Re: remove www/junkbuster?

2016-03-20 Thread Stuart Henderson 
On 2016/03/17 23:15, Michael McConville wrote:
> Rationale:
> 
>  o it's been unmodified since import in 2001
>  o there are patches fixing a bunch of obvious dangerous buffer issues
>  o it's an ad-filter proxy, so it's very exposed
> 
> Any objections?

Kill it - privoxy replaces this.

Re: remove www/junkbuster?

2016-03-19 Thread Daniel Dickman 
Makes sense to me. Plus we have www/privoxy.

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:15 PM, Michael McConville  wrote:
> Rationale:
>
>  o it's been unmodified since import in 2001
>  o there are patches fixing a bunch of obvious dangerous buffer issues
>  o it's an ad-filter proxy, so it's very exposed
>
> Any objections?
>

Re: remove www/junkbuster?

2016-03-19 Thread Jeremie Courreges-Anglas 
Stuart Henderson  writes:

> On 2016/03/17 23:15, Michael McConville wrote:
>> Rationale:
>> 
>>  o it's been unmodified since import in 2001
>>  o there are patches fixing a bunch of obvious dangerous buffer issues
>>  o it's an ad-filter proxy, so it's very exposed
>> 
>> Any objections?
>
> Kill it - privoxy replaces this.
>

+1

-- 
jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF  DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE

remove www/junkbuster?

2016-03-19 Thread Michael McConville 
Rationale:

 o it's been unmodified since import in 2001
 o there are patches fixing a bunch of obvious dangerous buffer issues
 o it's an ad-filter proxy, so it's very exposed

Any objections?