From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Oct  6 11:33:39 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA17807
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers)
Received: (from jmb@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA17779;
          Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from jmb)
From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb>
Message-Id: <199710061833.LAA17779@hub.freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: UUCP (important clarification)
To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: dk+@ua.net, grog@lemis.com, mike@smith.net.au, pechter@lakewood.com,
        freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <2369.876125643@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Oct 6, 97 01:14:03 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Jordan K. Hubbard 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. ;)

	just dont break the current support ot taylor config files.
	taylor should remain the default configuration.
jmb