On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 09:51:20 -0400
Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Joe wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 23:17:28 +0200
> > lee wrote:
> >
> >> Tanstaafl writes:
> >>
> >>> On 10/17/2014 9:24 PM, lee wrote:
> You do not accept messages you can not deliver unless you are
> relaying them.
> >>> A
Joe wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 23:17:28 +0200
lee wrote:
Tanstaafl writes:
On 10/17/2014 9:24 PM, lee 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 no
On 10/20/2014 7:18 AM, Joe 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.
Easiest is what pos
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 23:17:28 +0200
lee wrote:
> Tanstaafl writes:
>
> > On 10/17/2014 9:24 PM, lee 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 ser
Tanstaafl writes:
> On 10/17/2014 9:24 PM, lee 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 mean. How will you know whether me
On 10/17/2014 9:24 PM, lee 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
local list of v
Chris Bannister 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 ("<>"), the rec
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
>noti
Joel Rees writes:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:18 AM, lee wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle 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 non-rejected email must be a valid user).
>>
>
Joe 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 it has done so. I
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 10/16/2014 7:40 AM, Joel Rees wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> > On 10/15/2014 8:37 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Tanstaafl couldn't answer it, and you can't either, because it's not
>> violating any.
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 wrote:
>
>> On 10/15/2014 12:40 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> The status code is not *sent* anywhere - it is a response
>>> directly to the connecting machine.
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 b
On 10/16/2014 7:40 AM, Joel Rees wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> > On 10/15/2014 8:37 PM, Jerry Stuckle 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 u
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, t
On 10/16/2014 7:31 AM, Chris Bannister 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 postmaster address nor an
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 moni
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
Archi
Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
Steve Litt writes:
Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
Steve Litt 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) an
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 06:54:09 -0400
Tanstaafl wrote:
Hello Tanstaafl,
>On 10/15/2014 5:12 PM, Brad Rogers 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
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 10/15/2014 8:37 PM, Jerry Stuckle 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
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 runnin
On 10/15/2014 8:37 PM, Jerry Stuckle 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 example:
Improperly c
On 10/15/2014 5:12 PM, Brad Rogers 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 accept then
silently
On 10/15/2014 4:58 PM, Joe 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.
Or even easier
On 10/15/2014 4:44 PM, Joe 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 legitimate and res
Please do not send to me directly, I am on the list.
On 10/15/2014 3:15 PM, Jerry Stuckle 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 been accepted -
On 10/15/2014 3:13 PM, Miles Fidelman 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 servers under your contr
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:23:02 +0100
Joe 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 possible
I suspe
On Jo, 16 oct 14, 07:31:56, Joel Rees wrote:
> 2014/10/16 5:59 "Andrei POPESCU" :
> >
> > 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 remotely, just by
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 07:33:38 +0100
Jonathan Dowland 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 significant time ou
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 22:12:41 +0100
Brad Rogers wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 21:44:30 +0100
> Joe 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
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 00:54:02 +0100
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
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 even know how many there are, much
Steve Litt writes:
> Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> Steve Litt 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 re
2014/10/16 15:34 "Jonathan Dowland" :
>
> 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
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:10:47 +0200
Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Steve Litt 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
> > famil
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 soft
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 00:54:02 +0100
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
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 even know how many there are, much
Steve Litt 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 deliberately scuttled.
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 19:27:20 +0100
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 Re
On 10/15/2014 07:54 PM, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
* 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/
These RPC
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 08:53:36AM +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
> 2014/10/16 8:14 "Chris Bannister" :
> >
> > 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
On 10/15/2014 4:44 PM, Joe wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 15:15:24 -0400
> Jerry Stuckle 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
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
Andrei POPESCU writes:
> On Du, 12 oct 14, 18:47:09, lee wrote:
>> Andrei POPESCU 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, the tech-ctte took specia
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 som
2014/10/16 8:14 "Chris Bannister" :
>
> 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 i
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 les
2014/10/16 5:59 "Andrei POPESCU" :
>
> 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, defi
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:42:58PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:08:26 +0100
> Martin Read 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
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 21:44:30 +0100
Joe 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 is you can never kno
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 15:13:27 -0400
Miles Fidelman 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 possible.
>
It's
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 15:15:24 -0400
Jerry Stuckle 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: 'either we
deliver it
Martin Read 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 that they boot well
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 p
-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.
> I
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.
Y
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 a
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 ta
On 10/15/2014 12:40 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 10/15/2014 12:06 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 10/15/2014 8:14 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2014 3:28 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
But you just said it was OK to delete emails.
>
>>> Please don't misquote me. I said it was the *worst case*, me
Tanstaafl wrote:
On 10/15/2014 12:50 PM, Miles Fidelman 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
good idea to
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
>>> wrote:
>
But you just said it was OK to delete emails.
>>>
>>> Please don't misquote me. I said it was t
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 devel
On 10/15/2014 12:50 PM, Miles Fidelman 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
good idea to break SMTP by a
Joel Rees wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Miles Fidelman
wrote:
Tanstaafl wrote:
On 10/14/2014 1:58 PM, Miles Fidelman 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
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:08:26 +0100
Martin Read 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
Steve Litt
On 10/15/2014 12:06 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/15/2014 8:14 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> On 10/14/2014 3:28 PM, Jerry Stuckle 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 better than *bouncing*
On 10/15/2014 12:25 PM, The Wanderer 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 a def
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
>> 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 better tha
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:02:03 +0300
Andrei POPESCU 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 Environment I'm not
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"
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
>>> wrote:
>
Wrong on two counts. First of all, the false notion "Security
through obscurity *never*
On 10/15/2014 8:14 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 10/14/2014 3:28 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 10/14/2014 12:03 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2014 11:17 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/14/2014 8:05 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> If you think I'm kidding, please by all means go make these silly
>
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Miles Fidelman
wrote:
> Tanstaafl wrote:
>>
>> On 10/14/2014 1:58 PM, Miles Fidelman 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 is
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
>> wrote:
>>> Wrong on two counts. First of all, the false notion "Security
>>> through obscurity *never* works". This has nothing to do with
>>> security.
>>
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 l
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
>> wrote:
>>> And it also seems to make sense (why should every Desktop
>>> Environment implement it's own solution for this?).
>> And how were they handl
On 10/14/2014 3:20 PM, Jerry Stuckle 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 (ie, itf it is lat
On 10/14/2014 3:28 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/14/2014 12:03 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> On 10/14/2014 11:17 AM, Jerry Stuckle 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 the postfix list and I'll ju
-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
zc00RNvDgol9E3
Tanstaafl wrote:
On 10/14/2014 1:58 PM, Miles Fidelman 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 mis-configure se
On 10/14/2014 12:03 PM, Tanstaafl 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 could be
considered ok..
On 10/14/2014 1:58 PM, Miles Fidelman 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 mis-configure servers -
whether
On 14/10/14 22:56, Steve Litt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 00:15:40 +0300
Andrei POPESCU 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 distinction.
As long as
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 e
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 tas
On 15/10/14 06:01, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 15/10/14 03:33, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 15/10/14 01:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 14/10/14 23:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 14/10/2014 3:14 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Joey Hess wrote:
> Well I guess I'd find it a lot cleaner to make the choice as part of
> installation, rather than have systemd installed as a default and then
> have to uninstall it. I hate unwin
On 10/14/2014 at 08:02 PM, lee wrote:
> The Wanderer writes:
>
>> In my case, I don't install popcon because it pollutes the
>> tab-completion namespace for 'popd' in a root shell. That
>> interferes with my workflow
>
> Are you actually using this completion stuff? It always gets into
> my wa
On 10/14/2014 at 04:35 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Ma, 14 oct 14, 09:55:55, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> I could, but that would have to be re-done on every upgrade of the
>> package, and doing it on every machine where I'm likely to want to
>> work in a root shell would be a pain at best - and d
On 10/14/2014 6:50 PM, lee wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>
>> On 10/13/2014 7:57 PM, lee wrote:
>>> Martin Read writes:
>>>
On 12/10/14 23:04, lee wrote:
> Bas Wijnen writes:
>> Because for a GR, a member of Debian has to request it and it needs to
>> be seconded by at least 5
Olav Vitters writes:
> 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 for Debian and its way
The Wanderer writes:
> In my case, I don't install popcon because it pollutes the
> tab-completion namespace for 'popd' in a root shell. That interferes
> with my workflow
Are you actually using this completion stuff? It always gets into my
way and I keep it disabled or removed.
--
Again we
Jerry Stuckle writes:
> On 10/13/2014 7:57 PM, lee wrote:
>> Martin Read writes:
>>
>>> On 12/10/14 23:04, lee wrote:
Bas Wijnen writes:
> Because for a GR, a member of Debian has to request it and it needs to
> be seconded by at least 5 other members (constitution 4.2.1, 4.2.7).
Jonathan Dowland writes:
> ask questions anyway. But I, and I imagine many of my DD colleagues, are
> particularly interested in ensuring -user is a useful resource for our users,
> and by filtering out people, we don't get a clear picture of just how broken
> the list is.
There is a lot of tole
Steve Litt writes:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 02:50:32 +0200
> lee wrote:
>
>> Joey Hess writes:
>>
>> > So at this point, most of us are pretty tired of the subject.
>>
>> And just ignore it and the consequences because you're tired of
>> thinking about it?
>
> Lee, he has a point. He sees nothin
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 00:15:40 +0300
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Ma, 14 oct 14, 16:31:04, Steve Litt wrote:
> >
> > Of course, then there's the matters of upstreams requiring
> > systemd...
>
> As far as I understand none of the upstreams are actually requiring
> systemd itself (or more accuratel
On Ma, 14 oct 14, 16:31:04, Steve Litt wrote:
>
> Of course, then there's the matters of upstreams requiring systemd...
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. And it also seems t
On Ma, 14 oct 14, 09:55:55, The Wanderer wrote:
>
> I could, but that would have to be re-done on every upgrade of the
> package, and doing it on every machine where I'm likely to want to work
> in a root shell would be a pain at best - and doing it on just some of
> them would result in my trippi
1 - 100 of 322 matches
Mail list logo
