From owner-freebsd-current  Wed May 14 13:46:34 1997
Return-Path: <owner-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA03704
          for current-outgoing; Wed, 14 May 1997 13:46:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA03696
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Wed, 14 May 1997 13:46:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id NAA17376; Wed, 14 May 1997 13:46:09 -0700 (PDT)
To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>
cc: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch), current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: RELENG_2_2 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 14 May 1997 10:14:35 MDT."
             <199705141614.KAA27066@rocky.mt.sri.com> 
Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 13:46:08 -0700
Message-ID: <17372.863642768@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Making us work with vendors is *less* important than opening FreeBSD up
> for security holes.  Go re-read all of the arguements for/against the

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how this change opens
FreeBSD up to anything - all I see is a lot of scare-mongering but
no technical "meat" in this argument.

> Now you're just being silly and ignoring the fact that you've changed
> (and probably broken) the way mail is handled in stock FreeBSD if people

"Probably" - you're going to have to do better than that.

						Jordan