On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 12:16, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>
> > I didn't think we needed this either, but there were a few people who did
> > read the logs (without much more knowledge of setup). Frankly, some of
> > the setup-related questions on the list
On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 12:16, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> I didn't think we needed this either, but there were a few people who did
> read the logs (without much more knowledge of setup). Frankly, some of
> the setup-related questions on the list result in a request to post the
> log, and apparentl
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 02:41, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > 'Nuff said.
>
> I don't think we need this.
>
> The log file is -not- readable without knowledge of setup. Any
> assumption folk draw from it need 'expert' review anyway.
>
> In short, this chang
On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 02:41, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> 'Nuff said.
I don't think we need this.
The log file is -not- readable without knowledge of setup. Any
assumption folk draw from it need 'expert' review anyway.
In short, this change is for folk that shouldn't be reading the log
anyway.
Ro
'Nuff said.
Igor
==
2003-08-14 Igor Pechtchanski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* AntiVirus.cc (detect): Clarify antivirus message.
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,
