From owner-freebsd-security  Wed Dec  4 17:22:41 1996
Return-Path: owner-security
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.3/8.7.3) id RAA28225
          for security-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 17:22:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA28219
          for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 17:22:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA12964; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 18:21:50 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 18:21:50 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199612050121.SAA12964@rocky.mt.sri.com>
From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>
To: Don Lewis <Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com>
Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net>,
        freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions...
In-Reply-To: <199612050117.RAA02670@salsa.gv.ssi1.com>
References: <nate@mt.sri.com>
	<199612050117.RAA02670@salsa.gv.ssi1.com>
Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> } > 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.
> } 
> } How would they be distributed?
> 
> ctm updates work fine for me.

I'd rather the 'users' find a new way (that doesn't involved the
developers) of distributing patches.  You don't need us to do it since
you are capable of supporting yourselves.


Nate

ps. I don't think PR 2067 is the correct fix.  The code should work as written.