From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Tue Dec 12 14:43:00 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91C25E9AADE for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 14:43:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portmaster@BSDforge.com) Received: from udns.ultimatedns.net (static-24-113-41-81.wavecable.com [24.113.41.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7054380521 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 14:42:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portmaster@BSDforge.com) Received: from udns.ultimatedns.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by udns.ultimatedns.net (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id vBCEiECw058113; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 06:44:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from portmaster@BSDforge.com) X-Mailer: UDNSMS MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "FreeBSD Ports" , "Dave Horsfall" In-Reply-To: <4bd4e1d3-6471-a66f-ba4e-9d475258960b@madpilot.net> From: "Chris H" Reply-To: portmaster@BSDforge.com To: "Guido Falsi" Subject: Re: Procmail Vulnerabilities check Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 06:44:20 -0800 Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 14:43:00 -0000 On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 08:59:04 +0100 "Guido Falsi" said > On 12/09/2017 01:34, Chris H wrote: > > On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 10:16:54 +1100 (EST) "Dave Horsfall" > > said > >=20 > >> On Fri, 8 Dec 2017, Steve Kargl wrote: > >> > >> > First, there is movement afoot to remove sendmail from FreeBSD and > > >> replace it with dma(1)=2E > >> > >> There is?=C2=A0 Is there anything else that they're going to spring on= us? > >> > >> (I'm still annoyed that they removed "jive" because it upset someone's > >> delicate sensibilities=2E) > > Hmm=2E This does not come as good news to me=2E I've been working on an > > antispam > > system that targets the use of Sendmail, for about a year (not counting= the > > untold hours spent tuning it over the years)=2E Sure, many aren't comfort= able > > with the m4(1) macros=2E But c'mon=2E Please don't=2E > > As to these backstage removal discussions; is it remotely possible that > > those of whom continue to use, and contribute to *BSD after all these y= ears > > might be included in these discussions? >=20 > I just chime in to point out that the discussion is not happening in any > backstage=2E >=20 > The proposal was sent to the arch mailing list, which is public=2E I'm not > subscribed to it either but I was pointed there by a fellow user=2E >=20 > https://lists=2Efreebsd=2Eorg/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2017-December/018712=2Ehtm= l Indeed, and thank you, Guido=2E I'm not subscribed either, and find myself puzzled as to that choice of lis= ts to make the announcement=2E But then again, what do I know=2E I still want to k= eep it in base=2E :-) --Chris >=20 > --=20 > Guido Falsi