Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:40:29 -0600 From: J Bacher <jb@jbacher.com> To: security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dsniff 2.3 info: Message-ID: <4.2.2.20001221111451.00b6ef00@mail.jbacher.com> In-Reply-To: <xzpelz1eo2k.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> References: <Roger Marquis's message of "Thu, 21 Dec 2000 08:23:37 -0800 (PST)"> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0012210758270.70602-100000@roble.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 05:28 PM 12/21/00 +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > > This is the result of some incorrect assumptions on the part of > > the ports maintainers and a lack of port standards or enforcement > > in general. > >Which translates to "it's FreeBSD's fault". Send patches or shut up. So, are you in agreement that this is a FreeBSD issue? Or, is there a logical explanation identifying differently? If so, do you expect that anyone that reports a problem with an OS or application should also be the individual to provide patches? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.2.2.20001221111451.00b6ef00>