I'm beginning to regret starting this thread; then again, I do come from a
long line of stirrers (to which some bods on this list will attest)...
And yes, I'm still annoyed that "jive"[*] got deleted for no technical
reason whatsoever; then again, I'm still bemused by Americans taking a
leak
On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 2:42 AM, Matthias Andree
wrote:
> Am 23.12.2017 um 08:12 schrieb Kevin Oberman:
> >
> > So, why does Eugene's question have no relevance to the procmail
> > case? Could you please explain?
>
> Because I am not willing to discuss generics when we
On Saturday, 23 December 2017 17:42:26 CET, Ted Hatfield
wrote:
...
I think that as long as someone is willing to patch the software when
vulnerabilities come up we should keep the port available.
Ted Hatfield
+1
matthias
--
Sent from my Ubuntu phone
On Sat, 23 Dec 2017, Matthias Andree wrote:
Am 23.12.2017 um 08:12 schrieb Kevin Oberman:
So, why does Eugene's question have no relevance to the procmail
case? Could you please explain?
Because I am not willing to discuss generics when we have a specific
case of port at hand.
The
Am 23.12.2017 um 08:12 schrieb Kevin Oberman:
>
> So, why does Eugene's question have no relevance to the procmail
> case? Could you please explain?
Because I am not willing to discuss generics when we have a specific
case of port at hand.
The attempted generalization distracts from that, and I
23.12.2017 14:12, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> >>> So, you demand we stop shipping any unmaintained software with our
> Ports & Packages?
> >>> Absence of CVEs means nothing and almost any non-trivial software has
> bugs (axiom).
> >> Eugene, these are attempts to distract from the
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 2:29 AM, Matthias Andree
wrote:
> Am 22.12.2017 um 07:09 schrieb Eugene Grosbein:
> > 22.12.2017 9:50, Matthias Andree пишет:
> >> Am 21.12.2017 um 10:16 schrieb Eugene Grosbein:
> >>
> >>> So, you demand we stop shipping any unmaintained software
Am 22.12.2017 um 07:09 schrieb Eugene Grosbein:
> 22.12.2017 9:50, Matthias Andree пишет:
>> Am 21.12.2017 um 10:16 schrieb Eugene Grosbein:
>>
>>> So, you demand we stop shipping any unmaintained software with our Ports &
>>> Packages?
>>> Absence of CVEs means nothing and almost any non-trivial
22.12.2017 9:50, Matthias Andree пишет:
> Am 21.12.2017 um 10:16 schrieb Eugene Grosbein:
>
>> So, you demand we stop shipping any unmaintained software with our Ports &
>> Packages?
>> Absence of CVEs means nothing and almost any non-trivial software has bugs
>> (axiom).
>
> Eugene, these are
Am 21.12.2017 um 10:16 schrieb Eugene Grosbein:
> So, you demand we stop shipping any unmaintained software with our Ports &
> Packages?
> Absence of CVEs means nothing and almost any non-trivial software has bugs
> (axiom).
Eugene, these are attempts to distract from the argument, or to mount
On 21.12.2017 14:24, Matthias Andree wrote:
What happened with old good "Tools, not policy" thing?
>>>
>>> It's simpler than that, no policy involved.
>>>
>>> The tool had a hollow head, and broke after several years of banging it,
>>> and the former tool maker told the public it's out of
On 21.12.2017 07:35, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>>> What happened with old good "Tools, not policy" thing?
>>
>> It's simpler than that, no policy involved.
>>
>> The tool had a hollow head, and broke after several years of banging it,
>> and the former tool maker told the public it's out of warranty
Am 21.12.2017 um 06:07 schrieb Adam Weinberger:
>> On 20 Dec, 2017, at 17:19, Matthias Andree
>> wrote:
>>
>> Am 20.12.2017 um 06:40 schrieb Eugene Grosbein:
>>> On 20.12.2017 01:03, Matthias Andree wrote:
>>>
Dear Ted, Eugene,
>>> [skip]
>>>
>>> What happened with
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017, Adam Weinberger wrote:
I'm a little unsettled by this discussion, because it is moving into
territory with which we have very little precedent. And the precedent
that it would establish is not wholly within our mandate.
Am I the only one who remembers the kerfuffle over
On 20 Dec, 2017, at 17:19, Matthias Andree wrote:
Am 20.12.2017 um 06:40 schrieb Eugene Grosbein:
On 20.12.2017 01:03, Matthias Andree wrote:
Dear Ted, Eugene,
[skip]
What happened with old good "Tools, not policy" thing?
It's simpler than that, no policy
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017, Kevin Oberman wrote:
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Matthias Andree
wrote:
Am 20.12.2017 um 06:40 schrieb Eugene Grosbein:
On 20.12.2017 01:03, Matthias Andree wrote:
Dear Ted, Eugene,
[skip]
What happened with old good "Tools, not policy"
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Matthias Andree
wrote:
> Am 20.12.2017 um 06:40 schrieb Eugene Grosbein:
> > On 20.12.2017 01:03, Matthias Andree wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Ted, Eugene,
> > [skip]
> >
> > What happened with old good "Tools, not policy" thing?
> >
> >
>
> It's
Am 20.12.2017 um 06:40 schrieb Eugene Grosbein:
> On 20.12.2017 01:03, Matthias Andree wrote:
>
>> Dear Ted, Eugene,
> [skip]
>
> What happened with old good "Tools, not policy" thing?
>
>
It's simpler than that, no policy involved.
The tool had a hollow head, and broke after several years of
On 20.12.2017 01:03, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Dear Ted, Eugene,
[skip]
What happened with old good "Tools, not policy" thing?
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017, Matthias Andree wrote:
Am 19.12.2017 um 01:30 schrieb Ted Hatfield:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, Matthias Andree wrote:
Am 18.12.2017 um 00:17 schrieb Dave Horsfall:
Doing my regular update, and...
Upgrading procmail from 3.22_9 to 3.22_10...
Good grief; who's the
Am 19.12.2017 um 01:30 schrieb Ted Hatfield:
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, Matthias Andree wrote:
>
>> Am 18.12.2017 um 00:17 schrieb Dave Horsfall:
>>> Doing my regular update, and...
>>>
>>> Upgrading procmail from 3.22_9 to 3.22_10...
>>>
>>> Good grief; who's the masochist who volunteered to
Can certainly sympathize depending on the threat model, but how is that
any different from Equifax' not having time to patch Struts or not
having time to change the oil in your car or to brush your teeth ...
That's a non-sequitur if I understand the response correctly. Procmail IS
patched and
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Roger Marquis wrote:
> As one of the "irresponsible" people who is still using procmail on our
>> systems and has built an number of scripts and customer infrastructure
>> around it I take exception to the term irresponsible. Perhaps the
As one of the "irresponsible" people who is still using procmail on our
systems and has built an number of scripts and customer infrastructure
around it I take exception to the term irresponsible. Perhaps the better
word is overworked. If I had the time to move to dovecot/sieve or maildrop
as a
## Matthias Andree (matthias.and...@gmx.de):
> Sunpoet, can we mark the port as deprecated given that even the upstream
> once said it should best be abolished? I can't find the reference now,
Here:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=769938#11
19.12.2017 7:30, Ted Hatfield wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, Matthias Andree wrote:
>
>> Am 18.12.2017 um 00:17 schrieb Dave Horsfall:
>>> Doing my regular update, and...
>>>
>>> Upgrading procmail from 3.22_9 to 3.22_10...
>>>
>>> Good grief; who's the masochist who volunteered to
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, Matthias Andree wrote:
Am 18.12.2017 um 00:17 schrieb Dave Horsfall:
Doing my regular update, and...
Upgrading procmail from 3.22_9 to 3.22_10...
Good grief; who's the masochist who volunteered to support this
obscure insecure and hitherto-unsupported scripting
Am 18.12.2017 um 00:17 schrieb Dave Horsfall:
> Doing my regular update, and...
>
> Upgrading procmail from 3.22_9 to 3.22_10...
>
> Good grief; who's the masochist who volunteered to support this
> obscure insecure and hitherto-unsupported scripting language?
>
Doing my regular update, and...
Upgrading procmail from 3.22_9 to 3.22_10...
Good grief; who's the masochist who volunteered to support this obscure
insecure and hitherto-unsupported scripting language?
--
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will suffer."
29 matches
Mail list logo