edit: See below...can probably ignore this post In that post you linked, you wrote this: > That discussion was ongoing when OpenBSD caught wind of this – pres

edit: See below...can probably ignore this post In that post you linked, you wrote this: > That discussion was ongoing when OpenBSD caught wind of this – presumably because someone who was embargoed felt that OpenBSD deserved to know In the email by Theo linked above he wrote this: > In some forums, Bryan Cantrill is crafting a fiction. > He is saying the FPU problem (and other problems) were received as a leak. > He is not being truthful, inventing a storyline, and has not asked me for the facts. > This was discovered by guessing Intel made a mistake. It's pretty clear that he is referring to your presumption that someone under the embargo told them as being the "crafting a fiction". Maybe you should simply follow up either with evidence supporting that presumption (if it exists) or just a clear statement it is only a presumption and that you simply just don't believe they found it independently. (To be clear, for your average person the latter claim wouldn't hold much weight, but your words are respected more than most so the presumption wouldn't necessarily be immediately ignored even if it had no backing evidence.) edit: Sorry I just saw this post of yours lower in the thread: https://lobste.rs/s/zwkuza/intel_cpus_might_leak_information_about#c_2lpshy https://lobste.rs/s/zwkuza/intel_cpus_might_leak_information... > What I am saying is that however Theo obtained information – and indeed, even if that information didn’t originate with the leak but rather by “guessing” as he is now apparently claiming – how he handled it was not responsible. And I am also saying that Theo’s irresponsibility has made the job of including OpenBSD more difficult. So I guess there's not much more for you to say. You've said you don't believe him, but you've also indicated you don't really have the evidence (other than your experience). Seems fine to me.