Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:50:00AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > eg love.debian.net was great (why is it down?). and so are/were > others, please If only the username was encoded in that host we'd all know who to ask... ;) Simon. -- * "A l'attaque par Junon" "Aoh! Choquant. Ce ne sont pas des * | gentils hommes" -- Astérix chez les Bretons. | * * Brought to you by the letter C and the number 25 -- 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/20120623153124.gf6...@paranoidfreak.co.uk
Re: Spamming the World through Open Debian Mailinglists (Re: lists.debian.org has received bounces from you)
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 11:59:08AM +, Simon Huggins wrote: > On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 03:31:45AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > If you don't want to deal with the occasional spam that gets through, > > then feel free to unsubscribe. Furthemore, the thresholds for > > automatic unsubscription are set fairly high anyway; the warning > > messages we send out are for your information only, as they often > > indicate mail misconfigurations at your end (or rarely, at ours.) > They don't contain much information and don't talk about thresholds Thank you for fixing these to actually have information in them now. 1 bounce out of 190 mails in 7 days (0%, kick-score is 80%) Might I suggest you only send them out above sasy 50% or 60% bounces? Thanks. Simon -- ... "Don't worry, understanding of the topic being discussed has been optional for a long time on debian-de...@." -- Md -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Spamming the World through Open Debian Mailinglists (Re: lists.debian.org has received bounces from you)
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 03:31:45AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Sat, 27 Dec 2008, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > And having to sign up every once in a while to a Debian list is > > really annoying because you get kicked off because you are > > forwarding spam. > If you don't want to deal with the occasional spam that gets through, > then feel free to unsubscribe. Furthemore, the thresholds for > automatic unsubscription are set fairly high anyway; the warning > messages we send out are for your information only, as they often > indicate mail misconfigurations at your end (or rarely, at ours.) They don't contain much information and don't talk about thresholds though I haven't seen any for a while having successfully taught dspam about them. > > And yes, my SMTP server and those of a lot of other people will > > CORRECTLY refuse to accept mail classified as spam and correctly > > give a 500 SMTP error code as the server will refuse to deliver it. > If you sign up for mail from mailing lists, just discard mail that you > don't want to read that comes in from us with Priority: bulk or List-* > headers instead of bouncing it. A mailing list is little more than a > glorified mail forwarder: bouncing forwarded mail is wrong. This is the part I don't really understand. You're in an amazing position. You have thousands of people who have potentially better spam filtering systems than you do bouncing mail they think is spam at you. If you count per message-ID who bounces which mails you could improve your filters based on some threshold of how many people bounced that mail. Especially given you do process bounces automatically via your script that cause the original post. Instead, masochistically you send out contentless pings that your subscribers dislike. I don't get it. -- _hug...@earth.li -+*+- fou, con et anglais _ (_) "ACT NORMAL! ACT NORMAL!!" - Homer (_) (_) (_) \______/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ssh.upload.debian.org
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 10:15:58AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > Instead, you seem to be saying, "how could anyone be so stupid as to use > > a non-symbolic name?" when nobody is actually being that stupid. We're > > just using the symbolic name we were told to use the last time the names > > were changed. > I never intended to say that and my initial mail didnt do that (pasted > below). > > ftp.upload.debian.org > - > To untie the upload queue from the archive DSA setup an alias to be used > for future uploads. Please change your configuration of dput, dupload or > whatever you use to no longer use ftp-master.debian.org but > ftp.upload.debian.org instead. > Your second mail (the one referenced in this thread) said: Please always only use the symbolic names for the places to upload to (ie ftp.upload.debian.org and ssh.upload.debian.org), do not use any machine name directly. Queues may move at any time, without further notice and the symbolic names will be updated. That seems to reflect what Thomas was saying. People using ftp-master weren't using the machine name directly yet this symbolic name isn't going to move it seems. Perhaps you could have considered moving all the internal scripts that reference ftp-master to some other service name rather than trying to change every single dput config file out there in the wild and the mindset of all the developers of the distribution. Simon. -- [ "The claw chooses who will go and who will stay" ] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Two GR concepts for dicussion
[honouring m-f-t]
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 02:35:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 03:15:12PM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 02:22:58PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Anthony Towns writes ("Two GR concepts for dicussion"):
> > > > I think the process should involve:
> > > > [...]
> > > This sounds like a good idea to me.
> > > I'm not sure exactly what the criteria would be but basically you'd
> > > diff the previous and new packages and allow only certain kinds of
> > > changes (eg, changes to existing programs in /usr/bin would be fine).
> > In what ways can maintainers of packages generally screw over users of
> > other packages? Don't people notice fairly soon and certainly before
> > the packages are out of unstable?
> > I imagine this is easier with library packages with many dependent
> > packages but I can't imagine those would often be maintained by DMs.
> If DMs not maintaining libraries is how you expect this problem to be
> mitigated, you might want to consider making this an explicit policy.
Not really. I don't think discouraging competent DMs from maintaining
libraries is a good idea (hopefully a lower barrier to entry to the
archive will also encourage people to join NM).
I really do think that an easy reovcation procedure where a few (2? 3?)
DDs can sign mails to remove a DM from the keyring is the way to
moderate this. This could even be automated.
--
--( "This isn't flying, it's falling with style" -- )--
Simon ( Buzz Lightyear ) Nomis
Htag.pl 0.0.22
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Two GR concepts for dicussion
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 05:11:19PM +0200, Xavier Oswald wrote: > On 18:37 Thu 31 May , Anthony Towns wrote: > > - minimal requirements: gpg keyring signed by either one or two > > developers, recommendation by a developer, use of existing > > fields such as "Maintainer:" and "Uploaders:" to control access, > > no provision for uploaders to do NMUs or upload NEW packages etc > I think the use of an existing fields "Maintainer" should do the job > but Im not in favour of "Uploaders". Im throught the NM process and > member of the parted team so Im in the uploaders field. If I will have > this kind of right, I could be able to upload a new version of parted > and maybe then broke the d-i for exemple. Well if you thought you might break something then presumably you wouldn't upload. But developers upload broken packages occasionally too. I don't think we should restrict this based on the possibility that people will break something. As a developer you have to try to exercise good judgement and as a maintainer you would have to too. -- Simon Huggins \ "Emergency! Emergency! There's an emergency going on!" \ - Holly http://www.earth.li/~huggie/htag.pl 0.0.22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Two GR concepts for dicussion
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 02:22:58PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes ("Two GR concepts for dicussion"):
> > I think the process should involve:
> > [...]
> This sounds like a good idea to me.
> One thing that would be really helpful would be an ability for a
> Maintainer of this kind to make updates without review iff it can be
> shown to be safe. (Where `safe' means `the Maintainer gets to screw
> over people who run this program, but not anyone who doesn't.)
I think if we have multiple developers recommending them they ought to
be beyond the stage of fucking things up to the degree that this level
of inspection of what they are uploading is necessary.
> I'm not sure exactly what the criteria would be but basically you'd
> diff the previous and new packages and allow only certain kinds of
> changes (eg, changes to existing programs in /usr/bin would be fine).
In what ways can maintainers of packages generally screw over users of
other packages? Don't people notice fairly soon and certainly before
the packages are out of unstable?
I imagine this is easier with library packages with many dependent
packages but I can't imagine those would often be maintained by DMs.
As long as there is an easy way to remove keys from the DM keyring I'm
not convinced this is a real problem. If you want reviews of every
package from a DM then we should just leave things as they are and force
packages to be sponsored in.
The ideas behind the DM keyring, as I see them, are to capture new
blood, to let people contribute in a more meaningful way and to stop
people getting so frustrated by the NM process by giving them a little
bit more responsibility and trust earlier on. I think complicating it
further goes against that and makes it much less interesting.
Simon.
--
Just another wannabie |benj: mais il y a des | Just another fool
--+ thumbnails en 1600x1200 ;) +---
This message was brought to you by the letter V and the number 49.
htag.pl 0.0.22 -- http://www.earth.li/projectpurple/progs/htag.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian Maintainers
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 06:37:53PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > First, the "Debian Maintainers" concept > [..] > I think the process should involve: > - automated application process This shouldn't be tricky. Some webpage where the applicant applies and then they point some developers at a page so that they can recommend/advocate him to be a DM. Very similar to nm.debian.org advocate bits. e.g. https://nm.debian.org/nmadvocate.php?email=hgjghj%40hotmail.com (which I presume is a fake application for NM but still) The applicant would provide their keyid, email, name etc. I think technically this is easy but we need to define who can advocate and how much contact with the potential DM is needed (see below). > - as close as feasible to automated keyring maintenance jetring exists and was pretty much designed with this in mind so this should be easy. The format for the changesets so far seems to be: Changed-By: Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Comment: adding holger as debian-maintainer Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:25:59 +1000 Advocates: ajt - http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2007/01/msg00037.html kaol - http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2007/01/msg00038.html [..] KeyCheck: Receiving and checking key pub 1024D/AC583520 2004-05-18 Key fingerprint = 480E 51BA FB08 CB41 75CC 91B1 5072 D036 AC58 3520 uid Holger Levsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [..] NM-Page: https://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=debian%40layer-acht.org Action: import Data: -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- [..] > - minimal requirements: gpg keyring signed by either one or two > developers, recommendation by a developer, We have keycheck.sh [0] already (and it's already used in the above changeset). I think we want some standardised form of recommendations from developers. How about asking: You're receiving this mail because you said you would recommend: Applicant: Joe Bloggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to be a Debian Maintainer, that is to get a key in the DM keyring and be allowed to upload packages to the archive. As this is a privileged position, we'd ask that you only recommend people who deserve it and that you take the time to fill out the questions below. Be sure to sign this mail with your GPG key. - Is the applicant in NM? - If yes, are you their AM? - Have you sponsored packages into the archive for this applicant (if so describe the quality of the work and the amount/frequency of contributions)? - Have you worked on a packaging team for this applicant (if so describe the quality of the work and the amount/frequency of contributions)? - Have you reviewed other work for this applicant (if so describe it)? The responses are easy to collate and would be sent to some debian mailing list to form the Advocate: bit of the gpg changeset above. > use of existing fields such as "Maintainer:" and "Uploaders:" to > control access, no provision for uploaders to do NMUs or upload > NEW packages etc aj, you're probably best placed to talk about how easy it is to implement the dak changes needed. > - policies developed by consensus and implemented individually by > developers, in a similar manner to policies for sponsored > uploads at present, rather than an individual or group setting > policy or approving applications (like DAM or NEW processing) It may be hard to come to an agreement on who qualifies but I'd suggest: - anyone who is all the way through NM (i.e. after the AM report has been checked by Front Desk) and applies would qualify almost automatically given they can get a couple of developers to sign off the above recommendations. - anyone that is strongly recommended by at least 2 developers who have sponsored in packages for the applicant should be allowed into the DM keyring. - anyone that is strongly recommended by at least 2 developers who have worked with the applicant on a packaging team and have seen the quality of their commits should be allowed into the DM keyring. - or some combination of the above. Does there need to be a period of time for the work? 3 months of sponsorship/working with the applicant? Less? We don't want to put people off but we need to trust them to a certain extent. If it were easy for, say, any 2 developers to get an applicant removed from the DM keyring by sending signed messages in then it would be easy to lower the bar to applicants. I'm not sure about other work that might qualify. Since we're only talking about the ability to upload it seems to make sense to restrict the qualification to packaging work. Comments? Simon. [0] http://alioth.debian.org/plugins/scmcvs/cvsweb.php/template
Re: Two GR concepts for dicussion
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 06:37:53PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > First, the "Debian Maintainers" concept [..] > My best summary of Joerg's objections are: [..] > - it's taking over some of the DAM role (in principle if not > precisely in practice) so should be done with DAM's approval and > support [..] > So, the reason I call it a "GR concept" is that I think a reasonable > approach would be to work out a "concrete plan" over the next few weeks, > and hopefully come up with something that has a demonstrable consensus > behind it, rather than just a pushy DPL candidate, a couple of cabal > members, or whatever. Whatever happens, it won't be perfect, but surely > we can think of and implement *something* better than what we've currently > got within a few weeks. I love the DM idea. I don't understand why you want a GR for it though. Don't you just want to flesh out a proposal that the DAMs will approve of and work with you and others on? Simon. -- oOoOo "Do they teach lawyers to apologise, because you suck at oOoOo oOoOo it?" -- Erin Brockovich. oOoOo oOoOo oOoOo htag.pl 0.0.22 ::: http://www.earth.li/~huggie/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Developers vs Uploaders
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 04:26:15PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > Well, I'm still not sure wether DM is a good thing or not in fact. But > I'd say it has te be experimented yes. If we are going that road, Then > I've two people to recommend for this: Fathi and Yves-Alexis Perez that > is our one-man xfce-team (at least judging the XFCE Team recent activity > I think he is doing 99% of the job), and that is truck in NM because is > AM has still not sent his AM report (for almost 4 monthes). > For Corsac (Yves-Alexis) it's not the best solution, but at least he > would not depend upon a sponsor anymore for the XFCE uploads, and I'm > sure it will be a spine out of his foot. I've worked with Yves-Alexis on xfce packaging and sponsored some of his work into the project or uploaded work that was from the team with large contributions from him. I can't fault his work or dedication and when I've pointed things out to him or raised issues in general he's been very responsive in getting things in our repository - certainly more responsive than I've been of late. He certainly deserves to get a key in a keyring. As far as I'm aware, he's just waiting on a report from his AM (daf) currently having passed all the NM tests before he waits on DAM. I'm sure Emanuele Rocca who works on xfce with us would have similarly nice things to say. I'm not sure how aj's 30 sponsored uploads works for teams. I've signed and uploaded packages (having tested them and built them in pbuilder) for the xfce project where the actual packaging work done by a particular person is at times hard to tell. Given xfce has many source packages to upload when upstream just rolls out a new release this might count or might not but I can certainly attest to corsac's bug processing and packaging skills. In any case, Yves-Alexis deserves to be pushed through NM or get his key in this DM keyring whichever comes first. Simon. -- Just another wannabie | "No, the radio works. You | Just another fool --+ don't" - Basil, Fawlty Towers +--- This message was brought to you by the letter V and the number 40. htag.pl 0.0.22 -- http://www.earth.li/projectpurple/progs/htag.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please appoint one new person to the DSA Team
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 02:22:43AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 09:06:01PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > It is known among debian developers that the Debian System > > Administration Team (aka DSA or [EMAIL PROTECTED]) is not > > really responsive. > So apparently this complaint was immediately followed up by setting up an > emulated autobuilder not synced in with the regular buildd.debian.org > stuff [0]. This resulted in James and Ryan adding a quick hack to > disable arm uploads, which have remained disabled over the past few days, > apparently with some of the deferred uploads from the official autobuilder > getting overwritten by later uploads by Aurelian's autobuilder. [..] > This will stay this way until someone in ftpmaster is confident arm > builds signed by other people are likely to be reliable and the check > is removed. Was there something technically wrong with the arm debs that Aurelien uploaded? Simon. PS you're missing your footnote. -- [ "Life... Don't talk to me about life..." - Marvin] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Minutes of an Ubuntu-Debian discussion that happened at Debconf
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 12:17:45PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > 1. Fix scott's patch repository: Ubuntu needs to keep a copy of the > > original Debian source package used to create their packages so that > > Ubuntu can always generate a useful patch without relying on > > snapshot.debian.net (which is unreliable and is not officially supported > > by the Debian project). Scott announced the "breakage" on debian-devel but > > it hasn't been fixed yet: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/02/msg00798.html > The repository has moved to http://patches.ubuntu.com and Matt Zimmerman > told me it should be fixed. Scott, can you officially confirm this? I > would suggest a follow-up to your initial mail on debian-devel... It looks a lot more sane now but previously patches were split out into packaging differences, upstream differences, and branding differences (where possible). This was a lot more useful than the current situation which seems to just have one large diff again. Not to say that making this large diff available /isn't/ useful just that if the old code could be resurrected to split it out further more people might take it on. -- ,--huggie-at-earth-dot-listuff-thing-stuff--DF5CE2B4--. _| "Cerulean is a gentle breeze..." - Pusher |_ | | `- http://www.earth.li/~huggie/ - http://www.blackcatnetworks.co.uk/ -' signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: irc.debian.org
On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 11:52:00AM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > On Sat, 2006-05-06 at 07:27 +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > Try asking: how hard is it for project funds to be used to pay > > someone's entire personal mobile phone bill, what would need to > > be disclosed to project supporters and has it ever happened? > I expected this response. I really don't care what is paid with those > funds: it's the responsibility of the people donating to some cause to > make a decision whether they think a phone bill is a good destination > for their money. People having trouble with Freenodes spending habits, > should not donate aswell. I'm not doing it, and it has never hindered > me in using the network. > Since Debian doesn't donate any money to Freenode, I think that the > question of donation spending is not relevant to what network Debian > should choose as its default. By pointing irc.d.o at freenode, it says "Debian supports freenode's allocation of funds" implicitly though. Simon. -- oOoOo "No one - no government agency has jurisdiction over the oOoOo oOoOo truth." - Mulder oOoOo oOoOo oOoOo htag.pl 0.0.22 ::: http://www.earth.li/~huggie/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: irc.debian.org
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 01:41:35AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > [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? I'm in favour of moving irc.debian.org just as I was last time this came up because of Rob Levin's appalling treatment of #brits back at the time he started the messages begging for money so he could fund his IRC habit as a full time job. OFTC has a constitution and people are elected into roles. See http://www.oftc.net/oftc/Constitution Freenode has an opaque dictatorship run by Rob Levin. Simon. -- UK based domain, email and web hosting ***/ "AAAhhh, I see you have the /* http://www.blackcatnetworks.co.uk/ **/ Machine that goes ping." /** [EMAIL PROTECTED] */ /*** Black Cat Networks / / signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Reforming the NM process
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 02:03:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > Applicants with fast/free internet connections, local mirrors and so > on can do the bookwork needed for the template questions without much > pain. A lot of the questions repeatedly confirm an ability to look > stuff up and restate it, testing research skills and language skills, > rather than knowledge. I'd rather someone knew how to find out the answer, than knew all the answers to a specific set of questions. That way when faced with a question they don't know the answer to they will have a good idea of where to look or who to ask. And yes, when faced with the NM templates about what do the maintainer scripts do I asked my AM of the time if I should just cut & paste back at him. I'd be quite surprised if mere mortals can recall all the arguments the maintainer scripts are called with from memory but doing so isn't a skill I value at all - rather knowing where to find the answer is. Simon. -- [ "Have you seen a man who's lost his luggage?" -- Suitcase] Black Cat Networks. http://www.blackcatnetworks.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: msgid.php
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 01:43:14PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:05:27PM +0100, Adeodato Sim? wrote: > > Ai, any chance of getting a copy of msgid.php et al. so that > > somebody can run it elsewhere? > Here. It still needs some work - the php frontend does not handle > duplicate msgids (which exist) because writing php makes me want to > vomit, and update-index is too slow. You can access messages by message-id easily at places like gmane: lynx news://news.gmane.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED] for instance Simon. -- UK based domain, email and web hosting ***/"Clear?" - Holly. "No." - /* http://www.blackcatnetworks.co.uk/ **/Lister. "Tough." - Holly. /** [EMAIL PROTECTED] */ /*** Black Cat Networks / / signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian UK
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 04:17:34PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > Simon Huggins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's just a more formal, more accountable situation than what was > > happening before when Steve shoved Debian money into a shoebox under his > > bed. > Is it any more accountable to hold an AGM if you belittle the > idea of using it as an AGM? No, that's a sham. Lest you forget, > I dislike bureaucracy, but I also know some of the implications > of participating in voluntary organisations because I've been > doing it for years. GMs are a necessary part of accountability. Every post of yours on this subject, in my opinion, shows you *adore* bureaucracy or you wouldn't persist in this mindnumbingly dull debate over a point which has no relevance to -project any more (given the grant of the trademark use). I note you didn't turn up to the AGM to try to put your point across - I can only assume that that wasn't a very convenient way of causing trouble for the society and that you prefer reaching a larger audience this way. > > It's not there as an evil overlord "business" and participants on > > debian-uk are bored silly explaining this over and over. Still Mark [0] > > persists in grinding his axe. Hell he's even said he's going to on this > > list: ``c. I slowly work through "Not In Our Name"-style tactics.'' > The other options work if DUS stops asserting involuntary membership. I still prefer option d where you realise that you're making a lot of fuss for no good reason and stop. > [...] > > I don't understand why Mark is so against this promotion of Debian, > > funding of some Debian related trips and yes, occasionally bits of > > sustenance by way of thanks for hard working people manning an expo > > stand. [...] > The promotion of Debian is most welcome. We would be most glad then if you would stop trying to harm it by involving all the members in a stupid flamewar on -project then. Trust me you are visibly doing harm. You do realise that you are potentially making people think twice before they sell t-shirts/CDs elsewhere right? > > Nothing here is going to hurt Debian; [...] > You can predict the future now? No, I trust the people. Based on previous experience where they could have just *taken* the money and things weren't so public. How many fine, upstanding UK Debian Developers have to stand up and say "Steve, Phil and Vince are great guys and should be allowed to continue what they've been doing without MJ's harrassment" before you stop? > > How MJ Ray can kick up so much fuss about this and still claim to be > > working for Debian and Free Software is beyond me. > If this episode makes anyone actually seek good advice *BEFORE* > setting up a free software volunteer organisation, then it will have > been worth it, in my opinion. I just wish DUS had. It's not like > there's any shortage of good examples available. Even if we're > voluntary, there's no excuse for being sloppy. You had your chance for input as Phil has pointed out. It's only recently you've adopted these attempts to destroy the good work that is happening in Debian's name in the UK; yes, in Debian's name, as it rightly should being Debian work promoting Debian! If you're just pissed off about the Mark <-> MJ thing then this really isn't the way to get back at people for your own personal grievances. I'm done now. I can see I can't reason with you but please reconsider your position. -- _[EMAIL PROTECTED] -+*+- fou, con et anglais _ (_) "AAAhhh, I see you're using the Machine that goes Bing." (_) (_) (_) \______/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian UK
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 10:01:12AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Scripsit MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Well, there's a BIG similarity: > > > * both took the debian name for business use without consent; > > You are pretty much the only one who asserts that Debian UK has > > anything at all to do with "business". Despite being asked for > > clarification several times, you have spectacularly failed to > > document, or even argue for, this assertion. > > The rest of us conclude that your assertion is simply false, and that > > you somehow has a personal axe to grind which has no grounding in > > reality. > I'd have to disagree with this. It's certainly commercial in what it > does and that's been frowned upon by DDs for Debian/SPI in the US. > Also, just because there aren't more people saying it looks like a > business doesn't mean it isn't one. It's just a more formal, more accountable situation than what was happening before when Steve shoved Debian money into a shoebox under his bed. It's not there as an evil overlord "business" and participants on debian-uk are bored silly explaining this over and over. Still Mark [0] persists in grinding his axe. Hell he's even said he's going to on this list: ``c. I slowly work through "Not In Our Name"-style tactics.'' The supposed "business" is selling things like Debian CDs and DVDs and t-shirts with Debian emblazened on them. I can't honestly see why anyone on this list would object to that. Do you Stephen? It's all about promoting Debian in all the right ways by going to expos and events in the UK. I don't understand why Mark is so against this promotion of Debian, funding of some Debian related trips and yes, occasionally bits of sustenance by way of thanks for hard working people manning an expo stand. I just don't get it. Nothing here is going to hurt Debian; the DPL got dragged into the debate and has approved the use of the trademark; and the people involved (Steve, Phil, Vince, others who man the stall year in year out) get their hard and well justified work derided in public. I realise that money can be very devisive but these are relatively small amounts of money used well for the good of Debian. How MJ Ray can kick up so much fuss about this and still claim to be working for Debian and Free Software is beyond me. > Also, who exactly is 'the rest of us'? It certainly doesn't include > me and I'd claim that it doesn't include anyone but you. If there are > people who specifically agree with you then let them speak for > themselves. Do you really want this to turn into a whole thread of "I see no problem with Debian UK either!" ? [0] http://db.debian.org can't be wrong can it? -- --( "Just wait. My crystal ball is infallible." -- )-- Simon ( Linus ) Nomis Htag.pl 0.0.22 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Branden's mail policies
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 03:22:33PM -0500, Branden Robinson / Debian Project Leader wrote: > Again, for those who are reading in a hurry: > As of 10 May 2005, when I find myself blacklisted when sending mail as > [EMAIL PROTECTED], I fall back to a host that is not blacklisted. Great news. Thanks. -- --( "Fun, fun, fun, in the sun, sun, sun..." )-- Simon ( ) Nomis Htag.pl 0.0.22 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Branden's mail policies
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 12:42:30AM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 04:30:14PM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote: > > I'd like to think Branden would fix his mail setup for leader@ (or > > best get his ISP to remove his IP from the DUL or provide one which > > isn't on that list) in order to help the Debian project's image and > > not just been seen as biting the hand that feeds by whinging about > > people who reject his mail. > Where did he whine? His message simply said: > * Switzerland: Marc Schaefer periodically collects donations and > sends them along to another organization, which I think is `ffis > e.V.`_. Unfortunately, I have not been able to reach Marc to > clarify this because he has been (probably inadvertently) `blocking > my mail`_. You missed: > > I received an interview request from Andy Channelle of the UK > > publication Linux Format, but unfortunately was unable to get my > > response to him because he's `blocking my mail`_. A freelancer for > > the `Gartner Group`_ also contacted me with a very long message, to > > which I'm not sure how to reply yet. > > .. _blocking my mail: http://deadbeast.net/~branden/homepage/mailblock.html > How does that constitute as whining? He's publically whining about the fact these people are BLOCKING HIS MAIL when in fact it may just be the circumstances of their workplace/ISP/whatever that they are unable to change. Yet it's their names he's publically trying to blacken. Branden, being a technical person who is well aware of the problems of a DUL'd IP, could take the more mature approach and ask his ISP for an IP which isn't on the DUL or get his ISP to remove the range from the DUL. These aren't difficult to at least ask for but he'd rather whine on and on about these people who are BLOCKING HIS MAIL instead of taking a mature approach to it. Why is my point of view hard to understand? I'm not asking him to fix people who blacklist, I'm not saying that the DUL is the best thing since sliced bread, I'm not trying to promote the DUL or blacklists in general, I'm just trying to ask for a bit of maturity in the way he deals with mail as leader of the Debian project. Apparently that's too much to ask. Simon. -- oOoOo "An excellent suggestion sir, with only two minor oOoOo oOoOoflaws" - Kryten oOoOo oOoOo oOoOo htag.pl 0.0.22 ::: http://www.earth.li/~huggie/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Branden's mail policies
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 12:10:54AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 11:02:26 +0100, Simon Huggins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > Sure, not with his maintainer hat on, not with his personal hat on, > > but when you're in a role and posting from a role address I believe > > that occasional jumping through hoops may be required. > I don't. People in role addresses are already serving the public good > far more than bystanders, and more than ordinary developers, they are > _already_ giving more than enough. Sure, but how does Branden serve the public good by whining about people dropping his mail? On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 12:05:27AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:12:55 +1000, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > note that there is no third option of whinging about how your rights > > are being infringed because your dynamic-IP mail is being blocked. > > you do not have ANY right to demand that your mail must be accepted > > by anyone. nobody has that right. > I don't whine about some morons not getting my email And that's why I didn't start this thread about secretary@ but [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 12:07:34AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:35:31 +0200, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > The question is: Should the DPL jump through hoops to make sure his > > mails are recieved by people, even if they have other opinions on > > email transports than he has? > No. The DPL, hopefully, jas better ways to spend his time, and more > critical tasks to perform, than to jump through hoops to please people > who just drop mail without paying any attention to content. He hardly has to jump through hoops but I've explained this over and over again. Also please note that I don't block mail with the DUL or indeed any blacklist. I'd like to think Branden would fix his mail setup for leader@ (or best get his ISP to remove his IP from the DUL or provide one which isn't on that list) in order to help the Debian project's image and not just been seen as biting the hand that feeds by whinging about people who reject his mail. Simon. -- -+//There was a young man from LeDoux,\\+- -+<<Whose limericks stopped at line two.>>+- -+\\ There was a young man from Verdunne. //+- Colocate your server with http://www.blackcatnetworks.co.uk signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Branden's mail policies
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 03:49:04PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Blacklisting based on dial-up or dynamic status is nothing more than > an effort to turn the internet into an oligarchy, where only the rich > and powerful can control mail. It's a power grab. That's all it does > and all it's intended to do. This has nothing to do with this thread. Please don't turn this into a why the DUL is good/bad thread. Simon. -- * CALLING SOMETHING A FIGURE OF SPEECH DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT* | TRUE.-Death | * * Brought to you by the letter I and the number 16 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Branden's mail policies
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 04:35:31PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 10:35:50PM +1000, Sam Couter wrote: > > 1) The Internet is peer-to-peer. You want to break that? > > 2) Some of the ISPs I've used refuse to relay my messages when they > > claim to be from my dropbear address instead of the ISPs domain. > > 3) If I can't afford DSL or cable, or it's not available in my area, I'm > > stuck on dial-up. What difference does that make to a mail spool? > Your points are all valid, yet they are unrelated to the Subject of > your mail. Thanks. > The question is: Should the DPL jump through hoops to make sure his > mails are recieved by people, even if they have other opinions on > email transports than he has? It's not especially jumping through hoops and it's in his job as being our leader and responding to things like as he stated interview requests, and getting information he wanted on donations. I suggested ways to get around it in the original mail: - get a non-DUL'd IP from his ISP - change ISP - or if he trusts the current ISP so much use their presumably non-DUL'd smarthost - use a different host to relay mail through (e.g. one of the Debian boxes) It's really not a technical issue at all. I imagine it's a point of principle for Branden however it's one I consider inappropriate for someone holding the post of DPL especially when they then name and shame the recipients publically for offering to interview him/collect donation information. Simon. -- -+//"Bet ya five dollars I get off" - Pusher to Mulder (3x17) \\+- -+<<>>+- -+\\ //+- Colocate your server with http://www.blackcatnetworks.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Branden's mail policies
On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 02:53:21AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Sunday June 19 2005 2:31 am, Simon Huggins wrote: > > You can see on your "blacklist backlash" that JaNET, the UK's > > academic network is listed as respecting the DUL. Blacklisting via > > the DUL is a positive measure when coupled with virus scanning > > smarthosts as it reduces the number of virus mails spread by clients > > like Outlook. > Y'all do realize that greylisting takes care of those about 9 out of > 10 times, and the overhead to do virus scanning is minimal on what > does keep retrying long enough to get greylisted, right? DULs are > considered stupid, you might as well just deny mail from 0.0.0.0/0. My point isn't a technical one; it's a social one. Our elected leader, when faced with a problem that he knows will stop his mail being delivered to certain recipients, should IMHO work around it in order to fulfill his role. Sure, not with his maintainer hat on, not with his personal hat on, but when you're in a role and posting from a role address I believe that occasional jumping through hoops may be required. To not do so, and further more to pretend that this is all the recipients fault (do they all control their mail servers?) and highlighting the fact that they are doing so via a public announcement just seems like a great way to piss off lots of people. I think Debian annoys enough people already without adding more ways ;) Simon. -- [ "And on that day, Lister, Satan will be skating to work."] Black Cat Networks. http://www.blackcatnetworks.co.uk/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Branden's mail policies
Hi all, I originally sent this mail to: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] i.e. Leader and Project SCUD I've not had any form of reply though and feel this is a problem the project needs to address if the leader is going to continue to send mail from a blacklisted host and not care about doing so. On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 01:33:25AM -0500, Branden Robinson / Debian Project Leader wrote: > * Switzerland: Marc Schaefer periodically collects donations and sends > them along to another organization, which I think is `ffis e.V.`_. > Unfortunately, I have not been able to reach Marc to clarify this > because he has been (probably inadvertently) `blocking my mail`_. [..] > I received an interview request from Andy Channelle of the UK > publication Linux Format, but unfortunately was unable to get my > response to him because he's `blocking my mail`_. A freelancer for the > `Gartner Group`_ also contacted me with a very long message, to which > I'm not sure how to reply yet. > Conclusion > -- > I'm curious to know how you feel I am fulfilling my responsibilities as > Debian Project Leader. You can reach me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] > .. _blocking my mail: http://deadbeast.net/~branden/homepage/mailblock.html If you are mailing on behalf of yourself, then I don't think anyone cares how you mail people but if you are mailing on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED] then perhaps you could consider using one of the Debian machines instead of a known blacklisted IP on a widely blacklisted range. Your ISP has added your range to the DUL as I'm sure you as an intelligent technical person know so I am slightly amazed that you don't see any need to either contact your ISP to get a different IP, change ISP, use a different host to send your mail, or if you trust your current ISP so much then use their smarthost. Whilst I realise you won't change when mailing as yourself, as part of your duties as our leader I believe you really should make every effort to get your message acrosss. I'd urge the other members of Project Scud to encourage Branden to use a Debian machine with an IP that isn't listed in the DUL to send mail if he won't consider any other approaches. You can see on your "blacklist backlash" that JaNET, the UK's academic network is listed as respecting the DUL. Blacklisting via the DUL is a positive measure when coupled with virus scanning smarthosts as it reduces the number of virus mails spread by clients like Outlook. I'm happy for this mail to see a wider audience. If you can indicate in any reply whether you are or not that would be useful. Thanks. -- ,--huggie-at-earth-dot-listuff-thing-stuff--DF5CE2B4--. _| "Therapy is expensive. Popping bubble wrap is cheap. You choose." |_ | | `- http://www.earth.li/~huggie/ - http://www.blackcatnetworks.co.uk/ -' signature.asc Description: Digital signature
