In a message dated: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 12:31:39 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, at 12:10pm, Tom Buskey wrote:
>> Ummm, yahoo does lists for free & provides a web archive, etc. Granted,
>> there'd be less control & ads inserted. Well, maybe there'd be more
>> control.
>
> I, pe
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, at 12:10pm, Tom Buskey wrote:
> Ummm, yahoo does lists for free & provides a web archive, etc. Granted,
> there'd be less control & ads inserted. Well, maybe there'd be more
> control.
I, personally, would consider that a step in the wrong direction. :)
When I say we
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, at 11:26am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Btw, ahm, with all this discussion about headers like M-F-T, why aren't we
>> using the already standard List-* headers? I would solve a lot of the
>> complaints here!
>
> Because the configuration of the curr
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 11:26:42AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In a message dated: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:17:23 EDT
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> >On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, at 4:32pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Can someone explain exactly what M-F-T is *supposed* to do.
> >
> > *sigh* Did t
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, at 11:52am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm not questioning that. I know full well that there are politcal
> reasons for the way things are.
Oh. Sorry. :-/
> I'm asking if List-* headers are even a possibility in Majordomo, which we
> happen to be using because of what
In a message dated: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 11:48:08 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, at 11:26am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Btw, ahm, with all this discussion about headers like M-F-T, why aren't we
>> using the already standard List-* headers? I would solve a lot of the
>> complain
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, at 11:26am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Btw, ahm, with all this discussion about headers like M-F-T, why aren't we
> using the already standard List-* headers? I would solve a lot of the
> complaints here!
Because the configuration of the current mailing list is limited by
In a message dated: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:17:23 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, at 4:32pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Can someone explain exactly what M-F-T is *supposed* to do.
>
> *sigh* Did this forum become write-only when I wasn't looking? :)
Hey, if we actually *READ*
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, at 10:06am, Michael O'Donnell wrote:
> - I am using pump and this isn't the first time I've heard
>its reliability questioned, so I'll give dhcpcd a try.
It isn't so much that ISC dhcpcd is better or worse then pump; it is just
that it happens to get along with some DH
In response to several points raised:
- Yes, all my NAT'd connections probably would
have been killed as a result of the ifdown/ifup
sequence, but they were dead already.
- When my firewall's eth0 connection became operational
again, it had the same IP addr as before.
- I am using
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 09:07:31PM -0400, Michael O'Donnell wrote:
>
> I figured that maybe I just lost my DHCP lease or
> something, but the outage lasted almost 15 minutes before
> I (apparently) "fixed" it by issuing those ifdown/ifup
> commands, so I wonder about the DHCP theory...
>
My old
Well, this may put a hiccup in the theory that the cable company's DHCP is
messed up...
I've seen exactly the same thing happen on my two RedHat systems (one is
7.3 and one is 7.2). I've not found any pattern that would help to identify
what is really going on though. I do not use a cable mode
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, at 7:56pm, Ken Ambrose wrote:
> I see it frequently enough that I've taken to putting "pump" into cron.
Try switching from "pump" to ISC "dhcpcd". A lot of people have reported
trying one, having troubles, switching to the other, and that solves their
problem. It appears
13 matches
Mail list logo
