From owner-freebsd-security  Wed Dec  4 16:54:20 1996
Return-Path: owner-security
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.3/8.7.3) id QAA26300
          for security-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:54:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sunrise.gv.ssi1.com (sunrise.gv.ssi1.com [146.252.44.191])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA26294
          for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:54:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from salsa.gv.ssi1.com (salsa.gv.ssi1.com [146.252.44.194])
          by sunrise.gv.ssi1.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP
	  id QAA14693; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:54:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from gdonl@localhost)
          by salsa.gv.ssi1.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id QAA02606; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:54:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Don Lewis <Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com>
Message-Id: <199612050054.QAA02606@salsa.gv.ssi1.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:54:03 -0800
In-Reply-To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>
       "Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions..." (Dec  4,  4:53pm)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.6 alpha(3) 7/19/95)
To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net>
Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions...
Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Dec 4,  4:53pm, Nate Williams wrote:
} Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions...

} > >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.

I just got a ctm update for -stable in the mail today.  It looks like the
first one since 2.1.6.1, which is only about a week and a half old.

} > >2.1.* is dead in my mind, and I suspect many others.  It lived long past
} > >it's usefulness in the developers mind.

I'll agree that it's dead as far as new development, but I'll have it
running here for quite a while yet.  I'd like to see security patches
released as needed.

} > 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.

I submitted a few patches just before 2.1.6-RELEASE which were committed
by Jordan and others.  I also complained about a few broken things that
others took the initiative to fix.

PR bin/2067 is still open.  It contains a patch that applies to all versions
of FreeBSD.

			---  Truck