<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Gwern Branwen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gwern0@gmail.com" target="_blank">gwern0@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Jan Stolarek <<a href="mailto:jan.stolarek@p.lodz.pl">jan.stolarek@p.lodz.pl</a>> wrote:<br>
> Gwern, and what do you think about James' fork of lambdabot? It seems that there was a lot of work<br>
> put into it and that this is indeed a good starting point to continue development.<br>
<br>
</div>I haven't looked at the diffs; if as he says the security around the<br>
evaluation has been weakened, that's a deal-breaker until it's fixed.<br>
lambdabot can't be insecure since it will be run in a public IRC.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I absolutely agree. There are sandboxing things we can do around the lambdabot instance, but Haskell has a lot of opportunities for statically disallowing questionable things. I would like to start our defense there and add layers around that.</div>
<div><br></div><div>My real reason for reviving this thread: Can I get a status update, please?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Jason</div></div>