Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:53:01 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions... Message-ID: <199612042353.QAA12451@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <l03010900aecbbc5ad4e9@[204.69.236.50]> References: <l03010900aecbaaf1bdaa@[204.69.236.50]> <199612041958.NAA21344@alecto.physics.uiuc.edu> <199612041951.MAA11333@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199612042058.NAA11575@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199612042334.QAA12288@rocky.mt.sri.com> <l03010900aecbbc5ad4e9@[204.69.236.50]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> >That would be 2.1.6.1. And, it's a good release except for bugs that > >> >weren't known about until *after* it was set in stone such as the > >> >sendmail bug. > >> > >> And a very few changes have been committed since then. > > > >I don't think so. Changes have been committed since 2.1.6, but not > >since it was frozen. > > WRONG! Look at the ctm updates in the archive. They are triggered by SOME > change in the CVS tree for the 2_1_0 tag. I didnt' see any that came after. I think you're confused. > >2.1.* is dead in my mind, and I suspect many others. It lived long past > >it's usefulness in the developers mind. > > That is a "developer's" attitude. If we wish to really have FreeBSD used in > commercial environments, we need to adopt more of a "user's" attitude. I did. I offered to integrate the "users's" patches, and none were submitted. The users have yet to show they care. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612042353.QAA12451>