Bug#1043539: project: Forwarding of @debian.org mails to gmail broken
On Aug 14, Stephen Frost wrote: >If someone has some idea how to get them to care about ARC, I'd love to >hear about it, as I have folks on the one hand who view DKIM/DMARC as >too painful to set up but then they end up with bounces from gmail due >to my forwarding of messages through my server (which are being >ARC-signed by it and pass on that the SPF check was successful when they >arrived to my server)... I do not know of any situation in which DMARC adoption would improve deliverability, and most people that configure it are just engaging in cargo cult sysadmining. DMARC with p=reject is useful when the sender domain is a phishing victim, e.g. a financial organization, but most users do not need it. In other words: if these people want to support use cases like forwarding and participating to mailing lists then they should adopt DKIM and ignore DMARC. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm?
g.branden.robin...@gmail.com wrote: >I'd like to quote a friend of mine who fights a lot of these battles. Great insight. >Thank you! I remember getting into a lot of arguments with you back in >the day. I can't remember what any of them was about. 藍 Mostly you and a few other people adding new meanings to the DFSG. :-) >> - the outcome is sad >Did you see the part where I ITA-ed fortune-mod? No, that's good. But actually my main complaint is about the (total lack) of process in how an outcome was reached. -- ciao, Marco
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm?
to...@tuxteam.de wrote: >I'd be careful in that: Debian's user (and contributor) base has >expanded a lot since Day Zero (or well, I've been looking at it >since Day One or so). Nowadays there are probably believing Muslims >or national Chinese around, who may be hurt by things "we", >steeped in white male western culture we may not even see. So the >ability to listen, to overcome the "nah, that ain't so bad" first >reaction becomes ever more important. I have been around long enough to remember when in 2004 a very prominent developer of Chinese origins hurriedly left the project when the d-i (?) team refused to mention Taiwan in the way he preferred. So, there is not much that we have not already seen... I am late to this thread, so I will just say that: - I appreciate a lot of what Branden and Sam wrote here - people complaining about "cancel culture" are often idiots - I have other fights to deal with - the outcome is sad -- ciao, Marco
Re: Some thoughts about Diversity and the CoC
hartm...@debian.org wrote: >Marco> I also do not believe in a general right (instead >Marco> of about specific issues) of people to not be offended by >Marco> other's behaviour. Is this good enough for Debian? >This offended word keeps coming up from people who are concerned about >the code of conduct. I do not think that I have ever expressed any major concerns about the code of conduct, so I do not understand why you are bringing it up. If you are really curious, then I think that my use of the word "offended" comes from reading articles like these which discuss that issue (which maybe is not even significant in the Debian community?): https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-rise-of-victimhood-culture/404794/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/ But feel free to ignore that sentence, it does not really matter. I would still like to know the answer to my post. -- ciao, Marco
Re: Some thoughts about Diversity and the CoC
I would appreciate some clarifications on this point, to better understand where I stand. I do not like transphobes (and various other kinds of bigots), I am happy to recognize people's gender identity as male, female or non-binary and to address them as they prefer using "he", "she" or "them", if so requested. I do not recognize a right of other people to dictate how I can express myself, and specifically request that I use words which I do not recognize as part of my language. I also do not believe in a general right (instead of about specific issues) of people to not be offended by other's behaviour. Is this good enough for Debian? -- ciao, Marco
Re: Reminder: Removing 2048 bit keys from the Debian keyrings
nood...@earth.li wrote: I am sorry you and those developers who have emailed me privately to complain feel like I am engaging in some form of punishment or naming and shaming. No, I do not think that there is anything wrong with publishing their names. What I feel is that this new policy of removing the shorter keys in such a timeframe, other than not being justified by the actual security risks, is failing to achieve the results desidered (still many people have not replaced their key) but no actions are being taken to correct it. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/m3ofqr$uj8$1...@posted-at.bofh.it
Re: Reminder: Removing 2048 bit keys from the Debian keyrings
On Nov 08, Jonathan McDowell nood...@earth.li wrote: Back in August I sent notification[0] about the fact that we will be removing all keys less than 2048 from our keyrings at the end of the year (31st December 2014). Sadly the response to this has been slower than expected, and we still have about 439 keys that require replacement. So the plan is that the beatings will continue until morale improves? -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: State of the debian keyring
On Feb 27, Yves-Alexis Perez cor...@debian.org wrote: Because unless you are paranoid, then it is not. If anybody disagrees then please describe a credible threat model in which: - an entity would want to have access to the key of a DD, and - would find brute forcing a 1024 bit key more practical than stealing it or coercing a developer to disclose it. There's also the hash algorithm issue, which could lead to signature collision attacks (wether in data signing or in key signing). Please describe a credible threat model, etc. Theoretically possible also means that somebody could factor a RSA 4096 key at the first try with pen and paper so it does not matter much. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: State of the debian keyring
gw...@gwolf.org wrote: So, what do you suggest? Persuade developers that they should sign the new key of people whose old key they have already signed, with no need to meet them in person. (Also, my keyring update request has been waiting for 3 weeks now to be processed.) -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/lec9ll$hlh$1...@posted-at.bofh.it
Re: Squeeze, firmware and installation
p...@debian.org wrote: I'm also wondering what people think about adding some firmware to our official installation media. I don't think it is needed. I do. I recently had to install Debian lenny on a HP ProLiant machine, which required bnx2 firmware for the network controller. Just downloaded the firmware .deb from packages.d.o, stuck it on a FAT32 formatted USB stick and everything worked fine. Now try again, this time netinstalling an IBM Bladecenter with modern blades like HS21 or HS2. To which you have no physical access because it is in a different city. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/hruml0$eh...@posted-at.bofh.it
Re: What to do about negligent maintainers?
tfh...@err.no wrote: I am not sure what we should do with problems like this. Not doing If you care about the package or even just need it to be fixed, do what I did with linux-atm: * ask the maintainer if he needs help * ask again * warn that you will NMU * NMU to DELAYED fixing the most urgent and/or simpler bugs * keep doing uploads to fix other bugs * eventually hijack the package, if you want (Somewhat related: I am still looking for help with ppp, I have an updated package ready but the BTS page scares me...) -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: What to do about negligent maintainers?
broo...@sirena.org.uk wrote: The trouble with an approach like that is that it doesn't provide a clear route to dealing with situations where the maintainer is occasionally active but not managing to keep up with things well enough to do a good job. So help him: start by sending patches to the BTS. If he is not replying to your enquires it is reasonable to believe that currently he is not working on the package either. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: What is preventing Debian from being fully free at this moment?
frederiqu...@gmail.com wrote: I'd love to see Debian comply to real GNU/FSF freedom. When I visit the This will never happen, since Debian and the FSF have different ideas about what is free. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Who uses @packages.d.o mail?
On May 23, Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca wrote: I'm open to other options, of course. What is the recommended practice for this scenario? Implement spam filtering? -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Who uses @packages.d.o mail?
On May 22, Raphael Geissert atom...@gmail.com wrote: @packages.d.o is known to be the easiest way to get in touch with a maintainer, and is often used when CC'ing maintainers of multiple packages. Then it needs to be fixed, soon, because it the last few weeks I started receiving a huge quantity of trivially rejectable pills spam from it. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian and non-free
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it really worth it? Are we really losing developers or users by not being endorsed by the FSF? I am happy to not have as users and especially as fellow developers the kind of people who use gNewSense. I believe that gNewSense is a great idea, since it tends to keep far from Debian the worst nutcases. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: confusion about non-free (Re: Bits from the Debian Eee PC team, summer 2008)
On Aug 05, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I disagree. The Release file in the archive is a configuration file that is part of the software interface to the archive. The terminology that it uses refers to capabilities within the archive maintenance software and within the software that downloads files from a Debian archive. It does not have anything to do with legal, administrative, or focus decisions taken by the Debian project. Agreed. Let's stop this idiocy/trolling/whatever. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Planet policy?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did we ever agree a policy about what's acceptable/reasonable for blog feeds linked from planet.d.o? I'm very tempted to disable Ian Murdock's Solaris propaganda, for example... Thoughts? His blog is way more interesting than some other people's blogs which apparently have no noticeable Debian-related (or UN*X-related, for what matters) content. If you do not agree with him just flame him from your blog in the fine tradition of Planet Debian. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: please
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't shoot the messenger. Tell the vendor of your wireless card to take the stick out of their behind and cooperate with the Free software world. While they do not do so and instead release crap, security-hole-ridden, and often incompatible firmware which is closed and thus cannot be improved by people with a clue, Debian will not support them out of the box. We are a Free operating system. OTOH we will happily ship any driver which uses a crap, security-hole-ridden, and often incompatible firmware as long as it is present in an EEPROM. Not a great argument. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Use of tokens for access to Debian resources?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm inclined to agree with Russell Coker[1], in that Debian should use something like RSA tokens to control access to Debian resources. I'd love to, but I do not know any which is even close to be really free-as-in-freedom. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Response to Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, what you describe is a successful experiment. In fact, the Nazis did such things with humans. Now, such things are not ethical. Thank you for your contribute, now we can consider the thread finished. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: night. Did I get demotivated because certain lucky folks earned bazillions and were able to buy mansions in Lake Tahoe and Chicago? No, because I know that life isn't fair, and that money wasn't why I got involved in Linux and Debian in the first place. Folks who are claiming that they are demotivated because two people have volunteered to give up a full month of their time to take on a job where they giving up something like 75% of their normal income --- and the problem is that they gave up only 75% instead of 100% --- those people who are kvetching should take a very deep look into their hearts and motivations. If that's what it's all about for those folks, maybe those people who have left Debian are really doing themselves (and the project) a favor... Thank you for expressing this so clearly, I fully agree. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rethinking stable updates policy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am mainly interested in #1. I think we need to take a more expansive view of what constitutes a functionality problem, perhaps replacing truly critical with serious. I fully agree. I do not consider volatile a solution. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on firmware and freedoom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: to, I thought I'd share my personal view on the reasons why would bother to ask for free firmware in the first place, and what message I think we would send if we cease demanding it. I can't see how you can claim this, considering this part of the proposed GR saying the opposite: 2. encourages authors of all works to make those works available not only under licenses that permit modification, but also in forms that make such modifications practical; and It may be that a consequence -- intended or not -- of Microsoft's aggressive new Windows Activation strategy is that it's driving a wave of refugees to Linux who previously ran Windows because it just worked and they could get it for free, as in free beer. By looking at the long list of long-time developers who seconded the proposal I do not think this is plausible. I don't demand that every computer user be an expert, but I do lament our failure to promulgate the value of free computing to our new users. In the name of pragmatism, an honorable school of philosophical thought now reduced to a makeweight for any argument that is short-sighted and antisocial in content, our community now flirts with squandering the successes that have been won over the past 15 years. We have been shipping sourceless firmwares in Debian since they started being distributed with the Linux kernel, so it looks like that they did not have a negative impact on our successes. I, too, have often been frustrated by a lack of complete hardware support in Linux for any device I can purchase. I compensate for this by attempting to be an informed consumer, not buying hardware by firms that are Linux-hostile, and learning to accept the fact that I can't have everything I want. For me, hardware that doesn't have a free driver just isn't an option. If I end up with some because it's bundled with a motherboard, for example, then I know that when I buy it, and for me it might as well not be present. It's not a feature of my purchase. This is good, but it is not related with the issue being discussed since the proposed GR is not about shipping non-free drivers in main. What we put in main carries our imprimatur, whether we like it or not. While it is true that we have qualified reservations about all sorts of things in main, and these are frequent fodder for discussions on -legal and occasionally other mailing lists, I believe it is also true that when we put something in main, we endorse it. (We certainly pledge to provide security updates for it.) Can you find *any* user in the whole life of the project who did seriously believe that we should provide for the sourceless firmwares which we have been distributing more support than we can do? Unless you can find a reasonale number of people believing this then it is false. I personally am not comfortable with extending this imprimatur to what we've lately been styling blobs, be they executable instructions for the host or an auxiliary CPU, graphical images, audio/video streams, or manuals that have post-processed by some sort of tool. There is not plan to extend it for the very simple reason that the proposed GR would only reaffirm the current practice. operation of their machine as they see fit. To ship this stuff in main despite the deficiency of a lacking source form is to tell our users that we are complicit in withholding control of their computers. I totally disagree with this opinion. Firmwares are an essential part of any modern computer, and it is an annoying but currently hard to change fact of life that we lack the source for almost all of them. I reject the notion that we can ignore some fundamental parts of the computers which we use only because we do not distribute them: this would be hypocritical. Even if Debian stopped distributing sourceless firmwares users would continue to use them, either on a flash chip or by downloading and installing them on their file systems. Such a change on our part would not drive users to buy hardware whose firmwares are accompanied by their source, because with a very small number of exceptions there are no such devices. The claim that vendors would start to distribute the firmware sources is unproven, and indeed I cannot see how it could happen when only a small part of the community would care enough to deliberately make life harder for their customers. Instead it would push the less technically competent users toward other distributions, whose committment to free software is usually less strong than our own. In this scenario I do not see an advancement for the cause of free software. In my view, you should be entitled to no fewer rights to customize and share with your friends a blob, as you are anything else that flows through the buses of your machine. In mine too, but again the proposed GR is not about this. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Re: on firmware and freedom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Serendipitously, under Steve's proposed GR, the following might not ever have been necessary: Package: freedoom It would still have been useful, since the doom-wad-shareware package is in non-free and is going to stay there no matter the outcome of the GR. It would help a lot if you could understand what the proposed GR is about. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
On Aug 23, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Indeed, but would it not make more sense, to aknowledge that the firmware is non-free, and then argue that we should include it nonetheless, instead of making obviously false claims like firmware are not programs ? Firmwares are not programs *for the purpose of DFSG compliance* is a statement which may or may not be true, but will not obviously false (or not) until we will known the outcome of this GR. I do not mind either way anyway, my purpose it to make Debian an useful and free (as-in-freedom) Linux distribution, not arguing about the general definition of the word firmware. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
In linux.debian.vote Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:24:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:32:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: Well, the only one who could claim that his views have some representativity of the project as a whole is you, everyone else is just expressing his own opinion, be he a DD or a guy from NM or some random poster. Anyone can claim their views are representative of the project, and everyone -- including myself -- would be wrong to do so. So, why do you denigrate Peter in such a way ? What you said could apply as well to you, no ? Why do you believe that remarking that somebody is not a debian developer is denigration? I think aj's post was very appropriate, considering how many non-developers like to explain to us what the DFSG really means. If we where really going to argue this, we could just as well stop shiping debian, since there is no way to actually make use of any of the content we ship without some piece of non-free firmware, the first of it being the non-free bios you use on your system. Unpleasant consequences are not a very good way of refuting a logically sound argument. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why Ubuntu is different, was: Minutes of an Ubuntu-Debian discussion that happened at Debconf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it is legitimate and legal and all what you want. but it also makes the cooperation between the two distribution a lot harder: * take the not so recent example of Xorg6.9. Ubuntu decided to switch to Xorg way sooner than debian. good for'em. as a result, you couldn't even build an ubuntu package on debian, because it lacked the necessary build-depends. * ubuntu having python2.4 by default since 1year+ also causes problems in that sense (even if one could argue that nothing really prevented debian to switch earlier)... and I guess there will still be numerous examples of that kind in the future. Two great examples showing how Debian development has been lagging. You cannot blame Ubuntu because Debian sucks. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Using the Debian open use logo to distinguish DFSG-compatible ?licenses
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Debian and which do not. So: if there's a public statement by Debian or debian-legal on a license (like http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary debian-legal@ is just a mailing list, so it cannot make any statement. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian and UDEV
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can't wait for an hotplug/udev event to be done processing. That is always done asynchron without any feedback of completion. This is not correct. Look at the while loop in the init script and and the udevsettle source. will randomly fail or succeed depending on current scheduling. Any sequence of loading a module and using the expected device node has to utilize a sleep statement and prey udev runs fast enough to complete in the given time. Wrong. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: irc.debian.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i would be interested in the number of netsplits. do you have a diagram for that, too? No, but empirically it appears to me that OFTC splits at least as often (and is 10 times smaller than freenode). -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: irc.debian.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The people who are on Freenode are there because it's irc.debian.org but they don't care if it's Freenode or not. How do you know? I can also understand that some people prefer Freenode for historical reasons but if you try to get the best for Debian, you can only understand that it's important to have all people in a common place. And the more consensual (or better said, the less-controversial) place right now is OFTC. Hardly. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: irc.debian.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After some discussion earlier in the day about music players, ipods, and free software one can flash on ipods, I decided to clean up my variant of the Green5 rockbox theme and presented screenshots on [EMAIL PROTECTED] The images are still at http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/dump_060502-005528.bmp http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/dump_060502-005659.bmp fairly innocuous, as you can see. I was immediately klined from freenode, no if, and, or buts -- apparently on the grounds that Spam is not tolerated. Why screenshots of free software players are Spam on a debian development channel is beyond me -- but obviously this is not a good thing to happen on a project channel. Freenode does not have such a policy, I think that this is the result of a buggy script used by a staff member. While waiting for an explanation from him, I removed the K line. I apologize for the troubles. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: irc.debian.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One might think private messages are useful in user support, but #debian actually has a channel policy asking users not to send them without permission. As a result, I don't get many private messages from #debian users. ACK. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: irc.debian.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I get and send a lot of /msg in my debian releated work. for me this is To users who have not been long enough on the network to register? -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: irc.debian.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I get and send a lot of /msg in my debian releated work. for me this is To users who have not been long enough on the network to register? no, not to those and not to those others that feel that they are made to jump through hoops and neither to those who left already. only to the rest. So you are saying that it does not actually inconvenience you, but you are opposing this feature on principle? -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: irc.debian.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem is that the high amount of disconnection one gets from freenode makes this a pain, especially as it is not clear for clients like irssi when Do you? This is unusual, I have clients connected to freenode for many weeks at a time. Maybe we should discuss this offline to better debug which kind of issues you are having. you are allowed to post or not, as the error message does not appear in the /query channel, but in the log one, and it doesn't even specify who you tried to /query and was blocked. I have always considered this an irssi misfeature. :-) (Anyway, it can be easily corrected.) You mentioned some auto-identify scripts, care to give an example of how that would work and respond to both above problems ? The purpose of such a script is to automatically identify you to nickserv at connection time. Actually, you do not even need a script for freenode: just configure your client to use the nickserv password as the server password (if you use irssi: /help server). This is documented in the network FAQs, in the section What's the easiest way to identify to nickserv when I connect to freenode?: http://freenode.net/faq.shtml#identify . Also, i guess that if you allow none-reg /querying, this leaves you open to wide amount of irc-spam that has been circulating in freenode, and supposedly oftc is (still) less vulnerable to this. Currently spam is not a major issue. OFTC AFAIK is currently not a target of turkish kiddies, but this could change any day like it happened to freenode. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: irc.debian.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm in favour as well. I wonder, do you and the other me too people also have a reason to justify switching? -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: irc.debian.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm talking about well after the OFTC formation. If there are that many people dissatisfied with freenode, it seems likely that there are How many? Let's add some data to the thread: http://irc.netsplit.de/cgi-bin/ncompare.cgi?n1=freenoden2=OFTC The multi-year graphs better show the respective growths: http://irc.netsplit.de/networks/details.php?net=freenodepoint=years http://irc.netsplit.de/networks/details.php?net=OFTCpoint=years -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: irc.debian.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've heard it suggested by a variety of people that we should move the official irc.debian.org alias away from freenode to oftc. I can see Yes, the lilo-haters have been saying this for years. So far nobody proposed better arguments than we do not like freenode. FWIW, while I have a client permanently connected to OFTC I do not remember ever needing to join a channel there, except the always-idle #debian-mirrors some years ago. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: irc.debian.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with Steve. While I agree that freenode has many flaws (the biggest being NOIDPRIVMSG), I find that while I am in Debian channels on Exactly, why is an optional feature such a big flaw? I think it would also be useful to know about those other issues you are thinking about. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: irc.debian.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with Steve. While I agree that freenode has many flaws (the biggest being NOIDPRIVMSG), I find that while I am in Debian channels on Exactly, why is an optional feature such a big flaw? Because it's the default and practically no one changes it. This is a Maybe because actually it's not such a big deal? :-) big problem, because on a network that offers so many support channels, you have a lot of users who are on only to get a question answered (Foo isn't working, what am I doing wrong?). These users have no desire, nor real reason to register a nick. Also, there are lots of times I have They do not need to. If you want to receive their privated messages then *you* can disable NOIDPRIVMSG and they will not even know about it. been disconnected, and not noticed I wasn't ID'd. I have sent people messages, and only hours later realized that they weren't received because I wasn't re-ID'd. Can I suggest you use one of the autoidentification scripts? You may also want to ask some of the DD's who refuse to use freenode anymore. Some of them have very detailed gripes that might be able to be addressed. Yes, some of them are also former staff members or server sponsors... -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: uol.com.br and petsupermarket
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Really, even though UOL does not respond, does inflicting this kind of thing on their users seem right? Yes. Technically this is called a fuck you block, and it is often the only way to get the attention of an uncooperative ISP which is causing you troubles. You are punishing people which have nothing to do with the problem. Well, they are patronizing an uncooperative ISP which is a nuisance for the whole Internet because of their broken software and lazy NOC. They are hardly innocent. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#296807: ftp.nz.debian.org inaccessible from NZ internet
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure how debian should react to this. I'll send this to debian-project, as it's not really a technical problem. Should we react to the complaint in bug 296807, or encourage this public good offered by WIX by keeping citylink as ftp.nz? This kind of peering wars are normal in NZ and AU, and I think Debian should not take a position by favouring some operators over others without first consulting the local developers. IOW, the local incumbent telco depeering a mirror sponsor (which obviously cannot afford to burn transit bandwidth to run it) is not a good enough reason in itself to move the mirror. (Looks like that IHUG is in the same situation of Citylink: http://scorchio.pure-guava.org.nz/cgi-bin/wiki/kwiki.cgi?WhosPeeringWho) -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: how to request a DNS update
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm no DNS wizzard, but do run a few small split view setups - I'd be happy to do whatever I can to assist whomever has responsibility for the Debian DNS setup. I have some experience in dealing with complex DNS setups, so I doubt that lack of manpower is so severe that the debian-admins cannot allocate the 30 seconds of time needed to update a DNS record. OTOH, I cannot think of any good reason for not performing a requested DNS change nor explaining why it cannot be done. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
how to request a DNS update
I have not received any suggestions about this, the debian-admins have not answered my (or Joy's) mails and the CNAME is still wrong. My original request is dated April 12. I do not know what else I could do to work out a solution for this... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc'ed to make him aware of this communication problem affecting delegates and developers. - Forwarded message from md - To: debian-project@lists.debian.org Subject: how to request a DNS update For more than a month now I have been asking debian-admins for an update to the ftp2.it.debian.org CNAME. The change is not controversial in itself (the host has been down for a few months due to hardware failures, so I had the alias switched to a different mirror) and is approved by Joy. The problem is that in this time I have received no answer, and the requested update has not been performed. I'd be grateful if somebody could explain me if there is something wrong with my approach. -- ciao, Marco - End forwarded message - -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
how to request a DNS update
For more than a month now I have been asking debian-admins for an update of the ftp2.it.debian.org CNAME. The change is not controversial in itself (the host has been down for a few months due to hardware failures, so I had the alias switched to a different mirror) and is approved by Joy. The problem is that in this time I have received no answer, and the requested update has not been performed. I'd be grateful if somebody could explain me if there is something wrong with my approach. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Poll results: User views on the FDL issue
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This was voted in by an overwhelming majority of those voting, to make Who were a tiny fraction of the total number of developers, probably as a result of the changes being defined editoral (which for most people means has no practical effect). -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#292330: project: UTF-8 as default
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the locales package is the place to start this. For etch, I would like the UTF-8 locales to be the default for all languages (with This would be stupid, pointless and would piss off a lot of people. But since your native language is english I suppose that it may be hard to you to understand the reason for this. The quantity of untagged data (especially in emails and text files) is so high that using UTF-8 as the default encoding is inappropriate in many locales. This obviously does not means that UTF-8 cannot be the appropriate default encoding for other locales. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dealing with drivers that need firmware on the filesystem
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, because in many situations the users would only need to copy the firmware binary from media they already have, and installing a package from a different archive (and even more a new udeb) requires more work for them and for us. I imagine this firmware blob needs to be extracted outside of the installer, and made available on a floppy. Is adding step 3, grab the small udeb file misc-driver-foo.udeb from http://... and copy it to the floppy next to the firmware, that much more work from the user's POV? Yes, as I explained I consider it would be more work and doing this would not help promoting free software. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dealing with drivers that need firmware on the filesystem
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 03:22:45PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: The larger problem is to identify non-free blobs in the main kernel, extract them into non-free and modify the driver so that it is able to load the blob from a user provided location; and include this in our installer. Isn't this being done upstream, anyway, for GPL-compatibility purposes? It's not, because almost everybody believes that the result is aggregation and not a derived work. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dealing with drivers that need firmware on the filesystem
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Being in contrib doesn't mean that a work is evil, nor is contrib a second cousin to non-free. It means that something is not part of debian and is not acceptable for install media, which looks like a big enough problem to me. It would be silly to be able to move a driver from contrib to main just by massaging it into a kernel patch. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dealing with drivers that need firmware on the filesystem
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: True enough. I have a harder time justifying to myself keeping such drivers in main, but I also think that the infrastructure needed in order to support grabbing firmware out of non-free (for things like the installer) could easily work for the case of contrib driver + non-free firmware as well. No, because in many situations the users would only need to copy the firmware binary from media they already have, and installing a package from a different archive (and even more a new udeb) requires more work for them and for us. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dealing with drivers that need firmware on the filesystem
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I bet that, with some of these firmware blobs, we could reverse-engineer and clean room clone them in a country with permissive reverse engineering laws. At that point, we'd have something that was definitely free. I bet you could not, for interesting devices (DVB receivers, DSL modems, WiFi cards) in a reasonable time. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Theo de Raadt On Firmware Activism
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/4118 The latest two GRs made this is not really relevant, because what OpenBSD is for is permission to redistribute the files which Debian now considers non-free anyway. -- ciao, Marco
Re: Theo de Raadt On Firmware Activism
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why should firmware go to non-free, it's not evaluated on the CPU that runs Debian. Because the policy revisionists changed the DFSG to make it apply to data as well. I hope that post-sarge somebody will prove this point by hunting fonts without source and similar evil threats to software freedom. -- ciao, Marco
bad UDP packets sent to debian FTP mirrors
Please let me know if you run a debian mirror and see errors like this one in the kernel log: Jan 18 21:03:23 vlad-tepes kernel: UDP: bad checksum. From 62.254.117.4:33346 to 213.92.8.5:33612 ulen 20 I have been getting this kind of messages for a long time and all other operators of mirrors running on linux have too, now with the help of some people I'm trying to understand what's happening. -- ciao, | Marco | [4201 diIcYaj/1SEtg]
Re: Debian mailing lists, address munging, news gateway, and the list archives
My position on this, as the linux.* administrator: - addresses munging will make the gateway harder to use and will break by-author search with google (I believe that the archiving by google groups is one of the most important benefits of the gateway). I believe this to be important enough that munging cannot be justified by the minor improvements it provides. - Swen will not last forever, but munged addresses in archives will. - we do not know that the gateway is the source of addresses used by Swen, for all I know the infected users could be subscribed to debian lists. Actually, I would very surprised if a relevant number of the news servers used by Swen were still working (from a quick check, most are not). - most important of all: any serious email usage requires protection by an antivirus or a similar kind of filter. Using an unfiltered email address is negligent, and I can't see why we should care. - a couple of Swen-infected PC are more then enough to fill a typical unprotected mail account, so the debian lists hardly make the difference. - last but not least, I think it's politically wrong to break a widely used service because of some problem caused by windows users About address munging in the debian archives: munging is useless, it does not protect from spammers. There are many other archives of the debian mailing lists, and our addresses end up on the web in many other places too. In the last years I verified that it's basically impossible to use an address and keep it out of web pages. My debian.org address has been on a little known web site for half a day and it was immediately harvested, and still receives spam. If we want to spend time fighting spam sent to the BTS we'd better look at implementing the use of DNSBL like CBL and DSBL, which would probably stop most of the spam the BTS gets these days. -- ciao, Marco
Re: spam sent to debian.org addresses
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A lot of legitimate mail can be trivially blocked this way, as well, which is why it doesn't make sense to drop it on the server side. No. Using SBL definitely does not block a lot of legitimate mail. in some cases it does. using SPEWS for example would lead to all of my Non sequitur. I wrote SBL, not SPEWS, DSBL or anything else. SBL has near-zero false positives and is used by major companies and governments from all over the world. mails being dropped because there is an online casino somewhere in my providers netblock... (btw, does anybody know whats the problem with an online casino???) I assume the problem is that it's spam-advertised. -- ciao, Marco
Re: spam sent to debian.org addresses
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A lot of legitimate mail can be trivially blocked this way, as well, which is why it doesn't make sense to drop it on the server side. No. Using SBL definitely does not block a lot of legitimate mail. -- ciao, Marco
irc.debian.org
What some of the most vocal partecipants of this thread do not say is that they have been former OPN staff members or servers sponsors. I see a lot of politics playing here, and this is annoying. (Full disclosure: I am a OPN staff member and server sponsor and this is why I do not think it's appropriate for me to comment on these issues. Sadly many other people are not showing the same fair play.) -- ciao, Marco
Re: irc.debian.org
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: The IRCNet can run on a free basis because it get's sponsored by ISPs (like Netsurf, Tisacali, NGNet, Edisontel, Stealth and so on) and universities which can produce traffic mostly for free. Do you think OPN is paying for its bandwidth at the moment? Do you think Debian is? Do you think the admins of the big ircnet servers do not get paid for managing them? (Yes, I know many of them.) -- ciao, Marco
