On 9/15/2016 10:19 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2016-09-15 at 22:03, Ben Finney wrote:
>
>> The Wanderer writes:
>>
>>> On 2016-09-15 at 21:26, Wookey wrote:
>>>
I reckon a lot of us would be happier if you [Russ] (and Abou)
used the term 'users', rather than 'customers'. I know I think
On 07.09.2014 18:02, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 04:37:31PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Hi,
During Debconf14, I could chat with Joey about the future of
Tasksel,
and having a "More option" task, which would lead to a new screen
which
would propose more tasks.
Before anyone
On 09/02/2014 12:28 PM, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02 2014, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>
>> there's a GPG option (via the the *-cert-level options, see 'man gpg')
>> to state how carefully you did verify their identity, but ultimately
>> it's up to you.
>
> That is not how I inter
On 05.03.2014 04:01, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
Le mercredi, 5 mars 2014, 10.47:07 Paul Wise a écrit :
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:55 AM, Xavier Roche wrote:
> I have a rather silly question: would a mail (signed with this
key)
> request to the DDs who already signed the initial key (and checked
I've actually been in the process of working to transition from my
existing to 1024D key I created back in 2002 with my new 4096R key I
created in 2011 that I use 3072R subkeys on a OpenPGP v2 smartcard.
Unfortunately I haven't been able to get together with any other DDs to
perform a key signi
On 11.07.2013 09:12, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
On 07/11/2013 14:15, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Lars Meyser wrote:
No I did not miss that, but I'm not entirely sure of the
implications. So if I
use a packaged version of a program which has been modified (e.g.
by Debian
pat
On 11.04.2013 15:35, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
Completely unrelated to it's GSoC-eyness (which I would love to see,
quick, put it on the ideas page and put interested parties as
mentors!),
I really hate the idea of "loosing" an unencrypted copy of my GPG
private half. I misplace everything, I do
I don't have a doc available per se, but my own practices are mentioned
in the key policy doc that I embed when I sign someone's key. It's
available at http://undergrid.net/legal/gpg/ for the current version.
The highlights are basically that I have 2 separate USB drives with
encry
Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Ralf Treinen wrote:
>> GPG keysigning coordination is since a long time done by a small
>> group of people independendent from FrontDesk. Currently this is
>> basically me, with an offer from Patrick Schoenfeld to help. In
>> the past tbm and Luk have been part of that team.
I just felt like interjecting after having been reading up on this
tread. The whole multiarch situation is exactly why my workstation was
re-installed with FC5's x86_64 from the old Debian amd64 distro. Someday
when Debian has multiarch I'll switch it back but for now all my 64 bit
machines
I take issue with this because we [the xen team] have never excluded
anyone and have tried to get all those people interested in solid Debian
packages of xen to come forth and help. I spent a good amount of time
before actually forming the Alioth project attempting to get in touch
with peop
As I recall you are correct on this, atleast with Stable and
testing... I have had OPIE setup for awhile on machines that only have
admin accounts and no general user accounts and I recall having to turn
off privilege separation on them to get it to work with the
challenge-response system.
In looking to try and setup pinning on a couple of my machines I went
looking at the Release files for the various sites I use... For the most
part I found them to have a similar suite of attributes to work from but
I did notice a difference betwen "Components" and "Component" and just
tryi
As I currently run a jabber server and have had to manually compile
the transports myself I'll take a look at the packaging and get back
privately... If someone else has already offered to work with you then
it doesn't hurt to have another set of eyes look over it atleast...
Regard
Well being the fwbuilder maintainer yes this is the correct behavior as
fwbuilder itself doesn't have anything that depends on xauth... I also as a
network administrator for a living, and I do use fwbuilder for my own internal
firewall, don't recommend running it from the firewall itself an
I have one of my two Multias online 24/7 runnin Woody/stable
that might be of assistance...
Jeremy
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 09:04:59PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've got a problem with a package I maintain building from source on the
> Alpha architecture.
>
> I'm s
ve had to make changes locally to install them because of
deficiencies in the PHP packages. Also there is an update to PEAR itself
which would have the potential of conflicting completely with the
current php4-pear package.
Respectfully,
Jeremy T. Bouse
pgpp4QjyKXXXB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Can I get the ARM buildd to attempt rebuild of fwbuilder? The
build on the Jan 1 failed due to libfwbuilder 0.10.4 dependency however
it was built Dec 31st...
Jeremy
erly to queries.
Respectfully,
Jeremy T. Bouse
UnderGrid Network Services, LLC
Joey Hess was said to been seen saying:
> Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Here's where theory and practice come into play. I only have a small chunk
> > of 203.36.158.* (113-127,
eckpoint and
NAI's solution among others... I have a sonicwall here in the office
but haven't been able to test it although sonicwall claims to interop
with checkpoint which would seem that freeswan would interop with it...
Respectfully,
Jeremy T. Bouse
UnderGrid
Respectfully,
Jeremy T. Bouse
Will Lowe was said to been seen saying:
> You would send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED], along with the rest of
> your application.
>
> Be advised that Debian hasn't been processing new maintainer applications
> for a while now; the process is about
21 matches
Mail list logo
