[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ProgSoc] The Joy of Elm
On Mon, 11 May 1998, Andrew Polowczyk wrote:
> For those of you who like elm :) (You're prolly few in number :)
Three if I recall correctly. You are the only one of them who wanted to
recompile it obviously.
> I've updated progsoc's elm to a march98 version so we're basically
> on par with SoCS as far as elm goes and in front of ITD and in
> turn my ISP. :)
Excellent. I wasn't going to recompile it since I don't use it. There is
also a security concern with Elm, check
<URL:http://www.dec.net/~ksrt/adv7.html> and check to see if it is fixed
in the version you have compiled.
> There IS a security concern regarding metamail and there's a CERT
> directive on that (which I got from Francis. Thanks). If anyone
> wants to oogle at it go look at
> On the slip side I didn't find anything about elm itself there.
See above. Apparently the Debian version of Metamail wasn't vulnerable
(metamail uses csh for its shell scripts, which isn't a good idea) so you
may want to start from there.
> And I'll be fixing metamail sometime soonish.
good, apart from mSQL, X11R6.3, TeX, GhostScript, GNU Chess both Geryon
and Ftoomsh will be identical.
`When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to
its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are
forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how
holy the motives' -- Robert A Heinlein, "If this goes on --"
You are subscribed to the progsoc mailing list. To unsubscribe, send a
message containing "unsubscribe" to firstname.lastname@example.org.
If you are having trouble, ask email@example.com for help.
This list is archived at <http://www.progsoc.uts.edu.au/lists/progsoc/>