Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> in my opinion the new [qmail] license is DFSG-free.
There ain't no new license. DJB simply retracted his copyright. As of
now, anyone can copy the qmail 1.03 code, make modifications at will,
claim copyright for those modifications, and distribute the whole under
any li
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Julian Mehnle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: net-dns-resolver-programmable-perl
Version : 0.003.1
Upstream Author : Julian Mehnle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Net-DNS-Resolver-
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Julian Mehnle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: mail-spf-perl
Version : 2.005
Upstream Author : Julian Mehnle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Mail-SPF/
* License : BSD
Programmin
Charles Fry wrote:
> [...] I have already packaged the new upstream release of
> libhtml-mason-perl.
Could you make the prepared package available for download in advance?
That would be great!
Julian.
pgpUAPiI9FbmW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
> Eric Lavarde writes,
> > in some man pages ... the dashes and single quotes are
> > not really what they look like, but some other unicode
> > letter. This has two major drawbacks:
> > - search for options become nearly impossible
> > ...
>
> You illustrate well the fund
Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
> However, the typical roster of skills one masters in contributing
> broadly to Debian development is already awesome: C, C++, CPP, Make,
> Perl, Python, Autoconf, CVS, Shell, Glibc, System calls, /proc, IPC,
> sockets, Sed, Awk, Vi, Emacs, locales, Libdb, GnuPG, Readline,
Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
> I do not deny that Latin-1 represents all the languages I can read, and
> that this fact may color my view. Nevertheless to me a source written
> in Chinese is effectively non-free. It might as well be a compiled
> binary blob.
So Emacs is effectively non-free, becaus
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If we ever get a replacement libc that would really work as
> replacement... on such system GNU claims would become much weaker. Not
> that there was a serious chance of that happening - drop-in replacement
> of glibc on Linux would be a lot of work and so far none of th
Lucas Albers wrote:
> Julian Mehnle wrote:
> > I know this is no panacea, since in many cases, the maintainer cannot
> > know whether a package will perish at all (like when all spammers
> > promptly give up "advancing" their software, so a given version of
>
Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> Why people tend to become polemic when they have no arguments left?
Very good question.
Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> Oh, great... I wouldnÂt have expected that getting polemic is a
> necessary to become DPL... :-//
So can we please end this flamewar before it really star
Scott Minns wrote:
> Thanks for your replyâs, I like the idea of making some packages
> "perishable" the trouble is where would you draw the line?
We could add an optional control field "Expires: $date" to packages, so package
maintainers could decide for themselves. After a package has expired,
Hi Peter,
Alexander Wirt wrote:
> Am Fr, den 12.12.2003 schrieb Julian Mehnle um 15:32:
> > Benjamin Drieu wrote:
> > > I no longer use usemod-wiki and thus have no time to maintain it.
> > > Package is in good shape, no serious bugs. Very few work is needed
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Benjamin Drieu wrote:
> I no longer use usemod-wiki and thus have no time to maintain it.
> Package is in good shape, no serious bugs. Very few work is needed to
> maintain it as release cycle is quite long.
>
> The only one todo item is to package v
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> "Julian Mehnle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > We could use a revocation list where signatures of packages with
> > known security holes are listed as being revoked. Of course, you'd
> > need to be online to check it when
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > What can we do with deb signatures?
> >
> > For our current problem, the integrity of the debian archive being
> > questioned, the procedure would be easy and available to every user:
> >
> > 1. get any clean Debian keyring (or
Russell Coker wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:14, "Julian Mehnle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You cannot verify the IP address *exactly*, but you can verify
> > whether the IP address lies within a range. Dial-up users could at
> > least register a c
Russell Coker wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:16, Patrick Ouellette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Instead of a smartcard/token/whatever physical device, this incident
> > could possibly have been thwarted by requiring developers to
> > pre-register their machine with the project (using ssh host key
Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> * Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031203 04:03]:
> > I have sent a message to Werner asking if the GPG smart-card device
> > could be re-implemented with a USB interface. I think that a USB
> > dongle with GPG technology would be a good option as most developer's
> > m
Steve Lamb wrote:
> 2: Can you provide an example of such free-style coding that you speak
> so highly of?
# Split header into separate header lines, dropping any unneeded or
# spurious header lines:
@header_lines = grep(
(
/^(?:
# Wanted headers:
X-Spam-Status
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Without, that is, installing every package in Debian.
>
> I'm curious, for instance, as to why emacs20 hasn't managed to be
> removed yet. Presumably something depends on it. But I can't figure
> out what.
`apt-cache showpkg emacs20`
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Just ditch the ataraid crap, the only use for it is to share raid arrays
> with MS Windows.
That was my point. So I can't ditch the ATARAID crap. Sorry.
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Julian Mehnle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is "md RAID" (I don't know this one) compatible with ATARAID in
> > regard of the partition/storage layout on disks, i.e. can I use
> > ATARAID drivers to access "md RAID&
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Julian Mehnle wrote:
> > That would be great! At least if it means ATARAID-style
> > software RAID. No opinion about LVM-style RAID.
>
> Yuck (if by ATARAID you mean those PoS controllers from, e.g., Promise
>
Brian May wrote:
> I have tried debian-installer, and found it to be great!
>
> I just have three feature requests, if they aren't already supported:
> [...]
> 3. Software raid support?
That would be great! At least if it means ATARAID-style software RAID. No
opinion about LVM-style RAID.
Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 08:18:51AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> > Even if this is not a personal issue of Mr. Troup towards me, having
> > ftpmaster behave like A today and like B tomorrow is a bad thing. If I
>
> There's more than one person behind ftpmaster.
Obviously, he know
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
First, I think what Daniel Jacobowitz said is entirely true. Why didn't you
start with "testing"?
> All he had to do was install an older version of libc6 and every other
> package would have been happy. All the infrastructure is there to do
> this,
Kris Deugau wrote:
> > > OK, I think I've thought of a sort of a counter-example: [...]
> > > I'm sending "from" myfriendsdomain.com's server, but I don't have an
> > > account there. I do, however, have an account [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > on my own server- to which I want all replies/bounces/etc to
Kris Deugau wrote:
> Julian Mehnle wrote:
> > Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > > If I send an e-mail over mail.nusrf.at with envelope-from
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am _not_ forging anything or making
> > > "unauthorized use of domains"
> >
> >
John Hasler wrote:
> Joel Baker writes:
> > If adding .1 to your SA score for lacking a repudiation protocol, and
> > 3 (or 5, or whatever) for claiming to be from a domain that denies
> > that it origionates mail to the rest of the world from your IP...
>
> I have no IP. Outgoing mail from home
John Hasler wrote:
> Julian Mehnle writes:
> > No, but this again is one of these broken "e-mail vs. real world"
> > analogies. You can't receive mail through such a letter box, but a
> > sender address is inherently meant to be a valid address through which
&
John Hasler wrote:
> Julian Mehnle writes:
> > It does very well make sense to specify a "sender address" for an
> > e-mail, and that's exactly what the SMTP "MAIL FROM" command AKA
> > envelope-from (and the "Sender:" header) is meant to be.
Michael Poole wrote:
> Julian Mehnle writes:
> > Don't you agree on my understanding of a sender address (or source
> > mailbox) being the address (or source mailbox) the sender sends
> > from? If so, please state it explicitly, so I have something I can
> > arg
Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 02:47:44PM +0200, Julian Mehnle wrote:
> > There you have it. It's the "source mailbox", and while it can be
> > used to report errors, it can *not only* be used to report errors.
> > I'm relieved that t
Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Julian Mehnle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > > If I send an e-mail over mail.nusrf.at with envelope-from
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am _not_ forging anything or making
> > > "unauthorized use of dom
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Riku Voipio
> > Second hint: If you insist on your right to forge your email address,
> > anyone else can forge your address as well. Is that a right you really
> > need?
>
> Uhm, how would you forge your own mail address? It's like forging
> your own signature, somethi
Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Julian Mehnle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's about forging an e-mail sender's identity. By preventing the
> > unauthorized use of domains as the sender domain of e-mails, most of
> > the practiced cases of identity forgery are
(Andreas, please excuse the accidental CC!)
Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Julian Mehnle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Convince the owner of these domains that you are (that is, your
> > outgoing mail server is) allowed to send mail "from these domains".
>
> T
(Bernhard, please excuse the accidental CC!)
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [031012 20:25]:
> > Second hint: If you insist on your right to forge your email address,
> > anyone else can forge your address as well. Is that a right you really
> > need?
>
> It's about to
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Gerfried Fuchs
> > The concept of SMTP AUTH is completely new to you, is it? Sorry,
> > these kind of objections are just as silly as you call the proposal
> > silly.
>
> Uhm, no, why should it be? Having gnus set up to use SMTP auth and
> using a different server base
Karsten M. Self wrote:
> [Using DNS RBLs to block spam is bad.]
> As many people have noted, for pretty much _any_
> given IP, your odds are good that most of the mail received from it is
> spam. It doesn't do much for the legit mail that comes through. Given
> that we now _do_ have good content
cobaco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2003-08-20 15:33, John Goerzen wrote:
> > tne pain of breaking desktops is no less when
> > you consider how many more desktops we're talking about here.
>
> that's assuming that all those desktops crash at the same time no?
No, it's assuming that all those
Steve Greenland wrote:
> Or perhaps we should just decree that no unmaitained packages go out
> in a stable release. At the beginning of the freeze, mark all the WNPP
> packages for removal (along with their dependencies :-)), and then see
> if we can inspire some reaction.
Good idea! An even bet
Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> Julian Mehnle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> > > And you think an attitude like this is going to make me work
> > > harder? For *you* ?? Get real.
> >
> > Regardless of whether i
Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> Tobias Wolter wrote:
> > I still haven't seen any bugfix from you. How about you go stop
> > ranting about being treated unfair and DOING YOUR WORK?
>
> And you think an attitude like this is going to make me work
> harder? For *you* ?? Get real.
Regardless of wheth
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Julian Mehnle ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030627 21:05]:
> > [...]
>
> Thanks for your proposal. IMHO it is important that we are going to
> adopt one or the other proposal rather soon, so that it could be used in
> sarge.
I agree.
> Now to comments
Hi all,
(I'm sending this message again, since the copy I sent yesterday seems not
to have made it onto the list. If you receive it twice, please excuse.)
Andreas Barth wrote:
> DRAFT - Subarchitectures for debian [0.1]
First, thanks for creating a prototype proposal.
I understand that the you
Hi all,
Andreas Barth wrote:
> DRAFT - Subarchitectures for debian [0.1]
First, thanks for creating a prototype proposal.
I understand that the your proposed extensions to the Debian package system
are based on the concepts of "sub-archs" and "meta-sub-archs" (I'd call
these "pseudo-sub-archs" o
Hi all,
I feel this whole discussion is somehow going into the wrong direction. What
does it matter now whether we drop support for i386 and i486 (and possibly
more), or just i386? Sooner or later we'll have the same problem (of changing
the arch support being so difficult) again, if not with
48 matches
Mail list logo
