Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:30:32 +0000 From: Paul Robinson <paul@iconoplex.co.uk> To: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Less messages to FreeBSD.org lists Message-ID: <40152488.8070309@iconoplex.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040126133123.0465b398@imap.sfu.ca> References: <4013EA9D.6040808@cream.org> <20040125134151.M52260@mail.tacorp.net> <20040125185753.GA12995@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk> <40141B3D.9070901@cream.org> <20040125194721.GA28036@xor.obsecurity.org> <40143CC3.6010709@cream.org> <401514D3.7020808@iconoplex.co.uk> <6.0.1.1.1.20040126133123.0465b398@imap.sfu.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Colin Percival wrote: > <oxford> It's *fewer* messages, not *less* messages! </oxford> <manchester> I've just nicked your wallet you toff! </manchester> :-) > I'd say that a more useful option would be to add code which > "pings" a server every day with a request for binary security > updates. Oooh.... now we're heading into the realms of Windows Update, and we know how badly that can behave at times. As long as it was completely optional, in fact something that sits in ports and not base, I'd think that would work OK. The problem is, with so many builds out there on so many platforms, linked with so many libraries, you can't just dispatch a list of MD5s and know a particular item is "broken". -- Paul Robinson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?40152488.8070309>