On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Dean thinks the bugzilla license is onerous:
>
> i have a bug to report, but i refuse to agree to the ASLv2 just to report
> a bug. i suggest you guys stop being so anal.
>
> I think that's not unreasonable. I modified bugzilla to say:
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin Mason) writes:
> BTW we really need to go via bugzilla to discuss this. history
> has shown that there are too many issues and patches to deal with
> via the lists alone, and they *will* get lost that way.
Dean thinks the bugzilla license is onerous:
i have a bug to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
ok, opened as http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3934
BTW we really need to go via bugzilla to discuss this. history
has shown that there are too many issues and patches to deal with
via the lists alone, and they *will* get lost that wa
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Justin Mason wrote:
> Both will break existing usage at other sites; some thought for backwards
> compatibility is required before we could apply those to the distribution.
> In particular, defaulting to only allowing -u for root would break
> a *lot* of existing users running
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
dean gaudet writes:
> i wasn't ever fond of spamd trusting the User supplied by spamc -- and
> while identd is an OK hack for folks who run spamd on a network, it seems
> overkill for someone running spamd on localhost only. using unix domain
> so
i wasn't ever fond of spamd trusting the User supplied by spamc -- and
while identd is an OK hack for folks who run spamd on a network, it seems
overkill for someone running spamd on localhost only. using unix domain
sockets there are two ways to increase the paranoia -- one would be to
pass c
