From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Aug 24 10:40:16 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59EC916A4BF for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:40:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pd6mo2so.prod.shaw.ca (shawidc-mo1.cg.shawcable.net [24.71.223.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70AC743FBF for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:40:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk) Received: from pd6mr3so.prod.shaw.ca (pd6mr3so-qfe3.prod.shaw.ca [10.0.141.218]) by l-daemon (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) freebsd-security@freebsd.org; Sun, 24 Aug 2003 11:38:51 -0600 (MDT) Received: from pn2ml6so.prod.shaw.ca (pn2ml6so-qfe0.prod.shaw.ca [10.0.121.150]) by l-daemon (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) freebsd-security@freebsd.org; Sun, 24 Aug 2003 11:38:51 -0600 (MDT) Received: from piii600.wadham.ox.ac.uk (h24-87-233-42.vc.shawcable.net [24.87.233.42])2003)) freebsd-security@freebsd.org; Sun, 24 Aug 2003 11:38:50 -0600 (MDT) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:38:49 -0700 From: Colin Percival In-reply-to: <5.0.2.1.1.20030824100546.02c8cc00@popserver.sfu.ca> X-Sender: cperciva@popserver.sfu.ca To: Colin Percival , Kris Kennaway Message-id: <5.0.2.1.1.20030824103515.02cbf388@popserver.sfu.ca> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <20030824170354.GA9172@rot13.obsecurity.org> <5.0.2.1.1.20030824064019.02d7d090@popserver.sfu.ca> <5.0.2.1.1.20030824064019.02d7d090@popserver.sfu.ca> cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: EoL dates X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Security issues [members-only posting] List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 17:40:16 -0000 At 10:14 24/08/2003 -0700, I wrote: > Either I'm missing your point, or you're missing my point. There are > five release branches now which are "not officially supported", but I > have yet to see any circumstance where they have, in fact, not been > supported. If those branches were not being supported because people > were too busy to support them, I'd understand perfectly; but as far as I > can see, those branches *are* being supported. Oops. As hawkeyd@visi.com has just pointed out to me, I didn't look far enough; SA-03:01, :02, :03, :05, and :06 didn't have official patches for the unsupported branches. I'll go sit quietly in the corner now. Colin Percival