Re: Security in sarge

2004-09-29 Thread Steve Langasek
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 02:13:50PM +0200, Tobias Stefan Richter wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 05:12:15PM +0200, Tobias Stefan Richter wrote: > > > > rlpr is in the same state as pavuk above. > > > I didn't look into pavuk, but rlpr has as far as I see no weird state

Bug#237370: Info received (was pgp5i)

2004-09-29 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this problem report. It has been forwarded to the package maintainer(s) and to other interested parties to accompany the original report. Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s): <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> If you wish

Re: pgp5i

2004-09-29 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Aug 06, Ian Beckwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > After asking on debian-security, it appears that there is still a > demand for pgp in debian. Although gpg provides a superset of > features, it doesn't have IDEA support compiled in (it is > patent-encumbered) but pgp, as it is non-US/non-free,

Re: Security in sarge

2004-09-29 Thread Tobias Stefan Richter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 05:12:15PM +0200, Tobias Stefan Richter wrote: > > > rlpr is in the same state as pavuk above. > > > I didn't look into pavuk, but rlpr has as far as I see no weird state. > > You seem to be right, though previous attempts to cleanly remove this

Re: Security in sarge

2004-09-29 Thread Steve Langasek
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 05:12:15PM +0200, Tobias Stefan Richter wrote: > >> > pavuk (unfixed; bug #264684) for DSA-527 > > > >> pavuk 0.9pl28-3 fixed that. #264684 is left open only for the other > >> security hole mentioned there. We might need a DSA for that hole.. > >> I'm not explicitly trackin