From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 8 19:47:59 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 244AB37B401 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 19:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52.attbi.com [216.148.227.88]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39CB243FAF for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 19:47:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.no-ip.com) Received: from be-well.ilk.org (lowellg.ne.client2.attbi.com[24.147.188.198]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52) with ESMTP id <20030409024757052003pf01e>; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 02:47:57 +0000 Received: from be-well.ilk.org (lowellg.ne.client2.attbi.com [24.147.188.198] (may be forged)) by be-well.ilk.org (8.12.9/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h392luXf010014 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 22:47:56 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.no-ip.com) Received: (from lowell@localhost) by be-well.ilk.org (8.12.9/8.12.6/Submit) id h392luAa010011; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 22:47:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: be-well.ilk.org: lowell set sender to freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org using -f Sender: lowell@be-well.no-ip.com To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <3E93860F.1896A053@jwz.org> From: Lowell Gilbert Date: 08 Apr 2003 22:47:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <3E93860F.1896A053@jwz.org> Message-ID: <44isto8jz7.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> Lines: 12 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: sysinstall and xscreensaver X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 02:47:59 -0000 Jamie Zawinski writes: > Shane Helms wrote: > > > > Against a determined adversary, xlockmore is probably (?) a bit more > > secure than xscreensaver > > Excuse me? In what bizarro-universe can you possibly imagine xlockmore > to be more secure than xscreensaver? Um, no, actually I *did* mean it the other way around. I hadn't intended to send the article yet...