many old IDs to reject

[jericho < jericho@attrition.org >]

MITRE,

   
    I am adding the board for obvious reasons related to time-tables and
   
   
    transparency. I don't expect this to be prioritized ahead of new IDs, but
   
   
    this should be on your "to-do" list. Once resolved, you can simply respond
   
   
    to this email with the disposition!
   

   
    You have rejected some old 1999 IDs that do not meet criteria for
   
   
    inclusion. e.g.
    
     http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=1999-0614
    
   

   ** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: None.
   Reason: this candidate is solely about a configuration that does not
   directly introduce security vulnerabilities, so it is more
appropriate
   to cover under the Common Configuration Enumeration (CCE). Notes: the
   former description is: "The FTP service is running."

Similar, but still active and should be REJECTed:

https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0613
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0624
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0629
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0632
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0636
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0637
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0638
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0639
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0640
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0641
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0653
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0548

Slightly different but essentially the same argument:

https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0654
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0657
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0662
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0501
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0515
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0523
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0525
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0529
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0530
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0533
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0539
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0555
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0556
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0561
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0570
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0576
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0577
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0578
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0579
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0582
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0583
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0585
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0586
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0594
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0596
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0597
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0454
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0240
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0559
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0550
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0520

   
    Would be valid if it had actional information (e.g. vendor, product,
   
   
    and/or version):
   

https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0220

Missing provenance (Christey would be rolling in his grave):

https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0222
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0232
https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0285

   
    Site-specific, likely the oldest of its kind which is interesting given
   
   
    the recent discussion about including site-specific vulns:
   

https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0750

   
    Like the above, but particularly amusing given where Web browsers are
   
   
    these days =):
   

https://cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-1999-0537

.b