Sigh.
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
On 2011-02-04, John Hasler wrote:
> David Woolley writes:
>> As it probably wasn't made clear. These are not about forming a
>> contract, but about denying people a defence that they didn't know the
>> message was confidential.
>
> But if they are unrelated third parties they need no defense (at
On 2011-02-04, Schmidt, Bryan wrote:
> Sorry to have offended some of you, corp email system appends that
> whether I like it or not. Next time I'll ask my question from a
> different email account.
>
> Try not to get so worked up unruh / Chris!
Not worked up, just astonished and disgusted. And
David Woolley writes:
> As it probably wasn't made clear. These are not about forming a
> contract, but about denying people a defence that they didn't know the
> message was confidential.
But if they are unrelated third parties they need no defense (at least
in the USA). In circumstances such a
Chris Albertson wrote:
nonsense to outgoing messages. It is very easy and free to get a
gmail or yahoo mail account.
At least in the past, they were blocked from the office, as inbound mail
through them would bypass the email virus checker.
As it probably wasn't made clear. These are not a
Jacek,
An index to the cryptic error comment is in ./include/ntp_crypto.h. It
says "bad or missing group key". This message is from the client; you
should see the similar message at the server. Check to be sure you are
using the correct client parameters file.
Recent chjanges to the configur
>
> Unfortunately, many professional bodies tell their members that it is
> legally unsafe to do otherwise than include these notices. If I posted from
> my office, I would have one. There is no point in asking IT to suppress it,
We can ask that people don't post from email accounts that append
Sorry to have offended some of you, corp email system appends that
whether I like it or not. Next time I'll ask my question from a
different email account.
Try not to get so worked up unruh / Chris!
-Original Message-
From: questions-bounces+bryan.schmidt=travelport@lists.ntp.org
[
Chris Albertson wrote:
> Not only is it inappropriate is it complete bull+++t. The short of
> it is that contracts are only valid if both parties agree that they
> are valid so you can't put one on the end of emails and expect it to
> "stick".
In certain limited contexts these things actually d
Hello,
Some time ago I reported a bug in the implementation of
AutoKey+IFF, in ntp ver 4.2.4p8.
The error is intermittent and has been observed a in the long
run of ntpd, that is within 2 - 10 days.
When the error happens, ntpd keeps on running but authenticated
server is rejected:
ntpq -p
Chris Albertson wrote:
Not only is it inappropriate is it complete bull+++t. The short of
it is that contracts are only valid if both parties agree that they
are valid so you can't put one on the end of emails and expect it to
"stick". What if I were wrong?
OK just in case I'm wrong,,,
Be r
unruh wrote:
On 2011-02-03, Schmidt, Bryan wrote:
Thank you gentlemen. Patches and the new link on ntp.org are exactly
what I needed.
-Bryan
Could you please remover the following stuff from your postings on the
Referring to bogus confidentiality notices.
Unfortunately, many professional
12 matches
Mail list logo
