Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org writes:
On 10/17/2014 9:24 PM, lee l...@yagibdah.de wrote:
You do not accept messages you can not deliver unless you are relaying
them.
Absolutely wrong, this rule fully applies to relays just as it does
final destination servers.
I'm not sure what you
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 23:17:28 +0200
lee l...@yagibdah.de wrote:
Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org writes:
On 10/17/2014 9:24 PM, lee l...@yagibdah.de wrote:
You do not accept messages you can not deliver unless you are
relaying them.
Absolutely wrong, this rule fully applies to
On 10/20/2014 7:18 AM, Joe j...@jretrading.com wrote:
I think it's generally an admonishment not to get involved in relaying.
No, it is generally an admonishment not to get involved with relaying if
you do not have *access* to validate recipients.
There are multiple ways this can be achieved.
Joe wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 23:17:28 +0200
lee l...@yagibdah.de wrote:
Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org writes:
On 10/17/2014 9:24 PM, lee l...@yagibdah.de wrote:
You do not accept messages you can not deliver unless you are
relaying them.
Absolutely wrong, this rule fully applies to
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 09:51:20 -0400
Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
Joe wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 23:17:28 +0200
lee l...@yagibdah.de wrote:
Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org writes:
On 10/17/2014 9:24 PM, lee l...@yagibdah.de wrote:
You do not accept messages
Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz writes:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 03:24:32AM +0200, lee wrote:
Klensin Standards Track[Page 71]
RFC 5321 SMTP October 2008
if this address is null (),
On 10/17/2014 9:24 PM, lee l...@yagibdah.de wrote:
You do not accept messages you can not deliver unless you are relaying
them.
Absolutely wrong, this rule fully applies to relays just as it does
final destination servers.
Postfix allows you to do this even if you are unable to get/maintain a
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 03:24:32AM +0200, lee wrote:
Klensin Standards Track[Page 71]
RFC 5321 SMTP October 2008
if this address is null (), the receiver-SMTP MUST NOT send a
notification.
Joel Rees joel.r...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:18 AM, lee l...@yagibdah.de wrote:
Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net writes:
And, in fact, more and more ISPs are just accepting and discarding
emails to non-existent users because rejecting such email helps spammers
(any
Joe j...@jretrading.com writes:
Yes, although there should still be an audit trail. As I said to Harry
the other day, if you have a message ID from the receiving server you
(probably) can chase it up, and no reputable anti-spam software will
drop a message without keeping a log stating that
Steve Litt sl...@troubleshooters.com writes:
OK, I'll be the first to admit that after Red Hat caused the demise of
ConsoleKit (and probably lots more important software), I am free to
take significant time out of my day job (that feeds my family) and
rescue all sorts of software that Red Hat
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 00:54:02 +0100
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard j.deboynepollard-newsgro...@ntlworld.com
wrote:
wande...@fastmail.fm:
I have a similar lack of awareness and/or understanding about all
of
the *kit packages / projects / tools / what-have-you, actually; I'm
not positive I
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 01:12:51AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
OK, I'll be the first to admit that after Red Hat caused the demise of
ConsoleKit (and probably lots more important software), I am free to
take significant time out of my day job (that feeds my family) and
rescue all sorts of
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:10:47 +0200
Ansgar Burchardt ans...@debian.org wrote:
Steve Litt sl...@troubleshooters.com writes:
OK, I'll be the first to admit that after Red Hat caused the demise
of ConsoleKit (and probably lots more important software), I am
free to take significant time out of
2014/10/16 15:34 Jonathan Dowland j...@debian.org:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 01:12:51AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
OK, I'll be the first to admit that after Red Hat caused the demise of
ConsoleKit (and probably lots more important software), I am free to
take significant time out of my day job
Steve Litt sl...@troubleshooters.com writes:
Ansgar Burchardt ans...@debian.org wrote:
Steve Litt sl...@troubleshooters.com writes:
OK, I'll be the first to admit that after Red Hat caused the demise
of ConsoleKit (and probably lots more important software), I am
free to take significant
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 00:54:02 +0100
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard j.deboynepollard-newsgro...@ntlworld.com
wrote:
wande...@fastmail.fm:
I have a similar lack of awareness and/or understanding about all
of
the *kit packages / projects / tools / what-have-you, actually; I'm
not positive I
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 22:12:41 +0100
Brad Rogers b...@fineby.me.uk wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 21:44:30 +0100
Joe j...@jretrading.com wrote:
Hello Joe,
It is *not* OK to silently delete an already accepted email, it does
Unfortunately, it happens; Send an email with a large attachment(1)
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 07:33:38 +0100
Jonathan Dowland j...@debian.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 01:12:51AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
OK, I'll be the first to admit that after Red Hat caused the demise
of ConsoleKit (and probably lots more important software), I am
free to take
On Jo, 16 oct 14, 07:31:56, Joel Rees wrote:
2014/10/16 5:59 Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com:
The problem with this approach is that it's not fine-grained enough,
i.e. it can't distinguish between users logged in locally or via ssh.
This means Mallory could easily spy on Alice
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:23:02 +0100
Joe j...@jretrading.com wrote:
Hello Joe,
{snipped explanations}
All very useful info, thanks; Cleared up a few things for me.
I'm not for a moment doubting that it happens as you say, but there's
no need for it in the case of a legitimate email, it is always
On 10/15/2014 3:13 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
Tanstaafl wrote:
1. email to invalid recipients should be rejected at the RCPT-TO stage,
Easier said then done - at least when a server does relaying, but
clearly ideal when possible.
No, it is 100% easily done.
For
Please do not send to me directly, I am on the list.
On 10/15/2014 3:15 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
On 10/15/2014 12:40 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
Easy enough to prove. By all means, quote the actual text of me saying
this was 'OK'...
You said:
However, once a message has
On 10/15/2014 4:44 PM, Joe j...@jretrading.com wrote:
However, if the Reply-To: is forged, i.e. if it is spam, the
alternative is considerably less OK. Bouncing a spam message simply
delivers *the* *entire* *message* to an innocent third party, having
been laundered through your (presumably
On 10/15/2014 4:58 PM, Joe j...@jretrading.com wrote:
It's worth some effort, at the moment it is the single most effective
anti-spam measure. If you outsource your mail, it's worth going to some
trouble to find a hosting company who will hold and accept updates for
a list of valid recipients.
On 10/15/2014 5:12 PM, Brad Rogers b...@fineby.me.uk wrote:
Send an email with a large attachment(1) and there are quite a few
servers that will silently drop it.
Anyone who does that is breaking SMTP. If you don't want messages over a
certain size, REJECT them, but absolutely do not EVER
On 10/15/2014 8:37 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
Tanstaafl couldn't answer it, and you can't either, because it's not
violating any.
I did answer it, you just ignored it or don't understand it.
Quote:
You do not have to violate an RFC to break SMTP.
Here is a real world
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 06:50:01AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
Anyone who runs a mail server and doesn't keep logs shouldn't be running
a mail server.
*And* the postmaster address monitored,
Anyone who runs a mail server and doesn't monitor the postmaster address
shouldn't be running a
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 10/15/2014 8:37 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
Tanstaafl couldn't answer it, and you can't either, because it's not
violating any.
I did answer it, you just ignored it or don't understand it.
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 06:54:09 -0400
Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
Hello Tanstaafl,
On 10/15/2014 5:12 PM, Brad Rogers b...@fineby.me.uk wrote:
Send an email with a large attachment(1) and there are quite a few
servers that will silently drop it.
Anyone who does that is breaking
Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
Steve Litt sl...@troubleshooters.com writes:
Ansgar Burchardt ans...@debian.org wrote:
Steve Litt sl...@troubleshooters.com writes:
OK, I'll be the first to admit that after Red Hat caused the demise
of ConsoleKit (and probably lots more important software), I am
free
Guys -
Please take this off-list. Things have gone way, way past the point where
this is of an interest or relevance to anyone else on this list.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On 16/10/14 22:31, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 06:50:01AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
Anyone who runs a mail server and doesn't keep logs shouldn't be running
a mail server.
*And* the postmaster address monitored,
Anyone who runs a mail server and doesn't monitor the
On 10/16/2014 7:31 AM, Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 06:50:01AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
Anyone who runs a mail server and doesn't monitor the postmaster address
shouldn't be running a mail server.
Tell that to yahoo, they *don't seem* to have a
On 10/16/2014 14:07, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
No, what I find annoying is telling volunteer what they have to do
without doing anything yourself on the issues you raise and repeating
don't break Linux endlessly. I think everybody knows by now you
believe that, there's no
On 10/16/2014 7:40 AM, Joel Rees joel.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 10/15/2014 8:37 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
Tanstaafl couldn't answer it, and you can't either, because it's not
violating any.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 02:31:15PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
On 10/16/2014 14:07, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
No, what I find annoying is telling volunteer what they have to do
without doing anything yourself on the issues you raise and repeating
don't break Linux
On 10/16/2014 at 06:37 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
Please do not send to me directly, I am on the list.
On 10/15/2014 3:15 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
On 10/15/2014 12:40 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
The status code is not *sent* anywhere - it is a response
directly to the
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 10/16/2014 7:40 AM, Joel Rees joel.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 10/15/2014 8:37 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
Tanstaafl
On Ma, 14 oct 14, 17:56:58, Steve Litt wrote:
Because you don't want to inextricably drag a giant monolith into your
Desktop Environment just to do a few things.
If you compare systemd with a Desktop Environment I'm not quite sure
who's the giant ;)
And how were they handling
this task
On Ma, 14 oct 14, 22:56:15, The Wanderer wrote:
Not to mention that just offhand I'm not sure I'd even know how to turn
off basic tab completion - whereas turning off programmable tab
completion is pretty much just a matter of not sourcing the
tab-completion files in the effective bash
On 14/10/14 22:56, Steve Litt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 00:15:40 +0300
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I understand none of the upstreams are actually requiring
systemd itself (or more accurately systemd-logind), but the
interfaces it is providing.
I fail to see the
On 10/14/2014 1:58 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
Well, this really is OT for debian-users, but Turns out that SMTP
WAS/IS intended to be reliable.
Reliable, absolutely. 100% reliable? That simply isn't possible when
people are involved in the equation (people
On 10/14/2014 12:03 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
The 'silly statements' reference was about your suggestion
that it is in any way shape or form 'ok' to *accept* mail to invalid
recipients then send it to dev/null.
Incidentally, yes there may be some circumstances where this
Tanstaafl wrote:
On 10/14/2014 1:58 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
Well, this really is OT for debian-users, but Turns out that SMTP
WAS/IS intended to be reliable.
Reliable, absolutely. 100% reliable? That simply isn't possible when
people are involved in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 15/10/2014 6:02 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
ConsoleKit, unmaintained.
But fixed, for kFreeBSD
A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
iF4EAREIAAYFAlQ+ZOQACgkQqBZry7fv4vtv5gEAqxefTmCV1PLqwNWgJOGeFwGD
On 10/14/2014 3:28 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
On 10/14/2014 12:03 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 10/14/2014 11:17 AM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
On 10/14/2014 8:05 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
If you think I'm kidding, please by all means go make these silly
statements
On 10/14/2014 3:20 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
On 10/14/2014 11:24 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
However, once a message has been accepted - ie, *after* the DATA phase
is complete, it should never be bounced, it should be delivered - or,
worse, quarantined, or worst case, deleted
On 10/15/2014 at 04:08 AM, Martin Read wrote:
On 14/10/14 22:56, Steve Litt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 00:15:40 +0300 Andrei POPESCU
andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote:
And it also seems to make sense (why should every Desktop
Environment implement it's own solution for this?).
And how were
On 10/14/2014 at 04:15 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 06:18:01PM +0200, lee wrote:
Considering that the users are Debians' priority, couldn't this
issue be a case in which significant concerns from/of the users
about an issue might initiate a GR? Wouldn't it speak loudly
On 10/14/2014 at 03:28 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/14/2014 12:03 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 10/14/2014 11:17 AM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net
wrote:
Wrong on two counts. First of all, the false notion Security
through obscurity *never* works. This has nothing to do with
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Miles Fidelman
mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
Tanstaafl wrote:
On 10/14/2014 1:58 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
Well, this really is OT for debian-users, but Turns out that SMTP
WAS/IS intended to be reliable.
Reliable,
On 10/15/2014 8:14 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 10/14/2014 3:28 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
On 10/14/2014 12:03 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 10/14/2014 11:17 AM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
On 10/14/2014 8:05 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
If you think I'm kidding, please by
On 10/15/2014 10:17 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
On 10/14/2014 at 03:28 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/14/2014 12:03 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 10/14/2014 11:17 AM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net
wrote:
Wrong on two counts. First of all, the false notion Security
through obscurity
On 10/15/2014 at 12:11 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/15/2014 10:17 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
On 10/14/2014 at 03:28 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
Then what is that if it isn't obscurity?
Security by obscurity isn't no one knows the password or no
one knows the account name; it's something
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:02:03 +0300
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote:
On Ma, 14 oct 14, 17:56:58, Steve Litt wrote:
Because you don't want to inextricably drag a giant monolith into
your Desktop Environment just to do a few things.
If you compare systemd with a Desktop
On 10/15/2014 at 12:06 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/15/2014 8:14 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 10/14/2014 3:28 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net
wrote:
But you just said it was OK to delete emails.
Please don't misquote me. I said it was the *worst case*, meaning,
only marginally
On 10/15/2014 12:25 PM, The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm wrote:
On 10/15/2014 at 12:11 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
You're limiting it too much. From Dictionary.com:
obscurity
noun, plural obscurities.
1. the state or quality of being obscure.
2. the condition of being unknown:
...
That's
On 10/15/2014 12:06 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
On 10/15/2014 8:14 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 10/14/2014 3:28 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
But you just said it was OK to delete emails.
Please don't misquote me. I said it was the *worst case*, meaning, only
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:08:26 +0100
Martin Read zen75...@zen.co.uk wrote:
On 14/10/14 22:56, Steve Litt wrote:
And how were they handling this task before systemd?
They were using ConsoleKit, which was orphaned upstream some time
after systemd-logind came along.
I rest my case.
SteveT
Joel Rees wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Miles Fidelman
mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
Tanstaafl wrote:
On 10/14/2014 1:58 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
Well, this really is OT for debian-users, but Turns out that SMTP
WAS/IS intended to be reliable.
On 10/15/2014 12:50 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
I'll close by noting that this branch of discussion started with a focus
on silently dropping spam, and whether that's a violation of standards.
Actually, no, this branch started with a focus on whether or not it is a
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:42:58PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
They were using ConsoleKit, which was orphaned upstream some time
after systemd-logind came along.
I rest my case.
There's nothing at all (not even Red Hat) preventing anyone (even you!) from
stepping up and taking over
On 10/15/2014 12:34 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
On 10/15/2014 at 12:06 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/15/2014 8:14 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 10/14/2014 3:28 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net
wrote:
But you just said it was OK to delete emails.
Please don't misquote me. I said it was
Tanstaafl wrote:
On 10/15/2014 12:50 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
I'll close by noting that this branch of discussion started with a focus
on silently dropping spam, and whether that's a violation of standards.
Actually, no, this branch started with a focus on whether
On 10/15/2014 12:40 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 10/15/2014 12:06 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
On 10/15/2014 8:14 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 10/14/2014 3:28 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
But you just said it was OK to delete emails.
Please don't misquote me. I
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:42:58PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
They were using ConsoleKit, which was orphaned upstream some time
after systemd-logind came along.
I rest my case.
There's nothing at all (not even Red Hat) preventing anyone (even you!) from
stepping up and
On 15/10/14 17:30, Steve Litt wrote:
Pre-cisely. I see Red Hat's fingerprints all over that unmaintained
status. If not for Red Hat, somebody would have picked up ConsoleKit.
After all, as shown in
http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/whos-writing-linux ,
there's plenty of money floating
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 03:16:38PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
In theory. But in practice, folks make practical decisions as to
expenditure of time and resources. For example, once Debian
committed to systemd, Ubuntu followed suit - I expect that upstart
will promptly whither and die.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 16/10/2014 6:49 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
reported bugs will get less attention nowtoo). But the consolekit
deprecation happened a long time before the tech-ctte decision
about systemd. Some one/people could have picked it up long ago.
If
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 07:22:55AM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
ConsoleKit has been fixed for kFreeBSD build, I expect fixing it in
normal Debian/GNU wouldn't have been harder than choosing systemd.
It really needs (needed) adopting upstream, not just in Debian, because it's
upstream where
Martin Read zen75...@zen.co.uk writes:
(snip)
* The set of people hostile to systemd seems to include a lot of people
who don't see much need for the likes of ConsoleKit either.
(snip)
This is actually a rather good point. The machines I am most
conservative about, and wanting to make sure
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 15:15:24 -0400
Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
It is either OK to delete an email or it is not. You can't have it
both ways.
It is *not* OK to silently delete an already accepted email, it does
indeed break SMTP as a reliable protocol ('reliable' as in:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 15:13:27 -0400
Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
Tanstaafl wrote:
My position is that:
1. email to invalid recipients should be rejected at the RCPT-TO
stage,
Easier said then done - at least when a server does relaying, but
clearly ideal when
On Mi, 15 oct 14, 09:46:47, The Wanderer wrote:
I suspect that the answer is they just didn't provide the functionality
which ConsoleKit, and later systemd-logind, now enable them to provide,
but I'm not aware - in a clear-understanding, defined-boundaries sense -
of exactly what that
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 21:44:30 +0100
Joe j...@jretrading.com wrote:
Hello Joe,
It is *not* OK to silently delete an already accepted email, it does
Unfortunately, it happens; Send an email with a large attachment(1) and
there are quite a few servers that will silently drop it. The worst of
it
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:42:58PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:08:26 +0100
Martin Read zen75...@zen.co.uk wrote:
On 14/10/14 22:56, Steve Litt wrote:
And how were they handling this task before systemd?
They were using ConsoleKit, which was orphaned upstream
2014/10/16 5:59 Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com:
On Mi, 15 oct 14, 09:46:47, The Wanderer wrote:
I suspect that the answer is they just didn't provide the functionality
which ConsoleKit, and later systemd-logind, now enable them to provide,
but I'm not aware - in a
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:30:26PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
I completely understand not reinventing the wheel, but if all you need
is a spoke, you don't construct an interface to a whole wheel just to
get your spoke.
A wise old owl lived in an oak
The more he saw the less he spoke
The less
2014/10/16 8:14 Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:30:26PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
I completely understand not reinventing the wheel, but if all you need
is a spoke, you don't construct an interface to a whole wheel just to
get your spoke.
A wise
wande...@fastmail.fm:
I have a similar lack of awareness and/or understanding about all of
the *kit packages / projects / tools / what-have-you, actually; I'm
not positive I even know how many there are, much less all of their
names.
This should help:
Put yourself in the position of
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com writes:
On Du, 12 oct 14, 18:47:09, lee wrote:
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com writes:
On Mi, 08 oct 14, 16:01:37, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
The tech-ctte exploration was extremely thorough, entirely transparent
and I
In addition,
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014, lee wrote:
Thank you. And why did they want this?
If the CTTE had chosen a solution which was unacceptable to the majority
of the project, we wanted that majority to be able to override us even
if it wasn't a 2:1 majority.
You can see this discussion in the bug too, and in
On 10/15/2014 4:44 PM, Joe wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 15:15:24 -0400
Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
It is either OK to delete an email or it is not. You can't have it
both ways.
It is *not* OK to silently delete an already accepted email, it does
indeed break SMTP as a
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 08:53:36AM +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
2014/10/16 8:14 Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:30:26PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
I completely understand not reinventing the wheel, but if all you need
is a spoke, you don't construct an
On 10/15/2014 07:54 PM, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
snip
* http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/hostnamed/
* http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/timedated/
* http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/localed/
* http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/logind/
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 19:27:20 +0100
Jonathan Dowland j...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:42:58PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
They were using ConsoleKit, which was orphaned upstream some time
after systemd-logind came along.
I rest my case.
There's nothing at all (not even
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 07:46:11PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
I assume you find it more productive to bury your head in the sand
about potential impacts of really major changes to the plumbing of a
platform, and wait for things to break after-the-fact?
I suspect Steve will continue to work
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 20:33:11 -0400
Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/13/2014 7:10 PM, lee wrote:
Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk writes:
The mail is accepted. What the recipient does with the mail after
that is outside the scope of an RFC. There is
Hi,
Ian Jackson:
You put me in an awkward position. My email was an attempt to get
this discussion shut down on -devel, where it is off-topic and a total
waste of energy.
In that case, you did a poor job of getting this point across.
(I misinterpreted it too.)
But your response, using
On 14/10/14 00:47, Joel Rees wrote:
There is a header for requesting automatic confirmation of delivery,
but it tends to be abused by malicious junkmailers (spammers). MUAs
are supposed to be able to disable it, but I haven't seen that option
in an MUA settings dialog for a long time.
I'm
On Lu, 13 oct 14, 18:30:41, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Gee assuming that you don't run anything that has systemd dependencies
and/or systemd-shim is actually maintained and kept up-to-date.
Have you actually looked into what depends on systemd?
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net writes:
Joey Hess wrote:
(snip)
A reasonably proactive admin would probably want to try out systemd (on
eg, a test server) and if it causes problems for their deployment, they
then have at least the year or two from when Debian jessie is released
On Lu, 13 oct 14, 19:46:11, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Of course Joey is correct regarding trying out systemd on a test server.
Personally, though, I find it a lot MORE productive to keep track of other
people's experience in testing things, and deploy after a release is really,
really stable...
On Ma, 14 oct 14, 10:40:34, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
On 14/10/2014 9:50 AM, Joey Hess wrote:
Sysvinit will continue to be supported on servers in Debian 8
(jessie) release of Debian. So you can continue to boot your
production servers with sysvinit.
Okay, for now, that is until more
On 10/13/2014 7:47 PM, Joel Rees joel.r...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a header for requesting automatic confirmation of delivery,
but it tends to be abused by malicious junkmailers (spammers). MUAs
are supposed to be able to disable it, but I haven't seen that option
in an MUA settings dialog
On 10/13/2014 9:53 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote:
Not a grey area at all. ...dropping mail without notification of the
sender is permitted As for the ...long tradition and community
expectations... - that's nice, but according to some estimates,
spammers now account for
Tanstaafl wrote:
On 10/13/2014 7:47 PM, Joel Rees joel.r...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a header for requesting automatic confirmation of delivery,
but it tends to be abused by malicious junkmailers (spammers). MUAs
are supposed to be able to disable it, but I haven't seen that option
in an MUA
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Lu, 13 oct 14, 18:30:41, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Gee assuming that you don't run anything that has systemd dependencies
and/or systemd-shim is actually maintained and kept up-to-date.
Have you actually looked into what depends on systemd?
Trying to.
As a start -
On 10/13/2014 at 01:01 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
In any case, users _do_ have a say. They can force their systems to
remain on sys5 init, or switch to a different distro if that should
also turn out
Which, I should add, is
1 - 100 of 322 matches
Mail list logo
