From owner-freebsd-security  Thu Dec 21 11:30:54 2000
From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Dec 21 11:30:52 2000
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from ns.shawneelink.net (ns.shawneelink.net [216.240.66.11])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 842F737B400
	for <security@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 11:30:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jan (gate14.shawneelink.net [216.240.79.14])
	by ns.shawneelink.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id eBLJUeO24650
	for <security@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:30:40 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <4.2.2.20001221111451.00b6ef00@mail.jbacher.com>
X-Sender: jb@mail.jbacher.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:40:29 -0600
To: security@FreeBSD.ORG
From: J Bacher <jb@jbacher.com>
Subject: Re: dsniff 2.3 info:
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

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