From owner-freebsd-security Wed Oct 13 22:36:36 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mail.enteract.com (mail.enteract.com [207.229.143.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDB8014F5A for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 22:36:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Received: from shell-1.enteract.com (dscheidt@shell-1.enteract.com [207.229.143.40]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA38848; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 00:36:23 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 00:36:23 -0500 (CDT) From: David Scheidt To: Jay Nelson Cc: "f.johan.beisser" , Greg Lewis , freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeSSH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Jay Nelson wrote: > > >> In the interests of minimising bloat we could balance its inclusion by > >> deleting something like, say, uucp. > >> (:-) for the uucps users) > > > >actually, i don't think this is a good idea. there are still a few (very > >few.. i hope) networks and LAN's that use UUCP for mail transfer and such. Why are you hoping for very few users of UUCP? It works quite well, and is very low maintance. People who have intermittant connectivity have good reason to still use it. I use it in a couple instances over FTP, because it has spooling and logging facilities built in. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message