Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 01:12:17 -0500 (CDT) From: James Wyatt <jwyatt@rwsystems.net> To: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com> Cc: Jay Nelson <jdn@acp.qiv.com>, "f.johan.beisser" <jan@caustic.org>, Greg Lewis <glewis@trc.adelaide.edu.au>, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeSSH Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9910140111280.75869-100000@bsdie.rwsystems.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96.991014003212.52479A-100000@shell-1.enteract.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, David Scheidt wrote: > Subject: Re: FreeSSH > On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Jay Nelson wrote: > > >> In the interests of minimising bloat we could balance its inclusion by > > >> deleting something like, say, uucp. > > >> (:-) for the uucps users) > > > > > >actually, i don't think this is a good idea. there are still a few (very > > >few.. i hope) networks and LAN's that use UUCP for mail transfer and such. > > Why are you hoping for very few users of UUCP? It works quite well, and is > very low maintance. People who have intermittant connectivity have good > reason to still use it. I use it in a couple instances over FTP, because it > has spooling and logging facilities built in. And controlled execution of remote commands, but this ain't the UUCP list - Jy@ 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.4.10.9910140111280.75869-100000>