On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:17:56 +0100 (BST)
G.W. Haywood wrote:
> In a 'PS' footnote in my original post I merely asked another poster
> to be considerate to me, and not to include my email address in the
> body of his message.
I've now changed my reply template to accommodate you, I will add that
I
On Sep 25, 2012, at 6:17 AM, G.W. Haywood wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Al Varnell wrote:
>
>> ... my understanding of what he's asking now is that the list
>> server remove any addresses that their client includes.
>
> For the sake of clarity, I did not ask that. I also did not ask for
> policy
Hi there,
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Al Varnell wrote:
... my understanding of what he's asking now is that the list
server remove any addresses that their client includes.
For the sake of clarity, I did not ask that. I also did not ask for
policy changes at Sourcefire, nor did I ask anyone to for
Hi--
On Sep 24, 2012, at 10:28 AM, Al Varnell wrote:
[ ... ]
> I agree that trying to force people to do so would be a loosing battle and
> not worth the effort. I subscribe to many lists and must say that this is
> the first time I've read such a request. But my understanding of what he's
> ask
On 9/24/12 8:41 AM, "Joel Esler" wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2012, at 7:23 AM, G.W. Haywood wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012, Joel Esler wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe you are talking about something I'm not aware of.
>>
>> This is standard mailing list etiquette going back, I guess, almost a
>>
On Sep 24, 2012, at 7:23 AM, G.W. Haywood wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012, Joel Esler wrote:
>
>> Maybe you are talking about something I'm not aware of.
>
> This is standard mailing list etiquette going back, I guess, almost a
> couple of decades and I'm both surprised and disappoi
B0;261;0cHi there,
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012, Joel Esler wrote:
My point being that we have a bug open on it, we're working on it,
so continuing trying to argue the point is pointless. ...
Ah, yes, I think we are at crossed purposes here. I'm not trying to
convince you to act on the enhancement r
Hi there,
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012, Joel Esler wrote:
Maybe you are talking about something I'm not aware of.
This is standard mailing list etiquette going back, I guess, almost a
couple of decades and I'm both surprised and disappointed to have to
go over it here.
But by the pure fact that you
Joel Esler skrev den 23-09-2012 17:59:
So maybe we are confused about what you are talking about, or
perhaps you are.
is default reply template in Apple Mail to blame ?
just becurse its common it not the same as its common good idear
dont post my email with Apple Mail
respect that i dont do
On Sep 22, 2012, at 9:50 AM, G.W. Haywood wrote:
> Mr. Esler's assertion that this is a pedantic argument, given his
> position, bothers me a little.
My point being that we have a bug open on it, we're working on it, so
continuing trying to argue the point is pointless. We're already working o
On Sep 23, 2012, at 6:47 AM, G.W. Haywood wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012, Brian Morrison wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 14:50:10 +0100 (BST) G.W. Haywood wrote:
>>
>>> PS Please don't mail somebody's email address to the whole world.
>>
>> It's in the list headers, it's already been made public.
Hello again,
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 14:50:10 +0100 (BST) G.W. Haywood wrote:
PS Please don't mail somebody's email address to the whole world.
It's in the list headers, it's already been made public...
Flame wars aren't going to get us anywhere. I
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 17:02:40 +0200
Benny Pedersen wrote:
> if you post your own i will reply with it non hidded
Be my guest, my email address has been public for many years without
problems.
--
Brian Morrison
"I am not young enough to know everything"
Brian Morrison skrev den 2012-09-22 16:52:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 14:50:10 +0100 (BST)
"G.W. Haywood" wrote:
PS Please don't mail somebody's email address to the whole world.
It's in the list headers, it's already been made public on the list
and in the archives.
bots dont read headers, so i
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 14:50:10 +0100 (BST)
"G.W. Haywood" wrote:
> PS Please don't mail somebody's email address to the whole world.
It's in the list headers, it's already been made public on the list
and in the archives.
--
Brian Morrison
"I am not young enough to know everyth
Hello again,
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:31:59 +0100 (BST) "G.W. Haywood" wrote:
If a compiler is not there it is *impossible* for it to do anything,
and that statement does not rely on your opinion.
It isn't Ken Thompson's opinion, it isn't necessary f
As pedantic as this argument is, I understand both sides of the argument.
We have a bug in the system now, and we'll start triaging what it would
take to make that happen.
Thanks.
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Brian Morrison wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:31:59 +0100 (BST)
> "G.W. Haywood
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:31:59 +0100 (BST)
"G.W. Haywood" wrote:
> If a compiler is not there it is *impossible* for it to do anything,
> and that statement does not rely on your opinion.
It isn't Ken Thompson's opinion, it isn't necessary for a compiler to
exist for malicious acts to be possible.
Hi there,
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Den 2012-09-20 12:42, G.W. Haywood skrev:
option which disables the bytecode interpreter. ...
it can be disabled in freshclam.conf
No, that disables loading bytecode. The interpreter is still there.
so this is a problem ?
Yes.
witho
Den 2012-09-20 12:42, G.W. Haywood skrev:
option which disables the bytecode interpreter. ...
it can be disabled in freshclam.conf
No, that disables loading bytecode. The interpreter is still there.
so this is a problem ?
without signatures it does nothing imho
___
Hi there,
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Den 2012-09-19 13:21, G.W. Haywood skrev:
option which disables the bytecode interpreter. ...
it can be disabled in freshclam.conf
No, that disables loading bytecode. The interpreter is still there.
--
73,
Ged.
__
Hi there,
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012, Joel Esler wrote:
On Sep 19, 2012, at 7:21 AM, G.W. Haywood wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Joel Esler wrote:
... I'm unhappy with the bytecode interpreter ...
Okay, have you opened a feature request bug in our bugzilla tracking
system so we can get it tagged for
On Sep 19, 2012, at 7:21 AM, G.W. Haywood wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Joel Esler wrote:
>
>> In order for us to get some accurate statistics about what you all
>> are seeing out there, in the field, we need as many people as
>> possible to "opt-in" to some statistics gathering fe
Den 2012-09-19 13:21, G.W. Haywood skrev:
I'd be happy to get up to date and let you have some *interesting*
statistics if you could just see your way to including a compile-time
option which disables the bytecode interpreter. Mr. Skoll and I
asked
about this over two years ago:
it can be d
Hi there,
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Joel Esler wrote:
In order for us to get some accurate statistics about what you all
are seeing out there, in the field, we need as many people as
possible to "opt-in" to some statistics gathering features that we
have built into the code base.
I'd be happy to o
25 matches
Mail list logo
