Sorry for the late answer, hollidays kicking in.
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raphaël Berbain) writes:
>
>> Second, ISTR that PGP/MIME is recommended over inline PGP.
>
> Unfortunately, Outlook Express doesn't handle MIME properly, so
> PGP/MIME is out
No matter
On Wednesday September 8 at 09:23am
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raphaël Berbain) writes:
> > The reason is that mail systems can handle reliably & automatically
> > PGP/MIME signatures (handling being verify, strip, whatever). OTOH,
> > they cannot with inline PG
<#secure method=pgp mode=sign>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raphaël Berbain) writes:
> Paul: You might want to investigate that. There are two issues that
> I can see: First, this mml tag shouldn't end up in the final message,
> should it ?
No, it shouldn't.
<#secure method=pgp mode=sign>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Stivers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Sep 04 2004 at 05:54:24PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> <#secure method=pgp mode=sign>
>
> Just out of curiosity what is the purpose of the line above? I have seen
> i
On Wed, Sep 08 2004 at 02:42:24PM +0200, Raphaël Berbain wrote:
> It's an mml (MIME Meta Language) tag. Paul uses Gnus, which in turn
> uses Emacs' Message mode to compose messages. mml is a tagging
> language mecanism used by Emacs' message mode to convey
> meta-information internally to the MUA
Thomas Stivers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Sep 04 2004 at 05:54:24PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> <#secure method=pgp mode=sign>
>
> Just out of curiosity what is the purpose of the line above? I have seen
> it only on Paul's messages and it seems unnecessary.
It's an mml (MIME Meta La
On Sat, Sep 04 2004 at 05:54:24PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> <#secure method=pgp mode=sign>
Just out of curiosity what is the purpose of the line above? I have seen
it only on Paul's messages and it seems unnecessary.
--
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
There
On Sunday 05 September 2004 01:52, Paul Johnson wrote:
> I'll just hand the cluebat off to Karsten for this one, since he's
> answered it quite nicely already from the last time some pinhead
> got upset at established standards.
>
> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/Rants/gpg-signed-mail.html
Interes
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 19:49:12 -0500, Craig Jackson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do we need SPF or Madrid? For seamlessness? Heck with that.
> PGP/GPG would help to actually fix a problem rather than patch one.
On the other hand, signing messages with GPG only deals with one of the problems
with
On Saturday, 04 September 2004 09:02, Svenn Are Bjerkem wrote:
> But they don't seem to be willing to
> listen, or even try to understand the problem they may cause by their
> arrogant behaviour.
I read this thread, but must have missed it. What exactly is "the
problem they may cause"?
--
Wes
On Saturday, 04 September 2004 18:54, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Most people don't encrypt mail with GPG, though they do sign with it.
> I usually see GPG-encryption in IM. Encryption wouldn't work for
> mailing lists, either, though signing does.
In *general* encryption isn't that useful for a run-of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Craig Jackson wrote:
Hi Craig!
| My own idea is that PGP/GPG could save us all from spam and SMTP
| messages being clear text in one fell swoop. If everyone
| encrypted their email using GPG/PGP and refused to accept
| unencrypted email or mail not encr
<#secure method=pgp mode=sign>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Craig Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My own idea is that PGP/GPG could save us all from spam and SMTP
> messages being clear text in one fell swoop. If everyone encrypted their
> email using GPG/PGP and refused to
On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 05:02:15PM +0200, Svenn Are Bjerkem wrote:
> On Friday 03 September 2004 19:11, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > People sign their messages on Usenet as well. ?If you don't like
> > PGP or GPG, that's a personal problem that you need to take care of
> > on your own.
>
> Oh, so it is
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 16:53:20 -0700
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <#secure method=pgp mode=sign>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Craig Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Do we have flames? Or just friendly args?
>
> Generally, not even arguments. Flames
<#secure method=pgp mode=sign>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Craig Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do we have flames? Or just friendly args?
Generally, not even arguments. Flames only come up when someone is
insisting to be totally clueless.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
V
<#secure method=pgp mode=sign>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Svenn Are Bjerkem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday 03 September 2004 19:11, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> People sign their messages on Usenet as well. If you don't like
>> PGP or GPG, that's a personal problem that you
On Saturday, 4 Sep 2004 23:02, Svenn Are Bjerkem wrote:
> I am asking those who do to stop. But they don't seem to be willing to
> listen, or even try to understand the problem they may cause by their
> arrogant behaviour.
Forgive me for speculating, but do you think there is any chance that
migh
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 17:02:15 +0200
Svenn Are Bjerkem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 03 September 2004 19:11, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > People sign their messages on Usenet as well. If you don't like
> > PGP or GPG, that's a personal problem that you need to take care of
> > on your own.
>
>
On Friday 03 September 2004 19:11, Paul Johnson wrote:
> People sign their messages on Usenet as well. If you don't like
> PGP or GPG, that's a personal problem that you need to take care of
> on your own.
Oh, so it is a personal problem... Well, I am taking care of it: I am
asking those who do
On Friday 03 September 2004 19:05, s. keeling wrote:
> Well, that's the dumbest thought I've seen in a while. I've seen
> more signed posts to Usenet than I see in mailing lists.
Then we don't hang out on the same usenet groups, I understand,
because I really can't agree on that statement.
And
<#secure method=pgp mode=sign>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Svenn Are Bjerkem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 31 August 2004 22:01, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> Why fracture and duplicate the effort already taken care of by
>> lists.debian.org?
>
> Because we are fed up with p
Incoming from Svenn Are Bjerkem:
> On Tuesday 31 August 2004 22:01, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > Why fracture and duplicate the effort already taken care of by
> > lists.debian.org?
>
> Because we are fed up with people using pgp and gpg on emails to mailinglists.
Well, that's the dumbest thought I've
Paul,
can you turn off this pgp crap? It is annoying
On Wednesday 01 September 2004 01:04, Paul Johnson wrote:
> <#secure method=pgp mode=sign>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
...
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFBNQPnUzgNqloQMwcR
On Tuesday 31 August 2004 22:01, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Why fracture and duplicate the effort already taken care of by
> lists.debian.org?
Because we are fed up with people using pgp and gpg on emails to mailinglists.
--
Svenn
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "un
On Wednesday 01 September 2004 19:58, Abdullah Ramazanoglu wrote:
> It's my first post here, and I'm having hard time trying to underderstand
> why linux.debian.* is being run as mailing list in the first place. I have
> no problems with moderation and revealing my mail address (it's my spam
> col
begin Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dedi ki:
> Abdullah Ramazanoglu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
--8<--
I take it you're using POP3 to read your email. IMAP works basically
the same way as NNTP, so there's no clear win either way.
>>
>> Is it possible to work offline with IMAP? I.e
<#secure method=pgp mode=sign>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Abdullah Ramazanoglu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Your PC would carry the whole NG instead of the messages you're interested
> in. In the long run you would have two choices: Either set up a rather
> short expiry period
begin Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dedi ki:
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004, Kirk Strauser wrote:
>> On Wednesday 01 September 2004 07:01 pm, Travis Crump wrote:
>>
>>> I don't mean the latency of posting->post appearing, I mean the
>>> latency of clicking a subject and seeing the body.
<#secure method=pgp mode=sign>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
"If one reads a debian mailing list in a linux.debian.* group and
wants to reply to the list he is supposed to followup to the newsgroup
a
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> So install Leafnode and use that as your local server.
In which case he might be better off with email anyway.
> > For usenet, it is equal to a network access as the body
> > needs to be fetched from a usenet server. I suppose that you could
> > pre-f
On Wednesday 01 September 2004 07:01 pm, Travis Crump wrote:
> I don't mean the latency of posting->post appearing, I mean the latency
> of clicking a subject and seeing the body. For e-mail the latency is
> roughly equal to a hard drive access since fetchmail fetches my mail in
> the background.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>"If one reads a debian mailing list in a linux.debian.* group and
>>>wants to reply to the list he is supposed to followup to the newsgroup
>>>and NOT to directly reply to the list."
>> Yes. Mail replies will break threading.
>Mail replies will break threading, unless y
Paul Johnson wrote:
> <#secure method=pgp mode=sign>
Travis Crump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Personally, I never liked the latency inherent in usenet.
These days, it's about the same latency as email unless you're in some
far-off corner of the planet connected only via carrier pigeon or
somethin
<#secure method=pgp mode=sign>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Travis Crump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Personally, I never liked the latency inherent in usenet.
These days, it's about the same latency as email unless you're in some
far-off corner of the planet connected only via
Abdullah Ramazanoglu wrote:
It's my first post here, and I'm having hard time trying to underderstand
why linux.debian.* is being run as mailing list in the first place. I have
no problems with moderation and revealing my mail address (it's my spam
collector anyway). But SMTP is for mail, NNTP is f
On Wednesday 01 September 2004 13:58, Abdullah Ramazanoglu wrote:
> But SMTP is for mail, NNTP is for threaded discussions. I had once
> subscribed to several lists, and seeing how awfully inefficient it is for
> such things, I had summarily stopped all my list subscriptions, and I will
> not subs
<#secure method=pgp mode=sign>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Abdullah Ramazanoglu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's my first post here, and I'm having hard time trying to underderstand
> why linux.debian.* is being run as mailing list in the first place.
It's not, [EMAIL PROTECT
begin Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dedi ki:
> Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>Is there a consensus about that? I mean, I've seen many people say that
>>>the newsgroup gateway is unidirectional (from mailinglist to gateway),
>>>and my own experience confirms that.
>>
Abdullah Ramazanoglu wrote:
It's my first post here, and I'm having hard time trying to underderstand
why linux.debian.* is being run as mailing list in the first place. I have
no problems with moderation and revealing my mail address (it's my spam
collector anyway). But SMTP is for mail, NNTP is f
begin Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dedi ki:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Is there a consensus about that? I mean, I've seen many people say that
>>the newsgroup gateway is unidirectional (from mailinglist to gateway),
>>and my own experience confirms that.
> This is not a matter of opini
Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a consensus about that? I mean, I've seen many people say that
the newsgroup gateway is unidirectional (from mailinglist to gateway),
and my own experience confirms that.
This is not a matter of opinions: the linux.debian.* mail2news gateway
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>"If one reads a debian mailing list in a linux.debian.* group and
>>wants to reply to the list he is supposed to followup to the newsgroup
>>and NOT to directly reply to the list."
> Yes. Mail replies will br
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"s. keeling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Incoming from Paul Johnson:
>>
>> But now that your address is out in the open, there's no real point in
>> munging it anyway, so what's the problem?
>
> It was out in the open when he tried to post to linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Is there a consensus about that? I mean, I've seen many people say that
>the newsgroup gateway is unidirectional (from mailinglist to gateway),
>and my own experience confirms that.
This is not a matter of opinions: the linux.debian.* mail2news gateway
*IS* bidirectiona
Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Wed, 01 Sep 2004 10:12:47 +0200:
> "Fortunatly, linux.* *IS* a bidirectional gateway, unless your news
> server is misconfigured.".
>
> I'm confused. Is the gateway bidirectional and is almost everyone's news
> server misconfigured? Is everyone doing som
Paul Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Madhusudan Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul Johnson wrote:
<#secure method=pgp mode=sign>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Madhusudan Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This is not a "fracture" or "duplication".
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 09:14:20AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
> It's handy to reveal your genuine email address in order to subscribe to
> the list, but AFAIK you can use a completley bogus address to write to it.
>
> If you do this, pls ensure you do use a bogus address and not some other
Incoming from Paul Johnson:
>
> But now that your address is out in the open, there's no real point in
> munging it anyway, so what's the problem?
It was out in the open when he tried to post to linux.debian.user;
Swen is still out there, still scraping mail addresses.
--
Any technology distin
John Summerfield wrote:
> If you do this, pls ensure you do use a bogus address and not some other
> poor sod's address. Or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I believe that use of spam.invalid is the norm.
>
> No, I don't mean that. Bill has enough problems already. What, with
> Longhorn slipping and fragmenti
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Madhusudan Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>> <#secure method=pgp mode=sign>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Madhusudan Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> This is not a "fracture" or "duplica
John Hasler wrote:
> Madhusudan Singh writes:
>> It is not. I received the following message from a moderation robot when
>> I tried to post a message to linux.debian.user :
>
>> "linux.debian.user is a moderated newsgroup in gateway
>> with a mailing list.
>
> The mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Madhusudan Singh wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
<#secure method=pgp mode=sign>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Madhusudan Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
alt.os.linux.debian
Please help in propagating this newsgroup to your favorite news server by
requesting them to carry it.
Le
Madhusudan Singh writes:
> It is not. I received the following message from a moderation robot when I
> tried to post a message to linux.debian.user :
> "linux.debian.user is a moderated newsgroup in gateway
> with a mailing list.
The mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] is open. The newsgroup
linux.d
Paul Johnson wrote:
> <#secure method=pgp mode=sign>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Madhusudan Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> This is not a "fracture" or "duplication". To post to this group, I had
>> to reveal my email address and go through a two email process of
<#secure method=pgp mode=sign>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Madhusudan Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is not a "fracture" or "duplication". To post to this group, I had to
> reveal my email address and go through a two email process of subscription.
No, you didn't. It
Paul Johnson wrote:
> <#secure method=pgp mode=sign>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Madhusudan Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> alt.os.linux.debian
>>
>> Please help in propagating this newsgroup to your favorite news server by
>> requesting them to carry it.
>>
>> L
<#secure method=pgp mode=sign>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Madhusudan Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> alt.os.linux.debian
>
> Please help in propagating this newsgroup to your favorite news server by
> requesting them to carry it.
>
> Let us get it started.
Why fracture and
alt.os.linux.debian
Please help in propagating this newsgroup to your favorite news server by
requesting them to carry it.
Let us get it started.
--
CHARTER:
For questions and answers relating to the ins
59 matches
Mail list logo
