-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 15:14:01 +0100
Source: ssmtp
Binary: ssmtp
Architecture: source i386
Version: 2.60.4
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Matt Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Matt Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description:
ssmtp
If your countrymen share that sort of attitute it explains why the
USA is in so many wars.
Yeah. We rarely suffer fools gladly.
Stop it, you're killing me. People from the USA describing others as fools.
One only has to look at the dross in US newspapers and TV news bulletins to
understand
Michael Banck wrote:
/me invokes azeem's law[0]. This thread has ended.
[0] Whenever Matt Ryan enters a Flamewar, no more non-value can be added
to it and therefore the thread will die.
I'm not sure why you see my input as non-value? Surely its not the fact that
a bunch of tightly wound geeks
Emile van Bergen wrote:
However, I fail to understand why you want people to refrain from
bringing the netiquette under the attention of the people they are
receiving email from.
Never said they should refrain. I do think that it's a waste of time though.
IOW, if everybody just tries to
As opposed to plowing through your idiotic screed about how people
shouldn't have high standards, which is clearly not a waste of time
since it has important implications for how all developers maintain
their packages, right?
Seems you couldn't resist helping me by extending the thread? But
Josip Rodin wrote:
Well, yeah, sure, but the highway analogy doesn't apply. There isn't a
single technical reason why I as a random person need to ever be in any
sort of contact with a spammer to keep the system running.
There was no mention of spammers in the thread! While they are prone to
Emile van Bergen wrote
I also don't understand the phrase today's Internet world. You mean
with the hordes running Outlook and shopping on the clickable amazing
discoveries / quantum shopping / tell sell channel that's the WWW?
Yes. If you have to interact with them to any great extent then its
Emile van Bergen wrote:
So what do you propose then, to drop everything just because you
cynically point out that a lot of rules are being violated today?
What I'm saying is that (a lot of) these rules are archaic and irrelevant in
today's Internet world. Firstly I doubt any of the people who
Josip Rodin wrote:
Right now we're getting really damn close to anarchy, when everyone and
their dog has the means to entirely obliterate everyone else's mailbox
with
unwanted whatever-they-have-to-say, and sometimes even obliterate their
computer (with viruses).
We have the ability to
Neil McGovern wrote:
These are all valid points, however, I still don't want to read HTML
e-mail in mutt.
You are figting a losing battle. If the MUA that someone uses is set-up to
send HTML (rich test, whatever) email then you are highly unlikely to get
them to change it. Some devices (cable
Andreas Metzler wrote:
Hello,
Which does not matter at all. This memo does not specify an Internet
standard of any kind. having it distributed as RFC is just a
convenience, because searching for rcf1855 on google will find
perfect hits en masse.
Hello,
Finding it is not the problem. As I
[He who should not be named wrote]
That .sig is problematic beyond just its content; it is 12 lines long and
adds almost 1kb to each of your messages (probably longer than the
contents
of many messages). Refer to RFC 1855 or any other netiquette document for
further information.
With
[Some dude called Manoj (I think) did produce such utterances recently]
You may be enured to unsubstantiated accusations of
plagiarism, theft, idiocy, and worse, but please allow me the right of
umbrage at such.
I apologise for accusing Manoj of having a prune up his rear. It's clear to
me
Apologies, 'reply-all' is not clever enough in Outlook Express to
evaluate the sender preference on being copied on list emails. Any
suggestions for a MUA that can perform this feat are appreciated.
Any mailer that honours the Mail-Followup-To: header that I set would do
nicely. There are
True, however it seems clear that he is not running Debian.
This is the case as you have noticed.
(the irony is almost too much to bear)
Why? I have 5 PC's here (at home) and 4 of them run Debian (mixture of
stable, testing and unstable). I have one Windows box that I use for email
and web
No offence taken. I joined when Debian wasn't run by anal
retentives. Sure there was the whole free software part - but not
the SS Nazi version of free software that is being prompted
recently. I have to say that I'm beginning to think that your
assessment is right and I should find a
The difficulty of their character unfortunately often seems to correlate
with
the important of their software. ;) So even if the upstreams sometimes
heats
up easily, please spend extra patience on them for the sake of the users.
Pretty please.. I'd really hate to lose something like Reiserfs
Ah, pissing contest. OK, I have been building TeX since 1989,
when we used to buy tapes and compile TeX on a dozen Unix systems at
the university. This was before TeTeX, before Debian, and even Before
Linux. So, I have 14 years of experience with TeX -- how much more do
I need to have to
Perhaps it would, if it had not come on the tails of a string of
unwarranted
insults against other developers (most of whom seem to agree with my ideas
on the technical subject under discussion).
The closest I got to an insult was accusing Manoj of having a prune up his
rear. In comparison I
I would like to point out that support for the Mail-Followup-To header
is not required. It is sufficient that the mail client lets you edit the
headers before sending the mail. This works in all mail clients I'm
aware of, even if some of them make things a bit awkward.
Trouble is I need to
Unfortunately your choice is rather weak and doesn't back up your argument
so I feel obliged to continue the thread a bit further (plus its giving my
brain some exercise).
[Oh yeah, the quotes are from some developer who's name I've promised not to
use in my emails]
...and telling Ben Collins
Dude,
You really need to calm down. Twice now recently you have opened
your
mouth and stuck your foot in when there really wasn't any need to. Take
a
Valium and do something less stressful.
Are you talking to me?
You are the one with the foot hanging out of your mouth so by a
Conside rthis: when considering input from a ``jumped up
developer'' who has demonstrated competence and has put in the effort
like Joey Hess, and has intituted a couple of major changes in how
Debian works, and an unknown twit, guess who am I going to listen to?
Yawn. I don't know and I
Heh. First you bad mouth Joey Hess. And now you go up against
Ben Collins. And both times you take what I consider impolitic
stances that show poor judgment (even ignoring the fact that you
are, with nothing whatsoever to back it up) some of the most
respected developers in Debian.
I
No offense, but I think you joined the wrong project, then.
No offence taken. I joined when Debian wasn't run by anal retentives. Sure
there was the whole free software part - but not the SS Nazi version of free
software that is being prompted recently. I have to say that I'm beginning
to think
Um, no. *Policy* says that it may not be used as a registry.
[SNIPPED LONG DIATRIBE THAT DOES NOT PROVE THE ABOVE STATEMENT]
Sure, you delete the registry things should still work. Did I say anything
different? You are making a long tenuous link to prove your point which I
don't subscribe to.
BTW the opinion of this jumped-up developer is please don't send me
private copies of posts to mailing lists. Thanks.
Apologies, 'reply-all' is not clever enough in Outlook Express to evaluate
the sender preference on being copied on list emails. Any suggestions for a
MUA that can perform this
What is not helpful is when a developer gets a bad case of NOMUS
(Not On My UNIX System) and goes off on one about how perfectly the
world would be if everyone agreed with their narrow definition of
the 'correct' way to do things. The recent /run debate was another
example of this
Enough already.
Folks, if you don't stop abusing debconf with useless notes that belong
in README.Debian and config file overwriting, I will stop maintaining
it.
Stop slapping incorrect uses of debconf in everywhere. Feel free to run
any package using debconf by me before you upload it, or take
Personally I use the ask-about-overwrite question in debconf because the
last time this thread came up the only sensible solution was put forward in
the attached email. Now, I'm all for a better solution when it is determined
what that is, *but* I'm not for a witch hunt based on what was seen to
Or maybe realize that Joey might perhaps know what he's talking about
with regard to debconf ... you could go find the text of his talk at the
last Debian Conference if you like.
I realise he has an opinion on how things should be done. Depending on your
own viewpoint this may be more
Now I hope you stop with your trolling and consider speaking
respectfully to us. I am pretty sure that if you emailed the maintainer
of the package and pointed out the facts to him, he would revert the
change.
Dude,
You really need to calm down. Twice now recently you have opened your
Secondly, this isnot a witch hunt. What is being done is that
a policy violation in older practice is being pointed
out. Alternatives are being discussed; a witch hunt would have
involved mass RC bug filings.
The TEX discussion is definitely in witchunt territory. Maintainers (on the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 17:37:17 +
Source: ssmtp
Binary: ssmtp
Architecture: source i386
Version: 2.60.3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Matt Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Matt Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description:
ssmtp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:22:21 +0100
Source: ssmtp
Binary: ssmtp
Architecture: source i386
Version: 2.60.2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Matt Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Matt Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description:
ssmtp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:22:21 +0100
Source: ssmtp
Binary: ssmtp
Architecture: source i386
Version: 2.60.1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Matt Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Matt Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description:
ssmtp
36 matches
Mail list logo
