From owner-freebsd-security Wed Oct 13 23:19:54 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from bsdie.rwsystems.net (bsdie.rwsystems.net [209.197.223.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AF9D154CA for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 23:19:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jwyatt@rwsystems.net) Received: from bsdie.rwsystems.net([209.197.223.2]) (1557 bytes) by bsdie.rwsystems.net via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:bind_hosts/T:inet_zone_bind_smtp (sender: ) id for ; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 01:12:18 -0500 (CDT) (Smail-3.2.0.106 1999-Mar-31 #1 built 1999-Aug-7) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 01:12:17 -0500 (CDT) From: James Wyatt To: David Scheidt Cc: Jay Nelson , "f.johan.beisser" , Greg Lewis , freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeSSH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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