On Ma, 14 oct 14, 15:51:09, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>
> Sadly not. If I were reading -user entirely for my own delectation, I'd have
> filtered many regulars long ago. Or simply stopped reading it, since I rarely
> ask questions anyway. But I, and I imagine many of my DD colleagues, are
> particul
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:35:34 +0100
Martin Read wrote:
> On 14/10/14 16:48, Steve Litt wrote:
> > So are you saying I could use sysvinit or nosh as my PID1, drop in
> > libpam-systemd and no other systemd components, and have all PAM
> > functionalities run properly?
>
> Thank you for the clarifi
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 ways
> and for what it stands f
On Ma, 14 oct 14, 16:03:07, Martin Read wrote:
>
> [0] I've seen the relevant fragment posted recently, but I can't remember
> where and I don't remember the exact contents.
Package: systemd-sysv
Pin: version *
Pin-Priority: -1
Explanation: prevent installation of systemd-sysv
'P
Hi,
The Wanderer writes:
> Unfortunately, not everyone - or even everyone who would be willing to
> provide such feedback, or even actively interested in doing so - is
> going to install that.
Luckily, popcon is opt-in anyway, so this has no effect whatsoever on
it's quality as a data source.
B
On Tue, 10/14/14, Brian wrote:
Subject: Re: piece of mind (Re: Moderated posts?)
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Date: Tuesday, October 14, 2014, 12:22 PM
On Tue 14 Oct 2014 at 10:47:13 -0500, goli...@riseup.net wrote:
On Tue, 10/14/14, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
Subject: Re: piece of
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 just sit and watch the fun.
>
>> You don't read very
On 10/14/2014 11:24 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 10/14/2014 10:52 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:48:38AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> Rejecting will actually *reduce* traffic, because it doesn't accept the
>>> entire messages, it slams the door at the RCPT-TO stage.
>
>> Re
On Tue 14 Oct 2014 at 14:22:03 -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Brian wrote:
> >Depends what you mean by "supported". There is no problem in installing
> >sysvinit after an upgrade or before upgrading. It works really well.
>
> "No problem" is easier to say than to validate.
>
> First off, there's
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 Lu, 13 oct 14, 18:30:41, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Gee assuming that you don
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:27:14AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 10/14/2014 11:09 AM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > In a quest to ensure your personal happiness the systemd maintainers
> > took your problem and changed udev to assign predictable names to
> > network interfaces.
>
> And which resulte
Brian wrote:
On Tue 14 Oct 2014 at 12:33:06 -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Scott Ferguson wrote:
I'm guessing you really don't want an OS without logging... :)
syslog works just fine - don't need (or want) systemd to take over
logging with a binary format
The journal logs to rsyslog by default
On 10/14/2014 1:31 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
> You're talking past each other.
No, we're not, Jerry is arguing arguing against recipient validation on
mail servers, and I'm correcting some of the bad/mis-information he is
relying on when trying to support his argument.
> Still, the current "standard"
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 Lu, 13 oct 14, 18:30:41, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> Gee assuming that you
Well, this really is OT for debian-users, but Turns out that SMTP
WAS/IS intended to be reliable.
I'd always lumped SMTP in the category of unreliable protocols, w/o
guaranteed delivery - but then, being a bit pedantic, I went back to the
source RFC 821, SMTP, authored by Jon Postel, and
On Tue 14 Oct 2014 at 12:33:06 -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Scott Ferguson wrote:
> >I'm guessing you really don't want an OS without logging... :)
>
> syslog works just fine - don't need (or want) systemd to take over
> logging with a binary format
The journal logs to rsyslog by default on De
On 14/10/14 16:48, Steve Litt wrote:
So are you saying I could use sysvinit or nosh as my PID1, drop in
libpam-systemd and no other systemd components, and have all PAM
functionalities run properly?
Thank you for the clarification.
The short and vague answer is "no"; PAM modules that depend on
Oh, dear. Somebody is WRONG on the Internet!
You're talking past each other.
Still, the current "standard" e-mail protocols were never meant to be
either reliable or secure, and their is a very good reason for that. People
may not be as reliable as machines in executing protocols, but they cannot
On Tue 14 Oct 2014 at 10:47:13 -0500, goli...@riseup.net wrote:
> On Tue, 10/14/14, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: piece of mind (Re: Moderated posts?)
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Date: Tuesday, October 14, 2014, 1:56 AM
>
> You are still writing as i
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 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
On Wed 15 Oct 2014 at 04:29:50 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:40:59AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > 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.
> > >
> > >
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 just sit and watch the fun.
> You don't read very well. This has nothing to do with emails to a v
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 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-s
On Tue, 10/14/14, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
Subject: Re: piece of mind (Re: Moderated posts?)
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Date: Tuesday, October 14, 2014, 1:56 AM
You are still writing as if you are going to be forced to run systemd,
despite
being repeatedly told that multiple init
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:37:30 +0100
Martin Read wrote:
> On 14/10/14 15:56, Steve Litt wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:25:23 +0300
> > Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >> Have you actually looked into what depends on systemd?
> >
> > PAM is enough for me, considering everything that uses PAM. They
> > c
On 14/10/14 15:56, Steve Litt wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:25:23 +0300
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
Have you actually looked into what depends on systemd?
PAM is enough for me, considering everything that uses PAM. They could
have made their PAM plug compatible with the old PAM, but nooo.
I f
On 14/10/14 16:06, Steve Litt wrote:
>
> 1) Boycott (and be vocal about it) Gnome
>
> 2) Pressure all other upstreams into a "no systemd dependencies"
>pledge, and to the best of our abilities, boycott (and be vocal about
>it) those who don't comply.
>
Well, you should have no problem w
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:40:59AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> 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 abo
On 10/14/2014 11:09 AM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> In a quest to ensure your personal happiness the systemd maintainers
> took your problem and changed udev to assign predictable names to
> network interfaces.
And which resulted in much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On 10/14/2014 10:52 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:48:38AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> Rejecting will actually *reduce* traffic, because it doesn't accept the
>> entire messages, it slams the door at the RCPT-TO stage.
> Rejection can happen after the DATA phase as well.
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
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
On 10/14/2014 8:05 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 10/13/2014 9:53 PM, Jerry Stuckle 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 estima
Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
Hi Miles,
On 10/14/2014 16:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Actually, udev is the ONLY thing I've had issues with in over a decade
of production use. Changed out a nic card, and everything changed -
because udev decided to assign the new interface to some other port (or
some s
On 15/10/14 01:51, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:40:59AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
>> The solution is trivial. If, as everyone claims, we're such a minority,
>> he could filter us all out and never see our posts again. Problem
>> solved.
>
> Sadly not. If I were reading -user
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 15:51:09 +0100
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:40:59AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > The solution is trivial. If, as everyone claims, we're such a
> > minority, he could filter us all out and never see our posts again.
> > Problem solved.
>
> Sadly not. If
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:33:56 +0300
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> 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
> > > p
Hi Miles,
On 10/14/2014 16:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Actually, udev is the ONLY thing I've had issues with in over a decade
> of production use. Changed out a nic card, and everything changed -
> because udev decided to assign the new interface to some other port (or
> some such - it's been a w
On 14/10/14 14:33, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Which brings us back to how upgrades and new installs will be handled -
will there be an option to go right to sysvinit-core, or will we have to
manually uninstall systemd and anything that depends on it? Getting all
the metapackages and dependencies righ
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:25:23 +0300
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 in
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 07:56:17 +0100
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> You are still writing as if you are going to be forced to run
> systemd, despite being repeatedly told that multiple init systems
> will be supported. I'm really struggling to continue to presume "good
> faith" on your part now.
Hi Jo
Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 14/10/14 23:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
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 l
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:48:38AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> Rejecting will actually *reduce* traffic, because it doesn't accept the
> entire messages, it slams the door at the RCPT-TO stage.
Rejection can happen after the DATA phase as well. It's better if spam can be
identified and rejected befo
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:40:59AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> The solution is trivial. If, as everyone claims, we're such a minority,
> he could filter us all out and never see our posts again. Problem
> solved.
Sadly not. If I were reading -user entirely for my own delectation, I'd have
filtered
On 10/14/2014 10:15 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 08:05:00AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> To bounce all of those invalid addresses not only would further
>>> increase the amount of junk on the internet,
>> That is pure and absolute nonsense. The vast majority of spam comes f
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 nothing wrong with a Red Hat owned and
co
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 08:05:00AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> > To bounce all of those invalid addresses not only would further
> > increase the amount of junk on the internet,
>
> That is pure and absolute nonsense. The vast majority of spam comes from
> botnets, and *rejecting* garbage from these
On 14/10/14 23:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> 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 in
On 10/14/2014 at 09:44 AM, Carl Fink wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:08:06AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> 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 to the point that I've reluctant
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:08:06AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> 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 to the point that I've reluctantly decided to just not
> install popcon - with the un
On 10/14/2014 at 09:26 AM, Martin Read wrote:
> On 14/10/14 13:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
>> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>>
>>> Have you actually looked into what depends on systemd?
>>
>> Trying to.
>>
>> As a start - anything that depends on udev and logging come to
>> mind;
>
> Strictly speakin
Martin Read wrote:
On 14/10/14 13:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
Have you actually looked into what depends on systemd?
Trying to.
As a start - anything that depends on udev and logging come to mind;
Strictly speaking, yes, udev is part of the systemd suite. However, it
i
On 14/10/14 13:54, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
Have you actually looked into what depends on systemd?
Trying to.
As a start - anything that depends on udev and logging come to mind;
Strictly speaking, yes, udev is part of the systemd suite. However, it
is perfectly capable
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, i
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 - a
Tanstaafl wrote:
On 10/13/2014 7:47 PM, 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
On 10/13/2014 9:53 PM, Jerry Stuckle 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 over 90% of t
On 10/13/2014 7:47 PM, 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.
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 mo
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
Miles Fidelman 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
>> until the *next* rele
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
--
http://wiki.debian.or
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 looki
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 Mon, 13 Oct 2014 20:33:11 -0400
Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> > On 10/13/2014 7:10 PM, lee wrote:
> >> Brian writes:
> >>
> >>> The mail is accepted. What the recipient does with the mail after
> >>> that is outside the scope of an RFC. There is no obligation on
> >>> the rec
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
Joey Hess wrote:
Miles Fidelman wrote:
1. Whether or not there's a clear statement regarding the installer - will
users be presented with a clear choice of init systems during installation,
or is it going to be left to folks to figure out how to work around the
default installation of systemd?
Marty wrote:
On 10/13/2014 07:13 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Joey Hess wrote:
Miles Fidelman wrote:
But that is the major objection of those of us who USE Debian --
the need to
do so, particularly when this concerns production servers.
Sysvinit will continue to be supported on servers in Debia
Miles Fidelman wrote:
> 1. Whether or not there's a clear statement regarding the installer - will
> users be presented with a clear choice of init systems during installation,
> or is it going to be left to folks to figure out how to work around the
> default installation of systemd?
It's not bee
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).
This has not happened.
>>>
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).
>>> This has not happened.
>>
>> I know, and I'm suggesting to omit this r
Matthias Urlichs writes:
> But please don't just do this in the context of yet another attempt to
> express dissatisfaction with the fact that our TC chose systemd:
> if you do, I do not think you'll achieve anything except more annoyance
> about the fact that we're discussing this *again*, and f
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?
> Secondly, Russ Allbrey did an amazing job during the -ctte decision of
> weighing systemd vs the alternatives.
Has any of this
Matthias Urlichs writes:
> Hi,
>
> lee:
>> I'm sure we could find quite a few supporters for having a GR amongst
>> the users (here).
>
> We don't do a GR among our users. We do that among Debian
> members/maintainers/developers/take-your-pick.
I didn't suggest a GR amongst the users, though I d
Joel Rees writes:
> Presto: All dissent is fud.
Perfectly said, thank you!
That the issue isn't entirely clear lies in the nature of the issue. If
you are a good admin, you know how to deal with such issues.
--
Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons
might swal
On 10/13/2014 9:53 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Apologies if this comes through twice - it doesn't look like the first
> one made it (and I got no bounce message :) ).
>
Crap - then I didn't get it threaded properly. Sorry about that, all.
Jerry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@
Apologies if this comes through twice - it doesn't look like the first
one made it (and I got no bounce message :) ).
On 10/13/2014 8:40 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 10/13/2014 7:10 PM, lee wrote:
>>> Brian writes:
>>>
The mail is accepted. What the recipient does w
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/13/2014 7:10 PM, lee wrote:
Brian writes:
The mail is accepted. What the recipient does with the mail after that
is outside the scope of an RFC. There is no obligation on the recipient
to inform the sender that he has ripped up the mail and junked it.
When the MTA
On 10/13/2014 07:13 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Joey Hess wrote:
Miles Fidelman wrote:
But that is the major objection of those of us who USE Debian -- the need to
do so, particularly when this concerns production servers.
Sysvinit will continue to be supported on servers in Debian 8 (jessie)
re
On 10/13/2014 7:18 PM, 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).
>
> That's totally retarded. When I don
On 10/13/2014 7:10 PM, lee wrote:
> Brian writes:
>
>> The mail is accepted. What the recipient does with the mail after that
>> is outside the scope of an RFC. There is no obligation on the recipient
>> to inform the sender that he has ripped up the mail and junked it.
>
> When the MTA delivers
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).
>
> That's totally retarded. W
Steve McIntyre wrote:
Joey Hess wrote:
-=-=-=-=-=-
Miles Fidelman wrote:
But that is the major objection of those of us who USE Debian -- the need to
do so, particularly when this concerns production servers.
Sysvinit will continue to be supported on servers in Debian 8 (jessie)
release of De
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
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 packages dec
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).
That's totally retarded. When I don't get an error message in return,
the messag
Brian writes:
> The mail is accepted. What the recipient does with the mail after that
> is outside the scope of an RFC. There is no obligation on the recipient
> to inform the sender that he has ripped up the mail and junked it.
When the MTA delivers the mail it accepted correctly, then there i
Joey Hess wrote:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>Miles Fidelman wrote:
>> But that is the major objection of those of us who USE Debian -- the need to
>> do so, particularly when this concerns production servers.
>
>Sysvinit will continue to be supported on servers in Debian 8 (jessie)
>release of Debian. So you c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 14/10/2014 9:11 AM, Brian wrote:
> On Tue 14 Oct 2014 at 06:34:17 +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
>> Although I'm up with patching, but I most definitely don't want any
>> system that I am responsible to maintain to have systemd installed, it
>> is
Joey Hess wrote:
Miles Fidelman wrote:
But that is the major objection of those of us who USE Debian -- the need to
do so, particularly when this concerns production servers.
Sysvinit will continue to be supported on servers in Debian 8 (jessie)
release of Debian. So you can continue to boot yo
On Mon 13 Oct 2014 at 18:30:41 -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Brian wrote:
> >On Tue 14 Oct 2014 at 06:34:17 +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> >
> >>On 14/10/2014 5:56 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> >>>Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Lu, 13 oct 14, 12:34:27, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> >Again.. when di
Miles Fidelman wrote:
> But that is the major objection of those of us who USE Debian -- the need to
> do so, particularly when this concerns production servers.
Sysvinit will continue to be supported on servers in Debian 8 (jessie)
release of Debian. So you can continue to boot your production se
Brian wrote:
On Tue 14 Oct 2014 at 06:34:17 +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
On 14/10/2014 5:56 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Lu, 13 oct 14, 12:34:27, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Again.. when did the desktop become the priority for Debian. For years,
Debian (and Linux in genera
On Tue 14 Oct 2014 at 06:34:17 +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> On 14/10/2014 5:56 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> > Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >> On Lu, 13 oct 14, 12:34:27, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> >>> Again.. when did the desktop become the priority for Debian. For years,
> >>> Debian (and Linux in ge
2014/10/14 4:35 "Jonathan Dowland" :
>
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:23:42PM -0700, Bob Holtzman wrote:
> > If that's true, why the avalanche of dissent now?
>
> I see a lot of posts, but hardly any posters, and not a great deal of
clarity
> or consistency about what the complaints are. I also see a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 14/10/2014 6:53 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Ma, 14 oct 14, 06:21:24, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
>>
>> A default desktop install of Jessie will bring in Gnome and as a
>> result will also bring in systemd
>
> Small correction here, just to make i
On Ma, 14 oct 14, 06:21:24, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
>
> A default desktop install of Jessie will bring in Gnome and as a result
> will also bring in systemd
Small correction here, just to make it 100% clear:
A default install of Jessie will bring in systemd, period.
(with or without desktop
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:23:42PM -0700, Bob Holtzman wrote:
> If that's true, why the avalanche of dissent now?
I see a lot of posts, but hardly any posters, and not a great deal of clarity
or consistency about what the complaints are. I also see a lot of FUD, both
about systemd and what Debian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 14/10/2014 5:56 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>> On Lu, 13 oct 14, 12:34:27, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> Again.. when did the desktop become the priority for Debian. For years,
>>> Debian (and Linux in general) has been most use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 14/10/2014 5:47 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Lu, 13 oct 14, 12:34:27, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>
>> Again.. when did the desktop become the priority for Debian. For years,
>> Debian (and Linux in general) has been most useful in the server
>> env
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 03:42:26PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 07:59:24AM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> > Which does kind of lead back to the question of what's the point of
> > a social contract that says users and their needs are the priority.
>
> The point is that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 14/10/2014 5:29 AM, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> Sysvinit-core was introduced in jessie and systemd-sysv conflicts with
> sysvinit-core. Systemd-sysv is also available in wheezy, but there are
> 24486 reports from the popcon version 1.61 (testing/unsta
101 - 200 of 322 matches
Mail list logo
