From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 7 10:28:33 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C45116A4CE for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2004 10:28:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bitch.inducedreality.net (adsl-67-124-144-35.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.124.144.35]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DBB4543D3F for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2004 10:28:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from david@inducedreality.net) Received: (qmail 29466 invoked by uid 1000); 7 Apr 2004 17:27:40 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Apr 2004 17:27:40 -0000 Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 10:27:40 -0700 (PDT) From: David To: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <20040407162628.GA942@straylight.m.ringlet.net> Message-ID: <20040407102646.V788@bitch.inducedreality.net> References: <20040407154220.GA5651@madman.celabo.org> <20040407162628.GA942@straylight.m.ringlet.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 02:22:08 -0700 Subject: Re: Changing `security@freebsd.org' alias X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Security issues [members-only posting] List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 17:28:33 -0000 On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Peter Pentchev wrote: > On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 10:42:20AM -0500, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > > Hello Folks, > > > > The official email address for this list is > > `freebsd-security@freebsd.org'. Due to convention, there is an email > > alias for this list: security@freebsd.org, just as there is for > > hackers@ & freebsd-hackers@, arch@ & freebsd-arch@, and so on. > [snip] > > Mistaken early disclosure of a vulnerability can have consequences > > from the merely embarrasing to catastrophic. Therefore, I am > > proposing that `security@freebsd.org' be re-routed to the Security > > Officer. > > And before you get a flood of nay-sayers, here's a "Go for it!" from at > least one semi-lurker :) > > G'luck, > Peter > I agree. Yeah, there may be a transition time, but in the long run I think it will be better overall. David