--=-29G4XKOJ18SnWRA5HVp5
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 04:13, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
> Michael Nottebrock wrote:
>=20
> > [...]
> > However, it seems to me that marking ports FORBIDDEN for security=20
> > reasons is more or less obsoleted (and made redundant) by=20
> > portaudit/VuXML and committers having to hand-scan VuXML for updates an=
d=20
> > mark ports FORBIDDEN by hand just seems like duplicated (and=20
> > error-prone) work... so maybe it's time to to away with marking ports=20
> > FORBIDDEN for security reasons completely?
>=20
> I think portmgr@ is the authority here. CC'ed.
Since VuXML is still optional, and newbies will not be likely to have
it, I believe we still should be marking ports FORBIDDEN for security
reasons. Better to wear a belt and suspenders.
Joe
--=20
PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc
--=-29G4XKOJ18SnWRA5HVp5
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQBAaZ8mb2iPiv4Uz4cRAumnAKCbFwboM3uHaJKt6yjdYI2GIHpChQCgrMop
R4QPzfAkPhlhNEf6PJf4QZE=
=4amf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-29G4XKOJ18SnWRA5HVp5--