Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:44:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>, "David G. Andersen" <dga@POBOX.COM>, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Two kinds of advisories? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007131339090.71441-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000713142419.04b82ce0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Brett Glass wrote:
> I'm not the only one who has noticed that the current format has caused
> third-party bugs to be seen as security holes in FreeBSD. Let's make it
You are incorrect: the *old* naming scheme (no mention of 'Ports') in the
subject was in force when this happened. I only started putting 'Ports' in
the subject on July 5th, 8 days ago. This was done with the express
intention of differentiating between the two streams.
> Matt's idea of numbering Ports advisories as PORTS-<Whatever> to
> distinguish them from bugs in FreeBSD proper.
"Ports" is already in the subject. If someone doesn't know what "Ports"
means, how will changing the advisory numbering make any difference?
Kris
--
In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate.
-- Charles Forsythe <forsythe@alum.mit.edu>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0007131339090.71441-100000>