On Aug 22, 10:56*am, DaveG
wrote:
> On Aug 22, 8:41*am, "P. Sture" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article ,
> > *koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote:
>
> > > In article <00A7E75B.E1A3D...@SendSpamHere.ORG>, * VAXman- *@SendSpamHere.ORG
> > > writes:
> > > > FWIW, reading the patch description text (Yes, with my specs on), there
> > > > is nothing to indicate the severity of or need for applying this patch!
> > > > I'd wager that there are sites that will NEVER install this patch unless
> > > > they see some buffer overflow in SMG. *Unless this patch is listed as a
> > > > SECURITY patch, people not following what has been going on here for the
> > > > better part of a week will not install it.
>
> > > * *Yes. *the rating is INSTAL_1, but it should be a MUP!
>
> > I second that 100%!
>
> > --
> > Paul Sture
>
> FWIW, I sent Ann Mc... a comment regarding the MUP Vs Install 1
> thingie.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Got a reply. Was told the SMGRTL patch will become a MUP. Will also
be included as such in the next release of OpenVMS.
They listened.