Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:45:46 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, "Jonathan M. Slivko" <jmslivko@mindspring.com> Cc: "Igor Roshchin" <str@giganda.komkon.org>, kris@FreeBSD.ORG, roman@xpert.com, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/mail/pine4 Makefile (fwd) Message-ID: <v04210100b5fe79180dff@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <200009302123.PAA13609@harmony.village.org> References: <008b01c02a71$6b8938c0$d04379a5@p4f0i0> <200009292349.TAA07263@giganda.komkon.org> <200009302123.PAA13609@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 3:23 PM -0600 9/30/00, Warner Losh wrote: > "Jonathan M. Slivko" writes: >: it. Especially some of the addons are extemely helpful. If you ask >: my opinion, let pine stay in it's normal state and leave the security >: and the managment of the machines that run it to the systems >: administrators, where the responsibilities lie in the first place. >: Doesn't everyone agree with me on that? > >I think I disagree. I do think pine should be in a "different state" of some sort, given that we are very suspicious about the code. >Maybe we need a category that is "This program may be insecure, set >INSECURE_OK in your /etc/make.conf if you don't have a problem with >that" for ports. I would suggest that some per-port switch might be better, so one can say "Yes, my users pretty much force me to have 'pine' available", without that also changing the status for all other ports which would be in this category. disclaimer: I'm not offering to do any work, of course, I'm just suggesting things for whoever IS willing to do the work... :-) --- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or drosih@rpi.edu Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 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?v04210100b5fe79180dff>