Re: [hypermail] Does anyone use mail.c

From: kent landfield <>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:53:09 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <>

Peter C. McCluskey writes:
> (kent landfield) writes:
> >Peter C. McCluskey writes:
> >> If you're worried about maintaining the code in mail.c, I'd suggest a
> >> simple way to eliminate the need for further maintainence would be to
> >> reduce the program to a main that just contains a printf.
> >
> >Then what's the difference of simply putting it in a README with a
> >notice that comes up during the latter part of the build that states
> The 2 disadvantages of putting it only in the README are that there's
> no reason to think everyone will read the README, and it will mean we
> will probably feel obligated to make the warning in the README more
> verbose, which would make it harder for people to find other info they
> want.
> Are there any advantages?

Of maintaining and continuing to distribute a piece of code that is insecure and dangerous to a site that runs it ? It's apparent it is not being installed automatically and hasn't been for two years. I personally see no reason to continue to support it due to it's problems. I don't see this as a big deal to remove. I will wait for others to respond since you and I seem to have a reasonable disagreement as to which way to go.

The wu-ftpd build is converting from a "build os" utility to a pure configure environment. They are phasing out support for the "build" method and alert users to that situation during the build. Shortly that message will go away and so will "build" and its related files. They are notifying the user community to be prepared for it's removal. We could do the same thing during the make to alert people we are dropping support for an insecure piece of code that is no longer needed or desired...

Kent Landfield             |  HYPERMAIL: 
Email:  |  RFCS:
Received on Thu 13 Feb 2003 12:53:10 AM GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu 22 Feb 2007 07:33:54 PM GMT GMT