Re: [Cooker] Re: various problems with urpmi options
On Friday, October 18, 2002, at 05:00 AM, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
*But* that wasn't the sig I was talking about...I'm talking gpg
signatures. Sympa corrupts gpg signatures about 30% of the time for
that's another point on which i didn't comment :).
/gc really thinks "down with sympa!"
welcome to the club, my friend... =)
--
MandrakeSoft Security; http://www.mandrakesecure.net/
"lynx - source http://linsec.ca/vdanen.asc | gpg --import"
{FE6F2AFD: 88D8 0D23 8D4B 3407 5BD7 66F9 2043 D0E5 FE6F 2AFD}
PGP.sig
Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] Re: various problems with urpmi options
On Friday, October 18, 2002, at 12:15 AM, Ben Reser wrote:
Nope, I like it when people use them. I can see, at a glance, that
who
I think wrote the message did in fact write the message. I'm not keen
on forgers, nor reading their fake mails, so this is a nice thing to
have. And, I hope, it gives people confidence when reading mail from
me that I did in fact write it.
This discussion happens periodically on the mutt list where about
probably half the posters sign and the other half don't. The ones that
do say they sign all their mail so that people can always verify their
posts. The argument they use is if you only sign on "important" stuff
then the receiver has to second guess if you didn't think the message
important enough to sign or if it's forged.
Fair enough. For myself, the only time I don't sign messages is when I
know the recipient a) doesn't use gpg or b) doesn't use and uses
lookout. The rest of the time, I always sign... I've been doing this
for years and, as I said before, I think people would be suspicious if
I didn't all of a sudden. Of course, I'm the security
para^H^H^H^Hprofessional so I make it a habit. =)
I kinda sit in the middle. I sign based upon the usefulness of the
signature to the receivers. People I know have and use pgp/gpg get
signatures. Lists where the majority are (or should be) using gpg I
sign. Otherwise I don't sign.
On this lists for most people signatures are pointless.
Yup, but I don't really care. =) It's part of my email presence now,
so I leave it. Those few people who have complained, I dismiss out of
hand.
--
MandrakeSoft Security; http://www.mandrakesecure.net/
"lynx - source http://linsec.ca/vdanen.asc | gpg --import"
{FE6F2AFD: 88D8 0D23 8D4B 3407 5BD7 66F9 2043 D0E5 FE6F 2AFD}
PGP.sig
Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] Re: various problems with urpmi options
Vox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Reducing your signature to something more suitable with the > > netiquette would also be good. > > You are right, sorry about that...changed my subscribed email addy > and forgot to change sigs. That's now fixed :P thx > *But* that wasn't the sig I was talking about...I'm talking gpg >signatures. Sympa corrupts gpg signatures about 30% of the time for that's another point on which i didn't comment :). -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] Re: various problems with urpmi options
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 07:50 PM, Levi Ramsey wrote:
Nope, I like it when people use them. I can see, at a glance, that
who
I think wrote the message did in fact write the message. I'm not keen
on forgers, nor reading their fake mails, so this is a nice thing to
have. And, I hope, it gives people confidence when reading mail from
me that I did in fact write it.
Exactly. If someone were to impersonate you on the discuss list or
(say) gc on cooker that could have serious repercussions (which is why
for major contributors and mdk employees, gpg comes in handy). For
someone more like myself, I'm not sure that whether or not I sign my
emails has any bearing on anything...
Fair enough. I suppose it depends on the value that you place on your
own messages for you to determine whether or not it's useful for you to
do. I've been doing it so long that if I stopped now, I think people
would get suspicious =)
Which is why, when I look to change or use another email client, the
first and most important thing is whether or not it supports gpg. =)
Can't live without it.
--
MandrakeSoft Security; http://www.mandrakesecure.net/
"lynx - source http://linsec.ca/vdanen.asc | gpg --import"
{FE6F2AFD: 88D8 0D23 8D4B 3407 5BD7 66F9 2043 D0E5 FE6F 2AFD}
PGP.sig
Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] Re: various problems with urpmi options
On Thu Oct 17 18:47 -0600, Vincent Danen wrote: > > On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 04:05 PM, Levi Ramsey wrote: > > [...] > >GPG encryption is not needed. However, on a mailinglist which is (in > >theory) doing mission critical stuff, I don't think GPG sigs detract in > >any way. > > Nope, I like it when people use them. I can see, at a glance, that who > I think wrote the message did in fact write the message. I'm not keen > on forgers, nor reading their fake mails, so this is a nice thing to > have. And, I hope, it gives people confidence when reading mail from > me that I did in fact write it. Exactly. If someone were to impersonate you on the discuss list or (say) gc on cooker that could have serious repercussions (which is why for major contributors and mdk employees, gpg comes in handy). For someone more like myself, I'm not sure that whether or not I sign my emails has any bearing on anything... -- Levi Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Love lies in pools of questions. GPG Key Fingerprint: 354C 7A02 77C5 9EE7 8538 4E8D DCD9 B4B0 DC35 67CD Currently playing: Stone Temple Pilots - Coma Linux 2.4.19-16mdk 21:40:00 up 14 days, 20:05, 14 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Re: [Cooker] Re: various problems with urpmi options
On Thu Oct 17 16:30 -0700, David Walser wrote: > Well sometimes I see things as actual attachments > (like file.bin or signature.asc), and the message > looks clean, but sometimes I just see ASCII garbage > around the message, and I'm pretty sure that's what > these people are actually sending, messages with ASCII > garbage rather than attachments. In mutt, they all appear to be in the attachment form... then again mutt 0wnz... 8o) -- Levi Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Love lies in pools of questions. GPG Key Fingerprint: 354C 7A02 77C5 9EE7 8538 4E8D DCD9 B4B0 DC35 67CD Currently playing: Stone Temple Pilots - Coma Linux 2.4.19-16mdk 21:40:00 up 14 days, 20:05, 14 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Re: [Cooker] Re: various problems with urpmi options
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 04:05 PM, Levi Ramsey wrote:
[...]
GPG encryption is not needed. However, on a mailinglist which is (in
theory) doing mission critical stuff, I don't think GPG sigs detract in
any way.
Nope, I like it when people use them. I can see, at a glance, that who
I think wrote the message did in fact write the message. I'm not keen
on forgers, nor reading their fake mails, so this is a nice thing to
have. And, I hope, it gives people confidence when reading mail from
me that I did in fact write it.
Now, if sympa would stop rewriting mails and adding stuff, the gpg
signatures would be really useful (not that this happens all the time,
but enough to make it frustrating).
Of course, I choose not to sign my emails (partly because I don't do
anything approaching mission critical on this list), but I can
certainly
see why Vincent (among others sign their emails.
=)
--
MandrakeSoft Security; http://www.mandrakesecure.net/
"lynx - source http://linsec.ca/vdanen.asc | gpg --import"
{FE6F2AFD: 88D8 0D23 8D4B 3407 5BD7 66F9 2043 D0E5 FE6F 2AFD}
PGP.sig
Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] Re: various problems with urpmi options
On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 14:32, David Walser wrote: > --- Vox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > *But* that wasn't the sig I was talking > > about...I'm talking gpg > >signatures. Sympa corrupts gpg signatures about > > And GPG signatures are needed on mailing lists for > what reason? A religious statement about non-repudiation? Seth
Re: [Cooker] Re: various problems with urpmi options
--- Levi Ramsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu Oct 17 14:58 -0700, David Walser wrote: > > --- Levi Ramsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Maybe if you weren't using a poor excuse for a > mail > > > system... > > > > Yes, Yahoo! Mail is a poor excuse for a mail > system, > > but what does that have to do with anything? > > > > > On Thu Oct 17 14:32 -0700, David Walser wrote: > > > > And GPG signatures are needed on mailing lists > for > > > > what reason? > > > > It doesn't answer that question. > > GPG encryption is not needed. However, on a > mailinglist which is (in > theory) doing mission critical stuff, I don't think > GPG sigs detract in > any way. > > Of course, I choose not to sign my emails (partly > because I don't do > anything approaching mission critical on this list), > but I can certainly > see why Vincent (among others sign their emails. Yeah, that certainly makes sense. > > > > GPG garbabe %#$%^$^%&$%Y JLGJBSIO $#@$#^)(@#$ > > > > > > > > message > > > > > > > > GPG garbage > E%U$#Q(%O$#@(ARU(SADGJIAJ$%($FAFJSA > > > > Or that. > > That's a product of the fact that yahoo cannot > handle GPG attachments. > See my earlier comment. Well sometimes I see things as actual attachments (like file.bin or signature.asc), and the message looks clean, but sometimes I just see ASCII garbage around the message, and I'm pretty sure that's what these people are actually sending, messages with ASCII garbage rather than attachments. __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com
[Cooker] Re: various problems with urpmi options
>> 4) broken --list-nodes option >> [root@localhost guillaume]# urpmq --list-nodes >> [root@localhost guillaume]# cat /etc/urpmi/parallel.cfg >> conwar:ssh:conwar11:conwar12 > >Not broken, but I should add a error message, try urpmq --parallel conwar >--list-nodes. > >May I add a default parallel for list-nodes ? Sorry, it is a misunderstanding of mine. I thought it listed all possible values for --parallel, as does --list-media for --media options. So what i need is a --list-parallels option :-) >This is a very laconic list of broken things :-( Sorry about that. Do you prefer me to say i was quite happy to find the --list-media option :-) ? -- Guillaume Rousse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPG key http://lis.snv.jussieu.fr/~rousse/gpgkey.html
Re: [Cooker] Re: various problems with urpmi options
On Thu Oct 17 14:58 -0700, David Walser wrote: > --- Levi Ramsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Maybe if you weren't using a poor excuse for a mail > > system... > > Yes, Yahoo! Mail is a poor excuse for a mail system, > but what does that have to do with anything? > > > On Thu Oct 17 14:32 -0700, David Walser wrote: > > > And GPG signatures are needed on mailing lists for > > > what reason? > > It doesn't answer that question. GPG encryption is not needed. However, on a mailinglist which is (in theory) doing mission critical stuff, I don't think GPG sigs detract in any way. Of course, I choose not to sign my emails (partly because I don't do anything approaching mission critical on this list), but I can certainly see why Vincent (among others sign their emails. > > > It's just a waste of bandwidth: > > It doesn't change that fact. It's not a waste of bandwidth (see above). > > > GPG garbabe %#$%^$^%&$%Y JLGJBSIO $#@$#^)(@#$ > > > > > > message > > > > > > GPG garbage E%U$#Q(%O$#@(ARU(SADGJIAJ$%($FAFJSA > > Or that. That's a product of the fact that yahoo cannot handle GPG attachments. See my earlier comment. -- Levi Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Love lies in pools of questions. GPG Key Fingerprint: 354C 7A02 77C5 9EE7 8538 4E8D DCD9 B4B0 DC35 67CD Currently playing: Stone Temple Pilots - Days of the Week Linux 2.4.19-16mdk 18:00:02 up 14 days, 16:25, 14 users, load average: 0.47, 0.51, 0.38
Re: [Cooker] Re: various problems with urpmi options
--- Levi Ramsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe if you weren't using a poor excuse for a mail > system... Yes, Yahoo! Mail is a poor excuse for a mail system, but what does that have to do with anything? > On Thu Oct 17 14:32 -0700, David Walser wrote: > > And GPG signatures are needed on mailing lists for > > what reason? It doesn't answer that question. > > It's just a waste of bandwidth: It doesn't change that fact. > > GPG garbabe %#$%^$^%&$%Y JLGJBSIO $#@$#^)(@#$ > > > > message > > > > GPG garbage E%U$#Q(%O$#@(ARU(SADGJIAJ$%($FAFJSA Or that. __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com
Re: [Cooker] Re: various problems with urpmi options
On Thu Oct 17 14:32 -0700, David Walser wrote: > And GPG signatures are needed on mailing lists for > what reason? > > It's just a waste of bandwidth: > > GPG garbabe %#$%^$^%&$%Y JLGJBSIO $#@$#^)(@#$ > > message > > GPG garbage E%U$#Q(%O$#@(ARU(SADGJIAJ$%($FAFJSA Maybe if you weren't using a poor excuse for a mail system... -- Levi Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Love lies in pools of questions. GPG Key Fingerprint: 354C 7A02 77C5 9EE7 8538 4E8D DCD9 B4B0 DC35 67CD Currently playing: Monster Magnet - Melt Linux 2.4.19-16mdk 17:40:00 up 14 days, 16:05, 14 users, load average: 0.27, 0.34, 0.31
Re: [Cooker] Re: various problems with urpmi options
--- Vox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > *But* that wasn't the sig I was talking > about...I'm talking gpg >signatures. Sympa corrupts gpg signatures about And GPG signatures are needed on mailing lists for what reason? It's just a waste of bandwidth: GPG garbabe %#$%^$^%&$%Y JLGJBSIO $#@$#^)(@#$ message GPG garbage E%U$#Q(%O$#@(ARU(SADGJIAJ$%($FAFJSA __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com
Re: [Cooker] Re: various problems with urpmi options
This time Guillaume Cottenceau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> becomes daring and writes: > Vox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Could somebody shoot sympa so it'll stop f'ing signatures up? it's >> annoying as all hell :/ > > Reducing your signature to something more suitable with the > netiquette would also be good. You are right, sorry about that...changed my subscribed email addy and forgot to change sigs. That's now fixed :P *But* that wasn't the sig I was talking about...I'm talking gpg signatures. Sympa corrupts gpg signatures about 30% of the time for some reason or another. One of the triggers I've noticed (and I mentioned it to Todd Lyons) is long threads...as soon as a thread hits around 10 emails, all signed email gets its signature broken to hell. I don't think that's a good thing :) Vox -- Think of the Linux community as a niche economy isolated by its beliefs. Kind of like the Amish, except that our religion requires us to use _higher_ technology than everyone else. -- Donald B. Marti Jr. msg79900/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] Re: various problems with urpmi options
--- François Pons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Vox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > This time [EMAIL PROTECTED] (François Pons) > > becomes daring and writes: > > > > > This is a very laconic list of broken things :-( > > > > But it's going to look great in the changelog > when you fix them :) > > Yes, It can be seen that way. Yeah, it'll say "fponsrox" :o). Maybe it'll even be a "double fponsrox combo." :D __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com
Re: [Cooker] Re: various problems with urpmi options
This time Vox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> becomes daring and writes: > This time [EMAIL PROTECTED] (François Pons) > becomes daring and writes: > >> This is a very laconic list of broken things :-( > > But it's going to look great in the changelog when you fix them :) > > Vox, in a good mood GDAMN SYMPA! :P Could somebody shoot sympa so it'll stop f'ing signatures up? it's annoying as all hell :/ Vox, in a not-so-good mood now... -- Think of the Linux community as a niche economy isolated by its beliefs. Kind of like the Amish, except that our religion requires us to use _higher_ technology than everyone else. -- Donald B. Marti Jr. -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GCM d- s:+ a C U P++ L+++ E+ W++ N++ o+ K- w--- O- M- V- PS+ PE Y PGP t 5++ X-- R tv+ b+++ DI++ D--- G e++ h+ r++ y** --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- msg79216/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] Re: various problems with urpmi options
Vox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This time [EMAIL PROTECTED] (François Pons) > becomes daring and writes: > > > This is a very laconic list of broken things :-( > > But it's going to look great in the changelog when you fix them :) Yes, It can be seen that way. François.
Re: [Cooker] Re: various problems with urpmi options
This time [EMAIL PROTECTED] (François Pons) becomes daring and writes: > This is a very laconic list of broken things :-( But it's going to look great in the changelog when you fix them :) Vox, in a good mood -- Think of the Linux community as a niche economy isolated by its beliefs. Kind of like the Amish, except that our religion requires us to use _higher_ technology than everyone else. -- Donald B. Marti Jr. -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GCM d- s:+ a C U P++ L+++ E+ W++ N++ o+ K- w--- O- M- V- PS+ PE Y PGP t 5++ X-- R tv+ b+++ DI++ D--- G e++ h+ r++ y** --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- msg79213/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
[Cooker] Re: various problems with urpmi options
Guillaume Rousse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1) broken --help output > --list missing for urpmq > --help missing for urpmq, urpmf, urpmi.addmedia whereas supported Yes :-( > > 2) unsupported --help option > --help not supported by urpme, urpmi.update, urpmi.removemedia Yes, I have to add them :-( > 3) broken version display > urpmq --help doesn't display urpmq version Problably the same as urpmi before but I even not tested when I fixed urpmi :-( > 4) broken --list-nodes option > [root@localhost guillaume]# urpmq --list-nodes > [root@localhost guillaume]# cat /etc/urpmi/parallel.cfg > conwar:ssh:conwar11:conwar12 Not broken, but I should add a error message, try urpmq --parallel conwar --list-nodes. May I add a default parallel for list-nodes ? This is a very laconic list of broken things :-( François.
