On 04/27/2016 05:20 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > While older versions of the Bourne Shell are not POSIX compliant, recent > versions only miss the feature "arithmetic expansion" and are otherwise > probably closer to POSIX than bash or dash. Note that "dash" does not support > multi-byte characters and thus cannot be certified for a full UNIX system but > only for embedded UNIX systems. That's good to know. But, since there seem to be several forks of Bourne shell, currently, is there a reference for the differences between them? > As far as I can see, this was related to "mailx" and not to the shell. I looked for substantiation of the original claim that the bourne shell had security problems. Apparently I should have looked closer. Thanks for catching that.