From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Mon Mar 21 22:08:07 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BACB9AD8C12 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 22:08:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carmel_ny@outlook.com) Received: from BLU004-OMC3S27.hotmail.com (blu004-omc3s27.hotmail.com [65.55.116.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.outlook.com", Issuer "MSIT Machine Auth CA 2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74C53D26 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 22:08:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carmel_ny@outlook.com) Received: from BLU436-SMTP40 ([65.55.116.73]) by BLU004-OMC3S27.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.23008); Mon, 21 Mar 2016 15:07:00 -0700 X-TMN: [lADFngtEBuBe49FGWdGLb9XR4nuCHfpM] X-Originating-Email: [carmel_ny@outlook.com] Message-ID: X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99 at scorpio.seibercom.net Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 18:06:53 -0400 From: Carmel To: FreeBSD Ports Subject: Re: clamav problem In-Reply-To: References: <56EC3B91.6030303@protected-networks.net> <895F5CC6-9F5D-4A12-A8C3-E004F4157B4A@pozo.com> <20160320114402.GH35640@home.opsec.eu> <20160320154254.GI35640@home.opsec.eu> Organization: Seibercom NET X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.28; i686-w64-mingw32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Mar 2016 22:06:59.0480 (UTC) FILETIME=[FD74C180:01D183BD] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 22:08:07 -0000 On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:30:25 -0700, Kevin Oberman stated: >Hmm. Let's see. A bug that may allow the defeat of a security >mechanism and allow a black-hat to do bad stuff before the bug con >even be looked at. Why would anyone have an issue with that? I mean, >don't we all want more zero-day vulnerabilities? (Sorry, Guess I put >on my sarcasm hat today.) You are right. Hell, if I had cancer why should the doctor tell me if there is no cure for it. By the way, you must be a government employee. You know, the type thats wants to keep everything secret but pry into everyone else's life. -- Carmel