Re: Virus emails

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 22:44:50 -0400 "H. S. Teoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Another major source is rr.com, which not only gives me tons of Swen, but > also other spam in general. I've blacklisted rr.com in /etc/hosts.deny, > but obviously I'm missing something obvious, 'cos rr.com spam still gets

Re: IMPORTANT: your message to html-tidy

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 05:09:30PM -0500, david nicol wrote: > On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 04:02, Craig Sanders wrote: > > sorry, a system that only works sometimes (or even most of the time) > > is a broken system. > > > > i prefer to know that my system's behaviour will be consistent and > > correct.

Re: Virus emails

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 07:18:56PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 19:34:58 -0400 > "H. S. Teoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've resorted to blocking port 25 to subnets from which these spams > > What would help is to be able to block an IP once it's been hit. Thing is > I

Re: Virus emails

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 04:53:16PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Hi, Mike Hommey wrote: > > helps catching 95%... But the bandwidth is still used... I'm still > > looking for a pure MTA solution... > > A pure MTA solution would still need to scan the body and thus would still > eat your bandwid

Re: Virus emails

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 18:48:58 -0500 Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0821.txt And what does RFC2821 have to say about it? -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to t

Re: Virus emails

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 19:34:58 -0400 "H. S. Teoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've resorted to blocking port 25 to subnets from which these spams What would help is to be able to block an IP once it's been hit. Thing is I cannot for the life of me figure out a way to do it. Here's the first 2

Re: [cjwatson@debian.org: Re: Fwd: Processing of ferret_3.0-2_i386.changes]

> * Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-20 07:37]: > > Neither SCP nor anonymous-FTP methods work and I want to get that > > fixed. > > > > SSH works. SCP doesn't. > > Well, it works for everyone else. So it would be good if you'd find > out why it doesn't work for you. In the meantime, yo

Re: eek, phpgroupware

Hi. Just for the record: My vacation terminated in favor of relocation and trouble with the phone and internet company. (Heck, I don't even have a mailbox or doorbell, yet.) I have some phpgw packages ready at . They seem to fix some of the more pressing problems in phpg

Bug#212049: "dependency" used backwards

Thomas Hood wrote: > > On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 00:24, Daniel B. wrote in part: > > Debian seems to use the word "dependency" backwards a lot, making > > things confusing and hard to understand. > [...] > > If A depends on B, then A is a > > dependency (A is dependent on B). B is _not_ a dependency

Re: Virus emails

Mike Hommey dijo [Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:28:44AM +0200]: > > > helps catching 95%... But the bandwidth is still used... I'm still > > > looking for a pure MTA solution... > > > > A pure MTA solution would still need to scan the body and thus would still > > eat your bandwidth. > > Maybe I'm wrong

Re: Virus emails

On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:28:44AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > Maybe I'm wrong, but I think an MTA rejecting a mail because of oversized > body > doesn't have to get the whole body before rejecting the mail. Based on this, > it should be possible to reject the mail before it gets fully transfere

Re: Virus emails

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 04:53:16PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Hi, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > helps catching 95%... But the bandwidth is still used... I'm still looking > > for > > a pure MTA solution... > > A pure MTA solution would still need to scan the body and thus would still > eat you

Re: [cjwatson@debian.org: Re: Fwd: Processing of ferret_3.0-2_i386.changes]

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What didn't work about anonymous FTP? The queue daemon can no longer handle PGP 2.x keys; I don't know why and since a) the number of developers still using these kind of keys for uploads can be counted on the fingers of a mutilated hand, b) there are

Bug #47039: renaming slang.

I've been reviewing bugs in slang, and closing those that are fixed, and examining #47039. This requires/recommends that the package names be changed to policy standards: slang1 -> libslang1 slang1-dev -> libslang1-dev slang1-pic -> libslang1-pic slang1-utf8-dev - > libslang1-utf8-dev slang1a-utf

Re: Virus emails

On Monday 22 September 2003 16:53, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Hi, Mike Hommey wrote: > > helps catching 95%... But the bandwidth is still used... I'm still > > looking for a pure MTA solution... > > A pure MTA solution would still need to scan the body and thus would still > eat your bandwidth. May

Re: IMPORTANT: your message to html-tidy

On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 04:02, Craig Sanders wrote: > sorry, a system that only works sometimes (or even most of the time) is a > broken system. > > i prefer to know that my system's behaviour will be consistent and correct. Shamless plug: sign up for totally spam-free forwarding address at http:

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Martin Pitt wrote: > When Debian claims to ship kernels with security patches, then another > Debian package should not silently remove them; that would be very > dangerous (and IMHO silly). I could live with this solution if such an > unpatch is verbosely announced to the use

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Eduard Bloch wrote: > They are - look at the last part of the kernel-image-KVERS image. And if > you meant the kernel-source package, then please think twice before you > request a such thing. Your "idea" would require dozens of versions of > kernel-source-NUMBER-foo every tim

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-21 14:44]: > > What you distribute as 2.4.22 is not 2.4.22. > > So what? Most packages in Debian devate from upstream in one way or > another. That's the added value we provide. I'm happy that Herbert

Re: Virus emails

Hi, Daniel Burrows wrote: > On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 10:45:57AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: >> I'm getting one evry 30 minutes, more or less... but i've read on irc that >> this is quite common now... > > You mean "seconds", not "minutes", right?

Re: Virus emails

Hi, Mike Hommey wrote: > helps catching 95%... But the bandwidth is still used... I'm still looking > for > a pure MTA solution... A pure MTA solution would still need to scan the body and thus would still eat your bandwidth. The list of hardware required to stop this spam unfortunately seems

Re: [cjwatson@debian.org: Re: Fwd: Processing of ferret_3.0-2_i386.changes]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:57:14PM +1000, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-20 07:37]: > > Neither SCP nor anonymous-FTP methods work and I want to get that > > fixed. > > > > SSH works. SCP doesn't. > > Well, it works for everyone else. So it would be good if

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 01:09:08PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > I am the kernel-patch-2.4-grsecurity maintainer, and I have been > flooded with grave and important bugs ever since kernel version > 2.4.20, since grsecurity does not apply to these kernel versions > anymore. It doesn't apply to th

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

George Danchev wrote: >Let me point out that Debian has always provided upstream (unmodified/ >pristine) kernel source by the means of kernel-source-x.y.z packages and >kernel-patch- ... and so on ... Now with kernel-source-2.4.22 the >situation has been changed... Nonsense. As a trivial counte

Re: To what extent should Debian modify the kernel? (Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!)

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 09:30:28PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So, I'm curious why you chose to make it a part of the Debian kernel source, > > rather than a separate patch (kernel-patch-ipsec or such). > > Well the reason for it to be in the defa

Re: eek, phpgroupware

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 04:59:57PM +, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > I have some phpgw packages ready at . They seem to > fix some > of the more pressing problems in phpgw/sid, however they don't correspond to > Luca's > package split. At this point it doesn't matter any mo

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 04:04:22PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > Let me point out that Debian has always provided upstream (unmodified/ > pristine) kernel source by the means of kernel-source-x.y.z packages and > kernel-patch- ... and so on ... Now with kernel-source-2.4.22 the > situation has

Re: Bug #47039: renaming slang.

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 04:15:19PM -, Alastair wrote: > I've been reviewing bugs in slang, and closing those that are fixed, and > examining #47039. > This may be too drastic a change at this time. > What do debian-devel, and particular the > Release Manage, think? I'd say definitely too dras

Re: popsneaker vs. bandwidth consumption

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Atterer) writes: > Of those packages in the archive, mailfilter is the best IMHO. However, I > ended up *not* using it because it doesn't support ANDing of conditions > AFAICT ("size > 100k AND header spelling "SUBJECT:"). > Then maybe you should have a look at popsne

Re: To what extent should Debian modify the kernel? (Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!)

Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> So, I'm curious why you chose to make it a part of the Debian >> kernel source, rather than a separate patch (kernel-patch-ipsec or >> such). > > Well the reason for it to be in the default kernel-source is s

Re: Horrific new levels of changelog abuse

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 09:22:40PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A reasonable explanation includes enough information for: > > > > - the submitter to recognize that their bug was in fact fixed > > Agreed. However I must say that this is pretty obvious

Re: Debain-Edu and Skolelinux

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Andreas Schuldei wrote: > better with Debian, and for that reason thankfully accepts > Raphael Herzogs offer to continue its effords as the Debian-Edu > subproject, taking it over. Congratulations! > * To avoid the Knoppix-effect. This is a great wording! Good luck for your

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

On Monday 22 September 2003 14:20, Matthew Garrett wrote: > martin f krafft wrote: > >also sprach Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > [2003.09.21.1= > > > >614 +0200]: > >> Should we stop shipping security fixes backported from development > >> code? > > > >It always depends, doesn't it? We are

Re: [cjwatson@debian.org: Re: Fwd: Processing of ferret_3.0-2_i386.changes]

On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 03:48:35PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: > Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > SSH works. SCP doesn't. > > It is easy to circumvent non-working scp: > tar cf - foo bar | ssh ftp-master.debian.org tar xf - > or > rsync -vtaz foo bar ftp-master.debian.org: > > Scp wo

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > it is faster and wiser to fix your kernel-source-2.4.22 (unpatch is useless, > leave to users to patch if they want) then all other kernel-patch- > packages will be fine. It is unacceptable for us to distribute kernels with known (security) bugs. --

Re: To what extent should Debian modify the kernel? (Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!)

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So, I'm curious why you chose to make it a part of the Debian kernel source, > rather than a separate patch (kernel-patch-ipsec or such). Well the reason for it to be in the default kernel-source is simple: The patch should be used on all default Deb

Re: Horrific new levels of changelog abuse

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > - The bug submitter should receive a reasonable explanation for the bug's >> > closure in the -done message >> >> Well can you please give an operable definition of what a reasonable >> explanation is? > > A reasonable explanation includes enough

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

martin f krafft wrote: >also sprach Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.09.21.1= >614 +0200]: >> Should we stop shipping security fixes backported from development >> code? > >It always depends, doesn't it? We are backporting *security* fixes >to packages, but we take care not to introduce ne

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

Hi! Am 2003-09-22 11:55 +0200 schrieb Eduard Bloch: > > significantly modified; why aren't those modifications distributed as > > seperate kernel patches / debian packages in the same way grsec is? > > Martin can _simply_ create an alternative "apply" script which unpatches > the Debian source wh

Re: [cjwatson@debian.org: Re: Fwd: Processing of ferret_3.0-2_i386.changes]

Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > * Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-20 07:37]: > > Neither SCP nor anonymous-FTP methods work and I want to get that > > fixed. > > > > SSH works. SCP doesn't. > > Well, it works for everyone else. So it would be good if you'd find > out

Re: apt-get'able Release file format

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 10:31:50AM +0200, Jochen Voss wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 12:48:24AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 10:20:36PM -0600, Adam Conrad wrote: > > > > > Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > > > > > > That sounds backwards. "Component" is the o

Re: [cjwatson@debian.org: Re: Fwd: Processing of ferret_3.0-2_i386.changes]

* Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-20 07:37]: > Neither SCP nor anonymous-FTP methods work and I want to get that > fixed. > > SSH works. SCP doesn't. Well, it works for everyone else. So it would be good if you'd find out why it doesn't work for you. In the meantime, you can put your s

Bug#168414: marked as done (rcconf works with file-rc <> Conflicts: file-rc)

Your message dated Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:17:06 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Accepted rcconf 1.6 (all source) has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your r

Bug#151968: marked as done (Copyright file points to the wrong location (patch enclosed))

Your message dated Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:17:06 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Accepted rcconf 1.6 (all source) has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your r

Bug#144560: marked as done (rcconf: claims it works with file-rc but conflicts with it)

Your message dated Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:17:06 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Accepted rcconf 1.6 (all source) has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your r

Bug#67852: marked as done (rcconf: correcting Engilish in package description)

Your message dated Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:17:06 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Accepted rcconf 1.6 (all source) has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your r

Bug#147047: marked as done (libjcode-pm-perl: new upstream version)

Your message dated Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:47:07 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Accepted libjcode-pm-perl 0.83-1 (i386 source) has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it

Bug#144053: marked as done (rcconf: Rcconf does not clean up after exiting (when running as normal user))

Your message dated Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:17:06 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Accepted rcconf 1.6 (all source) has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your r

Bug#60405: marked as done (rcconf: Please translate manpage to English :))

Your message dated Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:17:06 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Accepted rcconf 1.6 (all source) has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your r

Bug#166518: marked as done (rcconf conflicts with file-rc but its description tells it is compatible with file-rc)

Your message dated Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:17:06 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Accepted rcconf 1.6 (all source) has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your r

Bug#141179: marked as done (rcconf should depend on whiptail-provider instead of whiptail)

Your message dated Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:17:06 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Accepted rcconf 1.6 (all source) has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your r

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

On Monday 22 September 2003 13:13, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030922 10:40]: > > Speaking as an user, it is perfectly okay and desirable to have a > > _default_ installation Debian kernel which is patched (security, ALSA, > > whatever). Those users who don't care

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

#include * Jonathan Dowland [Mon, Sep 22 2003, 10:05:13AM]: > > if I get kernel 2.4.22 as a debian package I expect kernel 2.4.22 as > > a debian package, not something else... any debian specific changes > > should result in kernel name change, that's what's expected in kernel > > world (wh

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

#include * George Danchev [Mon, Sep 22 2003, 10:40:10AM]: > This is misleading by the way of kernel source tree you provide. > kernel-source-2.4.22 must contain just plain vanilla kernel sources + debian/ > directory. Then if I want your backported patches (or anything else) I'll > apt-get i

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

hi, On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 12:13:51PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > Speaking as a user, too, I want something I can compile a kernel from. > I'm no kernel hacker and do not intend to become one. Thus I see > absolutely no reason, why I should want a debian-package with a > unmodified source-tr

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

Hi! Am 2003-09-22 12:13 +0200 schrieb Bernhard R. Link: > Speaking as a user, too, I want something I can compile a kernel from. > I'm no kernel hacker and do not intend to become one. Thus I see > absolutely no reason, why I should want a debian-package with a > unmodified source-tree. I agree.

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

* Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030922 10:40]: > Speaking as an user, it is perfectly okay and desirable to have a > _default_ installation Debian kernel which is patched (security, ALSA, > whatever). Those users who don't care or don't know about kernel > compiling issues will rest in peace an

Bug#212137: ITP: trm -- calculate the TRM acoustic fingerprint for an audio file

Package: wnpp Version: unavailable; reported 2003-09-22 Severity: wishlist * Package name: trm Version : 0.2.1 Upstream Author : Robert Kaye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : ftp://ftp.musicbrainz.org/pub/musicbrainz/ * License : GPL Description : calculate the

HP激光打印机专业维修，为您节省40%

上海天码，具8年HP激光打印机维修服务经验，通过大批量的采购，简化进货渠道，大幅度减低您的维修费用。 HP6L，接口板，450元；加热组件，420元；激光发生器。400元；分页器，200元（多纸一进） HP5000，接口板，1350；激光发生器，1300元；加热组件，1800元；分页器（三片），450元；搓纸轮，150元。 其他HP激光打印机配件应有尽有，欢迎来电：021-32270228，或光临网站：www.savemoney.com.cn(省钱网）

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 12:00:05PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote: > if I get kernel 2.4.22 as a debian package I expect kernel 2.4.22 as > a debian package, not something else... any debian specific changes > should result in kernel name change, that's what's expected in kernel > world (when I get

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 05:05:46PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.09.21.1644 +0200]: > > effects (better hardware support, more features, better > > performance or what have we) are generally seen to be worthwhile. > ... in addition to possibly mo

Re: apt-get'able Release file format

Hello, On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 12:48:24AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 10:20:36PM -0600, Adam Conrad wrote: > > > Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > > > > That sounds backwards. "Component" is the one recognized by apt, and > > > (naturally) the one used by official Release f

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

Hi! Am 2003-09-21 13:09 +0200 schrieb martin f krafft: > If I install kernel-source-2.4.21, I want the 2.4.21 kernel source, > I don't want the 2.4.21 kernel source with 2.5's IPsec stack patched > in and hundreds of little "fixes". I fully agree with this. Speaking as an user, it is perfectly

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

On Sunday 21 September 2003 16:04, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 02:44:03PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > > > * The vanilla kernel source is readily available: > > > > I don't consider this readily available. It's faster to just > > download it from kernel.org. > > Frankly, I doubt

Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

On Sunday 21 September 2003 14:41, Herbert Xu wrote: > martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am the kernel-patch-2.4-grsecurity maintainer, and I have been > > flooded with grave and important bugs ever since kernel version > > 2.4.20, since grsecurity does not apply to these kernel vers

Re: Bug#212049: "dependency" used backwards

On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 00:24, Daniel B. wrote in part: > Debian seems to use the word "dependency" backwards a lot, making > things confusing and hard to understand. [...] > If A depends on B, then A is a > dependency (A is dependent on B). B is _not_ a dependency of A. The word 'dependency' can

Re: Maintaining kernel source in sarge

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:27, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > The scripts handle ordering by testing each dependency, and if it is > > not already applied, invoking the corresponding apply script.  In > > this way, all dependencies should be applied in proper order. > > Rollback could presumably be implem