From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Oct  6 01:15:48 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA12825
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 01:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA12817
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 01:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.7/8.6.9) with ESMTP id BAA02373; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 01:14:03 -0700 (PDT)
To: dk+@ua.net
cc: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>,
        pechter@lakewood.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: UUCP (important clarification) 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 05 Oct 1997 23:45:34 PDT."
             <19971005234534.44590@dog.farm.org> 
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 01:14:03 -0700
Message-ID: <2369.876125643@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Who can decide on this?   Is there a conspiracy behind it? ;-)

Given that I don't particularly *care* about UUCP in the first place,
I really don't mind what goes into 2.2.5 as far as this is concerned.

Anyone masochistic enough to still use UUCP in this day and age is
also capable of fixing any breakage that may occur, I think.  Go for it. ;)

					Jordan