From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 26 10:24:48 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0231D16A4C2 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:24:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns.museum.rain.com (gw-ipinc.museum.rain.com [206.29.169.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAE5E43F75 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:24:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from james_mapson@umpquanet.com) Received: from ns.museum.rain.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ns.museum.rain.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7QHOcmU051902; Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:24:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from james@umpquanet.com) Received: (from james@localhost) by ns.museum.rain.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7QHOcmF051901; Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:24:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from james) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:24:38 -0700 From: James Long To: James Long Message-ID: <20030826172438.GB51729@ns.museum.rain.com> References: <20030826170325.GA51729@ns.museum.rain.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030826170325.GA51729@ns.museum.rain.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=ADVERT_CODE2,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_MUTT version=2.55 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Question about Sec. Adv. FreeBSD-SA-03:11.sendmail X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 17:24:48 -0000 On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:03:25AM -0700, James Long wrote: > > So I'm conffused as to why sendmail would need to be patched > on 8/25 when 8.12.9 has been in the base distribution since > April. D'oh! "4-STABLE prior to Mar 29 19:33:18 2003 UTC" > Thanks for shedding some light, Don't mention it.