Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:58:11 -0500 From: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net/micq Makefile Message-ID: <200101190158.f0J1wB201566@green.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: Message from Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> of "Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:07:03 PST." <20010118160703.T7240@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> wrote: > * Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> [010118 15:45] wrote: > > kris 2001/01/18 15:45:14 PST > > > > Modified files: > > net/micq Makefile > > Log: > > Remotely exploitable buffer overflow; FORBIDDEN. > > > > Submitted by: recidjvo <recidjvo@pkcrew.org> via Bugtraq > > "Obtained from" he did us no direct favors. Submitted by applies to people, but Obtained from implies that the work to obtain it was done by FreeBSD's committers, therefore I'd say the correct thing in this case would be: Obtained from: Bugtraq (recidjvo <recidjvo@pkcrew.org>) This makes it clear that the report was gotten from a public source but not sent in. Can we make this the accepted form for situations like this, if there are no strong objects? I say strong because I don't want to help create a bikeshed problem... -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! / green@FreeBSD.org `------------------------------' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200101190158.f0J1wB201566>