-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:29:45 +
Source: mail-spf-perl
Binary: libmail-spf-perl spf-tools-perl
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.007-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Julian Mehnle jul...@mehnle.net
Changed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 00:36:39 +
Source: courier-filter-perl
Binary: courier-filter-perl
Architecture: source all
Version: 0.200
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Julian Mehnle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Julian Mehnle
Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
in my opinion the new [qmail] license is DFSG-free.
There ain't no new license. DJB simply retracted his copyright. As of
now, anyone can copy the qmail 1.03 code, make modifications at will,
claim copyright for those modifications, and distribute the whole under
any
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 02:20:58 +
Source: mail-spf-perl
Binary: spf-tools-perl libmail-spf-perl
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.005-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Julian Mehnle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:39:25 +
Source: libnet-dns-resolver-programmable-perl
Binary: libnet-dns-resolver-programmable-perl
Architecture: source all
Version: 0.003-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Julian Mehnle
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Julian Mehnle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: mail-spf-perl
Version : 2.005
Upstream Author : Julian Mehnle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Mail-SPF/
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: Perl
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Julian Mehnle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: net-dns-resolver-programmable-perl
Version : 0.003.1
Upstream Author : Julian Mehnle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Net-DNS-Resolver-Programmable/
* License
-By: Julian Mehnle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description:
libmail-spf-query-perl - query SPF (Sender Policy Framework) to validate mail
senders
Changes:
libmail-spf-query-perl (1:1.999.1-3) unstable; urgency=low
.
* Make `spfquery` and `spfd` tools and their man-pages use the alternatives
system
-By: Julian Mehnle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description:
libmail-spf-query-perl - query SPF (Sender Policy Framework) to validate mail
senders
Changes:
libmail-spf-query-perl (1:1.999.1-1) unstable; urgency=low
.
Debian:
* Added watch file.
.
Mail::SPF::Query:
* Do not use \p{} named
-By: Julian Mehnle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description:
libmail-spf-query-perl - query SPF (Sender Policy Framework) to validate mail
senders
Closes: 351030
Changes:
libmail-spf-query-perl (1.999-1) unstable; urgency=low
.
Debian:
* Build-Depend, not Build-Depend-Indep, on debhelper. Also, depend
-By: Julian Mehnle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description:
libmail-spf-query-perl - query SPF (Sender Policy Framework) to validate mail
senders
Closes: 332952 337319 337500 342629 344342
Changes:
libmail-spf-query-perl (1.998-1) unstable; urgency=low
.
Debian:
* New maintainer:
Debian Perl
Charles Fry wrote:
[...] I have already packaged the new upstream release of
libhtml-mason-perl.
Could you make the prepared package available for download in advance?
That would be great!
Julian.
pgpUAPiI9FbmW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
Eric Lavarde writes,
in some man pages ... the dashes and single quotes are
not really what they look like, but some other unicode
letter. This has two major drawbacks:
- search for options become nearly impossible
...
You illustrate well the fundamental
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:15:13 +0100
Source: courier-filter-perl
Binary: courier-filter-perl
Architecture: source all
Version: 0.16
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Julian Mehnle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Julian Mehnle
Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
However, the typical roster of skills one masters in contributing
broadly to Debian development is already awesome: C, C++, CPP, Make,
Perl, Python, Autoconf, CVS, Shell, Glibc, System calls, /proc, IPC,
sockets, Sed, Awk, Vi, Emacs, locales, Libdb, GnuPG, Readline,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 02:52:47 +0200
Source: courier-filter-perl
Binary: courier-filter-perl
Architecture: source all
Version: 0.15
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Julian Mehnle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Julian Mehnle
Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
I do not deny that Latin-1 represents all the languages I can read, and
that this fact may color my view. Nevertheless to me a source written
in Chinese is effectively non-free. It might as well be a compiled
binary blob.
So Emacs is effectively non-free, because I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we ever get a replacement libc that would really work as
replacement... on such system GNU claims would become much weaker. Not
that there was a serious chance of that happening - drop-in replacement
of glibc on Linux would be a lot of work and so far none of the
Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
Why people tend to become polemic when they have no arguments left?
Very good question.
Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
Oh, great... I wouldnt have expected that getting polemic is a
necessary to become DPL... :-//
So can we please end this flamewar before it really starts
Scott Minns wrote:
Thanks for your replys, I like the idea of making some packages
perishable the trouble is where would you draw the line?
We could add an optional control field Expires: $date to packages, so package
maintainers could decide for themselves. After a package has expired, it
Lucas Albers wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
I know this is no panacea, since in many cases, the maintainer cannot
know whether a package will perish at all (like when all spammers
promptly give up advancing their software, so a given version of
spamassassin would stay useful forever
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Benjamin Drieu wrote:
I no longer use usemod-wiki and thus have no time to maintain it.
Package is in good shape, no serious bugs. Very few work is needed to
maintain it as release cycle is quite long.
The only one todo item is to package
Hi Peter,
Alexander Wirt wrote:
Am Fr, den 12.12.2003 schrieb Julian Mehnle um 15:32:
Benjamin Drieu wrote:
I no longer use usemod-wiki and thus have no time to maintain it.
Package is in good shape, no serious bugs. Very few work is needed
to maintain it as release cycle is quite
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
What can we do with deb signatures?
For our current problem, the integrity of the debian archive being
questioned, the procedure would be easy and available to every user:
1. get any clean Debian keyring (or just the key
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Julian Mehnle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We could use a revocation list where signatures of packages with
known security holes are listed as being revoked. Of course, you'd
need to be online to check it when installing/updating packages.
And the revocation list
Russell Coker wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:16, Patrick Ouellette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Instead of a smartcard/token/whatever physical device, this incident
could possibly have been thwarted by requiring developers to
pre-register their machine with the project (using ssh host key for
Russell Coker wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:14, Julian Mehnle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You cannot verify the IP address *exactly*, but you can verify
whether the IP address lies within a range. Dial-up users could at
least register a certain address range, so as to vastly mitigate
Andreas Schuldei wrote:
* Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031203 04:03]:
I have sent a message to Werner asking if the GPG smart-card device
could be re-implemented with a USB interface. I think that a USB
dongle with GPG technology would be a good option as most developer's
machines
Steve Lamb wrote:
2: Can you provide an example of such free-style coding that you speak
so highly of?
# Split header into separate header lines, dropping any unneeded or
# spurious header lines:
@header_lines = grep(
(
/^(?:
# Wanted headers:
X-Spam-Status
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Julian Mehnle wrote:
That would be great! At least if it means ATARAID-style
software RAID. No opinion about LVM-style RAID.
Yuck (if by ATARAID you mean those PoS controllers from, e.g., Promise
-- these are slow as a snail
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Julian Mehnle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is md RAID (I don't know this one) compatible with ATARAID in
regard of the partition/storage layout on disks, i.e. can I use
ATARAID drivers to access md RAID disks and vice versa? I need
this kind of compatibility
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Just ditch the ataraid crap, the only use for it is to share raid arrays
with MS Windows.
That was my point. So I can't ditch the ATARAID crap. Sorry.
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Without, that is, installing every package in Debian.
I'm curious, for instance, as to why emacs20 hasn't managed to be
removed yet. Presumably something depends on it. But I can't figure
out what.
`apt-cache showpkg emacs20`
Brian May wrote:
I have tried debian-installer, and found it to be great!
I just have three feature requests, if they aren't already supported:
[...]
3. Software raid support?
That would be great! At least if it means ATARAID-style software RAID. No
opinion about LVM-style RAID.
Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 08:18:51AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
Even if this is not a personal issue of Mr. Troup towards me, having
ftpmaster behave like A today and like B tomorrow is a bad thing. If I
There's more than one person behind ftpmaster.
Obviously, he knows
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
First, I think what Daniel Jacobowitz said is entirely true. Why didn't you
start with testing?
All he had to do was install an older version of libc6 and every other
package would have been happy. All the infrastructure is there to do
this, the
Kris Deugau wrote:
OK, I think I've thought of a sort of a counter-example: [...]
I'm sending from myfriendsdomain.com's server, but I don't have an
account there. I do, however, have an account [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on my own server- to which I want all replies/bounces/etc to go to.
Kris Deugau wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Andreas Metzler wrote:
If I send an e-mail over mail.nusrf.at with envelope-from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I am _not_ forging anything or making
unauthorized use of domains
Yes, you are. The envelope-from address is not a reply-to address,
it's
Andreas Metzler wrote:
Julian Mehnle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Metzler wrote:
If I send an e-mail over mail.nusrf.at with envelope-from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I am _not_ forging anything or making
unauthorized use of domains
Yes, you are. The envelope-from address
Andreas Metzler wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 02:47:44PM +0200, Julian Mehnle wrote:
There you have it. It's the source mailbox, and while it can be
used to report errors, it can *not only* be used to report errors.
I'm relieved that the RFC doesn't contradict my common sense
Michael Poole wrote:
Julian Mehnle writes:
Don't you agree on my understanding of a sender address (or source
mailbox) being the address (or source mailbox) the sender sends
from? If so, please state it explicitly, so I have something I can
argue against. :-)
Mail is not sent from any
John Hasler wrote:
Julian Mehnle writes:
It does very well make sense to specify a sender address for an
e-mail, and that's exactly what the SMTP MAIL FROM command AKA
envelope-from (and the Sender: header) is meant to be. Even RFCs
(2)821 and (2)822 articulate it that way. Nowhere do
John Hasler wrote:
Julian Mehnle writes:
No, but this again is one of these broken e-mail vs. real world
analogies. You can't receive mail through such a letter box, but a
sender address is inherently meant to be a valid address through which
you can be contacted (among other criteria
John Hasler wrote:
Joel Baker writes:
If adding .1 to your SA score for lacking a repudiation protocol, and
3 (or 5, or whatever) for claiming to be from a domain that denies
that it origionates mail to the rest of the world from your IP...
I have no IP. Outgoing mail from home goes via
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
* Gerfried Fuchs
The concept of SMTP AUTH is completely new to you, is it? Sorry,
these kind of objections are just as silly as you call the proposal
silly.
Uhm, no, why should it be? Having gnus set up to use SMTP auth and
using a different server based on what
(Bernhard, please excuse the accidental CC!)
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Riku Voipio [EMAIL PROTECTED] [031012 20:25]:
Second hint: If you insist on your right to forge your email address,
anyone else can forge your address as well. Is that a right you really
need?
It's about to *use* an
(Andreas, please excuse the accidental CC!)
Andreas Metzler wrote:
Julian Mehnle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Convince the owner of these domains that you are (that is, your
outgoing mail server is) allowed to send mail from these domains.
Think these domains = debian.org and outgoing mail
Andreas Metzler wrote:
Julian Mehnle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's about forging an e-mail sender's identity. By preventing the
unauthorized use of domains as the sender domain of e-mails, most of
the practiced cases of identity forgery are prevented. [...]
If I send an e-mail over
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
* Riku Voipio
Second hint: If you insist on your right to forge your email address,
anyone else can forge your address as well. Is that a right you really
need?
Uhm, how would you forge your own mail address? It's like forging
your own signature, something which
Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
[Using DNS RBLs to block spam is bad.]
As many people have noted, for pretty much _any_
given IP, your odds are good that most of the mail received from it is
spam. It doesn't do much for the legit mail that comes through. Given
that we now _do_
cobaco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2003-08-20 15:33, John Goerzen wrote:
tne pain of breaking desktops is no less when
you consider how many more desktops we're talking about here.
that's assuming that all those desktops crash at the same time no?
No, it's assuming that all those desktops
Steve Greenland wrote:
Or perhaps we should just decree that no unmaitained packages go out
in a stable release. At the beginning of the freeze, mark all the WNPP
packages for removal (along with their dependencies :-)), and then see
if we can inspire some reaction.
Good idea! An even better
Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
Julian Mehnle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
And you think an attitude like this is going to make me work
harder? For *you* ?? Get real.
Regardless of whether it was right to NMU sysvinit without you being
notified: I get
Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
Tobias Wolter wrote:
I still haven't seen any bugfix from you. How about you go stop
ranting about being treated unfair and DOING YOUR WORK?
And you think an attitude like this is going to make me work
harder? For *you* ?? Get real.
Regardless of whether it
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Julian Mehnle ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030627 21:05]:
[...]
Thanks for your proposal. IMHO it is important that we are going to
adopt one or the other proposal rather soon, so that it could be used in
sarge.
I agree.
Now to comments:
Every base arch (alpha, i386
Hi all,
(I'm sending this message again, since the copy I sent yesterday seems not
to have made it onto the list. If you receive it twice, please excuse.)
Andreas Barth wrote:
DRAFT - Subarchitectures for debian [0.1]
First, thanks for creating a prototype proposal.
I understand that the
Hi all,
Andreas Barth wrote:
DRAFT - Subarchitectures for debian [0.1]
First, thanks for creating a prototype proposal.
I understand that the your proposed extensions to the Debian package system
are based on the concepts of sub-archs and meta-sub-archs (I'd call
these pseudo-sub-archs or
Hi all,
I feel this whole discussion is somehow going into the wrong direction. What
does it matter now whether we drop support for i386 and i486 (and possibly
more), or just i386? Sooner or later we'll have the same problem (of changing
the arch support being so difficult) again, if not
58 matches
Mail list logo
