-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2019 11:47:49 +0100
Source: vacation
Binary: vacation
Architecture: source
Version: 3.3.3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Phil Brooke
Changed-By: Ian Jackson
Description:
vacation - email
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 14:06:42 +0100
Source: vacation
Binary: vacation vacation-dbgsym
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 3.3.2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Phil Brooke
Changed-By: Phil Brooke
Description
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:57:12 +0100
Source: vacation
Binary: vacation
Architecture: source i386
Version: 3.3.1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Phil Brooke p...@debian.org
Changed-By: Phil Brooke p...@debian.org
vacation only
return libnet-sieve-script-perl, which is more of a toolbox than an
actual sieve enabled MDA.
Bjørn
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org
apt-cache search 5230 and apt-cache search sieve vacation only
return libnet-sieve-script-perl, which is more of a toolbox than an
actual sieve enabled MDA.
Package dovecot-sieve - RFC 5230 is listed as fully supported at
upstream Homepage: http://pigeonhole.dovecot.org/
- Jonas
On 01/14/2014 01:58 PM, Christian PERRIER wrote:
Quoting Thomas Goirand (z...@debian.org):
With mailbot from courier-maildrop, it's easy to do for a .mailfilter
file (though it'd be once per recipient, which is IMO enough, I don't
You have an interesting definition of easy, Thomas..:-)
My
Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no writes:
Is there such a beast with feature parity? vacation has a few nice
defaults, like ignoring list mails and only sending one message per week
to each receiver. Having every end user implement similar behaviour in
sieve isn't likely to happen.
The world has
Ansgar Burchardt ans...@debian.org writes:
Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no writes:
Is there such a beast with feature parity? vacation has a few nice
defaults, like ignoring list mails and only sending one message per week
to each receiver. Having every end user implement similar behaviour
Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no writes:
Ansgar Burchardt ans...@debian.org writes:
Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no writes:
Is there such a beast with feature parity? vacation has a few nice
defaults, like ignoring list mails and only sending one message per week
to each receiver. Having every end user
such a
replacement (I just don't know) please mention it in the removal bug
report.
I agree with waldi that the most simple replacement is a Sieve-enabled
LDA.
Is there such a beast with feature parity? vacation has a few nice
defaults, like ignoring list mails and only sending one message per week
Marco d'Itri writes (Re: removal of the vacation package):
On Jan 12, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
The set of bugs looks tractable to me. Do you have a half-prepared
upload somewhere or is the versionn in the archive the most recent ?
No, I have really ignored
On Jan 13, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
OK. I will take it. Would you prefer me to do an upload right away
to change the Maintainer or can it wait (weeks very likely) until I've
had a chance to do some actual work on it ?
No hurry.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Quoting Thomas Goirand (z...@debian.org):
With mailbot from courier-maildrop, it's easy to do for a .mailfilter
file (though it'd be once per recipient, which is IMO enough, I don't
You have an interesting definition of easy, Thomas..:-)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
from the archive.
It still seems to have a fair number of loyal users though. I see your
points, but I wonder if we do have a decent replacement for it to
suggest to our users. A replacement that is better than trying to mimic
vacation by hand in procmail, and doing it wrong; arguably doing so
Marco d'Itri writes (removal of the vacation package):
I stopped maintaining it years ago and nobody ever bothered to ask me
about it...
It does not support MIME and a lot of other things that are required to
be a good citizen in today's Internet, so unless somebody has some
really
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:00:45AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
but I wonder if we do have a decent replacement for it to
suggest to our users.
Dovecot LDA supports Sieve and die vacation extension. Not sure if we
have other stand-alone replacements.
Bastian
--
Emotions
On Jan 12, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote:
It still seems to have a fair number of loyal users though. I see your
popcon says 1867 have it installed, but only 222 voted.
If we do have such a
replacement (I just don't know) please mention it in the removal bug
report.
I agree with
it in the removal bug
report.
I agree with waldi that the most simple replacement is a Sieve-enabled
LDA.
Is there such a beast with feature parity? vacation has a few nice
defaults, like ignoring list mails and only sending one message per week
to each receiver. Having every end user implement
Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no writes:
This doesn't look like a MIME bug to me. It looks like vacation
truncates multiline subjects. There is absolutely no reason it should
try to parse any MIME.
Well, if you include the subject in the reply, it would nice if it would
undo RFC 2047 encoding
I stopped maintaining it years ago and nobody ever bothered to ask me
about it...
It does not support MIME and a lot of other things that are required to
be a good citizen in today's Internet, so unless somebody has some
really compelling arguments to keep it around and wants to adopt it
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:19:24 +0200
Source: vacation
Binary: vacation
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 3.3.0-0.4
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it
Changed-By: Ondřej Surý ond...@debian.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 23:16:28 +0200
Source: sork-vacation-h3
Binary: sork-vacation-h3
Architecture: source all
Version: 3.1-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Horde Maintainers pkg-horde-hack...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Attention: Everyone who need to getaway
Do you need to escape from your daily stress? Do you need a vacation? We
have the best deal for you, at an affordable price. Visit the All Inclusive
Ressorts of the Oasis Hamaca in Boca Chica, Santo Domingo or The Coral Canoa by
Hilton. The Special
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 09:55:42 -0400
Source: vacation
Binary: vacation
Architecture: source i386
Version: 3.3.0-0.3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:59:51 +0200
Source: sork-vacation-h3
Binary: sork-vacation-h3
Architecture: source all
Version: 3.0.1-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Horde Maintainers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2006 12:00:00 +0200
Source: sork-vacation-h3
Binary: sork-vacation-h3
Architecture: source all
Version: 3.0-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Horde Maintainers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Gregory
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Gregory Colpart (evolix) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: sork-vacation-h3
Version : 3.0
Upstream Author : The Horde Team [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://www.horde.org/vacation/
* License : Apache License 1.1-like
Dear friends!
As I am no DD till now (still awaiting FD approval) I send my vac
message here:
Packages I am responsible for:
texinfo, info
cm-super(-x11)
texlive-*
I am leaving for more or less 5 weeks without any regular internet
connection, and not the time to care
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 20:47:09 -0700
Source: vacation
Binary: vacation
Architecture: source i386
Version: 3.3.0-0.2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:12:39 -0800
Source: vacation
Binary: vacation
Architecture: source powerpc
Version: 3.3.0-0.1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Don Armstrong [EMAIL
, the lowest price to go to
Vegas, Bahamas, Barbados, Caribbean, Europe, France, or wherever?
Expedia, Travelocity, Itravel2000, Priceline, Orbitz, Escapenow, Hotel.com. Who
is offering the best deal? When are they offering the best deal?
I have a fixed vacation schedule, when is the most
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 19:25:54 +0100
Source: sork-vacation
Binary: sork-vacation
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.2.2-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 18:01:51 +0200
Source: sork-vacation
Binary: sork-vacation
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.2.2-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL
I will be out of the office starting 06/18/2005 and will not return until
07/01/2005.
I will have limited access to email.
If you need immediate assistance, please contact my DB2 Competitive Linux
Technology and Enablement backup Melody Ng.
For NextWave Issues or questions, please contact Paul
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 21:16:18 +0200
Source: sork-vacation
Binary: sork-vacation
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.2.2-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: high
Maintainer: Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:24:05 +0100
Source: sork-vacation
Binary: sork-vacation
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.2-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL
Hi,
i am in Sydney for Today and Tomorrow - So if any Debian enthusiasts is
willing to go out for a Beer or Keysigning ...
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49-171-2280134
Heisenberg may have been here.
pgpszBaWXKKTM.pgp
Description:
mail recived
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:18:08 +0200
Source: vacation
Binary: vacation
Architecture: source i386
Version: 3.3.0
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED
Emile van Bergen wrote:
However, I fail to understand why you want people to refrain from
bringing the netiquette under the attention of the people they are
receiving email from.
Never said they should refrain. I do think that it's a waste of time though.
IOW, if everybody just tries to
On Mon 19 May 2003, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 10:17:40PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
(I'd quote a proverb about how small things lead to big things, but I
can't currently think of any of those in English. :)
Look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of
On Tue, 20 May 2003 07:14:33 +0100, Matt Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I don't like school boy rules and I thought I'd tell everyone.
Good manners are school boy rules? I suppose I would have
liked you better when you were younger, then.
manoj
--
There ain't nothin' in this
Hi,
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 07:14:33AM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
Emile van Bergen wrote:
However, I fail to understand why you want people to refrain from
bringing the netiquette under the attention of the people they are
receiving email from.
Never said they should refrain. I do think
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 07:14:33AM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
Emile van Bergen wrote:
However, I fail to understand why you want people to refrain from
bringing the netiquette under the attention of the people they are
receiving email from.
Never said they should refrain. I do think that
As opposed to plowing through your idiotic screed about how people
shouldn't have high standards, which is clearly not a waste of time
since it has important implications for how all developers maintain
their packages, right?
Seems you couldn't resist helping me by extending the thread? But
Josip Rodin wrote:
Well, yeah, sure, but the highway analogy doesn't apply. There isn't a
single technical reason why I as a random person need to ever be in any
sort of contact with a spammer to keep the system running.
There was no mention of spammers in the thread! While they are prone to
Emile van Bergen wrote
I also don't understand the phrase today's Internet world. You mean
with the hordes running Outlook and shopping on the clickable amazing
discoveries / quantum shopping / tell sell channel that's the WWW?
Yes. If you have to interact with them to any great extent then its
Hi,
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 07:14:07PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
Josip Rodin wrote:
Well, yeah, sure, but the highway analogy doesn't apply. There isn't a
single technical reason why I as a random person need to ever be in any
sort of contact with a spammer to keep the system running.
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 07:14:07PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
Well, yeah, sure, but the highway analogy doesn't apply. There isn't a
single technical reason why I as a random person need to ever be in any
sort of contact with a spammer to keep the system running.
There was no mention of
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 10:17:40PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
(I'd quote a proverb about how small things lead to big things, but I
can't currently think of any of those in English. :)
Look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson
Matt Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
sending HTML emails its a general comment on people usage of the Internet.
If you can limit yourself to contacts who are technical enough to understand
the arguments why you don't like it then you can maintain the pretence that
it doesn't exist. Those who
Emile van Bergen wrote:
So what do you propose then, to drop everything just because you
cynically point out that a lot of rules are being violated today?
What I'm saying is that (a lot of) these rules are archaic and irrelevant in
today's Internet world. Firstly I doubt any of the people who
Matt Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Emile van Bergen wrote:
So what do you propose then, to drop everything just because you
cynically point out that a lot of rules are being violated today?
What I'm saying is that (a lot of) these rules are archaic and irrelevant in
today's Internet world.
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 10:26:38AM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
Emile van Bergen wrote:
So what do you propose then, to drop everything just because you
cynically point out that a lot of rules are being violated today?
Society evolves and with it rules change, we need
to accept this and see what
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 10:26:38AM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
Society evolves and with it rules change, we need to accept this and see
what evolves - if it turns out to be bad then limits will have to be
applied, but I'm not seeing a complete state of anarchy break out yet...
Right now we're
Josip Rodin wrote:
Right now we're getting really damn close to anarchy, when everyone and
their dog has the means to entirely obliterate everyone else's mailbox
with
unwanted whatever-they-have-to-say, and sometimes even obliterate their
computer (with viruses).
We have the ability to
Neil McGovern wrote:
These are all valid points, however, I still don't want to read HTML
e-mail in mutt.
You are figting a losing battle. If the MUA that someone uses is set-up to
send HTML (rich test, whatever) email then you are highly unlikely to get
them to change it. Some devices (cable
Andreas Metzler wrote:
Hello,
Which does not matter at all. This memo does not specify an Internet
standard of any kind. having it distributed as RFC is just a
convenience, because searching for rcf1855 on google will find
perfect hits en masse.
Hello,
Finding it is not the problem. As I
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 11:38:14AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
| These are all valid points, however, I still don't want to read HTML
| e-mail in mutt.
Why not? Mutt deals perfectly well with HTML e-mail if you have lynx or
w3m installed on your system and have
auto_view text/html
in
On Mon, 19 May 2003 00:25, Matt Ryan wrote:
Neil McGovern wrote:
These are all valid points, however, I still don't want to read HTML
e-mail in mutt.
You are figting a losing battle. If the MUA that someone uses is set-up to
send HTML (rich test, whatever) email then you are highly
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 03:25:42PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
Yes, but then if the majority of clients can send/recive HTML email, who has
the compatibility problem?
It doesn't matter what the clients are able to do.
The majority of readers on this list don't want HTML-postings. Just like
they
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 10:54:08PM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 11:38:14AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
| These are all valid points, however, I still don't want to read HTML
| e-mail in mutt.
Why not? Mutt deals perfectly well with HTML e-mail if you have lynx or
Matt Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Metzler wrote:
Hello,
Which does not matter at all. This memo does not specify an Internet
standard of any kind. having it distributed as RFC is just a
convenience, because searching for rcf1855 on google will find
perfect hits en masse.
Hello,
Matt Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What I'm saying is that (a lot of) these rules are archaic and
irrelevant in today's Internet world. Firstly I doubt any of the
people who violate the rules are even aware what an RFC is or what
it's for - and if they did they probably wouldn't care.
On Sun, 18 May 2003 15:30:52 +0100, Matt Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Andreas Metzler wrote:
Hello, Which does not matter at all. This memo does not specify an
Internet standard of any kind. having it distributed as RFC is
just a convenience, because searching for rcf1855 on google will
On Sun, 18 May 2003 15:25:42 +0100, Matt Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Neil McGovern wrote:
These are all valid points, however, I still don't want to read
HTML e-mail in mutt.
You are figting a losing battle. If the MUA that someone uses is
set-up to send HTML (rich test, whatever) email
On Sun, 18 May 2003 10:26:38 +0100, Matt Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Emile van Bergen wrote:
So what do you propose then, to drop everything just because you
cynically point out that a lot of rules are being violated today?
What I'm saying is that (a lot of) these rules are archaic and
On Sun, 18 May 2003 22:54:08 +0800, Cameron Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 11:38:14AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
These are all valid points, however, I still don't want to read
HTML e-mail in mutt.
Why not? Mutt deals perfectly well with HTML e-mail
It
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 03:25:42PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
Neil McGovern wrote:
These are all valid points, however, I still don't want to read HTML
e-mail in mutt.
You are figting a losing battle.
Unfortunatly, this may be so, but the latest trend I personally have
seen is away from HTML
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's very rare for me to have a HTML email that I actually want to read, I
probably should configure my mail server to reject them all.
I have sendmail rules to do that. I may go back to rejecting
multipart/alternative mail as well.
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 07:26:34PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
I disagree. Once I've explained why I don't like HTML e-mail, people
normally see 'my side' and switch.
And if they still don't see it, the following 'html' might convince
them, at least if they use outlook (be careful. It is not
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 03:28:27PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
Right now we're getting really damn close to anarchy, when everyone and
their dog has the means to entirely obliterate everyone else's mailbox
with unwanted whatever-they-have-to-say, and sometimes even obliterate
their computer
Hi,
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 10:26:38AM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
Emile van Bergen wrote:
So what do you propose then, to drop everything just because you
cynically point out that a lot of rules are being violated today?
What I'm saying is that (a lot of) these rules are archaic and
[He who should not be named wrote]
That .sig is problematic beyond just its content; it is 12 lines long and
adds almost 1kb to each of your messages (probably longer than the
contents
of many messages). Refer to RFC 1855 or any other netiquette document for
further information.
With
Hi,
On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 05:57:31PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
[He who should not be named wrote]
That .sig is problematic beyond just its content; it is 12 lines long and
adds almost 1kb to each of your messages (probably longer than the
contents
of many messages). Refer to RFC 1855 or
On Thu, 15 May 2003 07:17, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hello. My spam protection system is unsure about your message. Since
you're reading this, your email isn't spam ;-) -- please either sign your
emails to me, or send a short confirmation to the address my name-abqux
at domain so that and your
On Thu, 15 May 2003 05:27, Chad Walstrom wrote:
It is a shame that such a simple scuffle on-list has sent you packing.
Someone who gives up so easily would never last.
Everyone gets flamed on occasion, if you can't deal with it you can't survive
on a popular mailing list. The Internet is not
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I would. If I ever get a message like that, I would be
grateful -- It'll allow me to add yet another obnoxious auto-reply to
my spam filters.
Well, thanks for the feedback.
Rest assured you shall never get email from me, or any official
posiiton I may
Clay Crouch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My most humble apologies.
It has become quite clear that the culture that the DD community
shares has evolved in my absence. My absence disallowed me to
evolve with it. The culture you now enjoy is not the one I left.
I truly didn't expect to be attacked
On Thu, 15 May 2003 14:37, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Ahem. Your email wouls have to contain a few highly unlikely phrases to be
classified as uncertain by me. FWIW, yours ends up as
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-42.6 required=5.0
Sorry, if you are only using that when spamassasin records it as a
*sigh*
I hate to start off my return to the Project this way, but I just can't let
this one go unanswered. :^(
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 10:48:45PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 07:05:38PM -0500, Clay Crouch wrote:
And please don't be offended by the .sig.
That .sig
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 11:27:31PM -0500, Clay Crouch wrote:
I hate to start off my return to the Project this way, but I just can't let
this one go unanswered. :^(
Perhaps not, but you could have answered more civilly. A triumphant return,
indeed.
But, if we must...
On Tue, May 13, 2003
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 01:11:45AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 11:27:31PM -0500, Clay Crouch wrote:
Can the QA team use an additional 5-20 hours a week of volunteer help
from an already-registered Developer?
I'm afraid they can't hear you. They have their
Clay Crouch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 10:48:45PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
That .sig is problematic beyond just its content; it is 12 lines long and
adds almost 1kb to each of your messages (probably longer than the contents
of many messages).
Pleased to meet
On Tue, 13 May 2003 23:27:31 -0500, Clay Crouch [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hmmm An ettiquette lesson before a welcome back and a work
assignemnt, just because you find my anti-spam measures draconian
and my filter bypass info in my sig to be annoying.
Charming, to be sure
Pleased to
Hi,
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Or do you send one of those obnoxious autoreplies asking people to
confirm their messages to you?
FWIW, if they are only sent in reply to spam status dubious messages, I
wouldn't call them obnoxious.
I agree, though, that an auto-bit-bucket, which doesn't _at_least_
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 11:27:31PM -0500, Clay Crouch wrote:
*plonk*
*plonk*
Can the QA team use an additional 5-20 hours a week of volunteer help
from an already-registered Developer? Could the Project use another
Alpha autobuilder? If not
The Project always needs more help, but it
On Wed, 14 May 2003 11:45:48 +0200, Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi,
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Or do you send one of those obnoxious autoreplies asking people to
confirm their messages to you?
FWIW, if they are only sent in reply to spam status dubious
messages, I wouldn't call
On Wed, 14 May 2003 14:27, Clay Crouch wrote:
Hmmm An ettiquette lesson before a welcome back and a work
assignemnt, just because you find my anti-spam measures draconian and my
filter bypass info in my sig to be annoying.
When such lessons are needed they should be dealt with first.
And
Folks,
My most humble apologies.
It has become quite clear that the culture that the DD community
shares has evolved in my absence. My absence disallowed me to
evolve with it. The culture you now enjoy is not the one I left.
I truly didn't expect to be attacked on my first post. I also
truly
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:10:08PM -0500, Clay Crouch wrote:
It has become quite clear that the culture that the DD community
shares has evolved in my absence. My absence disallowed me to
evolve with it. The culture you now enjoy is not the one I left.
Eh? Culture? Look, your anti-spam
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Clay Crouch wrote:
Folks,
My most humble apologies.
Doubt that. You haven't changed your ways.
It has become quite clear that the culture that the DD community
shares has evolved in my absence. My absence disallowed me to
evolve with it. The culture you now enjoy is
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:10:08PM -0500, Clay Crouch wrote:
I truly didn't expect to be attacked on my first post. I also truly
didn't expect to be further lambasted from all quarters for responding
to them.
IIRC, the debian-devel mailing list has always been a no-nonsense forum.
Honestly,
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Chad Walstrom wrote:
IIRC, the debian-devel mailing list has always been a no-nonsense forum.
Honestly, the anti-spam technique you employ is very simple, but also
very draconic, in-flexible, and rude. It is far better to set up some
sort of cookie handshake
Hi, Clay Crouch wrote:
Five percent failure, eh? Try zero percent, with zero false positives.
This may be a stupid question, but how do you KNOW that you have zero
false positives (i.e. mail classified as spam which isn't) if you redirect
it to /dev/null?
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
FWIW, if they are only sent in reply to spam status dubious messages,
I wouldn't call them obnoxious.
I am not sure I understand. If such a message is sent to me, I
certainly find them obnoxious.
That's why I said I. Personal tastes differ, but so do
On Wed, 14 May 2003 23:17:07 +0200, Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
FWIW, if they are only sent in reply to spam status dubious
messages, I wouldn't call them obnoxious.
I am not sure I understand. If such a message is sent to me, I
certainly find them
Folks,
Things have finally settled down, and I once again have some spare
time to devote to Debian after a 2-year absence
The new sysadmin job is going well. The new child is growing up.
The new house is now home. The Everquest Addiction(tm) has faded. Etc. :^)
For the time being, I am
Folks,
Things have finally settled down, and I once again have some spare
time to devote to Debian after a 2-year absence
The new sysadmin job is going well. The new child is growing up.
The new house is now home. The Everquest Addiction(tm) has faded. Etc. :^)
For the time being, I am
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 07:05:38PM -0500, Clay Crouch wrote:
And please don't be offended by the .sig.
That .sig is problematic beyond just its content; it is 12 lines long and
adds almost 1kb to each of your messages (probably longer than the contents
of many messages). Refer to RFC 1855 or
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
