Michael Schultheiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't know if/how well it would work for something as high traffic as
the Debian lists but the Nashville Linux User Group website has a
tutorial for setting up spam proof mailing list archives by converting
all e-mail addresses into images.
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:08:55PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I don't think that's unusual or any kind of exception. Short of
things like libel, anything I say on the Debian lists should get
archived, whether it's something someone else
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 09:17:10PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Michael Schultheiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't know if/how well it would work for something as high traffic as
the Debian lists but the Nashville Linux User Group website has a
tutorial for setting up spam proof
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 16:01:53 -0500
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian does not redact its mailing list archives.
It seems from looking at the URL posted that this is an unusual
situation -- the request is coming from someone whose e-mail address
appears on the To: line of a message
David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This probably just means that if they want to go after somebody, they
have to go after the person who posted the message and seek damages.
What possible damages? In the United States, at least, you are
allowed to say the truth. I know that in the UK
On 02 Sep 2002 01:33:54 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This probably just means that if they want to go after somebody,
they have to go after the person who posted the message and seek
damages.
What possible damages? In
On Sun, 01 Sep 2002, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 09:17:10PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Michael Schultheiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't know if/how well it would work for something as high traffic as
the Debian lists but the Nashville Linux User Group
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 02:08:47PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Sun, 01 Sep 2002, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 09:17:10PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Michael Schultheiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't know if/how well it would work for something as high
Hi,
I am in the process of discussions with upstream about the licensing for a
new package.
The package build system is autoconf based.
Upstream really likes the Artistic license and would prefer to release with
that.
Is there any incompatibility with using the Artistic license when using an
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 01:09:39AM +0100, Stephen Stafford wrote:
Is there any incompatibility with using the Artistic license when using an
autoconf(GPL) build system?
/usr/share/doc/autoconf/copyright:
As a special exception, the Free Software Foundation gives unlimited
permission to copy,
10 matches
Mail list logo
