Re: Debian redesign

Frans Pop writes: >> certainly not because I dont like (semi)naked people or whatever - but >> because I dont like stereotypes, and especially not to represent an >> universal OS. > > I can agree to some point with the stereotyping, but that does not change > the fact that *nothing* in the poste

Re: mail

"Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Quit sending HTML mail and then look at the footer/signature added to > every single message. Actually, I didn't get to see that footer on your message neither because it is a multipart message and the list server is adding that footer strictly t

Re: Delete my message on one Debian List Please

"Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Dec 03, 2006 at 03:33:15PM +, Steve Kemp wrote: >> >> The suggestion wasn't to remove the addresses, but to "mask" them. >> That would still allow you to lookup the sender addresses if you >> wished. eg "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" -> "fo

Re: Use of tokens for access to Debian resources?

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That said, there is another factor that may help. Even losely accurate quartz, > as those used in common clocks, can obtain a greater amount of accuracy by > keeping them at a constant temperature, namely at body temperature. I am not > sure folk would lik

Re: DWN

Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I also appreciated the package summaries at the bottom of DWN. > (e.g. these are new packages in the archive this week, these packages > have been orphaned, etc). Is there some other easy way to find that > information? aptitude tells me about new packag

Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware

"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Anthony Towns" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> >>The middle one's the one of interest, it's expressed in the first point >>of the social contract as: >> >>"We will never make the system require the use of a non-free >> component."

Re: No more bugreports from me.

Magnus Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't put much blame on the Aptitude maintainer for that's happened. I'm > little irritated but understand that the normal thing to do, and as a reflex > action, is just use the redeliver button in the e-mail application and > redeliver my mail as it

Re: NMUs and (auto-)subscription to the PTS

Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 06:35:57AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: >> >> ISTR a discussion about automatically subscribing NMUers to the PTS for >> the package, and dropping the subscription with the next upload of the >> package (be it a maintainer upload

Re: RE : Re: Linux Magazin Germany, affecting Debian's image?!

Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It is not ok to distribute binary images and say: You want source? Ask > Debian for it. That is what I ment with distributing only binary > images. Debian does not give a written offer under 3b to be passed on > by distributers under 3c. And if y

Re: debian-niggers and debian-lgbt projects.

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > For those of you not familiar with the GNAA: please do not reply to this > message or in any way assume that he is serious. The GNAA is a > well-known trolling organisation. > > See Or a little more direct:

Re: Private copies of list replies

David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I still haven't seen any quoted/referenced reason that makes sense. > Then again, it might not ever become a standard, but it's the best > solution for the problem existing. Until someone comes up with > something better, I'll go with M-F-T (not that

Re: Private copies of list replies

Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm still waiting for anyone to recommend a MUA which works on at least > Linux and Windows (yes, that evil OS), preferably also on MacOSX and > supports MFT. Gnus. Others might be available under Cygwin. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL

Re: Private copies of list replies

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 15 Mar 2006, Matthias Julius verbalised: > >> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> I do know how to use Gnus, thanks. >> >> I am sorry if I have insulted you. I did not want to

Re: Private copies of list replies

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I do know how to use Gnus, thanks. I am sorry if I have insulted you. I did not want to suggest you don't know how to use your MUA. But, how do I know? Nobody's perfect. I doubt there is anyone who knows all commands in Gnus. > It is w

Re: Private copies of list replies

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Quite. My MUA makes the former automated, and the latter is > manually adding a CC, which, while not difficult, is still a manual > action. See my other post. > I really don't care. I don't ask for private CC's; if I want > an a

Re: Private copies of list replies

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If I notice the request, and don't feel disinclined, I may add > a CC. My "consideration" for their handicaps stops when such > consideration turns out to be to much of a bother at the moment. What > about consideration for my time and eff

Re: Private copies of list replies

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It is unacceptable to people who want a CC? They are the ones > asking for a favour. If they want a special treatment, different > from the default mailing list policy, either they put that favour > request in a manner I am going to respon

Re: Private copies of list replies

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Mutt has a configuration var somewhere to tell it whether to CC or not > by default on list followups. I have it set not to, and I have to add > the CC manually if I want it. I'm sure Mutt is capable enough that it's > possible to bind a key to "enable

Re: Private copies of list replies

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > We're talking about the case of people who want to be treated exceptionally; > on Debian lists, those are people who *do* want to receive CC's on replies. > (The original topic of the tangent, of having the list also tweak MFT to > help specify list poli

Re: Private copies of list replies

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't consider it my responsibility to *manually* adjust each of my > replies to suit the preferences of the person I'm replying to, which is > why I don't always honor requests to CC. Instead, I let people know how > they can express their preference