also sprach Jamin W. Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.07.16.1709 +0200]:
> Then the message was a peronsal message not a list message and thus the
> filtering on list headers is not "unreliable" it worked perfectly.
> Messages to the list end in the list box, messages to me end in a
> personal box
On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 08:31:30AM -0500, Alan Shutko wrote:
> "Jamin W. Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Since when is a list header from a known list "unreliable"?
>
> Since people may cc you personally, giving a transit path for a
> message which does not contain said header. In oth
"Jamin W. Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since when is a list header from a known list "unreliable"?
Since people may cc you personally, giving a transit path for a
message which does not contain said header. In other words, the
reason this subthread exists.
--
Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROT
also sprach Noah L. Meyerhans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.07.16.0251 +0200]:
> Basically what's happening is that FreeS/WAN very emphatically
> refuses to accept any contributions from US citizens.
I usually support any political statement against the US government,
the Patriot Act, etc. because I b
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 06:46:03PM -0500, Alan Shutko wrote:
> "Jamin W. Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Not if you sort your mail by list headers rather than unreliable To: or
> > Cc: header lines.
>
> Obviously both are unreliable. So sort on both.
Since when is a list header from
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 08:12:05PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Noah L. Meyerhans writes:
> > Basically what's happening is that FreeS/WAN very emphatically refuses to
> > accept any contributions from US citizens.
>
> That's utterly asinine. If true it is sufficient reason for me to never
> use F
Noah L. Meyerhans writes:
> Basically what's happening is that FreeS/WAN very emphatically refuses to
> accept any contributions from US citizens.
That's utterly asinine. If true it is sufficient reason for me to never
use FreeS/WAN.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, W
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:28:30PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Mike Fedyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.07.15.2304 +0200]:
> > Unfortunately, what they are doing to keep the possibility of the
> > US government trying to take action against them, has caused the
> > mainline kernel devel
"Jamin W. Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not if you sort your mail by list headers rather than unreliable To: or
> Cc: header lines.
Obviously both are unreliable. So sort on both.
--
Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - I am the rocks.
"Oh boy, I'm supposed to speak Italian." -- Sam Beck
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 05:17:01PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 04:02:42PM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>
> > Both messages will be identical except for the "Received" headers!
> > Procmail should put both in the same place, since if the message is
> > addressed to you, and
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 04:02:42PM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> Both messages will be identical except for the "Received" headers!
> Procmail should put both in the same place, since if the message is
> addressed to you, and the list, both messages will have the same
> contents in To: and Cc:. They
On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 12:02:53AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Mike Fedyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.07.15.2358 +0200]:
> > If you read the mailing list you'll see many flame wars about
> > this. Also, it was mentioned on LKML before the competing IPsec
> > was merged too.
>
> I do
also sprach Mike Fedyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.07.15.2358 +0200]:
> If you read the mailing list you'll see many flame wars about
> this. Also, it was mentioned on LKML before the competing IPsec
> was merged too.
I don't read either anymore. I guess I'll get at the archives when
I have some ti
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:28:30PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Mike Fedyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.07.15.2304 +0200]:
> > Unfortunately, what they are doing to keep the possibility of the
> > US government trying to take action against them, has caused the
> > mainline kernel devel
also sprach Mike Fedyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.07.15.2304 +0200]:
> Unfortunately, what they are doing to keep the possibility of the
> US government trying to take action against them, has caused the
> mainline kernel developers to refuse to include their work in the
> mainline kernel.
I haven'
On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 12:52:11PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Noah L. Meyerhans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.07.13.1935 +0200]:
> > Yeah, I'm not too happy about how freeswan is handled right now, either.
>
> I just talked to Rene. the 1.99 to 2.0 switch requires a rewrite of
> the k
also sprach Noah L. Meyerhans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.07.13.1935 +0200]:
> Yeah, I'm not too happy about how freeswan is handled right now, either.
I just talked to Rene. the 1.99 to 2.0 switch requires a rewrite of
the kernel-patch. Thus it will take a little longer. But there will
be a kernel
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 02:59:04PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> Rene isn't answering my mails. What happened to the FreeS/WAN kernel
> patches? kernel-patch-freeswan-ext is gone, and
> kernel-patch-freeswan is back to 1.96 (with 1.99 being the current
> version). Moreover, freeswan-modules-sourc
Rene isn't answering my mails. What happened to the FreeS/WAN kernel
patches? kernel-patch-freeswan-ext is gone, and
kernel-patch-freeswan is back to 1.96 (with 1.99 being the current
version). Moreover, freeswan-modules-source seems to be new.
I hope that Debian doesn't expect people to run FreeS
19 matches
Mail list logo
