon to stop.
-Joe Offer-