On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, Matthew Vernon wrote:
This is all very well, except for those of us who email from work, and
have their PGP key at home...
Well, depending on how paranoid you may be, there are a few solutions:
* Keep a copy of at least your `secring.pgp' on a floppy disk, and
use
On Fri, 24 September 1999 09:12:31 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
This is all very well, except for those of us who email from work, and
have their PGP key at home...
Best point of all.
At work even on a private box my co-workers also have root
on it. I don't dare having my private key there...
Samuel Tardieu writes:
On 23/09, Marco d'Itri wrote:
| I see no point in checking signatures if you don't also reject unsigned
| messages.
For me, a message with no signature is a message with a bad signature :)
This is all very well, except for those of us who email from work, and
It would be nice to have a mail server command `resurrect', or
similar, that would bring a dead bug back to life (if it were found
not to be dead, or whatever; several reasons were listed above).
You mean reopen. Existing feature. Presumably reopen now also
works for bugs closed longer than
On Sep 21, Samuel Tardieu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, IMO, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] should.
I see no point in checking signatures if you don't also reject unsigned
messages.
--
ciao,
Marco
On 23/09, Marco d'Itri wrote:
| I see no point in checking signatures if you don't also reject unsigned
| messages.
For me, a message with no signature is a message with a bad signature :)
pgpRhxmqgVtup.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, Darren Benham wrote:
Bugs are no longer deleted!!! We don't have a way for you to access them
directly but there's an official location in the database where they're
being archived. We're trying to decide how to serve them up... by
requesting a bug number, obviously,
Previously Joseph Carter wrote:
Essentially, it does exactly what people like me have been complaining it
didn't do: IGNORE the MIME/PGP/whatever crap and just read the message.
That would be bad. At the very least it should complain loudly if the
message does not verify.
Wichert.
--
The BTS should check pgp signatures?
On Tue, Sep 21, 1999 at 10:49:44PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Joseph Carter wrote:
Essentially, it does exactly what people like me have been complaining it
didn't do: IGNORE the MIME/PGP/whatever crap and just read the message.
That
On 21/09, Darren Benham wrote:
| The BTS should check pgp signatures?
Well, IMO, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] should.
pgpOO3jJIuj3l.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, Michael Stone wrote:
Definately by package. I can think of several circumstances where this
is useful: when a bug is closed in unstable but someone using stable
wants an explanation for a problem; when a bug is inadvertantly
reintroduced; when a maintainer closes a bug
On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 07:18:54PM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
Does anything special happen if the a message is signed?
Other than it gets processed? Nope...
Oh, do you mean that it will work with [EMAIL PROTECTED] If so then I
understand what you are saying, if not then I don't.
I thought some of you might be interested in a few changes that have been
made to the BTS software...
In the new software, the X-Debian-CC was changed to X-Debbugs-CC (more
general) and it appears to be working.
Some of the perl scripts have been made -w clean.
A column was added to http
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 04:09:17PM -0700, Darren Benham wrote:
In the new software, the X-Debian-CC was changed to X-Debbugs-CC (more
general) and it appears to be working.
Oh yeah, indeed :)
Some of the perl scripts have been made -w clean.
Ueber-Cool.
Bugs are no longer deleted!!! We
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 04:09:17PM -0700, Darren Benham wrote:
Bugs are no longer deleted!!! We don't have a way for you to access them
directly but there's an official location in the database where they're
being archived. We're trying to decide how to serve them up... by
requesting a bug
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Bugs are no longer deleted!!! We don't have a way for you to access them
directly but there's an official location in the database where they're
being archived. We're trying to decide how to serve them up... by
requesting a bug number, obviously, but
Michael Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Definately by package. I can think of several circumstances where this
is useful: when a bug is closed in unstable but someone using stable
On a side note, it would be nice to be able to see the bugs filed against
all binary packages of a source package,
Darren Benham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the new software, the X-Debian-CC was changed to X-Debbugs-CC (more
general) and it appears to be working.
With an alias so that X-Debian-CC still works?
Some of the perl scripts have been made -w clean.
and `use strict;' clean?
Bugs are no longer
On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 02:27:20PM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
With an alias so that X-Debian-CC still works?
Not guarenteed... It's not in the upstream package so I'd have to remeber to
put it in every time I upgrade..
Some of the perl scripts have been made -w clean.
and `use strict;'
Darren Benham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All @bugs.debian.org will accept PGP/GPG clearsigned and most forms of
mime
formated email. Most? Let me put it this way, I havn't found one that it
barfs on but I'm sure there's some evil MUA that will prove it's not
perfect.
Does
On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 07:18:54PM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
Darren Benham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All @bugs.debian.org will accept PGP/GPG clearsigned and most forms of
mime
formated email. Most? Let me put it this way, I havn't found one that
it
barfs on but I'm sure
21 matches
Mail list logo
