At 01:16 PM 12/29/98 +0100, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
>On 23-Dec-98 23:14:10, Adam D. McKenna wrote something about
"Re: Frivolous forking". I just couldn't help replying to it, thus:
>
>> It basically comes down to this: If redhat is as security-conscious as it
>> claims to be (or at least as security-conscious as some people on this list
>> claim it is), they would have found a way to include qmail in their OS.
>
> No, that is exactly why they can _not_ include qmail. They are not allowed
>to distribute modified versions, which means that as security holes are
>found, they can't fix them and distribute their fixed versions.
Name 1 security hole found in qmail that they would have had to fix.
Matt Soffen
==============================================
Boss - "My boss says we need some eunuch programmers."
Dilbert - "I think he means UNIX and I already know UNIX."
Boss - "Well, if the company nurse comes by, tell her I said
never mind."
- Dilbert -
==============================================
