Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #89417
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: Is this safe? |
| Date | 2023-03-03 21:44 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <87o7p9wluy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink) |
| References | (16 earlier) <1d5d6324-d5cd-4117-800d-649627a59f57n@googlegroups.com> <87a60ws0ti.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <d068a704-c970-4310-bd5d-c16e6fa8fa4bn@googlegroups.com> <874jr4rx8b.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <25e79655-f3a1-457e-afdd-f8004e4d4104n@googlegroups.com> |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wednesday, 1 March 2023 at 21:13:59 UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Wednesday, 1 March 2023 at 19:56:23 UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Wednesday, 1 March 2023 at 09:38:08 UTC, Mut...@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 18:34:10 +0100
>> >> >> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> >> >> >On 28/02/2023 16:56, Mut...@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> A function can follow specifications to the letter and still have hidden
>> >> >> >> bugs.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >The /specification/ can have bugs or be inappropriate in some way. The
>> >> >> >/hardware/ can have bugs. But if a piece of code gives the specified
>> >> >> >output and effects for the specified inputs, then it is correct and
>> >> >> >bug-free.
>> >> >> Really?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Spec: function always returns 10
>> >> >>
>> >> >> int func()
>> >> >> {
>> >> >> char *ptr = 0;
>> >> >> for(int i=0;i < 100000;++i) ptr[i] = 0;
>> >> >> return 10;
>> >> >> }
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bug free?
>> >> >>
>> >> > A better example would be
>> >> >
>> >> > int func()
>> >> > {
>> >> > char *ptr = malloc(1);
>> >> > return 10;
>> >> > }
>> >> >
>> >> > This function will always return 10, so it's to specification. But
>> >> > it's the source of a bug.
>> >> This is a better example (because it has defined behaviour), but does
>> >> the function meet the specification? I would say that, speaking
>> >> informally, specifications are taken to be minimal. Would
>> >>
>> >> int func() { getchar(); return 10; }
>> >>
>> >> meet the specification as well?
>> >>
>> > This is where you get trapped by C's misuse of the term "function".
>> > If the term "function" were used in the proper mathematical sense,
>> > then the program's memory would be in one state on function entry and
>> > another on function return, and so you can't have a function without a
>> > specification.
>> No, that's not the issue. Of course it would help if functions were
>> functions, but the terminology is not the issue here. A sin function
>> (in some unimpeachable language like Haskell) that did all sorts of
>> other computations and took an hour, or used half the available memory,
>> would not meet the specification because, in my book, the specification
>> should be taken to be minimal.
>> > But C "functions" can perform actions. Specifying correct actions is a whole
>> > different ball game to specifying functions, which are just mappings from
>> > one set to another.
>> So lets' call them all "procedures" for the moment and get back to the
>> question at hand. Should a specification be taken to be essentially
>> minimal? I would say so.
>>
> If functions are functions then the bits on function entry define the
> state of the bits on function exit, and if they match, the function is
> correct.
I think the first "functions" refers to C function but second does not
refer to either mathematical functions nor, say, functions in Haskell so
I think you are talking about what I once referred to as
Malcolm-functions. Unfortunately I don't remember enough about what you
mean by the term to do anything but agree with the consequent.
> Programming functions often have an additional specification
> in terms of Big O running time. It is of course possible to break the
> spirit of this by writing code which is formally O(N) but in reality is
> much slower for any likely N than a naive O(N squared) function. However
> normally you have to either be perverse or to be using a weird and wonderful
> recasting of the problem to do this.
I think you are agreeing: that a specification should be taken to be,
loosely speaking, minimal.
> Often there's a straightforwards way of calculating a function, and a more
> complicated way which has advantages of speed, numerical stability,
> or the szie of input it can handle. Sometimes intermediate calculations
> are mathematically unnecessary, but they make it easier for a human reading
> the code to follow along.
>
> I don't think we can fairly say that a piece of code must optimise
> something (execution speed, clarity, size of data accepted, code size)
> before it is "to specification". But maybe we can say that it mustn't
> grossly pessimise anything.
Yes. That was my point. Your example did not meet the specification
because is was perversely not a minimal implementation.
> There's a kind of implied specification in
> any instruction. If I say "get me a cup of tea" then either a mug or a
> teacup would meet the instruction. But not a sporting trophy filled
> with tea. I'd legitimately complain that my instructions had been
> interpreted perversely.
Yes. I think we are having an agreement.
--
Ben.
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-20 16:45 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-02-20 18:34 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Chris Vine <vine24683579@gmail.com> - 2023-02-20 11:16 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-02-20 21:39 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Chris Vine <vine24683579@gmail.com> - 2023-02-20 12:56 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Tony Oliver <guinness.tony@gmail.com> - 2023-02-20 16:17 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-21 01:57 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-21 09:15 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-21 12:31 +0200
Re: Is this safe? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-02-21 05:36 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Chris Vine <vine24683579@gmail.com> - 2023-02-21 02:19 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-02-21 14:16 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Ralf Goertz <me@myprovider.invalid> - 2023-02-21 14:40 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Chris Vine <vine24683579@gmail.com> - 2023-02-21 05:51 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-21 15:58 +0200
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-21 14:55 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-21 19:02 +0200
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-21 17:13 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-21 19:58 +0200
Re: Is this safe? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-02-21 12:15 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-21 23:41 +0200
Re: Is this safe? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-03-03 12:57 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Tony Oliver <guinness.tony@gmail.com> - 2023-02-20 16:14 -0800
Re: Is this safe? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-20 23:48 -0500
Re: Is this safe? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-02-21 00:05 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-21 09:14 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-20 21:18 -0500
Re: Is this safe? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2023-02-20 20:38 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-21 09:18 +0000
Re: Is this safe? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2023-02-21 15:12 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-21 14:53 +0000
Re: Is this safe? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-21 10:35 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-22 09:25 +0000
Re: Is this safe? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 22:33 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-23 09:25 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2023-02-23 07:05 -0800
Re: Is this safe? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-22 21:21 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-23 09:39 +0200
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-23 09:35 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-23 12:30 +0200
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-23 10:34 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-23 13:20 +0200
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-23 16:00 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-23 18:24 +0200
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-23 16:28 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-23 19:01 +0200
Re: Is this safe? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-23 11:57 -0500
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-23 19:12 +0200
Re: Is this safe? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-23 11:57 -0500
Re: Is this safe? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-23 12:20 -0500
Re: Is this safe? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-02-24 02:15 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-02-24 15:24 -0800
Re: Is this safe? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-24 02:14 -0500
Re: Is this safe? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-23 07:18 -0500
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-23 16:01 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-23 11:50 -0500
Re: Is this safe? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-02-23 14:41 -0800
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-23 19:44 +0100
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-23 15:02 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-02-23 14:49 +0000
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-23 16:25 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-23 16:10 +0000
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-23 20:46 +0100
Re: Is this safe? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-02-23 20:05 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-02-23 14:48 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-23 22:12 -0500
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-24 10:49 +0200
Re: Is this safe? Ralf Fassel <ralfixx@gmx.de> - 2023-02-24 11:36 +0100
Re: Is this safe? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-02-24 15:39 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-24 10:29 +0000
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-24 17:20 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-24 17:09 +0000
Re: Is this safe? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-02-24 17:32 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-25 11:56 +0000
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-25 16:04 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-25 15:47 +0000
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-25 19:13 +0100
Re: Is this safe? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-02-25 19:00 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-27 08:43 +0000
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-27 10:31 +0100
Re: Is this safe? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-02-25 16:40 +0000
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-24 18:42 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-25 11:58 +0000
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-25 16:25 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-25 15:45 +0000
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-25 19:15 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-27 08:44 +0000
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-27 10:40 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-27 10:24 +0000
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-27 18:31 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-28 08:38 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-02-28 01:33 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-28 10:17 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-02-28 02:43 -0800
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-28 16:50 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-02-28 03:19 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-28 08:10 -0500
Re: Is this safe? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-02-28 05:42 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-28 09:39 -0500
Re: Is this safe? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-02-28 07:12 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-28 11:29 -0500
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-28 16:45 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-02-28 11:31 -0800
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-28 20:59 +0100
Re: Is this safe? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 14:29 -0800
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-28 16:37 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-28 15:56 +0000
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-28 18:34 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-03-01 09:37 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 02:29 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-03-01 19:56 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 12:53 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-03-01 21:13 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-03-02 01:48 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-03-03 21:44 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-03-03 20:16 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-03-04 22:55 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-03-05 07:11 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-03-05 20:44 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Mr Flibble <flibble2@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2023-03-05 21:00 +0000
Re: Is this safe? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-03-05 13:59 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Mr Flibble <flibble2@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2023-03-05 23:07 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-03-06 00:22 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-03-05 14:26 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-03-06 00:51 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-03-06 02:17 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-03-05 08:13 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-03-05 09:05 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-03-14 09:47 -0700
Re: Is this safe? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 14:40 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-03-02 09:07 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-03-01 21:37 -0500
Re: Is this safe? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-03-01 22:30 -0800
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-03-01 14:27 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 10:48 -0800
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-03-02 10:29 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-03-01 19:53 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-03-02 09:08 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-03-02 01:32 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-03-02 09:56 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-03-02 04:02 -0800
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-03-02 15:00 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-03-02 07:59 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-03-02 15:38 +0000
Re: Is this safe? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-03-02 11:16 -0800
Re: Is this safe? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-03-02 11:08 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-03-03 09:53 +0000
Re: Is this safe? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-03-04 06:47 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-03-02 19:35 +0000
Re: Is this safe? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2023-02-28 17:40 +0100
Re: Is this safe? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-24 12:16 -0500
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-24 18:39 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-02-24 10:03 -0800
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-24 19:59 +0100
Re: Is this safe? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2023-02-25 06:47 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-25 10:23 +0200
Re: Is this safe? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2023-02-23 07:16 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-02-23 14:31 -0800
Re: Is this safe? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2023-02-23 16:34 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-23 16:15 +0000
Re: Is this safe? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2023-02-24 12:17 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-24 12:24 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-24 15:18 +0200
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-24 15:55 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-24 18:20 +0200
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-24 17:05 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2023-02-24 19:24 +0200
Re: Is this safe? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-24 09:46 -0800
Re: Is this safe? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-02-24 17:30 +0100
Re: Is this safe? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-02-23 17:12 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-02-23 02:47 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-23 15:59 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-23 11:55 -0500
Re: Is this safe? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-23 08:37 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-02-23 14:19 -0800
Re: Is this safe? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-02-23 17:09 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-23 12:21 -0500
Re: Is this safe? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-02-23 17:55 +0000
Re: Is this safe? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-02-23 13:57 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2023-02-23 17:28 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-02-23 21:44 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-02-24 08:48 -0800
Re: Is this safe? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-21 10:58 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-22 09:26 +0000
Re: Is this safe? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 22:34 +0100
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-23 09:29 +0000
Re: Is this safe? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-23 08:28 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-23 17:16 +0000
Re: Is this safe? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-23 22:24 -0800
Re: Is this safe? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-22 21:30 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-23 09:31 +0000
Re: Is this safe? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-23 22:00 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-02-23 22:20 -0800
Re: Is this safe? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-24 01:34 -0500
Re: Is this safe? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-02-24 10:32 +0000
Re: Is this safe? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-02-25 00:19 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2023-02-22 08:09 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2023-02-21 22:32 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-02-22 08:32 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 09:17 -0800
Re: Is this safe? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-04-04 23:28 -0700
Re: Is this safe? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-04-05 11:08 -0700
Re: Is this safe? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2023-02-21 08:15 -0800
csiph-web