From owner-freebsd-security Sun Aug 22 20:43: 2 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (zippy.cdrom.com [204.216.27.228]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7573714D8F for ; Sun, 22 Aug 1999 20:43:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com) Received: from localhost (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zippy.cdrom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA04730; Sun, 22 Aug 1999 20:42:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com) To: Darren Reed Cc: petrilli@amber.org (Christopher Petrilli), freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: VPN for FreeBSD 2.2.8 and 3.2 In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 23 Aug 1999 13:36:16 +1000." <199908230336.NAA21519@cheops.anu.edu.au> Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 20:42:46 -0700 Message-ID: <4726.935379766@localhost> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Bah, so FreeBSD will be InSecureBSD ? Well, so long as the ITAR bear > stands around making grizzly noises at people, it seems. I wouldn't count on that. As far as I can tell, what's holding KAME integration up is the fact that they're not done merging with INRIA yet. Once that happens, I'm more than happy to continue to lean on Justice Maryln Patel's decision on crypto as free speach in the S.F. Bay Area region. We've already talked to our lawyer, he said it looked legit to him, and so we've been shipping crypto on our CDs for over a year now. I even announced it back then, to almost no audience reaction whatsoever. It seems that people like to get more excited about the prospect of something being closed than it being opened up. :) > FreeBSD appears to be doing better than the other two groups in terms > of resources...there are ways around it although I'm disappointed to > see that FreeBSD isn't interested. FreeBSD is certainly interested. Don't believe everything you hear from the user community. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message