But would you really want RedHat fixing qmail instead of DJB ?
If security holes were found (REAL security holes), DJB would be the 1st
to want them fixed right, not a quick fix as an os vender/redhat would
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: Rask Ingemann
> Lambertsen[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 1998 12:28 PM
> To: Qmail mailing list
> Subject: Re: Frivolous forking
>
> On 29-Dec-98 14:44:00, Matthew Soffen wrote something about "Re:
> Frivolous forking". I just couldn't help replying to it, thus:
> > At 01:16 PM 12/29/98 +0100, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> Regards,
>
> /??????????????????????????????T??????????????????????????????????????
> ???\
> | Rask Ingemann Lambertsen |
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
> | Registered Phase5 developer | WWW: http://www.gbar.dtu.dk/~c948374/
> |
> | A4000, 775 kkeys/s (RC5-64) | "ThrustMe" on XPilot and EFnet IRC
> |
> | Do artificial plants need artificial water?
> |
>
