[HipShot]

That's specific to your situation, and should be treated as such each and every time.

I got caught twice on a mail server with updates that broke functionality. In one case, a clamav update required a larger allocation of resources for threading, but it wasn't mentioned. As clamav didn't return an error code to qmail-scanner, all mail was delivered, infected or not.

On the other occasion, the perl suid "fix" required a minor change to my inbound and outbound qmail-scanner scripts, which actually delayed mail for awhile.

Patches can be a nightmare, but even so I'd much rather deal with undocumented issues than expose my doze users.

[Bush2000]

That's specific to your situation, and should be treated as such each and every time.

I only pointed it out because it contradicted your previous statement:

" That may be true for windows boxes, but there is no reason to ignore patching a linux box. There is not the risk of breakage that exists with windows patches."