--=-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--