Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On 13:56 Mon 10 Nov , Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 05:30 Sat 01 Nov , Mike Frysinger wrote: If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev list to see. If anyone has topics they want a council decision on, you really need to reply to this email. This is the only way to guarantee they will be considered for the agenda. Since nobody replied, we will check on the status of last meeting's assigned bugs and figure out what to do with the unassigned bugs. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com pgpmUZIkqufvZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On 05:30 Sat 01 Nov , Mike Frysinger wrote: If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev list to see. If anyone has topics they want a council decision on, you really need to reply to this email. This is the only way to guarantee they will be considered for the agenda. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com pgp91PrmS8SqA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti: This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) ! If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev list to see. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=194876 EAPI=1 is not yet used in the tree so perhaps we should talk about how to best start using it. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
With Uberlord's retirement we should do the usual magic voodoo procedure to summon in the next-in-line member (which would be Jokey if i'm not mistaken). cheers, Wernfried -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org forum-mods (at) gentoo.org #gentoo-forums (freenode) pgpJtMz7REaDO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Kurt Lieber wrote: [Wed Nov 08 2006, 12:02:04PM EST] On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 10:25:47AM -0500 or thereabouts, Aron Griffis wrote: Gentoo.org has elected to provide the SPF records, effectively marking gentoo.org mail originating from other SMTP servers as rogue. That simply is not true. Please read the write-up that I prepared that explains what we are, in fact, saying with our curret SPF record. Please pay special attention to the discussion around ?all. My bad! I hadn't seen your write-up previously. Thanks for clearing this up, Kurt. Regards, Aron pgpNb89Qpbfhg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On 08/11/06, Tobias Klausmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! Mr windmill man! ^_^ PPS: Windmills, anyone? Yes, I'll take two, please. --beu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 17:37 +, Kurt Lieber wrote: On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 07:19:44PM +0200 or thereabouts, Alin Nastac wrote: I say we should have +all (SPF-capable MTAs will consider any IP address as authorized to send mail on behalf of g.o - equivalent with Message source OK). this interpretation is correct. He says we should have ?all (when another SPF-capable MTA will check the my IP address, it will take my message with a grain of salt - equivalent with Message source unknown). this interpretation is not correct. What you are describing is ~all, not ?all. ?all instructs the MTA to make no interpretation at all related to a failure. In other words, do not add or subtract any salt whatsoever.[1] ~all tells the MTA to add some salt.[2] --kurt [1] http://new.openspf.org/RFC_4408#op-result-neutral [2] http://new.openspf.org/RFC_4408#op-result-softfail Not advocating either option...just pasting additional info. If anyone wants to see the VERY brief discussion that was had over at SA about why they decided to ignore the standard (or moreso what they decided the standard actually meant) check out [1]. --Dan [1] http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=3616 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:25:19PM +0100 or thereabouts, Danny van Dyk wrote: Kurt: Please write up a short text to explain why you think this is necessary for Gentoo mailservers. Thanks in advance! http://dev.gentoo.org/~klieber/spf.txt --kurt pgpql1vqP13J5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Kurt Lieber wrote: [Wed Nov 08 2006, 09:07:40AM CST] On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:25:19PM +0100 or thereabouts, Danny van Dyk wrote: Kurt: Please write up a short text to explain why you think this is necessary for Gentoo mailservers. Thanks in advance! http://dev.gentoo.org/~klieber/spf.txt Thanks, that's quite helpful. What did you do (or not do) to avoid paying the SPF_NEUTRAL SA penalty in your test e-mail sent using gmail? -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgpVKYiG8Uwmr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Lance Albertson wrote: [Tue Nov 07 2006, 12:37:53PM EST] Nothing is stopping you from sending from another smtp server. The problem people have been complaining about is that spamassassin is adding a score of 1-2 for anyone who sends from a host other than what we stated in the SPF rule. Any spam-filtering program should be able to trust the SPF information if a site provides it. Gentoo.org has elected to provide the SPF records, effectively marking gentoo.org mail originating from other SMTP servers as rogue. So it's misleading to tell devs they can send from any SMTP server... I personally don't remember the reasons for the SPF argument so I can't speak for that in a reasonable manner. When SPF was added, I don't believe SA was scoring emails in this way so it wasn't as much as a deal then. We probably should look into seeing if we can get around that, It seems a bit ridiculous to broadcast a list of authoritative gentoo.org SMTP servers, then suggest to devs to send from other servers, and try to handle the mismatch on the recipient end. Is that what you're suggesting? Aron pgpA3QDZsTVIe.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
maillog: 08/11/2006-09:23:17(-0600): Grant Goodyear types Kurt Lieber wrote: [Wed Nov 08 2006, 09:07:40AM CST] On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:25:19PM +0100 or thereabouts, Danny van Dyk wrote: Kurt: Please write up a short text to explain why you think this is necessary for Gentoo mailservers. Thanks in advance! http://dev.gentoo.org/~klieber/spf.txt Thanks, that's quite helpful. What did you do (or not do) to avoid paying the SPF_NEUTRAL SA penalty in your test e-mail sent using gmail? It's the envelope sender's domain that SPF is testing, and the sender is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not much to do with the SPF record for gentoo.org Guess -- (* Georgi Georgiev (* Why couldn't Helen Heller drive? she was a (* *)[EMAIL PROTECTED]*) woman -- gsfgf *) (* http://www.gg3.net/ (*(* pgpSX5BJMFEdZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 10:25:47AM -0500 or thereabouts, Aron Griffis wrote: Gentoo.org has elected to provide the SPF records, effectively marking gentoo.org mail originating from other SMTP servers as rogue. That simply is not true. Please read the write-up that I prepared that explains what we are, in fact, saying with our curret SPF record. Please pay special attention to the discussion around ?all. If other people choose to mis-interpret the data, that's their own fault. --kurt pgptnut0ObZbd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 04:24:59PM +0900 or thereabouts, Georgi Georgiev wrote: I ain't no dev, but how is this trivial? A typical scenario is: a gentoo-dev sends an e-mail to a mailing list (a non-gentoo mailing list) and that mail gets nuked by a greedy spam filter because the SPF rules exclude (oh well, do not specifically include) the server that forwards the mailing list message. I'm not trying to pick on Georgi, but can we please be realistic about the true impact of this? So far, we've identified one application (SpamAssassin) that incorrectly interprets a neutral SPF record. As a result, it adds 1.1 to the overall SA score. Different people have different thresholds for spam filtering, surely, but nobody in their right mind is going to start dropping mails with a positive score of 1.1. The default out of the box is (I think) 5.5. So the message is still marked as 80% clean. Even if you want to be ultra aggressive and drop mail based on a score in the 3-ish range, this SPF issue still won't even get the message a third of the way towards hitting that threshold. --kurt pgpqvcAnFsheC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 07:19:44PM +0200 or thereabouts, Alin Nastac wrote: I say we should have +all (SPF-capable MTAs will consider any IP address as authorized to send mail on behalf of g.o - equivalent with Message source OK). this interpretation is correct. He says we should have ?all (when another SPF-capable MTA will check the my IP address, it will take my message with a grain of salt - equivalent with Message source unknown). this interpretation is not correct. What you are describing is ~all, not ?all. ?all instructs the MTA to make no interpretation at all related to a failure. In other words, do not add or subtract any salt whatsoever.[1] ~all tells the MTA to add some salt.[2] --kurt [1] http://new.openspf.org/RFC_4408#op-result-neutral [2] http://new.openspf.org/RFC_4408#op-result-softfail pgplZ7pNGJCIL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Kurt, Thanks for expressing your reasons properly on the list and in the text file on your d.g.o home. It's certainly gone a long way to my own understanding of your reasoning. Thanks, -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:29:55 + Kurt Lieber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I'm not trying to pick on Georgi, but can we please be realistic | about the true impact of this? So far, we've identified one | application (SpamAssassin) that incorrectly interprets a neutral SPF | record. As a result, it adds 1.1 to the overall SA score. We've identified one very widely used application that interprets SPF records based upon how they're used by spammers rather than by how the specification says they should be interpreted. In this case, SA is entirely reasonable in its behaviour -- SPF makes the classic incorrect assumption that spammers won't abuse the system. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Wednesday 08 November 2006 17:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: SPF makes the classic incorrect assumption that spammers won't abuse the system. Ciaran makes the classic incorrect assumption that people can magically read his mind to know how he thinks spammers can abuse the system. -- Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo/Linux Developer (baselayout, networking) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:19:30 + Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Wednesday 08 November 2006 17:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | SPF makes the classic incorrect | assumption that spammers won't abuse the system. | | Ciaran makes the classic incorrect assumption that people can | magically read his mind to know how he thinks spammers can abuse the | system. No, I just assume that they've read the rest of the thread and the bug. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 05:54:13PM + or thereabouts, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: We've identified one very widely used application that interprets SPF records based upon how they're used by spammers rather than by how the specification says they should be interpreted. In this case, SA is entirely reasonable in its behaviour -- SPF makes the classic incorrect assumption that spammers won't abuse the system. Ciaran, you obviously do not understand the issue, nor do you know what you're talking about. The issue is that SpamAssassin assigns a score of ~1 to any email that FAILS an SPF check for a domain that has a ?all (neutral) rating. I want to stress that it has to FAIL. If it doesn't fail, I believe SA's default behavior is to assign a *negative* score of 0.1. So, in other words, spammers aren't abusing anything related to SPF. They're sending mail using forged return-paths and SPF is highlighting that. Which is exactly what SPF is designed to do. The impact is that some users happen to send mail in a way that ends up looking very similar to a spammer sending an email with a forged return-path. And, because of the way SA has chosen to interpret this, those valid, non-spam emails get assigned a positive spam value, even when the mail administrator has asked them not to. --kurt pgp5U9lcV3wss.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 20:01:52 + Kurt Lieber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 05:54:13PM + or thereabouts, Ciaran | McCreesh wrote: | We've identified one very widely used application that interprets | SPF records based upon how they're used by spammers rather than by | how the specification says they should be interpreted. In this | case, SA is entirely reasonable in its behaviour -- SPF makes the | classic incorrect assumption that spammers won't abuse the system. | | Ciaran, you obviously do not understand the issue, nor do you know | what you're talking about. No, I do, you're just missing the point. | The impact is that some users happen to send mail in a way that ends | up looking very similar to a spammer sending an email with a forged | return-path. And, because of the way SA has chosen to interpret this, | those valid, non-spam emails get assigned a positive spam value, even | when the mail administrator has asked them not to. And why do you think it does that? -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Wednesday 08 November 2006 21:01, Kurt Lieber wrote: So, in other words, spammers aren't abusing anything related to SPF. They're sending mail using forged return-paths and SPF is highlighting that. Which is exactly what SPF is designed to do. I'm no mail expert, but I want something clarified because this whole thing might as well be a non issue if it's as I understood it. If I were to send my gentoo mail through a mail.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org, with its own SPF record, (I'm not as this is not a real domain I have access to, nor a mailserver for what it's worth), with a From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and a Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED], would it be a PASS or a FAIL in SPF? -- Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Sound, ALSA, PAM, KDE, CJK, Ruby ... pgpBxE5Np5Dqe.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 09:14:22PM +0100 or thereabouts, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten?? wrote: If I were to send my gentoo mail through a mail.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org, with its own SPF record, (I'm not as this is not a real domain I have access to, nor a mailserver for what it's worth), with a From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and a Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED], would it be a PASS or a FAIL in SPF? It would pass. I posted an example of this earlier: http://dev.gentoo.org/~klieber/spf_with_happy_SA.txt --kurt pgpZiD14sizLV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Wednesday 08 November 2006 21:01, Kurt Lieber wrote: So, in other words, spammers aren't abusing anything related to SPF. They're sending mail using forged return-paths and SPF is highlighting that. Which is exactly what SPF is designed to do. If I were to send my gentoo mail through a mail.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org, with its own SPF record, (I'm not as this is not a real domain I have access to, nor a mailserver for what it's worth), with a From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and a Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED], would it be a PASS or a FAIL in SPF? It doesn't matter what From, Sender or whatever else in the message header. The part that counts is the Return-Path (the mail from: part of the SMTP protocol). Of course, MUAs such as Thunderbird don't give you the possibility to set that and it will be the same as your From address. A SPF-capable MTA will PASS your message to the recipient. However, SA will add 1.1 to the message spam score because of the SPF_NEUTRAL test. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Wednesday 08 November 2006 22:17, Alin Nastac wrote: It doesn't matter what From, Sender or whatever else in the message header. The part that counts is the Return-Path (the mail from: part of the SMTP protocol). Sender or Returh-Path, whatever.. Of course, MUAs such as Thunderbird don't give you the possibility to set that and it will be the same as your From address. Shouldn't be your provider's mail server to set it? Both of my SSL-enabled mail servers, that are authenticated (GMail and the Italian postal service) set this correctly, thus I don't have the SPF_NEUTRAL error on them. If you forge the Return-Path, by simply not providing any protection about its value on the mailserver, nor on the client, then I'd say that the SpamAssassin behaviour is perfectly fine. -- Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Sound, ALSA, PAM, KDE, CJK, Ruby ... pgpQYrsQ83Xso.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Hi! On Wed, 08 Nov 2006, Alin Nastac wrote: Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Wednesday 08 November 2006 21:01, Kurt Lieber wrote: So, in other words, spammers aren't abusing anything related to SPF. They're sending mail using forged return-paths and SPF is highlighting that. Which is exactly what SPF is designed to do. If I were to send my gentoo mail through a mail.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org, with its own SPF record, (I'm not as this is not a real domain I have access to, nor a mailserver for what it's worth), with a From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and a Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED], would it be a PASS or a FAIL in SPF? It doesn't matter what From, Sender or whatever else in the message header. The part that counts is the Return-Path (the mail from: part of the SMTP protocol). Or so it should be. As I've written earlier, some very misguided people not only judge the Envelope-From (i.e. MAIL FROM in SMTP-Speak, which usually is identical to the header Return-Path) against SPF, but also the in-mail header From:. Yes, it's downright stupid because it breaks just about nay mailing software I know. Yes, it's used by at least two larger providers in Europe. No, tech support there soesn't think it's a bad idea after I explained it in easy, friendly words. Idiots. Still: there are two things to keep in mind: 1) Do you just don't care about the users of those ISPs. 2) Does Gentoo as a distro want to advocate for the usage of SPF (ever so slightly) with the knowledge that it breaks several things? Regards, Tobias PS: Even without those idiots, SPF breaks pre-delivery forwards. But also said that already and it was illustrated why that happens on the why SPF isn't quite ideal page someone mentioned earlier in the thread. PPS: Windmills, anyone? -- Never touch a burning system. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Am Mittwoch, 8. November 2006 16:07 schrieb Kurt Lieber: On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:25:19PM +0100 or thereabouts, Danny van Dyk wrote: Kurt: Please write up a short text to explain why you think this is necessary for Gentoo mailservers. Thanks in advance! http://dev.gentoo.org/~klieber/spf.txt Thank you very much. I'm reading it right now Danny -- Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: Of course, MUAs such as Thunderbird don't give you the possibility to set that and it will be the same as your From address. Shouldn't be your provider's mail server to set it? Both of my SSL-enabled mail servers, that are authenticated (GMail and the Italian postal service) set this correctly, thus I don't have the SPF_NEUTRAL error on them. Return-Path header field is introduced by the MTA when it receives the mail from the other party. The protocol is like this: ... mail from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 250 Ok rcpt to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 250 Ok data 354 End data with CRLF.CRLF Subject: test From: John Doe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Suzy [EMAIL PROTECTED] test message . 250 Ok: queued as 9EE1A64798 quit 221 Bye Here you have [EMAIL PROTECTED] as Return-Path. Please note the fact that submitted message does not have such field yet and even if it had, it would be overridden by the MTA with what I specified in mail from: command. Because I used telnet, I was able to specify 2 different addresses for the From and Return-Path addresses, but all the MUAs I worked with have no such fine grained settings. For Thunderbird, when I say I want to send mail as [EMAIL PROTECTED], the same address will go also in the Return-Path. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Alin Nastac ha scritto: For Thunderbird, when I say I want to send mail as [EMAIL PROTECTED], the same address will go also in the Return-Path. Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 has it in two places, a) account settings, b) you can change it for every message you send using the drop down on the left side of the email address. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Francesco Riosa wrote: Alin Nastac ha scritto: For Thunderbird, when I say I want to send mail as [EMAIL PROTECTED], the same address will go also in the Return-Path. Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 has it in two places, a) account settings, b) you can change it for every message you send using the drop down on the left side of the email address. Indeed, Real Men use Identities(TM). Set some up. I'm sending this from my university account but the From: is set correctly (I think:)), otherwise I can't even send mail to this list, since only my @gentoo.org address is subscribed. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Hi! On Tue, 07 Nov 2006, Georgi Georgiev wrote: Quoting Lance Albertson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Personally, after skimming through this thread, I'd say leave it as is and stick with Kurt's decision. Our developers clearly have nothing better to do than rant on about something as trivial as this. I ain't no dev, but how is this trivial? A typical scenario is: a gentoo-dev sends an e-mail to a mailing list (a non-gentoo mailing list) and that mail gets nuked by a greedy spam filter because the SPF rules exclude (oh well, do not specifically include) the server that forwards the mailing list message. Or could it be that my understanding of SPF is flawed (quite likely)? Exactly that happened to me: one of my mailing lists saw very odd bounces if a mail was coming from provider A who published SPF records. Unfortunately, provider B (the one who created bounces) did not only check the Envelope-Sender, but also the Header-From. This resulted in the mail being refused as it came from my server which wasn't in the SPF record of ISP A. One might argue that it's all provider A's fault (so there!), but it's not exactly helpful that way, is it? I *know* it's not my or provider A's fault, still we're the ones who have to deal with the fall out. So I steer clear of SPF as I don't want any of my users to fall into the same trap. That it's notoriously difficult to debug isn't exactly helpful, either. Regards, Tobias PS: That pre-delivery forwards are broken (something used quite often) is another story. SPF is broken in more ways than one. -- Never touch a burning system. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 17:48 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: - make sending gentoo.org mail via gentoo.org mail server friendly/recommended -mike Not an option for everyone without a lot of needless hoop jumping, like ssh port forwarding. Cox (rhyme it as you will), my cable provider, doesn't allow 25 to leave their network. To send mail, I *have* to relay through their mail servers. -- -o()o-- Michael Cummings |#gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl Gentoo Perl Dev|on irc.freenode.net Gentoo/SPARC Gentoo/AMD64 GPG: 0543 6FA3 5F82 3A76 3BF7 8323 AB5C ED4E 9E7F 4E2E -o()o-- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Tuesday 07 November 2006 13:24, Michael Cummings wrote: On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 17:48 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: - make sending gentoo.org mail via gentoo.org mail server friendly/recommended -mike Not an option for everyone without a lot of needless hoop jumping, like ssh port forwarding. Cox (rhyme it as you will), my cable provider, doesn't allow 25 to leave their network. To send mail, I *have* to relay through their mail servers. For that reason there is a special port (587) for mail submission that should be supported by the gentoo servers. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgpibnjTmwVKP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Michael Cummings wrote: On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 17:48 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: - make sending gentoo.org mail via gentoo.org mail server friendly/recommended -mike Not an option for everyone without a lot of needless hoop jumping, like ssh port forwarding. Cox (rhyme it as you will), my cable provider, doesn't allow 25 to leave their network. To send mail, I *have* to relay through their mail servers. Then use port 587 like I do and it works perfectly fine. I have Cox and don't have any problems sending gentoo mail through our system. -- Lance Albertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager --- GPG Public Key: http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 ramereth/irc.freenode.net signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 08:06 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote: Michael Cummings wrote: On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 17:48 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: - make sending gentoo.org mail via gentoo.org mail server friendly/recommended -mike Not an option for everyone without a lot of needless hoop jumping, like ssh port forwarding. Cox (rhyme it as you will), my cable provider, doesn't allow 25 to leave their network. To send mail, I *have* to relay through their mail servers. Then use port 587 like I do and it works perfectly fine. I have Cox and don't have any problems sending gentoo mail through our system. Knowing about port 587 is half the battle (yeah, read the docs mike:). Getting it to work from the office with even more restrictive firewalls is another thing - but are we actually going to stop devs from being able to send mail without going through the gentoo server, or is this still just a discussion (vs an impending action)? -- -o()o-- Michael Cummings |#gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl Gentoo Perl Dev|on irc.freenode.net Gentoo/SPARC Gentoo/AMD64 GPG: 0543 6FA3 5F82 3A76 3BF7 8323 AB5C ED4E 9E7F 4E2E -o()o-- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Lance Albertson wrote: [Tue Nov 07 2006, 01:55:39AM EST] Personally, after skimming through this thread, I'd say leave it as is and stick with Kurt's decision. Our developers clearly have nothing better to do than rant on about something as trivial as this. I especially didn't like the lets take this to the council first approach. I'm with genone on the I guess people can complain to the council every time emerge output changes crap. I can't believe what I read on here... People, this whole thread is silly and a disgrace to our user base to even read. I'm half tempted to submit iggy's vote-devs-off-the-island GLEP :P (Thanks SpankY for reminding me about that). Hi Lance, I appreciate that infra have put some thought and effort into setting up SPF for gentoo.org, but I don't think the complaints are silly. To recapitulate what's been said: some devs are having trouble sending email, infra's posted documentation is wrong, and infra hasn't provided suggested configs in an easily-accessible manner. Email is pretty central to Gentoo development, so could you provide some help instead of smacking people down? :-( Thanks, Aron pgpSo9htaMVHJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Lance Albertson wrote: [Tue Nov 07 2006, 12:55:39AM CST] Personally, after skimming through this thread, I'd say leave it as is and stick with Kurt's decision. Our developers clearly have nothing better to do than rant on about something as trivial as this. I especially didn't like the lets take this to the council first approach. I'm with genone on the I guess people can complain to the council every time emerge output changes crap. I can't believe what I read on here... People, this whole thread is silly and a disgrace to our user base to even read. I'm half tempted to submit iggy's vote-devs-off-the-island GLEP :P (Thanks SpankY for reminding me about that). With all due respect, I disagree. My recollection was that the SPF discussion was held well over a year ago, on a list that isn't archived, so the rationale for using SPF isn't available for many of the devs who have started raising questions about it. Kurt's reply to those devs was not particularly helpful. (My suspicion is that Kurt figures that he's been through all of these arguments before, and doesn't want to rehash them yet again, but that misses the fact that many of our current devs not only weren't part of that earlier discussion, but they have no access to it, either.) Your reply was very helpful, but between Kurt's closing of the bug and your response on -dev it appeared that infra was essentially saying We know best, we're not changing how we do things, and we don't want to talk about it. If that appearance were, in fact, the reality, then appealing to the Council would seem to be perfectly reasonable. -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgp1T69EXR6oK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:00:49 -0600 Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | With all due respect, I disagree. My recollection was that the SPF | discussion was held well over a year ago, on a list that isn't | archived, so the rationale for using SPF isn't available for many of | the devs who have started raising questions about it. Kurt's reply | to those devs was not particularly helpful. (My suspicion is that | Kurt figures that he's been through all of these arguments before, | and doesn't want to rehash them yet again, but that misses the fact | that many of our current devs not only weren't part of that earlier | discussion, but they have no access to it, either.) Kurt didn't back up his views back then. Rather typically, he just told Method that he disagreed and that he wasn't going to budge no matter what anyone said... -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Kurt didn't back up his views back then. Rather typically, he just told Method that he disagreed and that he wasn't going to budge no matter what anyone said... In the year 2005, the only gentoo-core discussion related to SPF was between me and lcars. Probably you are talking about an IRC conversation. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Michael Cummings wrote: Knowing about port 587 is half the battle (yeah, read the docs mike:). Getting it to work from the office with even more restrictive firewalls is another thing - but are we actually going to stop devs from being able to send mail without going through the gentoo server, or is this still just a discussion (vs an impending action)? Nothing is stopping you from sending from another smtp server. The problem people have been complaining about is that spamassassin is adding a score of 1-2 for anyone who sends from a host other than what we stated in the SPF rule. I personally don't remember the reasons for the SPF argument so I can't speak for that in a reasonable manner. When SPF was added, I don't believe SA was scoring emails in this way so it wasn't as much as a deal then. We probably should look into seeing if we can get around that, but as you've seen Kurt/Andrea have already made up their mind. I let them deal with the mail system so they have a say on that for now. -- Lance Albertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager --- GPG Public Key: http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 ramereth/irc.freenode.net signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Grant Goodyear wrote: With all due respect, I disagree. My recollection was that the SPF discussion was held well over a year ago, on a list that isn't archived, so the rationale for using SPF isn't available for many of the devs who have started raising questions about it. Kurt's reply to those devs was not particularly helpful. (My suspicion is that Kurt figures that he's been through all of these arguments before, and doesn't want to rehash them yet again, but that misses the fact that many of our current devs not only weren't part of that earlier discussion, but they have no access to it, either.) Your reply was very helpful, but between Kurt's closing of the bug and your response on -dev it appeared that infra was essentially saying We know best, we're not changing how we do things, and we don't want to talk about it. If that appearance were, in fact, the reality, then appealing to the Council would seem to be perfectly reasonable. I'm sorry, but when people automatically want to go to the council first and ask questions later I have a hard time wanting to help them. I can't control what Kurt does/says so that's out of my control. I didn't exactly like his response either but he wanted to take care of mail so that's what he's doing. Respect around here lately has been at an all time low and I'm getting sick and tired of it. -- Lance Albertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager --- GPG Public Key: http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 ramereth/irc.freenode.net signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Lance Albertson wrote: I'm sorry, but when people automatically want to go to the council first and ask questions later I have a hard time wanting to help them. I can't control what Kurt does/says so that's out of my control. For the record, I've asked the council first because I thought it might be reckoned as Gentoo policy. You seem to be the only one who took this honest mistake the wrong way. :-\ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:52:04 +0200 Alin Nastac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | Kurt didn't back up his views back then. Rather typically, he just | told Method that he disagreed and that he wasn't going to budge no | matter what anyone said... | | In the year 2005, the only gentoo-core discussion related to SPF was | between me and lcars. | Probably you are talking about an IRC conversation. Nope, looks like it was just a bit earlier than 2005. The post you want to read is: From: Joshua Brindle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 09:30:37 -0400 Subject: Re: [gentoo-core] gentoo's policy on sender id (-infras use of spf) Along with the rest of the thread. Notice in particular how Joshua claims that Kurt has never justified using SPF, and how in replies he refuses to do so. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Wernfried Haas wrote: [Tue Nov 07 2006, 02:34:46PM CST] While we're at the whole email stuff, it seems you still sign your emails with [EMAIL PROTECTED], which i personally find at least as annoying as you find klie^WSPF. Hmmm? I just took a look at all of ciaranm's e-mails to -dev since 21 Oct., and in each one I see the following sig: Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 Where has he used [EMAIL PROTECTED]? -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgpUhmfujF8oe.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:34:46 +0100 Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 05:47:28PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | Along with the rest of the thread. Notice in particular how Joshua | claims that Kurt has never justified using SPF, and how in replies | he refuses to do so. | | Do you really care about Gentoo's SPF, or are you just on a vendetta | against klieber since you mention his name all the time? He's the entire reason Gentoo uses SPF. | While we're at the whole email stuff, it seems you still sign your | emails with [EMAIL PROTECTED], which i personally find at least as | annoying as you find klie^WSPF. Mmm, I think you just need to repull my key from the keyservers... -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On 07/11/06, Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wernfried Haas wrote: [Tue Nov 07 2006, 02:34:46PM CST] While we're at the whole email stuff, it seems you still sign your emails with [EMAIL PROTECTED], which i personally find at least as annoying as you find klie^WSPF. Out of date PGP keys is really rather a petty thing to counter with. Hmmm? I just took a look at all of ciaranm's e-mails to -dev since 21 Oct., and in each one I see the following sig: Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 Where has he used [EMAIL PROTECTED]? I guess Wernfried is referring to Ciaran PGP signing his emails with a key that (I guess) still has his old @g.o address as a user ID on the key. -- beu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:04:18 + Elfyn McBratney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I guess Wernfried is referring to Ciaran PGP signing his emails with a | key that (I guess) still has his old @g.o address as a user ID on the | key. Mm. As far as I can see from [1] (second key, not the ebuild signing one)... The key is listed as having both email addresses, with @ciaranm.org first... Not sure that I can safely revuid the @g.o address without causing problems for anyone trying to check anything signed by the old uid... *shrug* If anyone can confirm for sure (as in, not just guessing) that revuid won't break things then I'll use it... In the mean time, sylpheed-claws shows my emails as Good signature from Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED]... 1: http://pgp.rediris.es:11371/pks/lookup?search=ciaranmop=vindex -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 21:34 +0100, Wernfried Haas wrote: On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 05:47:28PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Along with the rest of the thread. Notice in particular how Joshua claims that Kurt has never justified using SPF, and how in replies he refuses to do so. Do you really care about Gentoo's SPF, or are you just on a vendetta against klieber since you mention his name all the time? This isn't quite a fair attack, to be honest. It's funny how jaded we've become to any mail from Ciaran. In this case, he provided info without sarcastic remarks. And I believe the observation (made elsewhere) that SPF's existence on Gentoo's infrastructure has never actually been justified to the people it affects, namely the developers. While we're at the whole email stuff, it seems you still sign your emails with [EMAIL PROTECTED], which i personally find at least as annoying as you find klie^WSPF. Silly silly, and it doesn't belong on the list. Please don't be part of the problem. -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 11:50 +0200, Alin Nastac wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev list to see. I have a problem with our current SPF record. I wanna see a +all in this record for 2 reasons: a) SPF is really worthless b) spamassassin have a SPF_NEUTRAL test, with a score bigger than 1 See http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/43707/focus=43707 . This also falls under Infra. Have you tried asking them, instead? Perhaps filing a bug like all other infra requests? -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 13:36 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote: Alin Nastac napsal(a): Mike Frysinger wrote: On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:39, Alin Nastac wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ? It could be considered as organization policy, so I assumed council had to be involved in this decision. it isnt ... so file a bug for infra done in bug 154120 . And WONTFIXed in 15 minutes. In that case, I'd like to resubmit it to the council... :/ So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsible for this, you'd rather go over their heads and try to bring this up to the council, so we can override their decisions? Not bloody likely. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Chris Gianelloni wrote: This also falls under Infra. Have you tried asking them, instead? Perhaps filing a bug like all other infra requests? Please see https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154120 . Cheers, -jkt -- cd /local/pub more beer /dev/mouth signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 14:37:00 -0500 Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsible for | this, you'd rather go over their heads and try to bring this up to the | council, so we can override their decisions? Not bloody likely. Isn't that part of why the Council is there? To make decisions on things where some people consider that those normally in charge of something are doing it incorrectly and refusing to fix things? Not saying that either side is right here... But there're a lot of objections to SPF out there, several people complaining and no justification from infra beyond we're using it anyway. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 14:37 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsible for this, you'd rather go over their heads and try to bring this up to the council, so we can override their decisions? Not bloody likely. Let me post a little more productively. If you (Chris) had bothered to read the bug, you'd notice it goes like this: Alin: I have these issues for these reasons Andrea: I agree the thing isn't the best, and I think we're open to discussion. Kurt, will you weigh in? more back and forth between Alin and Andrea with Andrea maintaining that infra is a open to discussion Kurt: Nope, my opinion differs, I control things, I'm not talking about it. That's a summary, by the way, and I'm not quoting anyone, just paraphrasing closely. I don't care one way or the other about the issue, personally, but reading that bug is certainly a good way to get frustrated. Please stop being ridiculous, Council: if you're not going to actually listen to the people who voted for you without talking down to them, then, er, why exactly, did you run? -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Chris Gianelloni napsal(a): And WONTFIXed in 15 minutes. In that case, I'd like to resubmit it to the council... :/ So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsible for this, you'd rather go over their heads and try to bring this up to the council, so we can override their decisions? Not bloody likely. No. Not because I didn't like the answer - because I haven't seen a *single* argument *in favour* of using the IMHO completely broken SPF thing. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 13:36 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote: Alin Nastac napsal(a): Mike Frysinger wrote: On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:39, Alin Nastac wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ? It could be considered as organization policy, so I assumed council had to be involved in this decision. it isnt ... so file a bug for infra done in bug 154120 . And WONTFIXed in 15 minutes. In that case, I'd like to resubmit it to the council... :/ So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsible for this, you'd rather go over their heads and try to bring this up to the council, so we can override their decisions? Not bloody likely. I actually agree with Ciaran; it is your job to decide on stuff like this (or to rightly say the issue is stupid and write it off as such). Think US Supreme Court (we will hear your case and decide on it or we will say your case is frivolous). In either case a decision from you (the council) is required. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Monday 06 November 2006 16:59, Jakub Moc wrote: Chris Gianelloni napsal(a): And WONTFIXed in 15 minutes. In that case, I'd like to resubmit it to the council... :/ So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsible for this, you'd rather go over their heads and try to bring this up to the council, so we can override their decisions? Not bloody likely. No. Not because I didn't like the answer - because I haven't seen a *single* argument *in favour* of using the IMHO completely broken SPF thing. so what are you looking for ? us to regurgitate the entire SPF argument over again ? infra believes using SPF helps fight spam, you guys believe SPF does not ... how do you expect to come to a conclusion over such a technology ? -mike pgpHyOvxQXQ9D.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Mike Frysinger napsal(a): No. Not because I didn't like the answer - because I haven't seen a *single* argument *in favour* of using the IMHO completely broken SPF thing. so what are you looking for ? us to regurgitate the entire SPF argument over again ? No. I expect you to _decide_ on the issue, considering that quite a couple of arguments were given against using it, and none was given in favour of using it. (Sorry, but I happen to disagree is not a valid or useful one). infra believes using SPF helps fight spam, you guys believe SPF does not ... how do you expect to come to a conclusion over such a technology ? -mike Infra didn't say anything useful, and no, they basically say that it's _not_ an antispam technology and that they'll continue to use it anyway, not subject to debate, the end... Kinda weird, hmmm? Last word on this, as it's getting really a frustrating experience. Quoting your own monthly email: snip If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote on, let us know ! /snip Well folks, if you outright refuse to discuss/decide on stuff that people are asking you to discuss/decide on, then please drop the above from your email. I'll reconsider if it's worth wasting the bandwidth to vote for anyone next time. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Monday 06 November 2006 18:03, Jakub Moc wrote: considering that quite a couple of arguments were given against using it which were a copy and paste of existing websites ... how about for the counterargument i copy and paste url's to pro-spf websites and then we'll have a proper exchange of ideas -mike pgpkpiX1PzCIK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Monday 06 November 2006 21:35, Seemant Kulleen wrote: Please stop being ridiculous, Council: if you're not going to actually listen to the people who voted for you without talking down to them, then, er, why exactly, did you run? I have to agree with seemant here, we should probably accept the request even if some of the council already disagrees, that's why we vote on things... there's no loss in giving this a try, especially if there's no other thing on the agenda. -- Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Sound, ALSA, PAM, KDE, CJK, Ruby ... pgpZWu90v4AKW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Monday 06 November 2006 17:09, Alin Nastac wrote: I re-stated my case in comment #14 most of your dislike for SPF centers around the idea you dont want to send mail via gentoo.org mail servers ... is this really a problem ? seems like it's pretty trivial to do so -mike pgpQQMpR29oZK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Am Montag, 6. November 2006 20:37 schrieb Chris Gianelloni: On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 13:36 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote: Alin Nastac napsal(a): Mike Frysinger wrote: On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:39, Alin Nastac wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ? It could be considered as organization policy, so I assumed council had to be involved in this decision. it isnt ... so file a bug for infra done in bug 154120 . And WONTFIXed in 15 minutes. In that case, I'd like to resubmit it to the council... :/ So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsible for this, you'd rather go over their heads and try to bring this up to the council, so we can override their decisions? Not bloody likely. I disagree here. Let's put both items on the agenda. That finalizes the decission. In regard to 'Reply-To:'-munging: I'm going to vote to keep it as is, and i don't think that anybody would be able to convince me otherwise. In regard to SPF: If klieber (or any other infra member) can explain to me why SPF is a good thing(tm) to have for Gentoo Infrastructure, and convince me that it is the best way to go, i'll vote to keep it. Otherwise, i'm going to vote to remove it. Kurt: Please write up a short text to explain why you think this is necessary for Gentoo mailservers. Thanks in advance! Danny -- Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Am Montag, 6. November 2006 20:37 schrieb Chris Gianelloni: On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 13:36 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote: it isnt ... so file a bug for infra done in bug 154120 . And WONTFIXed in 15 minutes. In that case, I'd like to resubmit it to the council... :/ So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsible for this, you'd rather go over their heads and try to bring this up to the council, so we can override their decisions? Not bloody likely. Uhm, i tend to disagree. I think we should evaluate the situation, and if _we_ think it is the best to override Infra's descision, we can and should do it. A completely different thing is, what our evaluation leads to. I for one would like to take both Reply-To:-Munging and SPF on our agenda. My current thoughts re these topics is as following: - Reply-To:-Munging: My vote: should stay as it currently is. Chris already pointed out how to modify the behaviour using procmail. - SPF: I currently don't understand what it is useful for in the current setup. I would appreciate if Kurt could write up a short text which explains why SPF is a good thing(TM) for Gentoo Infrastructure, so I can understand it :-) My vote would be: Remove, unless there is a real need for it. But this could change rather quickly once Kurt (or anybody else from Infra) has replied. Danny -- Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Monday 06 November 2006 18:03, Jakub Moc wrote: considering that quite a couple of arguments were given against using it which were a copy and paste of existing websites ... how about for the counterargument i copy and paste url's to pro-spf websites and then we'll have a proper exchange of ideas -mike http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t1963.html http://blog.ferris.com/2005/06/_microsofts_enf.html http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3388371 Here are some random links I found using spf rocks and google. Enjoy -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 05:20:49PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: most of your dislike for SPF centers around the idea you dont want to send mail via gentoo.org mail servers ... is this really a problem ? seems like it's pretty trivial to do so While i couldn't care less about the whole SPF discussion i'd just like to point out sending mail via gentoo's email servers is listed as a last resort according to our docs rather than an alternative. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/dev-email.xml writes: Warning: Do not do this unless absolutely necessary. Please use your ISPs relay server whenever possible. If you need a relay-server desperately and have no other means of sending e-mails, you can use dev.gentoo.org as a relayserver. To do Using dev.gentoo.org as a mail relay server Perhaps that paragraph needs some rethinking if it affects SPF? cheers, Wernfried -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org pgp2El20XRwjp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 05:20:26PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Monday 06 November 2006 17:09, Alin Nastac wrote: I re-stated my case in comment #14 most of your dislike for SPF centers around the idea you dont want to send mail via gentoo.org mail servers ... is this really a problem ? seems like it's pretty trivial to do so Sending mail via gentoo.org mail servers is explicitly disallowed (not even just strongly discouraged) if the dev in question can use his/her ISP's server. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/dev-email.xml -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 05:11:42PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Monday 06 November 2006 18:03, Jakub Moc wrote: considering that quite a couple of arguments were given against using it which were a copy and paste of existing websites ... how about for the counterargument i copy and paste url's to pro-spf websites and then we'll have a proper exchange of ideas Why don't you do that? When some actual pro-SPF arguments are given, at least there's a real chance to either debunk or accept them. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
(sorry for the infra cc, just need to make sure this particular one gets through ... drop it in your replies people :P) On Monday 06 November 2006 17:38, Harald van Dijk wrote: Sending mail via gentoo.org mail servers is explicitly disallowed (not even just strongly discouraged) if the dev in question can use his/her ISP's server. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/dev-email.xml then *infra* needs to decide on a course here: - disable SPF - make sending gentoo.org mail via gentoo.org mail server friendly/recommended -mike pgpYEt1cQt9TQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Monday 06 November 2006 17:40, Harald van Dijk wrote: Why don't you do that? well, my reply was mostly dry sarcasm, but i hope we're all technically proficient enough to load up google.com and search for SPF ... even Alec could find three good links in no time and that dude cant even code his way out of a paper bag (or something) i'm not really pro or con SPF, just anti lamer -mike pgpqQvsBuLP9Q.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Alec Warner wrote: http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t1963.html Anyone who thinks you can block all spam with a single technique, let alone at all, is not someone I want data from in the first place http://blog.ferris.com/2005/06/_microsofts_enf.html Opinion piece. http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3388371 fluff piece. I've seen two page BMW glossy ads with more technical info. Here are some random links I found using spf rocks and google. These links are short on detail and long on marketing. They aren't really answering why Gentoo uses what many consider to be a broken as designed technology. kashani -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Monday 06 November 2006 17:09, Alin Nastac wrote: I re-stated my case in comment #14 most of your dislike for SPF centers around the idea you dont want to send mail via gentoo.org mail servers ... is this really a problem ? seems like it's pretty trivial to do so I admit I dislike SPF, but this isn't the issue. I don't ask Gentoo to join me in a crusade against SPF (I have better things to do with my life). The issue is we shouldn't have this TXT record for the g.o domain. While I could use smtp.g.o to send my email, others might be less lucky than me. Devs should have a choice whether they use Gentoo SMTP server or not, or at least this is opinion on the matter. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:43:24 -0500 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | infra believes using SPF helps fight spam Then infra are wrong. SPF was not designed to fight spam. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Monday 06 November 2006 20:06, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:43:24 -0500 Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] | infra believes using SPF helps fight spam Then infra are wrong. SPF was not designed to fight spam. original design does not limit future possibilities ... i could make a lot of pointless blanket statements about what things were originally designed for thus future use is not possible -mike pgpMxIqBpXgz2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Quoting Lance Albertson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Personally, after skimming through this thread, I'd say leave it as is and stick with Kurt's decision. Our developers clearly have nothing better to do than rant on about something as trivial as this. I ain't no dev, but how is this trivial? A typical scenario is: a gentoo-dev sends an e-mail to a mailing list (a non-gentoo mailing list) and that mail gets nuked by a greedy spam filter because the SPF rules exclude (oh well, do not specifically include) the server that forwards the mailing list message. Or could it be that my understanding of SPF is flawed (quite likely)? -- /\ Georgi Georgiev /\ Advertisements contain the only truths to /\ \/[EMAIL PROTECTED]\/ be relied on in a newspaper. -- Thomas \/ /\ http://www.gg3.net /\ Jefferson /\ This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 08:40 +, Mike Frysinger wrote: If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev list to see. I have one item that I would like to see addressed in the next possible council meeting: The reply behavior of gentoo-core messages. What's happening is that gentoo-core appears to have no default Reply-To header set. This issue I feel needs to be addressed for two major reasons: Firstly, with no explicit Reply-To address, most mail clients default to replying to the sender of the message. This means that, for people who use such clients must manually replace the To: address in their reply composition. Unfortunately, there have been prior instances of a dev accidentally replying to the -core list on -dev. This means that the conversation intended to stay private and internal to Gentoo suddenly is in the public eye and many archives. This will inevitably occur if such behavior is not resolved. Secondly, every other Gentoo mailing list that I am subscribed to (g-dev, g-devrel, g-gwn) adds a Reply-To header which instructs the dev's MUA to default to replying to the list address, rather than to the individual sender of the message to which they reply. Unfortunately, gentoo-core is the only list which does not follow this behavior. I would appreciate the council voting on making this behavior consistent: Force gentoo-core to add this header, or remove it from the other mailing lists. Thanks. -- Peter Gordon (codergeek42) Gentoo Forums Global Moderator GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint: DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479 My Blog: http://thecodergeek.com/blog/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Mike Frysinger wrote: If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev list to see. I have a problem with our current SPF record. I wanna see a +all in this record for 2 reasons: a) SPF is really worthless b) spamassassin have a SPF_NEUTRAL test, with a score bigger than 1 See http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/43707/focus=43707 . signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Sunday 05 November 2006 04:35, Peter Gordon wrote: I have one item that I would like to see addressed in the next possible council meeting: The reply behavior of gentoo-core messages. What's happening is that gentoo-core appears to have no default Reply-To header set. i dont see anyone talking to infra about it so why dont you start there -mike pgpMYptUm2Hkk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 01:35:43 -0800 Peter Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 08:40 +, Mike Frysinger wrote: | If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even | vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole | Gentoo dev list to see. | | I have one item that I would like to see addressed in the next | possible council meeting: The reply behavior of gentoo-core messages. Wow. That's about the pettiest and least relevant thing you could ask them to discuss. Why not ask for a vote on what colour the soft icecream machine should be whilst you're at it? Clearly this is one of those easy to understand issues where everyone has an opinion, and rather than fix their mail client or behaviour they try to have a huge debate about it... Don't you people have any bugs to fix? -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Sunday 05 November 2006 10:59, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 01:35:43 -0800 Peter Gordon Clearly this is one of those easy to understand issues where everyone has an opinion, and rather than fix their mail client or behaviour they try to have a huge debate about it... Don't you people have any bugs to fix? Also please remember that you can easilly do this yourself if you so desire. procmail (and thus formail too) is available on woodpecker, so you can add them/remove them from the core list as desired. As it considers -core you have access to woodpecker and the mail flows through it too. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgpCLX7xLtF5c.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Alin Nastac napsal(a): Mike Frysinger wrote: If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev list to see. I have a problem with our current SPF record. I wanna see a +all in this record for 2 reasons: a) SPF is really worthless b) spamassassin have a SPF_NEUTRAL test, with a score bigger than 1 See http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/43707/focus=43707 . I second this request... Thanks. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Wow. That's about the pettiest and least relevant thing you could ask them to discuss. Why not ask for a vote on what colour the soft icecream machine should be whilst you're at it? Silly analogy. Clearly this is one of those easy to understand issues where everyone has an opinion, and rather than fix their mail client or behaviour they try to have a huge debate about it... Don't you people have any bugs to fix? This is not a question of opinion; this is one of consistency. All of the lists are currently doing it a certain way, whilst -core seems to be behaving differently. This is bound to cause confusion. As you mentioned, we should be dealing with more important things. Why not settle this once and for all, so we constantly don't have to spend time having this useless argument? -- David Shakaryan GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Sunday 05 November 2006 04:50, Alin Nastac wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev list to see. I have a problem with our current SPF record. I wanna see a +all in this record for 2 reasons: that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ? -mike pgpSKTX8wLGTu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Mike Frysinger wrote: that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ? It could be considered as organization policy, so I assumed council had to be involved in this decision. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:39, Alin Nastac wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ? It could be considered as organization policy, so I assumed council had to be involved in this decision. it isnt ... so file a bug for infra -mike pgpvglh3AQfYU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 02:23:02 -0800 David Shakaryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Wow. That's about the pettiest and least relevant thing you could ask them to discuss. Why not ask for a vote on what colour the soft icecream machine should be whilst you're at it? Silly analogy. It isn't silly, the color of the icecream machine is a top priority for many people! Well, I guess you don't know how much lobby work went into this over the last years ;) Clearly this is one of those easy to understand issues where everyone has an opinion, and rather than fix their mail client or behaviour they try to have a huge debate about it... Don't you people have any bugs to fix? This is not a question of opinion; this is one of consistency. All of the lists are currently doing it a certain way, whilst -core seems to be behaving differently. This is bound to cause confusion. As you mentioned, we should be dealing with more important things. Why not settle this once and for all, so we constantly don't have to spend time having this useless argument? Still doesn't make this material for the council, this is entirely infras domain so people who want to get this fixed in what way ever should talk to them. Or should I refer people to the council whenever they aren't happy with the output/option handling of emerge (to give you a more realistic analogy)? Marius -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:39, Alin Nastac wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ? It could be considered as organization policy, so I assumed council had to be involved in this decision. it isnt ... so file a bug for infra done in bug 154120 . signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Alin Nastac napsal(a): Mike Frysinger wrote: On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:39, Alin Nastac wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ? It could be considered as organization policy, so I assumed council had to be involved in this decision. it isnt ... so file a bug for infra done in bug 154120 . And WONTFIXed in 15 minutes. In that case, I'd like to resubmit it to the council... :/ -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Sunday 05 November 2006 07:36, Jakub Moc wrote: I'd like to resubmit it to the council... :/ not until it pans out with infra -mike pgpwXZzS8iG6Y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Sunday 05 November 2006 07:36, Jakub Moc wrote: I'd like to resubmit it to the council... :/ not until it pans out with infra Now would be a good time to bring the problem before the council? It has been permanently closed as WONTFIX by klieber (our SMTP admin). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 04:57 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: i dont see anyone talking to infra about it so why dont you start there -mike Will do. Thanks, Mike. -- Peter Gordon (codergeek42) Gentoo Forums Global Moderator GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint: DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479 My Blog: http://thecodergeek.com/blog/ The gentoo-core list configuration is broken, and infra knowingly leave it so. I guess their only consistency is inconsistency itself... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 01:35:43 -0800 Peter Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 08:40 +, Mike Frysinger wrote: | If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even | vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole | Gentoo dev list to see. | | I have one item that I would like to see addressed in the next | possible council meeting: The reply behavior of gentoo-core messages. Wow. That's about the pettiest and least relevant thing you could ask them to discuss. Why not ask for a vote on what colour the soft icecream machine should be whilst you're at it? Pink, obviously, to match the ponies. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Ryan Tandy wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 01:35:43 -0800 Peter Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 08:40 +, Mike Frysinger wrote: | If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even | vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole | Gentoo dev list to see. | | I have one item that I would like to see addressed in the next | possible council meeting: The reply behavior of gentoo-core messages. Wow. That's about the pettiest and least relevant thing you could ask them to discuss. Why not ask for a vote on what colour the soft icecream machine should be whilst you're at it? Pink, obviously, to match the ponies. And to match the infamous elephants. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Sunday 05 November 2006 10:00, Alin Nastac wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: On Sunday 05 November 2006 07:36, Jakub Moc wrote: I'd like to resubmit it to the council... :/ not until it pans out with infra Now would be a good time to bring the problem before the council? It has been permanently closed as WONTFIX by klieber (our SMTP admin). personally i'm just going to go with klieber -mike Well, I'm not against the others winning the debate while they have good arguments. Till now, no real contra-arguments were emitted against my request. Could someone point me to the warehouse where those precious arguments are saved for better use? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
