From owner-freebsd-current Sat Feb 19 19:28:29 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from dt051n0b.san.rr.com (dt051n0b.san.rr.com [204.210.32.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7573037BDEE; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 19:28:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Doug@gorean.org) Received: from gorean.org (master [10.0.0.2]) by dt051n0b.san.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10967; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 19:28:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Doug@gorean.org) Message-ID: <38AF5F59.A0BEC49@gorean.org> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 19:28:25 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kris Kennaway Cc: Victor Salaman , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: openssl in -current References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Kris Kennaway wrote: > > On Sat, 19 Feb 2000, Victor Salaman wrote: > > > I personally think that it's braindead to add openssl to the system > > and stripout parts of it (RSA & IDEA). Don't get me wrong, I love to > > have Pardon me for coming late to the party, but what was the rationale behind putting openssl into the source anyway? Given the rsa/no rsa problems, not to mention the US vs. the world problems, what were the benefits that outweighed the complications? Note, I'm not trying to be critical here, I'm just interested in the thought process behind the decision. Doug -- "Welcome to the desert of the real." - Laurence Fishburne as Morpheus, "The Matrix" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message