Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Previously Vineet Kumar wrote:
>
> > So are "please" and "thank you," but it's generally considered polite.
>
> Also using Mail-Followup-To is standard and expected behaviour on
> debian lists.
That's a reasonable requirement only when Debian add
On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 12:38:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Also using Mail-Followup-To is standard and expected behaviour on
> > debian lists.
>
> That's a reasonable requirement only when Debian adds support for
> Mail-Followup-To in all the MUA's that it supports.
Do we *support*
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Previously Vineet Kumar wrote:
>
> > So are "please" and "thank you," but it's generally considered polite.
>
> Also using Mail-Followup-To is standard and expected behaviour on
> debian lists.
That's a reasonable requirement only when Debian adds
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 22:25:36 -0600
Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 12:01:32PM -0800, J C Lawrence wrote:
>> Mail-Followup-To is a non-standard, un-RFC documented, generally
>> unsupported header.
> The guy is using mutt. mutt supports M-F-T. You figure it out.
Which ignores
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 08:25:36PM -0800, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 12:01:32PM -0800, J C Lawrence wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:57:05 -0600
> > Nathan E Norman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> > >> But his is hugely off topic, and I
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 22:25:36 -0600
Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 12:01:32PM -0800, J C Lawrence wrote:
>> Mail-Followup-To is a non-standard, un-RFC documented, generally
>> unsupported header.
> The guy is using mutt. mutt supports M-F-T. You figure it out.
Which ignore
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 12:01:32PM -0800, J C Lawrence wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:57:05 -0600
> Nathan E Norman wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> >> But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this
> >> road.
>
> > Could you at least honor my
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 08:25:36PM -0800, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 12:01:32PM -0800, J C Lawrence wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:57:05 -0600
> > Nathan E Norman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> > >> But his is hugely off topic, and
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 12:01:32PM -0800, J C Lawrence wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:57:05 -0600
> Nathan E Norman wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> >> But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this
> >> road.
>
> > Could you at least honor m
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 03:40:42PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> If you use a header that is not universally supported, or even
> supported by a fairly popular mail client (Mutt in this case) or
> frequently used (if not popular) MTA (Exchange in this case), then
> you can't really complain
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 03:40:42PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> If you use a header that is not universally supported, or even
> supported by a fairly popular mail client (Mutt in this case) or
> frequently used (if not popular) MTA (Exchange in this case), then
> you can't really complai
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 01:00:58PM -0800, Vineet Kumar wrote:
> * J C Lawrence ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [011120 12:04]:
> > On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:57:05 -0600
> > Nathan E Norman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> > >> But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futh
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 13:00:58 -0800
Vineet Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * J C Lawrence ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [011120 12:04]:
>> Mail-Followup-To is a non-standard, un-RFC documented, generally
>> unsupported header.
> So are "please" and "thank you," but it's generally considered
> polite.
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, J C Lawrence wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:57:05 -0600
>Nathan E Norman wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
>>> But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this
>>> road.
>
>> Could you at least honor my Mail-Followup-To: header?
>
On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 01:00:58PM -0800, Vineet Kumar wrote:
> * J C Lawrence ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [011120 12:04]:
> > On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:57:05 -0600
> > Nathan E Norman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> > >> But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no fut
Previously Vineet Kumar wrote:
> So are "please" and "thank you," but it's generally considered polite.
Also using Mail-Followup-To is standard and expected behaviour on
debian lists.
Wichert.
--
_
/[EMAIL PROTECTED] T
* J C Lawrence ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [011120 12:04]:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:57:05 -0600
> Nathan E Norman wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> >> But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this
> >> road.
>
> > Could you at least honor my Mail-Follo
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 13:00:58 -0800
Vineet Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * J C Lawrence ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [011120 12:04]:
>> Mail-Followup-To is a non-standard, un-RFC documented, generally
>> unsupported header.
> So are "please" and "thank you," but it's generally considered
> polite.
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, J C Lawrence wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:57:05 -0600
>Nathan E Norman wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
>>> But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this
>>> road.
>
>> Could you at least honor my Mail-Followup-To: header?
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:57:05 -0600
Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
>> But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this
>> road.
> Could you at least honor my Mail-Followup-To: header?
Mail-Followup-To is a non-standard, un-RFC documen
Previously Vineet Kumar wrote:
> So are "please" and "thank you," but it's generally considered polite.
Also using Mail-Followup-To is standard and expected behaviour on
debian lists.
Wichert.
--
_
[EMAIL PROTECTED] T
* J C Lawrence ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [011120 12:04]:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:57:05 -0600
> Nathan E Norman wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> >> But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this
> >> road.
>
> > Could you at least honor my Mail-Foll
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:57:05 -0600
Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
>> But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this
>> road.
> Could you at least honor my Mail-Followup-To: header?
Mail-Followup-To is a non-standard, un-RFC docume
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 07:57:05PM -0800, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> > But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this road.
>
> Could you at least honor my Mail-Followup-To: header?
I would have if I saw it.
Mutt d
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 07:57:05PM -0800, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> > But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this road.
>
> Could you at least honor my Mail-Followup-To: header?
I would have if I saw it.
Mutt
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this road.
Could you at least honor my Mail-Followup-To: header?
Thanks,
--
Nathan Norman - Staff Engineer | A good plan today is better
Micromuse Ltd. | than a p
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> But his is hugely off topic, and I'll go no futher down this road.
Could you at least honor my Mail-Followup-To: header?
Thanks,
--
Nathan Norman - Staff Engineer | A good plan today is better
Micromuse Ltd. | than a
>From: John Galt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>delete. You're missing a large point here: root doesn't have to have
RWX
>access on everything to be able to do their job, -WX may do the trick.
So, root does not need total file access in order to do some subset of
functions which you, or the NSA, co
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 02:14:54PM -0800, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 01:47:40PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> > > enviroments and applications to figure out what it takes to make a
> > > system really consistent and usable for you. Even if you pick some
> > > things that aren't qui
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 04:14:54PM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> Install Netscape 4.x, 6.x, Mozilla, and IE on a windows box.
>
> Good luck expecting the same key strokes to do the same thing in each
> application.
Just tried this (except for Netscape 6.x) -- and at least Ctrl-F,
Ctrl-A, Ctrl-
>From: John Galt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>delete. You're missing a large point here: root doesn't have to have
RWX
>access on everything to be able to do their job, -WX may do the trick.
So, root does not need total file access in order to do some subset of
functions which you, or the NSA, c
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 01:47:40PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> > enviroments and applications to figure out what it takes to make a
> > system really consistent and usable for you. Even if you pick some
> > things that aren't quite finished as part of your enviroment, if they
> > are part of an activ
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 12:46:21PM -0800, James Hamilton wrote:
> My Gnome/X/Debian GNU/Linux Desktop is much "slicker" than
> anything I have ever been able to do with Windows. The Gnome
> apps have a fairly consistent interface as well. There is a steeper and
> longer learning curve to learn h
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 02:14:54PM -0800, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 01:47:40PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> > > enviroments and applications to figure out what it takes to make a
> > > system really consistent and usable for you. Even if you pick some
> > > things that aren't qu
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 04:14:54PM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> Install Netscape 4.x, 6.x, Mozilla, and IE on a windows box.
>
> Good luck expecting the same key strokes to do the same thing in each
> application.
Just tried this (except for Netscape 6.x) -- and at least Ctrl-F,
Ctrl-A, Ctrl
My Gnome/X/Debian GNU/Linux Desktop is much "slicker" than
anything I have ever been able to do with Windows. The Gnome
apps have a fairly consistent interface as well. There is a steeper and
longer learning curve to learn how to really use X and Unix, but I would
say that is an asset for member
> "Petro" == Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I am just dying to find out why this is so. I find the unices I
>> work with to be much more usable than any incarnation of
>> Windows. So what exactly do you put into 'usability'?
Petro> Consistency of UI, availibility and integration of
Hi,
> >Root Is God. This is a multi-user, full-time, "networked" device. Root
> >bears the responsibility of everything that happens to that machine.
> >They are answerable to everyone, not just one user.
>
> No, root had best not be god. NSA Rainbow book pretty much states that
> for C systems t
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 12:30:34AM -0800, Martin Christensen wrote:
> > "Petro" == Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Petro> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 10:24:05AM +0900, Howland, Curtis
> Petro> wrote:
> >> ps: From a personal perspective, I think Linux is about where
> >> Windows 3.0 was. This
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 01:47:40PM -0800, Petro wrote:
> > enviroments and applications to figure out what it takes to make a
> > system really consistent and usable for you. Even if you pick some
> > things that aren't quite finished as part of your enviroment, if they
> > are part of an acti
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 12:46:21PM -0800, James Hamilton wrote:
> My Gnome/X/Debian GNU/Linux Desktop is much "slicker" than
> anything I have ever been able to do with Windows. The Gnome
> apps have a fairly consistent interface as well. There is a steeper and
> longer learning curve to learn
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Howland, Curtis wrote:
>To be blunt, I don't think one can entirely protect ones self from root,
>nor do I believe it's an "All Good" idea.
>
>Root Is God. This is a multi-user, full-time, "networked" device. Root
>bears the responsibility of everything that happens to that ma
My Gnome/X/Debian GNU/Linux Desktop is much "slicker" than
anything I have ever been able to do with Windows. The Gnome
apps have a fairly consistent interface as well. There is a steeper and
longer learning curve to learn how to really use X and Unix, but I would
say that is an asset for membe
> "Petro" == Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I am just dying to find out why this is so. I find the unices I
>> work with to be much more usable than any incarnation of
>> Windows. So what exactly do you put into 'usability'?
Petro> Consistency of UI, availibility and integration of
Hi,
> >Root Is God. This is a multi-user, full-time, "networked" device. Root
> >bears the responsibility of everything that happens to that machine.
> >They are answerable to everyone, not just one user.
>
> No, root had best not be god. NSA Rainbow book pretty much states that
> for C systems
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 12:30:34AM -0800, Martin Christensen wrote:
> > "Petro" == Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Petro> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 10:24:05AM +0900, Howland, Curtis
> Petro> wrote:
> >> ps: From a personal perspective, I think Linux is about where
> >> Windows 3.0 was. This
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 09:30:34AM +0100, Martin Christensen typed out the
following...
> > "Petro" == Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Petro> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 10:24:05AM +0900, Howland, Curtis
> Petro> wrote:
> >> ps: From a personal perspective, I think Linux is about where
> >> W
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Howland, Curtis wrote:
>To be blunt, I don't think one can entirely protect ones self from root,
>nor do I believe it's an "All Good" idea.
>
>Root Is God. This is a multi-user, full-time, "networked" device. Root
>bears the responsibility of everything that happens to that m
> "Petro" == Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Petro> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 10:24:05AM +0900, Howland, Curtis
Petro> wrote:
>> ps: From a personal perspective, I think Linux is about where
>> Windows 3.0 was. This is not a troll, just a usability thing.
Petro> No, it's about where win3.1
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 09:30:34AM +0100, Martin Christensen typed out the following...
> > "Petro" == Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Petro> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 10:24:05AM +0900, Howland, Curtis
> Petro> wrote:
> >> ps: From a personal perspective, I think Linux is about where
> >> W
> "Petro" == Petro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Petro> On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 10:24:05AM +0900, Howland, Curtis
Petro> wrote:
>> ps: From a personal perspective, I think Linux is about where
>> Windows 3.0 was. This is not a troll, just a usability thing.
Petro> No, it's about where win3.
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 10:24:05AM +0900, Howland, Curtis wrote:
> ps: From a personal perspective, I think Linux is about where Windows
> 3.0 was. This is not a troll, just a usability thing.
No, it's about where win3.11 was in a lot of ways. Modulo the
stability &&etc.
--
Share and En
To be blunt, I don't think one can entirely protect ones self from root,
nor do I believe it's an "All Good" idea.
Root Is God. This is a multi-user, full-time, "networked" device. Root
bears the responsibility of everything that happens to that machine.
They are answerable to everyone, not just o
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 10:24:05AM +0900, Howland, Curtis wrote:
> ps: From a personal perspective, I think Linux is about where Windows
> 3.0 was. This is not a troll, just a usability thing.
No, it's about where win3.11 was in a lot of ways. Modulo the
stability &&etc.
--
Share and E
To be blunt, I don't think one can entirely protect ones self from root,
nor do I believe it's an "All Good" idea.
Root Is God. This is a multi-user, full-time, "networked" device. Root
bears the responsibility of everything that happens to that machine.
They are answerable to everyone, not just
55 matches
Mail list logo
