On 10/14/2010 02:05 AM, Stuart Bishop wrote:
> Yes. The PG 8.4 upgrades where done before the rollout, and would have
> been using the the previous cycles security.cfg file. The manually
> applied changes should have been reapplied as part of the upgrade but
> where not.
Even using the current production-stable's security.cfg file would have
avoided this issue.
Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 10/14/2010 02:05 AM, Stuart Bishop wrote:
> Yes. The PG 8.4 upgrades where done before the rollout, and would have
> been using the the previous cycles security.cfg file. The manually
> applied changes should have been reapplied as part of the upgrade but
> where not.
Even using the current production-stable's security.cfg file would have
avoided this issue.
Aaron enigmail. mozdev. org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://
iEYEARECAAYFAky 3B5oACgkQ0F+ nu1YWqI2PGwCgiL AW3dvi3R42uq0+ 5HbijI+ n ezOLzdKsC8bW7O2 J98
zpQAn0ZEEGRSS+
=qtO+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----