From owner-freebsd-security Fri Jul 14 16:27:41 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from snafu.adept.org (adsl-63-201-63-44.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.201.63.44]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8856A37C4F0 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:27:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@adept.org) Received: by snafu.adept.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 30CFD9EE01; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:27:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snafu.adept.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28F5C9B001; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:27:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:27:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Hoskins To: Paul Robinson Cc: Neil Blakey-Milner , David Pick , Warner Losh , security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Displacement of Blame[tm] In-Reply-To: <00071411574600.46406@foo.akitanet.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Paul Robinson wrote: > What I would propose is this - why don't we have 2 lists - one for > freebsd-security where genuine issues with security in the core FreeBSD > distro are discussed, and another (freebsd-ports-security for example) where > announcments on ports shipped with FreeBSD are announced. I like it. Has this already been proposed and dismissed? If so, why? Sounds good to me. I can subscribe to both lists, and those who don't want ports advisories won't have to see them. -mrh To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message