Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:34:02 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions... Message-ID: <199612042334.QAA12288@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <l03010900aecbaaf1bdaa@[204.69.236.50]> References: <199612041958.NAA21344@alecto.physics.uiuc.edu> <199612041951.MAA11333@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199612042058.NAA11575@rocky.mt.sri.com> <l03010900aecbaaf1bdaa@[204.69.236.50]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Richard Wackerbarth writes: > >That would be 2.1.6.1. And, it's a good release except for bugs that > >weren't known about until *after* it was set in stone such as the > >sendmail bug. > > And a very few changes have been committed since then. I don't think so. Changes have been committed since 2.1.6, but not since it was frozen. > IMHO, such security problem patches SHOULD get committed to the 2.1 tree > UNTIL 2.2 has proven itself. Since 2.2 is just now in "beta", I would guess > that might be around March, 1997. Huh? 2.2 is going to be released *long* before that time. In order for it to 'become' proven, it has to be used. If people aren't willing to test it then it'll never be 'stable'. I've stated in the past that if people are willing to submit patches for the 2.1-stable branch I'd commit them, and I got *ZERO* response. I'm not longer willing to do it simply because I don't have time for it and obviously no-one who cares is willing to do anything about it, but instead expect the developers to do it for them. 2.1.* is dead in my mind, and I suspect many others. It lived long past it's usefulness in the developers mind. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612042334.QAA12288>