On Wed, 30 May 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
J.A. Bezemer wrote:
What about making a few task-* packages standard and have tasksel pre-select
them by default? (I.e. start with [X] instead of [ ])
That's not a bad idea.
Another thing: will it still be _easy_ to install a small system
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:46:13AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
Here's a provisional list of packages which are standard or higher and
should not be:
fingerd not very secure for baseline
ftpd not very secure for baseline
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:46:13AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
Here's a provisional list of packages which are standard or higher and
should not be:
fingerd not very secure for baseline
ftpd not very secure for baseline
talk rather obsolete, but debatable
* Vince Mulhollon
| On 05/15/2001 08:00:09 AM exa wrote:
|
| What about closing all the ports by default? The user can open them by
| himself if he wants to anyway. Security fans would really be happy then.
|
| Still have the vulnerable, exploitable binaries. All you have to do it get
|
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 04:00:09PM +0300, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
I sometimes have the feeling that too much security is breaking many
convenient features. It would be wrong to put in a program with known
vulnerabilities, but except that I don't see why you would want to
remove useful small
On 05/15/2001 08:00:09 AM exa wrote:
What about closing all the ports by default? The user can open them by
himself if he wants to anyway. Security fans would really be happy then.
Still have the vulnerable, exploitable binaries. All you have to do it get
root and open the talkd ports once,
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 04:28:37PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
You are assuming that talkd have buffer overflows, but you have no
proof of it.
Of course a reasonably paranoid person would assume that buffer
overflows exist and mitigate the risk as appropriate. Unless you can
*prove* that
On 05/15/2001 09:28:37 AM tfheen wrote:
You are assuming that talkd have buffer overflows, but you have no
proof of it. And talk is rwxr-xr-x, so what would you win by an
overflow on a local host? And I doubt that there are many bugs in a
daemon which is less than 10k big.
Perhaps it's
Previously Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
You are assuming that talkd have buffer overflows, but you have no
proof of it. And talk is rwxr-xr-x, so what would you win by an
overflow on a local host? And I doubt that there are many bugs in a
daemon which is less than 10k big.
Security works the
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
* Michael Stone
| On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 01:08:17PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| |talk rather obsolete, but debatable
| |talkd not very secure for baseline
|
| I want those. They are very useful, and afaik, there are no security
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Emacs is not `the standard editor', it is just one of the two most popular
ones. More importantly, we need an editor in the b-f that everyone can
use easily without having to know emacs, vi or any other editor.
The first thing I involuntarily discovered in vi was the
* Michael Stone
| On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 01:08:17PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| |talk rather obsolete, but debatable
| |talkd not very secure for baseline
|
| I want those. They are very useful, and afaik, there are no security
| problems with talkd.
|
|
* Michael Stone
| On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 03:16:53PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| IMHO, a system without talk and talkd is too limited. Have it only
| listen on loopback, if security is the problem.
|
| That's YHO. I obviously disagree. :)
:)
| I haven't used talk in years, and you
what's the alternative, voting? :-)
(seriously, I use talk regularly - securely even: two people ssh to
a common machine, and run talk there :-) I'd probably be happy with
any equivalent user-to-user real-time messaging tool, but write is
kind of gross, and everything else seems to try to be
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 01:08:17PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
|talk rather obsolete, but debatable
|talkd not very secure for baseline
I want those. They are very useful, and afaik, there are no security
problems with talkd.
This is about you, it's about the
Adam Di Carlo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
`standard'
These packages provide a reasonably small but not too limited
character-mode system. This is what will install by default if
the user doesn't select anything else. It doesn't include many
large
Previously Wolfgang Sourdeau wrote:
Another argument is that zile is kind of a stripped-down version of
Emacs, and Emacs is the standard editor for the GNU system, which I am
sure most of the people on this list are using.
Emacs is not `the standard editor', it is just one of the two most
Wolfgang == Wolfgang Sourdeau [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
what do you think to include as basic editor? vim? and elvis-tiny
for boot-floopies?
Wolfgang I am just experiencing zile and I find it quite good. And,
Wolfgang btw, it is meant primarily for boot floppies. Another
Wolfgang
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 11:33:30AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
rblcheck why standard?
exim use this? i don't know
There would be a dependency between them if it did.
mtoolsonly usefull for dos users
Considering of the number of DOS-formatted floppy disks in
Bastian == Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[1 text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)]
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:46:13AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
aenot used as basic editor anymore, everyone seems to hate it
what do you think to include as basic editor? vim? and
Woody installation (via boot-floppies, base-config, tasksel, apt) will
change from Potato in that, normally, all packages marked as standard
will be marked for installation.
Citing Policy:
`standard'
These packages provide a reasonably small but not too limited
On Sat, 12 May 2001 03:46:13 -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
exim we should move to postfix, IMHO
Let's not go over this again, but why change at all if it is
working ok? We should all have better things than to worry
about such things.
-ako
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Previously Adam Di Carlo wrote:
exim we should move to postfix, IMHO
FWIW, I disagree, and I'ld like to see some really good arguments before
we make a change like that.
Wichert.
--
/ Generally uninteresting
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:46:13AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
exim we should move to postfix, IMHO
Whilst I agree with you on all the others. postfix is 3 times the size
of exim, and a fraction harder to configure. (This isn't meant as
flamebait.)
--
Paul Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 01:13:54PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Emacs is not `the standard editor', it is just one of the two most popular
ones. More importantly, we need an editor in the b-f that everyone can
use easily without having to know emacs, vi or any other editor.
I seem to have
* Bastian Blank
| On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:46:13AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
|aenot used as basic editor anymore, everyone seems to hate it
|
| what do you think to include as basic editor? vim? and elvis-tiny for
| boot-floopies?
nano-tiny
This has been decided alreay,
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:46:13AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
Here's a provisional list of packages which are standard or higher and
should not be:
exim we should move to postfix, IMHO
Just for education's sake, what are the reasons you hold this opinion?
I use exim simply
On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 12:42:01AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:46:13AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
Here's a provisional list of packages which are standard or higher and
should not be:
exim we should move to postfix, IMHO
Just for education's
On 12 May 2001, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
libident why? not used by other std package, pidentd
rblcheck why standard?
These are used by exim IIRC.
Simon
--
GPG public key available from http://phobos.fs.tum.de/pgp/Simon.Richter.asc
Fingerprint: DC26 EB8D 1F35 4F44 2934 7583
from the secret journal of Drew Parsons ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Just for education's sake, what are the reasons you hold this opinion?
I use exim simply because it came standard. I'd like to know why postfix is
better.
http://www.postfix.org/motivation.html
Postfix is a little bigger on
Previously Jacob Kuntz wrote:
http://www.postfix.org/motivation.html
From what I hear:
postfix does not do IPv6
postfix does not do TLS (not officialy and juding by comments on
#debian-devel from today not reliably either)
postfix header rewriting isn't flexible
postfix uses multiple files
I'm a simple user,
I think after install Debian base, switch from exim to
postfix is just a matter of apt-get install!
Regards, Paulo Henrique
Quoting Wichert Akkerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Previously Jacob Kuntz wrote:
http://www.postfix.org/motivation.html
From what
WA postfix does not do IPv6
WA postfix does not do TLS (not officialy and juding by comments on
WA#debian-devel from today not reliably either)
Recently there was released new stable version of postfix. It does
support TLS. AFAIK it doesn't support IPV6 out of box right now. There
is exist
Bastian Blank wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:46:13AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
aenot used as basic editor anymore, everyone seems to hate it
what do you think to include as basic editor? vim? and elvis-tiny for
boot-floopies?
The editor for boot floppies doesnt have
On 12 May 2001, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
Wolfgang == Wolfgang Sourdeau [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
what do you think to include as basic editor? vim? and elvis-tiny
for boot-floopies?
Wolfgang I am just experiencing zile and I find it quite good. And,
Wolfgang btw, it is meant
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 01:13:54PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Wolfgang Sourdeau wrote:
Another argument is that zile is kind of a stripped-down version of
Emacs, and Emacs is the standard editor for the GNU system, which I am
sure most of the people on this list are using.
On Sat, 12 May 2001, Wolfgang Sourdeau wrote:
Bastian == Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[1 text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)]
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:46:13AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
aenot used as basic editor anymore, everyone seems to hate it
what
Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:46:13AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
rcs few use it
replace it with cvs
rcs and cvs solve very different problems. They are by no means
equivalent, and I use both, and I know lots of people who use both on a
38 matches
Mail list logo
