On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 19:33, Joey Hess wrote:
> Today I noticed those summaries were getting spamassassing scores in the
> 30 range. I ended up whitelisting myself, though that doesn't feel like
> a good idea -- now SA might mislearn spam subjects as ham, and any
> spammer who forges mail from me
On Jun 13, Daniel Jacobowitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 06:02:02PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:20:37 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > said:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 08:40:47PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
Duncan Findlay wrote:
> The only negative rules will be: bayesian rules, bondedsender and
> habeas. Figuring how to autolearn ham (non-spam) is the only obstacle
> we still need to figure out.
This is fairly off topic, but the other day I tired of downloading all
my spam to check it for false posi
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Good point. Shall we mandate that all bug closures be adequately
> >> documented in the ChangeLog? I would be quite happy with that.
> I do think bug closures be documented in the ChangeLog (I
> shall attempt to do so from now on for every real bug that is close
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 04:04:55PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:36:24 +0100, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 11:42:44PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Good point. Shall we mandate that all bug closures be adequately
> >> documented
By the way some folks live in countries considered spam countries by
other people, and they can't get a email in edgewise to the high class
users.
By the way how about my http://jidanni.org/comp/spam/spamdealer.html
solution for the little guy, remote and without root.
--
http://jidanni.org/ Taiw
hey do you happen to know the world record for f1 2000...time trial at indianapolis
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:36:24 +0100, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 11:42:44PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 08:36:20 +1000, Herbert Xu
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> If it caused a Debia
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 19:51:07 +1000, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 11:42:44PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>>> > What if the bug was reported after the new Debian package was
>>> > uploaded? Why does it suddenly stop
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 04:43:53PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> > The only negative rules will be: bayesian rules, bondedsender and
> > habeas. Figuring how to autolearn ham (non-spam) is the only obstacle
> > we still need to figure out.
>
> Sure soun
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:18:49 +1000, Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:06, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > There is no excuse for this. Access to servers that are not in
>> > spam lists is well available to Debian developers. I tunnel my
>> > outgoing mail through a s
J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
>On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 18:44:12 +0200, Jacob Hallén wrote:
>> I have written a little Python program that analyses
>> http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/update_excuses.html
>> to find out where the bottlenecks are for packages going into testing.
>> Essentially, it is
On Friday 13 June 2003 05:13 pm, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Oh, what the hell. This damn song won't get out of my head, so now you
> all get to be subjected to it to[1]:
FWIW, the original version of this song has also been in my head for weeks.
Thanks for digging up the full text :)
> 1: Misery lo
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> The only negative rules will be: bayesian rules, bondedsender and
> habeas. Figuring how to autolearn ham (non-spam) is the only obstacle
> we still need to figure out.
Sure sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater... but I
presume you all a
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 03:46:13PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Now, if we changed sarge to use g++-c102 (as I briefly suggested),
> would that prevent this problem in sarge+1 or sarge+2 or whenever the
> ABI changes again?
no, because we WANT the packages beeing build with the new abi. We
Quoting Krzysztof Kajkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm intending to move to SID from my woody box. I was wondering what
> problems should I expect while building packages using new gcc 3.3. Does
> kernel 2.4.21 build correctly? What about other progs like mplayer,
> mozilla etc? Can I install gcc
On Monday, Jun 16, 2003, at 11:04 US/Eastern, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Which, of course, does not help with the situation he originally
reported
(building a woody package on testing with a newer compiler than was
originally used). Time travel is still required there. :-)
Agreed. To fix Woody require
On Monday, Jun 16, 2003, at 14:59 US/Eastern, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
it works in this case if you build all the packages your package
depends on,
like the build is doing, because in that case apt wopuld habe been new
abi,
too.
Yeah, but then again, its quite superfluous in that situation, too.
D
On Monday, Jun 16, 2003, at 02:50 US/Eastern, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Build-Depends: g++ (>= 3:3.2.2-0)
Many transitioned packages use(d) this to guarantee that the correct
compiler was used.
That doesn't guarantee the correct compiler. It could, for example, use
gcc 3.4 which could have yet anothe
Hi,
I want to gain some insight in how well my bayesian spam filter [1,2]
works over time and, hence, want to plot the trends of my regular inbox
in comparison to my spambox (that is, the spam properly identified as
spam) and the false negatives (not identified as spam).
The statistics as ge
Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> >
> > The 127th Ferengi rule of acquisition: Even if you got it for
> > free, you paid too much.
>
> But the Rule 37th says otherwise: "If it's free, take it and worry
> about hidden costs later".
>
> But the 96th confi
On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 20:14, John Hasler wrote:
> Martin List-Petersen writes:
> > So anybody that has got a copy of the written offer can go to SCO
and
> > require the Source, even if they didn't buy the Product.
>
> However, if SCO fails to comply only the copyright owner can sue.
That is corre
Hello!
I'm intending to move to SID from my woody box. I was wondering what
problems should I expect while building packages using new gcc 3.3. Does
kernel 2.4.21 build correctly? What about other progs like mplayer,
mozilla etc? Can I install gcc 3.2 (f.egz. from testing)?
regards
cayco
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 11:04:17AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Which, of course, does not help with the situation he originally reported
> (building a woody package on testing with a newer compiler than was
> originally used). Time travel is still required there. :-)
it works in this case if y
Martin List-Petersen writes:
> So anybody that has got a copy of the written offer can go to SCO and
> require the Source, even if they didn't buy the Product.
However, if SCO fails to comply only the copyright owner can sue.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwo
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 10:03:45AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 11:19:10PM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> > FWIW, the next version of spamassassin (2.60) will have no forgeable
> > negatively scoring rules. (ETA early-mid July)
>
> Just out of curiosity, how will this be acc
On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 12:36, Colin Watson wrote:
> I can't see any basis for the Inquirer's claim that anyone with a copy
> of Linux could sue. If SCO copied GPLed code into UnixWare, then the GPL
> only requires them to provide the source to those to whom they
> distribute object code or executab
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 11:31:27PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 02:38:47PM -0500, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> > 2 ocaml status?
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200304/msg00986.html
> > and bug 187155. Done?
>
> Done! OCaml 3.06 has successfu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 16 June 2003 09:12, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> # echo x86-64 >>/etc/dpkg/legal-archs
>
> or, if ordering matters,
>
> # echo x86-64 >/etc/dpkg/legal-archs.new
> # cat /etc/dpkg/legal-archs >>/etc/dpkg/legal-archs.new
> # mv /etc/dpkg/legal-ar
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> SuSv3 aka POSIX was released one year ago.
Huh? POSIX is the same as SUSv3 now? They used to be separate.
--
Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - I am the rocks.
Looking for a developer in St. Louis? http://web.springies.com/~ats/
Ten animals I slam in a
Hi,
Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 09:19:19PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > Stock OpenOffice seem to be able to embedd java applets into
> > documents. RedHat nuked this.
>
> And we can't do the same because ... ???
We have done that (as Jan wrote.)
Building n
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 08:50:59AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Build-Depends: g++ (>= 3:3.2.2-0)
>
> Many transitioned packages use(d) this to guarantee that the correct
> compiler was used.
Which, of course, does not help with the situation he originally reported
(building a woody package o
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 07:51:07PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Which just proves that listing things in the changelog on the basis of bug
> reports is meaningless.
No, it only shows that it is not possible under some circumstances:
specifically, when there was no bug report at the time. To say th
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 11:37:00AM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> > Given the ammount of spam that I get delived to my account via Debian
> > machines, I guess the reduction in bandwidth usage by master and murphy
> > is not to be taken lightly.
>
> The reduction happens in the output,
Which is
Le lun 16/06/2003 à 11:44, José Luis Tallón a écrit :
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9952
>
> OK, it's the inquirer
>
>
> It it was proved to be true, shouldn't we *all* Linux users ( as well as
> Stallman plus the FSF as a whole ) sue SCO for copyright infringement ???
> That could
Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 19:37, Jesus Climent wrote:
> > > account via Debian machines, I guess the reduction in bandwidth usage
> > > by master and murphy is not to be taken lightly.
> >
> > The bandwidth reduction will only happen if you decide to disc
[Please avoid posting messages that aren't about Debian development to
-devel. Moved to -curiosa, although -project or -legal would probably be
OK too.]
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 11:44:41AM +0200, Jos? Luis Tall?n wrote:
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9952
>
> OK, it's the inquirer
>
>
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 19:37, Jesus Climent wrote:
> > account via Debian machines, I guess the reduction in bandwidth usage
> > by master and murphy is not to be taken lightly.
>
> The bandwidth reduction will only happen if you decide to discard the mail,
> since the mail will always be accepted,
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> SuSv3 aka POSIX was released one year ago.
>
>And changed nothing in the Lex definitions. As I said, we are
> dealing with decades old design.
Hmm you must've missed section 1.1 :)
The entire document is aligned with ISO/IEC 9899: 1.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> Hello people,
>
> I propose to restructure the vim package so that it builds fewer vim
> variants.
>
> I propose to have only the following:
> vim (aka vim-tiny; no interpreters, no docs)
> kvim (including all non-threaded interpreters;
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 11:42:44PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>> > What if the bug was reported after the new Debian package was
>> > uploaded? Why does it suddenly stop being a significant change?
This is meant to be a rhetorical question.
> My a
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 11:37:00AM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> The bandwidth reduction will only happen if you decide to discard the
> mail, since the mail will always be accepted, scanned to find the IP
> which originated the message, the IP will be checked agains the
> database and then th
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9952
OK, it's the inquirer
It it was proved to be true, shouldn't we *all* Linux users ( as well as
Stallman plus the FSF as a whole ) sue SCO for copyright infringement ???
That could be *quite funny*
Regards,
J.L.
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 02:17:23PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Read a previous message by Duncan Findlay. He said that 39.2668% of
> all the spam might be blocked by using the DSBL, but doing that you
> would block 0.0185% of ham.
I just ran a quick test on my current email folders. At the
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 03:39:00PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> Hi.
[...]
I might thing I spoke BS on my proposal, since I have not heard any
comments...
mooch
--
Jesus Climent | Unix SysAdm | Helsinki, Finland | pumuki.hispalinux.es
GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429 7E18 66FC 1D
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 11:20:12PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 02:18:57AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > How can they say "no" to using some of them in /warn mode ... ?
>
> Santiago holds that more than half of the spam could be eventually
> avoided. I'd ver
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 11:42:44PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 08:36:20 +1000, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> If it caused a Debian bug to be closed, that is a significant
> >> change in status for the Debian packa
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 10:11:22PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > Given that it's been pointed out that the MTA supports per-user bouncing
> > of mail from open relays, and that it's very possible to use LDAP to
> > provide easy management of per-user preferences, why is there any need
> > to cont
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 11:19:10PM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> FWIW, the next version of spamassassin (2.60) will have no forgeable
> negatively scoring rules. (ETA early-mid July)
Just out of curiosity, how will this be accomplished?
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> Hello people,
>
> I propose to restructure the vim package so that it builds fewer vim
> variants.
>
> I propose to have only the following:
> vim (aka vim-tiny; no interpreters, no docs)
> kvim (including all non-threaded interpreters; kde support
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 07:33:35AM +0200, Xavier Roche wrote:
> Then, a nice thing would be on Debian, for a regular user/administrator:
>
> - switch the disks to a Opteron box
> - update the APT sources to a "Opteron" source, or to a "Opteron
> migration" source
> - then, use something like
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> That could be. Somehow, the C++ ABI would have to be added to the
> Build-Dependency information. Either that, or C++ packages would have
> to use a specific C++ ABI compiler, e.g.,
> (control)
>Build-Depends: c102, ...
[...]
Build-D
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 11:45:17AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
>If some number of Debian developers utilizing blocking that has a
>false positive rate of as high as 2 per day by some estimates, do we
>as a body consider it acceptable if som
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:06, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > There is no excuse for this. Access to servers that are not in spam
> > lists is well available to Debian developers. I tunnel my outgoing
> > mail through a server in Melbourne no matter where I am, this avoids
> > all issues of spam blockin
Ok, a bit late in this thread, but just a small remark on the future
Opteron port : we have to take a *great* care of the migration process.
The main difference betweek Intel-64 and AMD-64, if I am correct, is that
administrators can unplug their ix86 disk from the server, and replug it
on a opte
dien dan dau tu va so huu tri tue: http://www.luatgiapham.com
dien dan dau tu va so huu tri tue: http://www.luatgiapham.com
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:43:48 +1000, Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:11, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> false positive rate of as high as 2 per day by some estimates, do
>> we as a body consider it acceptable if some percentage of Debian
>> developers:
>>
>> 1) Don't rece
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 08:36:20 +1000, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Even if the bug is for upstream fixing a typo in a comment? :)
>>
>> If it caused a Debian bug to be closed, that is a significant
>> change in status for the Debian packa
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 13:22:24 +1000, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I can understand the unease. But consider this: POSIX is already
>> over a decade old; and it standardized practices that were
> SuSv3 aka POSIX was released one year ago.
60 matches
Mail list logo
