Re: gnome-password-generator replacement?

[Heinz Diehl]

On 18.06.2017, stan wrote: 

> It doesn't have a gui that I know of, but I use pwgen from the Fedora
> repositories.  It warns that the passwords are less secure than fully
> random passwords

Pwgen uses /dev/urandom, so the statement that those passwords are
less secure than "fully" random passwords (define "fully random"..) is
merely of academical nature.

In case of any doubt, you can always do something like

 head /dev/random | tr -dc A-Za-z0-9 | head -c X

where X is your password length. Tr also lets you tailor the
characterset used.

___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: gnome-password-generator replacement?

[Tim]

Andre Robatino:
> If you use a password manager, you can use a different strong random
> password for each site, and copy and paste it. Fifty characters is
> just as easy as 8, and means you don't have to worry about changing
> the password again (unless a website like Socialsecurity.gov forces
> you to, and they should eventually stop doing that).

That's all very well as long as you only use one device.  When you have
several computers, devices, using other people's equipment, etc.,
password managers soon become their own pain.  So people use an on-line
password manager, and create a single-point of failure for multiple
accounts.

Tim:
>> Really, what ought to get tightened up is the software accepting logons.
>> There should be a limited number of attempts (3 goes and your out for a
>> significant time limit).  Any system that lets a cracker hammer away
>> with repeated attempts is the thing that is broken.

> That works as long as the website isn't hacked.

A different problem.  Though perhaps related, it depends on how the site
was hacked.  If they let someone peck away at it, it's down to the same
problem.

Sites really need to stop storing your passwords, then need to keep
something that can only be used to confirm correct authentication, and
not be reverse engineerable to discover the password.


___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: gnome-password-generator replacement?

[Andre Robatino]

> On Sun, 2017-06-18 at 19:13 -0700, stan wrote:
> 
> I completely agree, it's just as impossible to guess that a password is
> "$#DfSGxS" than "sickturtlepyjamas", and I know which one is easier
> to
> remember and type.  With the peculiar password rules, I have no choice
> to but to do the insecure and write down passwords somewhere (whether
> that's on paper or on file).  You're not supposed to write passwords
> down anywhere.

If you use a password manager, you can use a different strong random password 
for each site, and copy and paste it. Fifty characters is just as easy as 8, 
and means you don't have to worry about changing the password again (unless a 
website like Socialsecurity.gov forces you to, and they should eventually stop 
doing that).

> Really, what ought to get tightened up is the software accepting logons.
> There should be a limited number of attempts (3 goes and your out for a
> significant time limit).  Any system that lets a cracker hammer away
> with repeated attempts is the thing that is broken.

That works as long as the website isn't hacked. If it is, even if the passwords 
are hashed (which they often aren't), the hash can be cracked if the password 
is weak. This actually happened to my PayPal account in 2002. At the time, I 
was using a weak password vulnerable to a dictionary attack (but not to only 
several login attempts). PayPal sent me an email asking me to change my 
password, claiming it was just a random request and had nothing to do with a 
specific attack. Since I knew my password was secure against a handful of login 
attempts, I just changed the password and then immediately changed it back to 
the original one. Shortly after, my account was hacked and money was withdrawn 
from my bank account. PayPal admitted in a later email that there actually had 
been an attack where the password hashes were stolen (implying that they were 
lying the first time). PayPal did eventually reimburse me for the money. The 
point is that it's good if a website limits login attempts, but yo
 u can't rely on that. I always assume that the hash could become public, and 
choose my password accordingly. (Of course, many websites store passwords in 
plain text, in which case the only thing that helps is not using the same or 
similar password anywhere else.)
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: gnome-password-generator replacement?

[Tim]

On Sun, 2017-06-18 at 19:13 -0700, stan wrote:
> I think it isn't necessary to have all those special characters in
> order to have strong passwords.

I completely agree, it's just as impossible to guess that a password is
"$#DfSGxS" than "sickturtlepyjamas", and I know which one is easier to
remember and type.  With the peculiar password rules, I have no choice
to but to do the insecure and write down passwords somewhere (whether
that's on paper or on file).  You're not supposed to write passwords
down anywhere.

About the only benefit of stupid character rules is to try and stop
people putting in guessable things, like their child's birthday.  But
the usual rules won't stop people using "John1983$".

What these rulemakers forget is that password cracking is an all or
nothing venture.  You have to get it exactly right to crack it, you
don't get hints that you're almost correct.

Really, what ought to get tightened up is the software accepting logons.
There should be a limited number of attempts (3 goes and your out for a
significant time limit).  Any system that lets a cracker hammer away
with repeated attempts is the thing that is broken.

> I think the real danger with passwords is that people use the same one
> (usually weak) on multiple sites, so if a site gets cracked, they are
> endangered in other places.

I quite agree.  Along with other stupidities, such as a website telling
users to login with their email address and password.  Instead, it ought
to ask people to login with their account name and *this* site's
password.  People stupidly give their credentials away to all and and
sundry with prompts like that.  The account creation process should
specifically say not to use the same password as they use anywhere else.

___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: gnome-password-generator replacement?

[Andre Robatino]

Many websites don't allow even 30 chars. One of the important ones I use allows 
only 16 characters (and no 2FA option), but happens to allow special 
characters. Using the largest possible character set is the only way to shore 
that up.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Firefox

[Lawrence E Graves]

Not able to control the maximize control on my firefox web browser. If I 
unmaximize the browser and close it out. When I log back on, it 
automatically goes to maximize.  Can anybody help with this matter? Am I 
reporting to the list?


--
All things are workable but don't all things work.
Prov. 3:5 & 6
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: gnome-password-generator replacement?

[Joe Zeff]

On 06/18/2017 07:03 PM, Tim wrote:

  1. Used to be able to customise GDM, can't anymore without serious
 hacking.
  2. Used to be able to have screensavers, now you have to bodge in
 something else.
  3. Used to have decent control of the audio mixer, now there's
 none.


4. Used to be able to customize your desktop without installing
   third party add-ons that might break without warning at the
   next update.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Is default umask of 022 still reasonable for Fedora?

[stan]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 05:49:20 +0800
Ed Greshko  wrote:

> You haven't described your environment.  Without that knowledge any
> advice on umask is questionable.  Remember, umask isn't, and never
> was, intended to be a high security mechanism.
 
Home workstation with no web facing services.  I could probably get away
with a umask of 000. Even for root.  But it just seems wrong to give
world read access to home files for a user, by default.  

I think of security as layers, and good practices.  While umask might
not be a high security mechanism, there is no need to leave it weaker
than it has to be.  It seems to me that linux depends a lot on file
permissions for security, particularly for root.  

Thanks for your thoughts.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: gnome-password-generator replacement?

[stan]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 20:55:08 -
"Andre Robatino"  wrote:

> Thanks. I had actually installed pwgen a few months ago, but it
> looked like the passwords weren't strong enough.
> gnome-password-generator has a Character set option "All printable
> (excluding space)". It appears that "pwgen -sy 30 1", for example,
> does just that, and "pwgen -s 30 1" is the same as "Alphanumeric
> (a-z, A-Z, 0-9)". I use a password manager, so only care about
> maximum entropy. It would be really nice if there was something where
> you could specify an exact set of characters to either include or
> exclude, to cope with certain websites that allow only some special
> characters. ___ users

I think it isn't necessary to have all those special characters in order
to have strong passwords.

Open an xterm, and start python by typing python.  Then paste the
following into the command line and hit enter.

(62**30) // (864 * 366)

There are 62 unique possibilities with upper and lower case letters and
numerals.  This is the number of years that a million brute force
attempts per second would take to crack that 30 character password with
only letters and numbers.  With 9 alphanumerics instead of 30,
its about 400 years, which seems more than adequate.  The special
characters add another 30 possibilities, so the passwords can be
shorter for the same strength, but a 33 character alphanumeric password
is ~ the same as a 92 possibility 30 character password. People
cracking strong passwords don't know that you haven't used 92
characters instead of 62, so they have to check all 92.  :-)  Control-D
exits the python interpreter.

When I hit pwgen -y, it generates columns of 8 character passwords with
a number, a capital, and a special character.  If you need specific
special characters, just grab a few of those with the special
characters you need and concatenate them(4 would be 32 character), or
change the special character(s) to the one(s) you need.

I think the real danger with passwords is that people use the same one
(usually weak) on multiple sites, so if a site gets cracked, they are
endangered in other places.  You've already finessed that by using a
password manager, so you can easily have unique, strong passwords at
every site.

But these are just my opinions, you have to do what makes you feel
comfortable with your security.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: gnome-password-generator replacement?

[Tim]

JD wrote:
>> gnome project keeps doing things that disable the user.

Matthew Miller:
> This seems... unnecssary. 

Though, I'd say it's accurate.

You could build up a list of things that keep getting removed from your
control in Gnome.  I'm not going to attempt to build up an extensive
one, but as someone who's used Gnome on Fedora since Fedora began, and
Red Hat Linux beforehand, I have definitely noticed things being removed
from user control.  Here's just a few, and I'm sure others could add
quite a few more, if they wanted:

 1. Used to be able to customise GDM, can't anymore without serious
hacking.
 2. Used to be able to have screensavers, now you have to bodge in
something else.
 3. Used to have decent control of the audio mixer, now there's
none.

Others have commented that if they try to bring up user-configuration of
Gnome in the Gnome arena, it always gets howled down.  The evidence is
against your assertion.

-- 
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64 
(always current details of the computer that I'm writing this email on)

Boilerplate:  All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is
no point trying to privately email me, I only get to see the messages
posted to the mailing list.

I reserve the right to be as hypocritical as the next person.


___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: gnome-password-generator replacement?

[Andre Robatino]

makepasswd also looks useful. It's clumsier to use, but more flexible. You use 
the -c option followed by a string to specify the exact set of allowed 
characters. The following prints all of the 94 non-space printable characters:

for (( c=33; c<=126; c++ )); do printf "\x$(printf %x $c)"; done

which you can use to construct a makepasswd command using all of those 
characters (putting all the special chars at the end, and backquoting each of 
them)

makepasswd -c 
0123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz\!\"\#\$\%\&\'\(\)\*\+\,\-\.\/\:\;\<\=\>\?\@\[\\\]\^\_\`\{\|\}\~
 -l 30

(for a 30-character password) and you can remove special chars depending on 
what a particular website allows.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Is default umask of 022 still reasonable for Fedora?

[stan]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 17:11:11 -0400
Jon LaBadie  wrote:

> Minor correction, a umask 022 will set execute on new directories
> (drwxr-xr-x), but not new files.  They would be -rw-r--r--.

Not so minor!  Thanks.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Is default umask of 022 still reasonable for Fedora?

[Cameron Simpson]

On 18Jun2017 13:24, stan  wrote:

I recently became aware that the default umask for Fedora is 022 when
it caused problems for me that I had a different umask. This seems like
an anachronism, a relic of a kinder, gentler time, when the computing
atmosphere was more collegiate.  Is it really appropriate that new
files be created for a user with permissions of rwxr-xr-x in today's
security atmosphere?

I set my umask to 077, so that no one can access anything.

I'm interested in other people's opinions, especially those arguing in
favor of continuing to have a umask of 022.  Am I overlooking something?


As remarked elsewhere, it does depend on your environment.

I like 027 myself. Combined with setgid directories it leaves things readable 
by the group of the working area, but otherwise private. Then one just arranges 
group ownership. An workable default.


Cheers,
Cameron Simpson 
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Is default umask of 022 still reasonable for Fedora?

[Ed Greshko]

On 06/19/17 04:24, stan wrote:
> I recently became aware that the default umask for Fedora is 022 when
> it caused problems for me that I had a different umask. This seems like
> an anachronism, a relic of a kinder, gentler time, when the computing
> atmosphere was more collegiate.  Is it really appropriate that new
> files be created for a user with permissions of rwxr-xr-x in today's
> security atmosphere?
>
> I set my umask to 077, so that no one can access anything.
>
> I'm interested in other people's opinions, especially those arguing in
> favor of continuing to have a umask of 022.  Am I overlooking something?

You haven't described your environment.  Without that knowledge any advice on 
umask
is questionable.  Remember, umask isn't, and never was, intended to be a high
security mechanism.


-- 
Fedora Users List - The place to go to speculate endlessly



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: gnome-password-generator replacement?

[Andre Robatino]

BTW, just noticed a bug. pwgen doesn't have an option to use numbers only (for 
creating PINs) so I tried to use "pwgen -n 1" to generate a sequence of random 
digits. But all of the 1-character passwords are lower-case letters, no digits. 
Filed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462557 .
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Is default umask of 022 still reasonable for Fedora?

[Jon LaBadie]

On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 01:24:17PM -0700, stan wrote:
> I recently became aware that the default umask for Fedora is 022 when
> it caused problems for me that I had a different umask. This seems like
> an anachronism, a relic of a kinder, gentler time, when the computing
> atmosphere was more collegiate.  Is it really appropriate that new
> files be created for a user with permissions of rwxr-xr-x in today's
> security atmosphere?
> 

Minor correction, a umask 022 will set execute on new directories
(drwxr-xr-x), but not new files.  They would be -rw-r--r--.

> I set my umask to 077, so that no one can access anything.
> 
> I'm interested in other people's opinions, especially those arguing in
> favor of continuing to have a umask of 022.  Am I overlooking something?
> ___
> users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>> End of included message <<<

-- 
Jon H. LaBadie  jo...@jgcomp.com
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: gnome-password-generator replacement?

[Andre Robatino]

Thanks. I had actually installed pwgen a few months ago, but it looked like the 
passwords weren't strong enough. gnome-password-generator has a Character set 
option "All printable (excluding space)". It appears that "pwgen -sy 30 1", for 
example, does just that, and "pwgen -s 30 1" is the same as "Alphanumeric (a-z, 
A-Z, 0-9)". I use a password manager, so only care about maximum entropy. It 
would be really nice if there was something where you could specify an exact 
set of characters to either include or exclude, to cope with certain websites 
that allow only some special characters.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: gnome-password-generator replacement?

[Matthew Miller]

On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 12:19:46PM -0600, JD wrote:
> gnome project keeps doing things that disable the user.

This seems... unnecssary. No one in GNOME is "disabling the user".
Remember that Fedora — like GNOME, for that matter — is maintained by
volunteers. For whatever reason, this package is marked as an "orphan".
This means that there is not currently anyone volunteering to take care
of it.

If you'd like to help, see the process for claimin an orphaned package:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers#Claiming_Ownership_of_an_Orphaned_Package_Procedure



-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Is default umask of 022 still reasonable for Fedora?

[stan]

I recently became aware that the default umask for Fedora is 022 when
it caused problems for me that I had a different umask. This seems like
an anachronism, a relic of a kinder, gentler time, when the computing
atmosphere was more collegiate.  Is it really appropriate that new
files be created for a user with permissions of rwxr-xr-x in today's
security atmosphere?

I set my umask to 077, so that no one can access anything.

I'm interested in other people's opinions, especially those arguing in
favor of continuing to have a umask of 022.  Am I overlooking something?
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: gnome-password-generator replacement?

[stan]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 17:25:41 -
"Andre Robatino"  wrote:

> gnome-password-generator will not be available in the Fedora repos
> for F26 and later. Do the repos contain a good replacement?

It doesn't have a gui that I know of, but I use pwgen from the Fedora
repositories.  It warns that the passwords are less secure than fully
random passwords, but it allows passwords to be required to have a
capital, a number, and a special character.  When I put a 16 or 18
character password into a strength checker, it always comes out as
highly secure.

Of course, I don't remember those, I keep them in an encrpyted file and
cut and paste them where needed.  Not sure how secure using the
paste buffer would be on a shared system.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: gnome-password-generator replacement?

[JD]

On 06/18/2017 11:25 AM, Andre Robatino wrote:

gnome-password-generator will not be available in the Fedora repos for F26 and 
later. Do the repos contain a good replacement?
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

gnome project keeps doing things that disable the user.
That is why I do not use it anymore.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

gnome-password-generator replacement?

[Andre Robatino]

gnome-password-generator will not be available in the Fedora repos for F26 and 
later. Do the repos contain a good replacement?
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[389-users] Re: Issues enabling SSL/TLS for config DS

[dave_horton2001]

Nice one!  Happy to be of help and thanks for being so responsive to the 
initial query.

Dave
___
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[389-users] Re: Issues enabling SSL/TLS for config DS

[Mark Reynolds]

On 06/18/2017 07:41 AM, Mark Reynolds wrote:
>
> On 06/17/2017 10:46 PM, dave_horton2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> I can confirm removing it from adm.conf prevents it working.  Adding it 
>> back, it works again.
>>
>> Possibly there's another means that normally ensures the correct range is 
>> set for the config DS connection?
>>
>> The function returning the error that shows up in the log with the debug 
>> build is this 'ssl3_CheckRangeValidAndConstrainByPolicy' in 
>> 'nss/lib/ssl/sslsock.c'.
>>
>> Following the call stack, ADMSSL_Init calls initNSS which in turn calls 
>> SSL_VersionRangeSetDefault (again in 'nss/lib/ssl/sslsock.c').  This takes 
>> an initial range as input and checks and constrains it (calling 
>> ssl3_CheckRangeValidAndConstrainByPolicy which generates the error).
>>
>> That initial range passed to SSL_VersionRangeSetDefault comes from the 
>> following in initNSS:
>>
>>   range.min = admldapGetSSLMin(info);
>>   range.max = admldapGetSSLMax(info);
> My bad, yeah it's in the 389-adminutil package source code.  I was
> previously looking in the 389-admin source. 
>
> Updating the wiki...
The following wiki pages now contain the complete SSL version range
information:

http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/howto/howto-ssl.html

http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/howto/howto-disable-sslv3.html

http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/administration/adminserver.html


Thanks Dave,

Mark

>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>> Tracing back, that info was the AdmldapInfo constructed for the config 
>> connection which came from adm.conf.  So that was what led me to attempt 
>> adding the entries to adm.conf which seemed to do the trick.
>>
>> Hope that helps.
>> David
>> ___
>> 389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> ___
> 389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

___
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[389-users] Re: Issues enabling SSL/TLS for config DS

[Mark Reynolds]

On 06/17/2017 10:46 PM, dave_horton2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> I can confirm removing it from adm.conf prevents it working.  Adding it back, 
> it works again.
>
> Possibly there's another means that normally ensures the correct range is set 
> for the config DS connection?
>
> The function returning the error that shows up in the log with the debug 
> build is this 'ssl3_CheckRangeValidAndConstrainByPolicy' in 
> 'nss/lib/ssl/sslsock.c'.
>
> Following the call stack, ADMSSL_Init calls initNSS which in turn calls 
> SSL_VersionRangeSetDefault (again in 'nss/lib/ssl/sslsock.c').  This takes an 
> initial range as input and checks and constrains it (calling 
> ssl3_CheckRangeValidAndConstrainByPolicy which generates the error).
>
> That initial range passed to SSL_VersionRangeSetDefault comes from the 
> following in initNSS:
>
>   range.min = admldapGetSSLMin(info);
>   range.max = admldapGetSSLMax(info);
My bad, yeah it's in the 389-adminutil package source code.  I was
previously looking in the 389-admin source. 

Updating the wiki...

Thanks,
Mark
>
> Tracing back, that info was the AdmldapInfo constructed for the config 
> connection which came from adm.conf.  So that was what led me to attempt 
> adding the entries to adm.conf which seemed to do the trick.
>
> Hope that helps.
> David
> ___
> 389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Strange mouse issue in VirtualBox

[andrea]

On 17/06/17 20:17, Tom Horsley wrote:

I wonder if it is remotely related to this bug?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350390

If I happen to cross over a virt-viewer window on my way
to some other window, the virt-viewer keeps the keyboard
focus. (Probably not the same, other than obviously
screwed up grabbing in some app).
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org



That bugreport does not mention wayland or not.

But I get as well the keyboard problem, but it is much less sever as no other app is affected and a 
simple focus switch fixes it.


___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org