On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 09:22:45PM +0100, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'm one of the small minority of people who have a very negative
opinion about gmail. I realise I'm a bit of a kook on this subject
and I'd ideally I'd like to avoid having an enormous
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'm one of the small minority of people who have a very negative
opinion about gmail. I realise I'm a bit of a kook on this subject
and I'd ideally I'd like to avoid having an enormous flamewar about
it.
However, it has come to my attention that at least
Domenico Andreoli wrote:
it's nice to have your personal gobal searchable mailing list
archive, where you can really find anything you have ever received.
Even though it is nice, it's also problematic to scatter around
private and hence sensitive (at least temporarily sensitive)
information on
Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
Come to think of it, [pgp encrypting each message] isn't a bad idea. Is it
feasible for this to
be done transparently? Mailing list admins, any comments?
I suspect that the end result of this would be more people keeping their
GPG keys unencrypted on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ian Jackson wrote:
Kevin B. McCarty writes (Re: sending debian-private postings to gmail):
Ian Jackson wrote:
[snip]
distributed to computers whose owners and operators cannot be expected
to refrain from processing the content in other ways
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 25 May 2006 16:21:35 -0500
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ian Jackson wrote:
Kevin B. McCarty writes (Re: sending debian-private postings to
gmail):
Ian Jackson wrote:
[snip
Ian Jackson wrote:
[snip]
But it seems clear that Gmail's processing isn't compatible with
debian-private.
A Debian developer should cause debian-private to be processed only as
is necessary for providing developers with good and convenient access
to the mailing list. They should not
Scripsit Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Taken to extremes, this implies that (1) DD's should only receive mail
sent to boxes under their own control and (2) all mail passing through
debian-private should, for each subscriber to the list, be encrypted
individually to the public key on file
Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
Taken to extremes, this implies that (1) DD's should only receive mail
sent to boxes under their own control and (2) all mail passing through
debian-private should, for each subscriber to the list, be encrypted
individually to the public key on file for her/him.
Come
Kevin B. McCarty writes (Re: sending debian-private postings to gmail):
Ian Jackson wrote:
[snip]
distributed to computers whose owners and operators cannot be expected
to refrain from processing the content in other ways
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 02:13:38AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Taken to extremes, this implies that (1) DD's should only receive mail
sent to boxes under their own control and (2) all mail passing through
debian-private should, for each
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
(2) all mail passing through debian-private should, for each
subscriber to the list, be encrypted individually to the public key
on file for her/him.
Come to think of it, (2) isn't a bad idea. Is it feasible for this
to be done transparently?
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 04:09:07PM -0400, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
(2) all mail passing through debian-private should, for each
subscriber to the list, be encrypted individually to the public key
on file for her/him.
Come to think of it, (2) isn't a bad idea. Is it feasible for this
to be
On 5/24/06, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, it has come to my attention that at least one developer
appears to be reading debian-private at their gmail account.
doh! i have been caught :)
it's nice to have your personal gobal searchable mailing list
archive, where you can
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 04:09:07PM -0400, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
Come to think of it, (2) isn't a bad idea. Is it feasible for this to
be done transparently? Mailing list admins, any comments?
this has been discussed before a few times. iirc each time the
final result was the mail admins
15 matches
Mail list logo
