On Aug 14, Stephen Frost wrote:
>If someone has some idea how to get them to care about ARC, I'd love to
>hear about it, as I have folks on the one hand who view DKIM/DMARC as
>too painful to set up but then they end up with bounces from gmail due
>to my forwarding of messages through my server
g.branden.robin...@gmail.com wrote:
>I'd like to quote a friend of mine who fights a lot of these battles.
Great insight.
>Thank you! I remember getting into a lot of arguments with you back in
>the day. I can't remember what any of them was about. 藍
Mostly you and a few other people adding
to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>I'd be careful in that: Debian's user (and contributor) base has
>expanded a lot since Day Zero (or well, I've been looking at it
>since Day One or so). Nowadays there are probably believing Muslims
>or national Chinese around, who may be hurt by things "we",
>steeped in
hartm...@debian.org wrote:
>Marco> I also do not believe in a general right (instead
>Marco> of about specific issues) of people to not be offended by
>Marco> other's behaviour. Is this good enough for Debian?
>This offended word keeps coming up from people who are concerned about
I would appreciate some clarifications on this point, to better
understand where I stand.
I do not like transphobes (and various other kinds of bigots), I am
happy to recognize people's gender identity as male, female or
non-binary and to address them as they prefer using "he", "she" or
"them",
nood...@earth.li wrote:
I am sorry you and those developers who have emailed me privately to
complain feel like I am engaging in some form of punishment or naming
and shaming.
No, I do not think that there is anything wrong with publishing their
names.
What I feel is that this new policy of
On Nov 08, Jonathan McDowell nood...@earth.li wrote:
Back in August I sent notification[0] about the fact that we will be
removing all keys less than 2048 from our keyrings at the end of the
year (31st December 2014). Sadly the response to this has been slower
than expected, and we still have
On Feb 27, Yves-Alexis Perez cor...@debian.org wrote:
Because unless you are paranoid, then it is not.
If anybody disagrees then please describe a credible threat model in
which:
- an entity would want to have access to the key of a DD, and
- would find brute forcing a 1024 bit key more
gw...@gwolf.org wrote:
So, what do you suggest?
Persuade developers that they should sign the new key of people whose
old key they have already signed, with no need to meet them in person.
(Also, my keyring update request has been waiting for 3 weeks now to be
processed.)
--
ciao,
Marco
--
p...@debian.org wrote:
I'm also wondering what people think about adding some firmware
to our official installation media.
I don't think it is needed.
I do.
I recently had to install Debian lenny on a HP ProLiant machine, which
required bnx2 firmware for the network controller. Just downloaded
tfh...@err.no wrote:
I am not sure what we should do with problems like this. Not doing
If you care about the package or even just need it to be fixed, do
what I did with linux-atm:
* ask the maintainer if he needs help
* ask again
* warn that you will NMU
* NMU to DELAYED fixing the most urgent
broo...@sirena.org.uk wrote:
The trouble with an approach like that is that it doesn't provide a
clear route to dealing with situations where the maintainer is
occasionally active but not managing to keep up with things well enough
to do a good job.
So help him: start by sending patches to the
frederiqu...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd love to see Debian comply to real GNU/FSF freedom. When I visit the
This will never happen, since Debian and the FSF have different ideas
about what is free.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On May 23, Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca wrote:
I'm open to other options, of course. What is the recommended
practice for this scenario?
Implement spam filtering?
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On May 22, Raphael Geissert atom...@gmail.com wrote:
@packages.d.o is known to be the easiest way to get in touch with a
maintainer, and is often used when CC'ing maintainers of multiple packages.
Then it needs to be fixed, soon, because it the last few weeks I started
receiving a huge
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it really worth it? Are we really losing developers or users by not
being endorsed by the FSF?
I am happy to not have as users and especially as fellow developers
the kind of people who use gNewSense.
I believe that gNewSense is a great idea, since it tends to keep
On Aug 05, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree. The Release file in the archive is a configuration file that
is part of the software interface to the archive. The terminology that it
uses refers to capabilities within the archive maintenance software and
within the software
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did we ever agree a policy about what's acceptable/reasonable for
blog feeds linked from planet.d.o? I'm very tempted to disable Ian
Murdock's Solaris propaganda, for example...
Thoughts?
His blog is way more interesting than some other people's blogs which
apparently
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't shoot the messenger. Tell the vendor of your wireless card to
take the stick out of their behind and cooperate with the Free
software world. While they do not do so and instead release crap,
security-hole-ridden, and often incompatible firmware which is
closed and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm inclined to agree with Russell Coker[1], in that Debian should use
something like RSA tokens to control access to Debian resources.
I'd love to, but I do not know any which is even close to be really
free-as-in-freedom.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, what you describe is a successful experiment. In fact, the
Nazis did such things with humans. Now, such things are not ethical.
Thank you for your contribute, now we can consider the thread finished.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
night. Did I get demotivated because certain lucky folks earned
bazillions and were able to buy mansions in Lake Tahoe and Chicago?
No, because I know that life isn't fair, and that money wasn't why I
got involved in Linux and Debian in the first place.
Folks who are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am mainly interested in #1. I think we need to take a more expansive
view of what constitutes a functionality problem, perhaps replacing
truly critical with serious.
I fully agree. I do not consider volatile a solution.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
to, I thought I'd share my personal view on the reasons why would bother to
ask for free firmware in the first place, and what message I think we would
send if we cease demanding it.
I can't see how you can claim this, considering this part of the
proposed GR saying the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Serendipitously, under Steve's proposed GR, the following might not ever have
been necessary:
Package: freedoom
It would still have been useful, since the doom-wad-shareware package is
in non-free and is going to stay there no matter the outcome of the GR.
It would help
On Aug 23, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed, but would it not make more sense, to aknowledge that the firmware is
non-free, and then argue that we should include it nonetheless, instead of
making obviously false claims like firmware are not programs ?
Firmwares are not programs *for
In linux.debian.vote Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:24:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:32:46PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, the only one who could claim that his views have some
representativity
of the project as a whole is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it is legitimate and legal and all what you want. but it also makes the
cooperation between the two distribution a lot harder:
* take the not so recent example of Xorg6.9. Ubuntu decided to switch
to Xorg way sooner than debian. good for'em. as a result, you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian and which do not. So: if there's a public statement by Debian or
debian-legal on a license (like http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary
debian-legal@ is just a mailing list, so it cannot make any statement.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can't wait for an hotplug/udev event to be done processing. That
is always done asynchron without any feedback of completion.
This is not correct. Look at the while loop in the init script and and
the udevsettle source.
will randomly fail or succeed depending on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i would be interested in the number of netsplits. do you have a diagram
for that, too?
No, but empirically it appears to me that OFTC splits at least as often
(and is 10 times smaller than freenode).
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The people who are on Freenode are there because it's irc.debian.org but
they don't care if it's Freenode or not.
How do you know?
I can also understand that some people prefer Freenode for historical
reasons but if you try to get the best for Debian, you can only
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After some discussion earlier in the day about music players,
ipods, and free software one can flash on ipods, I decided to clean
up my variant of the Green5 rockbox theme and presented screenshots
on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The images are still at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One might think private messages are useful in user support, but
#debian actually has a channel policy asking users not to send them
without permission. As a result, I don't get many private messages
from #debian users.
ACK.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I get and send a lot of /msg in my debian releated work. for me this is
To users who have not been long enough on the network to register?
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I get and send a lot of /msg in my debian releated work. for me this is
To users who have not been long enough on the network to register?
no, not to those and not to those others that feel that they are made to
jump through hoops and neither to those who left already.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is that the high amount of disconnection one gets from freenode
makes this a pain, especially as it is not clear for clients like irssi when
Do you? This is unusual, I have clients connected to freenode for many
weeks at a time. Maybe we should discuss this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm in favour as well.
I wonder, do you and the other me too people also have a reason to
justify switching?
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm talking about well after the OFTC formation. If there are that many
people dissatisfied with freenode, it seems likely that there are
How many? Let's add some data to the thread:
http://irc.netsplit.de/cgi-bin/ncompare.cgi?n1=freenoden2=OFTC
The multi-year graphs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've heard it suggested by a variety of people that we should move the
official irc.debian.org alias away from freenode to oftc. I can see
Yes, the lilo-haters have been saying this for years.
So far nobody proposed better arguments than we do not like freenode.
FWIW,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with Steve. While I agree that freenode has many flaws (the
biggest being NOIDPRIVMSG), I find that while I am in Debian channels on
Exactly, why is an optional feature such a big flaw?
I think it would also be useful to know about those other issues you are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with Steve. While I agree that freenode has many flaws (the
biggest being NOIDPRIVMSG), I find that while I am in Debian channels on
Exactly, why is an optional feature such a big flaw?
Because it's the default and practically no one changes it. This is a
Maybe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Really, even though UOL does not respond, does inflicting this kind of
thing on their users seem right?
Yes. Technically this is called a fuck you block, and it is often the
only way to get the attention of an uncooperative ISP which is causing
you troubles.
You are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure how debian should react to this. I'll send this to
debian-project, as it's not really a technical problem. Should
we react to the complaint in bug 296807, or encourage this
public good offered by WIX by keeping citylink as ftp.nz?
This kind of peering wars
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm no DNS wizzard, but do run a few small split view setups - I'd be
happy to do whatever I can to assist whomever has responsibility for
the Debian DNS setup.
I have some experience in dealing with complex DNS setups, so I doubt
that lack of manpower is so severe that
I have not received any suggestions about this, the debian-admins
have not answered my (or Joy's) mails and the CNAME is still wrong.
My original request is dated April 12.
I do not know what else I could do to work out a solution for this...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc'ed to make him aware of this
For more than a month now I have been asking debian-admins for an update
of the ftp2.it.debian.org CNAME. The change is not controversial in
itself (the host has been down for a few months due to hardware
failures, so I had the alias switched to a different mirror) and is
approved by Joy.
The
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This was voted in by an overwhelming majority of those voting, to make
Who were a tiny fraction of the total number of developers, probably
as a result of the changes being defined editoral (which for most
people means has no practical effect).
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the locales package is the place to start this. For etch, I
would like the UTF-8 locales to be the default for all languages (with
This would be stupid, pointless and would piss off a lot of people.
But since your native language is english I suppose that it may
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, because in many situations the users would only need to copy the
firmware binary from media they already have, and installing a package
from a different archive (and even more a new udeb) requires more work
for them and for us.
I imagine this firmware blob needs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 03:22:45PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
The larger problem is to identify non-free blobs in the main kernel,
extract them into non-free and modify the driver so that it is able
to load the blob from a user provided location; and include this in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Being in contrib doesn't mean that a work is evil, nor is contrib a
second cousin to non-free.
It means that something is not part of debian and is not acceptable for
install media, which looks like a big enough problem to me.
It would be silly to be able to move a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True enough. I have a harder time justifying to myself keeping such drivers
in main, but I also think that the infrastructure needed in order to support
grabbing firmware out of non-free (for things like the installer) could
easily work for the case of contrib driver +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I bet that, with some of these firmware blobs, we could
reverse-engineer and clean room clone them in a country with
permissive reverse engineering laws. At that point, we'd have
something that was definitely free.
I bet you could not, for interesting devices (DVB
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/4118
The latest two GRs made this is not really relevant, because what
OpenBSD is for is permission to redistribute the files which Debian
now considers non-free anyway.
--
ciao,
Marco
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why should firmware go to non-free, it's not evaluated on the CPU
that runs Debian.
Because the policy revisionists changed the DFSG to make it apply to
data as well.
I hope that post-sarge somebody will prove this point by hunting fonts
without source and similar evil
Please let me know if you run a debian mirror and see errors like this
one in the kernel log:
Jan 18 21:03:23 vlad-tepes kernel: UDP: bad checksum. From 62.254.117.4:33346
to 213.92.8.5:33612 ulen 20
I have been getting this kind of messages for a long time and all other
operators of mirrors
My position on this, as the linux.* administrator:
- addresses munging will make the gateway harder to use and will break
by-author search with google (I believe that the archiving by google
groups is one of the most important benefits of the gateway).
I believe this to be important enough
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A lot of legitimate mail can be trivially blocked this way, as well, which
is why it doesn't make sense to drop it on the server side.
No. Using SBL definitely does not block a lot of legitimate mail.
in some cases it does. using SPEWS for example would lead to all of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A lot of legitimate mail can be trivially blocked this way, as well, which
is why it doesn't make sense to drop it on the server side.
No. Using SBL definitely does not block a lot of legitimate mail.
--
ciao,
Marco
What some of the most vocal partecipants of this thread do not say is
that they have been former OPN staff members or servers sponsors.
I see a lot of politics playing here, and this is annoying.
(Full disclosure: I am a OPN staff member and server sponsor and this is
why I do not think it's
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
The IRCNet can run on a free basis because it get's sponsored by ISPs (like
Netsurf, Tisacali, NGNet, Edisontel, Stealth and so on) and universities
which
can produce traffic mostly for free.
Do you think OPN is paying for its bandwidth at the moment?
62 matches
Mail list logo
