On May 15, Richard A Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But, yes, 8.11.0.Beta1 *IS* linked against libssl09 ;-{
This is bad, because then the sendmail package depends on something
outside main.
(mutt does not.)
--
ciao,
Marco
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 12:45:46PM -0400, Richard A Nelson wrote:
> What is the current policy wrt crypto and US? and if there isn't one,
> what should be done with sendmail (and others - fetchmail *SHOULD* be
> compiled with SSL feature, but isn't).
I'll make a fetchmail-ssl package if noone els
On May 15, Richard A Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I just realized that the sendmail update I made this weekend
>8.11.0.Beta1 should probably be removed from its home in US/Extra/Mail
>because the source (and binary) has hooks for SASL and TLS.
Mutt >= 1.1 has TLS and Kerberos hooks too.
Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, May 13, 2000 at 01:05:42PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > > Two things I'd like to see done with the virtual package system:
>
> > > 1. Define APIs for all virtual packages.
>
> > > 2. Tie virtu
On Mon, 15 May 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
> SASL is not regarded as cryptography. It is merely a module layer, and has
> no real crypto of it's own. IIRC, the libcyrus-sasl in woody does not
> contain any crypto modules. AFA TLS, did you link against libssl09? If
> not, you have nothing to worry abo
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 12:45:46PM -0400, Richard A Nelson wrote:
> I just realized that the sendmail update I made this weekend
> 8.11.0.Beta1 should probably be removed from its home in US/Extra/Mail
> because the source (and binary) has hooks for SASL and TLS.
SASL is not regarded as cryptogra
I just realized that the sendmail update I made this weekend
8.11.0.Beta1 should probably be removed from its home in US/Extra/Mail
because the source (and binary) has hooks for SASL and TLS.
Whilst operating on a caffiene deficiency, I didn't realize this would
fall under the new laws... I just
7 matches
Mail list logo
