Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 16:08:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: Dan Langille <dan@freebsddiary.org> Cc: Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com>, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: where did mail/qpopper3 come from? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005301604420.51649-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005310854080.59192-100000@ducky.nz.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 31 May 2000, Dan Langille wrote:
> OK. That tells me what it is. I suspect the answer to my question is no.
>
> Then why do we have both popper and popper3?
Because some people may want to stay with the old version, which given
that qualcomm have a horrendous reputation for not being able to release a
product which is not riddled with security holes, might be a smart idea.
Qpopper 2.x has been patched to buggery over the past few years, so it's
probably somewhere closer to "safe" by now :-)
Of course, Qualcomm might well have done a turnaround and taken up beating
their coders with a large prickly stick each time they add an unsafe
string handling operation, but only time will tell.
Kris
----
In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate.
-- Charles Forsythe <forsythe@alum.mit.edu>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0005301604420.51649-100000>