Thats exactly my point. If there were a "REAL" security hole found in
qmail, DJB would immediately want to fix it right. He would not want a
"quick" fix as the OS venders may do.
Matt Soffen
Webmaster - http://www.iso-ne.com/
==============================================
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 -
==============================================
> ----------
> From: Adam D. McKenna[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 1998 12:22 PM
> To: Qmail mailing list
> Subject: Re: Frivolous forking
>
> From: Matthew Soffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> :> 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.
>
> This isn't the point. It is possible that a security hole could be
> found in
> qmail. (highly doubtful, but possible). However, if that happened, I
> wouldn't want Redhat touching the source anyway.
>
> --Adam
>
>
