From owner-freebsd-security  Mon Jun 24 10:08:03 1996
Return-Path: owner-security
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA06312
          for security-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jun 1996 10:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from critter.tfs.com ([140.145.16.108])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA06287;
          Mon, 24 Jun 1996 10:08:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from critter.tfs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.tfs.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA07506; Mon, 24 Jun 1996 10:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
To: nash@mcs.com
cc: nate@sri.MT.net, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.org, gpalmer@FreeBSD.org,
        taob@io.org
Subject: Re: IPFW documentation 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 23 Jun 1996 17:31:22 CDT."
             <199606232231.RAA00403@zen.nash.org> 
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 10:07:28 -0700
Message-ID: <7504.835636048@critter.tfs.com>
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@FreeBSD.org>
Sender: owner-security@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In message <199606232231.RAA00403@zen.nash.org>, Alex Nash writes:
>> I hope we get reviewers, but if you don't I'd still bring it into
>> -stable since you've given 'fair notice'.
>
>That's two votes for, none against :)

I don't think that there are any votes against as such.

What I told (tried to tell) Alex was, "unless you're VERY sure it works,
don't touch -stable".

I guess the mask-bug with my name on it underlines this statement :-(

I don't have a testing environment here, much less a development one,
so I'm pretty unable to help, sorry!

--
Poul-Henning Kamp           | phk@FreeBSD.ORG       FreeBSD Core-team.
http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk    Private mailbox.
whois: [PHK]                | phk@ref.tfs.com       TRW Financial Systems, Inc.
Future will arrive by its own means, progress not so.