From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Oct  6 07:05:58 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA00356
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 07:05:58 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers)
Received: from gatekeeper.itribe.net (gatekeeper.itribe.net [209.49.144.254])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id HAA00348
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 07:05:55 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from jamie@itribe.net)
Message-Id: <199710061405.KAA27927@gatekeeper.itribe.net>
Received: forwarded by SMTP 1.5.2.
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 10:08:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jamie Bowden <jamie@itribe.net>
To: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: UUCP (important clarification)
In-Reply-To: <199710061102.HAA01674@i4got.lakewood.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 6 Oct 1997, Bill Pechter wrote:

> > > 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
> > 
> 
> Masochistic 8-)
> 
> UUCP is much easier to configure than, say gated.conf!
> 
> Bill

I found gated much easier to deal with than UUCP.  Must be an individual
thing.

Jamie Bowden
System Administrator, iTRiBE.net

Abusenet: The Misinformation Superhighway