Re: Top posting - was Re: sendmail vulnerability
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 17:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6 Mar 2003, at 4:43pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've done top posting because I'm to lazy ... You can stop there. I see your problem. :-) Not entirely. Regarding Derek's comments about what tools my wife may use are way off mark. You see, my wife uses Yahoo mail. My Dad uses Outlook. My Dad does the 'sanctioned' way of replying. My wife gets confused where to see my Dad's comments. If the tools forced the 'sanctioned' behavior then maybe Mike's annoying 'don't do that' messages would be less numerous. As for my laziness, it's because Evolution doesn't have 'reply, reply with quote' buttons on the mail composer. You set the default action as an option. Sometimes I don't want to quote at all and when that's the case I tend to top quote. If you want the list members to follow specific guidelines, then place a url on the bottom of each message. Anyhow, this isn't meant to be a flame fest. Just my two cents. -- Jeff Macdonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Top posting - was Re: sendmail vulnerability
On 6 Mar 2003, Jeff == Jeff Macdonald wrote: Jeff Mike, You seem to be a mission. You know, I've thought and called mike a lot of things over the years, but I've never considered him a mission :) Jeff I've done top posting because I'm to lazy to delete all the Jeff text that Evolution places in the message by default. So what you're saying is that you're also selfish enough to be completely inconsiderate of the majority of us on the list who follow the various rules of good netiquette and that you're personal convenience should over-ride the social norms of this community? Jeff Perhaps the answer is a smarter mail client that somehow Jeff prevents top posting? How about a more considerate user who respects the customs of the community, and maybe one who can properly configure their mail client properly? Jeff However, I do know that my wife gets confused when comments Jeff are intermingled with the original message. You wife is not on this list, so I find this statement to be completely irrelevent. What your wife or anyone else finds confusing has no bearing to the practices adhered to on this list. If you wish to be part of any community, you need to follow the rules to which that community subscribes. If you don't, there are consequences to pay. Here, you'll likely be ignored, filtered out by something like procmail, or, for the worst offenders, barred from the list (though no one has ever reveived that here to my knowledge). But, since you brought it up, I've found that most people who are new[1] to the 'net and have not bothered to read up on the good practices of netiquette both 'get confused' as you say, and usually don't follow the rules. Please read: ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/rfc/rfc1855.txt and http://www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.html I don't mean to sound unusually harsh, however, the idea that your personal laziness is more important than being considerate to others in this community I find totally intolerable. Please be nice, and please play nicely with the other children in this sandbox. Thanks, Paul [1] By 'new to the net' I mean anyone who has come on to the net since about 1997. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Top posting - was Re: sendmail vulnerability
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 11:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6 Mar 2003, Jeff == Jeff Macdonald wrote: Jeff Mike, You seem to be a mission. You know, I've thought and called mike a lot of things over the years, but I've never considered him a mission :) :-) Sorry Mike. harsh stuff deleted I don't mean to sound unusually harsh, however, the idea that your personal laziness is more important than being considerate to others in this community I find totally intolerable. Just because I have 'done' top posting doesn't mean I always do. And where did I say my laziness was more important? A much kinder list member sent me a message pointing out that list conversations follow different guidelines then personal conversations. I was using my wife as an example that intermingling quotes isn't that obvious to everyone. I was making statements about top posting in general. I now realize that perhaps I should of marked my message as [OT] to make that clearer for some individuals that the comments in the message may not directly correlate to the list. Now back to my 'can a tool help'. Some mail clients warn you when you send a message with no subject. Why not add a similar feature for top posting? If there is a List-Id header and there's new text at the top of the message, warn the user! Please be nice, and please play nicely with the other children in this sandbox. Thanks, Paul Heed your own advice. As far as I know I haven't been kicking any sand at anyone. :-) Oh, your .sig is 2 lines over *guideline* recommendations (I'm referring to your later message). ;-) -- Jeff Macdonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Top posting - was Re: sendmail vulnerability
So, how 'bout them Linux - ain't they sumthin! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Top posting - was Re: sendmail vulnerability
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 15:45, Derek Martin wrote: More often than not, said aggravation is, I think, the result of the ego of the OP being unwilling to take being corrected/criticized. I'm more than willing to be corrected/criticized. I don't think it is fair for someone to extrapolate a general statement into state of mind. It seems that some list members believe I'm a completely lazy bastard with no consideration to other list members based on one statement I made. That statement about laziness was referring to the time we all take a shortcut, irregardless of the consequences. Well I hope that my future actions will speak louder than my previous words. Otherwise a polite acknowledgement is all that is needed. Mike's original request to avoid top posting was terse but polite, and should be viewed by all for what it is: a polite request for people to conform to what most agree is the modus operandi of list posters here on this list, and in general good netiquette. The OP can ignore such requests if he/she wants to (though should expect full well to be castigated further in the future for not complying), but arguing about it is pointless. I'm not choosing to ignore it. I'm not for top posting. I'm for trying to find a way to prevent it. I agree that my desire to have option for the mail user agent help prevent top posting is not a substitute for education. But it can't hurt either. Note: I'm assuming that OP refers to me, if it meant as a reference to top posters in general then I'm sorry for my confusion. -- Jeff Macdonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Top posting - was Re: sendmail vulnerability
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, at 2:16pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've found that taking up extra bandwidth for this sort of conversation thread is just as inconsiderate as not following any other general rule. One thing I've noticed is that any discussion about this sort of thing invariably causes more aggravation and uses more bandwidth than the original transgression. :-) I agree with Paul and Mike, but I think it would be best for all involved if such discussions, along with remarks like Please don't top post, be sent privately. They are of value, but they do not need to be broadcast to all. I will try to heed my own advice. :-) -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do | | not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. | | All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Top posting - was Re: sendmail vulnerability
On Friday, March 7, 2003, at 03:45 PM, Derek Martin wrote: One thing I've noticed is that any discussion about this sort of thing invariably causes more aggravation and uses more bandwidth than the original transgression. :-) More often than not, said aggravation is, I think, the result of the ego of the OP being unwilling to take being corrected/criticized. Let's keep dragging this on. As such, I think public response is more efficient, and hence better. I agree. A little humility once in a while is good for the soul. Erik -- Erik Price email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Top posting - was Re: sendmail vulnerability
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 15:17, mike ledoux wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Please don't top post, it breaks up the flow of conversation. Mike, You seem to be a mission. I've done top posting because I'm to lazy to delete all the text that Evolution places in the message by default. Perhaps the answer is a smarter mail client that somehow prevents top posting? However, I do know that my wife gets confused when comments are intermingled with the original message. -- Jeff Macdonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Top posting - was Re: sendmail vulnerability
On 6 Mar 2003, at 4:43pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've done top posting because I'm to lazy ... You can stop there. I see your problem. :-) -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do | | not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. | | All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: sendmail vulnerability
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 17:47, Jon maddog Hall wrote: You should also mention that RedHat 8.0 is not susceptible to this bug. Um, I beg to differ. At least according to the advisory. Quoting the advisory (at http://lwn.net/Alerts/24201/): -=-=-= All users are advised to update to these erratum packages. For Red Hat Linux 8.0 we have included Sendmail version 8.12.8 which is not vulnerable to these issues. For all other distributions we have included a backported patch which corrects these vulnerabilities. -=-=-= That to me says that they have provided an upgraded version of sendmail (from 8.12.5 which is vulnerable to 8.12.8 which is not vulnerable) for Red Hat 8.0. The 'which is not vulnerable' refers to the newer version of sendmail, not to Red Hat 8.0. Errata for all other releases are not version 8.12.8 of sendmail, but rather a backported patch of the older sendmail included with those releases. -- -Paul Iadonisi Senior System Administrator Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux. GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: sendmail vulnerability
Redhat has posted a patch (along with other vendors), it is well advised to patch soon as there are reports circulating about hackers attempting to take advantage of non-patched systems. At 03:26 PM 3/3/03 -0500, Michael O'Donnell wrote: Heads up - http://www.iss.net/issEn/delivery/xforce/alertdetail.jsp?oid=21950 . ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss T. Warfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wackyfarm.com Free Leonard Peltier http://www.freepeltier.org -- ...sometimes dreams are wiser than waking... -- Black Elk ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: sendmail vulnerability
You should also mention that RedHat 8.0 is not susceptible to this bug. md -- Jon maddog Hall Executive Director Linux(R) International email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 80 Amherst St. Voice: +1.603.672.4557 Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A. WWW: http://www.li.org Board Member: Uniforum Association, USENIX Association (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: sendmail vulnerability
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 PS: Redhat 8.0 is not affected by this. (Thanks Maddog!) Todd At 05:40 PM 3/4/03 -0500, T. Warfield wrote: Redhat has posted a patch (along with other vendors), it is well advised to patch soon as there are reports circulating about hackers attempting to take advantage of non-patched systems. At 03:26 PM 3/3/03 -0500, Michael O'Donnell wrote: Heads up - http://www.iss.net/issEn/delivery/xforce/alertdetail.jsp?oid=21950 . ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss T. Warfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wackyfarm.com Free Leonard Peltier http://www.freepeltier.org -- ...sometimes dreams are wiser than waking... -- Black Elk ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss T. Warfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wackyfarm.com Free Leonard Peltier http://www.freepeltier.org - -- ...sometimes dreams are wiser than waking... -- Black Elk -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use http://www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBPmUtvxQmqGL0VQnuEQIz0QCeJ8UvPVRRXet5EnLMBWqJkwp9wCgAoMEi 3jllGq/o+P1HWrXy6wEozwKb =H/xA -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
sendmail vulnerability
Heads up - http://www.iss.net/issEn/delivery/xforce/alertdetail.jsp?oid=21950 . ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
