Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!cadre!pitt!cisunx!cmf
From: cmf@cisunx.UUCP (Carl M. Fongheiser)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: a holiday gift from Robert "wormer" Morris
Message-ID: <13710@cisunx.UUCP>
Date: 16 Nov 88 19:41:01 GMT
References: <1698@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> <2060@spdcc.COM> <76424@sun.uucp> <77604@sun.uucp> <666@hscfvax.harvard.edu>
Reply-To: cmf@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Carl M. Fongheiser)
Distribution: na
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Sys
Lines: 23

In article <666@hscfvax.harvard.edu> pavlov@hscfvax.harvard.edu (G.Pavlov) writes:
>  Note that DEC claims to have closed the door (before the worm).  As far as
>  I know, Vaxen running Ultrix did ok. 
>
>   greg pavlov, fstrf, amherst, ny

That's true, they did.  However, there are enough Ultrix machines on the
Internet which *don't* use Ultrix sendmail that blanket statements about
the safety of Ultrix aren't necessarily trustworthy.

Why don't we run Ultrix sendmail?  Because currently available releases
of Ultrix sendmail don't know how to talk to domain name servers or process
MX records.  I suspect if you asked a number of other people, they'd give
you the same answer.

Ultrix 3.0 is supposed to handle that stuff, so maybe this will all mean
something in the future.

				Carl Fongheiser
				University of Pittsburgh
				...!pitt!cisunx!cmf
				cmf@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu
				cmf@pittunix.BITNET