Your message dated Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:39:22 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: libpam-runtime
Version: 0.76-11
Severity: wishlist
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200303/msg00804.html
I was looking thru the above conversation regarding RedHat's pam_stack,
the new %include feature, and consistancy in Debian PAM policy.
I would like to offer a suggestion directly to the libpam-runtime
maintainer about how to get the ball rolling on a change, if you agree a
change needs to happen.
Include a common base pam file in /etc/pam.d by default, in this
package, and announce it to all packages with a /etc/pam.d file. Once a
common base file is available, it will only be a matter of time before
other maintainers start to use it.
Conversation about this has been rolling for about 2 months now, but
nothing has been done. This would be a great way to get it done.
Thanks. :D
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux kyoto 2.4.20 #4 Sun Jun 1 20:47:24 CDT 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Spam detection software, running on the system "bob.coplanar.net", has
identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.
Content preview: This has been dealt with to my (the reporter)
satisfaction. Cleanup! [...]
Content analysis details: (6.5 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
1.5 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail)
[SPF failed: Please see
http://spf.pobox.com/why.html?sender=wasabi%40larvalstage.net&ip=67.166.172.239&receiver=bob.coplanar.net]
2.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address
[67.166.172.239 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net]
1.7 RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL RBL: NJABL: dialup sender did non-local SMTP
[67.166.172.239 listed in combined.njabl.org]
1.3 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header
--- Begin Message ---
This has been dealt with to my (the reporter) satisfaction. Cleanup!
--- End Message ---
--- End Message ---