On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:45:21 +0100, George Borisov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Also, I don't like to cause unnecessary offence, so when you
>misinterpreted my words to imply such offence, I wanted to
>clarify that none was intended.
I don't believe you.
>As I am the looser here, this will be my
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:38:38 +0300, Andrei Popescu
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >I'm not an administrator, but I do work in a customer-oriented field.
>> And what field is that?
>Airline (not low-cost)
Airlines? This should light a good firestorm.
>So, in your opinion, if other large busin
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:12:37 +0300, Andrei Popescu
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm not an administrator, but I do work in a customer-oriented field.
>One of the first rules to learn is "Don't treat your customers like
>numbers in a statistic. They are real persons with real problems and
>feelings"
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:05:13 +0100, George Borisov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You started this by saying your "experience" contradicts my "opinion"
>> to imply that I don't know what I'm talking about.
>When I said my experience contradicts your opinion I meant
>exactly that, word for word.
R
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 09:54:55 -0700, Raquel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> I'll never give up my trusty old mail/news client. It's ten
>> times faster than using a web forum.
>Forums are searchable where many email lists archives are not.
Raquel, that's true. But some of us die-hards keep our ow
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:55:18 +0100, George Borisov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>John Kelly wrote:
>> So I only have an opinion, without experience? How would you know?
>I don't, so I make no assumptions that you do.
>> When you're near the bottom of the a
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:38:18 -0400 (EDT), "Wolfe, Robert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I know this is off-topic, but since BBSes were mentioned, I should
>mention that I run one of these dinosaurs :)
The online experience will never get any better than a 33.6 modem
connection to BBS text mode inte
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 09:59:25 -0400, "Roberto C. Sanchez"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think that people who value their time and effort more tend to
>prefer the mailing list as it represents a much more efficient way
>to communicate.
The click-wait, click-wait, click-wait, when using a web forum
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:46:20 +0100, George Borisov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>John Kelly wrote:
>> Many users won't complain, because they're glad to have an INBOX free
>> of porn spam and other garbage. For that, they don't mind sacrificing
>> a pot
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:16:03 -0700, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Webforums are to communications as email/newsgroups/BBSes were in
> the mid-80s. Why anyone would want to go back 20 years is beyond me.
Webforums are too slow and cumbersome to read. I can read 10 times
faster with my
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 21:29:20 +0200, Stephan Seitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>You may tag mails, yes, but not more, unless you have a written
>permission from me to do so, and I am informed about the risks.
My server, my rules. Who are you.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:16:23 -0500, "Seth Goodman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I do not operate large MTA's, though I have known people who do and they
>are definitely not fools. They understood that testing for forward DNS
>!= reverse DNS at connection time is an extremely cheap way to reduce
>t
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 04:18:56 -0500, "Mumia W.."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The solution is to gently ask spamcop to exclude debian-formatted
>subscription confirmation messages from causing a listing. If they don't
>accommodate, then there is nothing we can do.
If spamcop is not self motivated
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 16:33:26 -0500, "Seth Goodman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But once you get a grip and hang on for a while, you realize that
>> sacrificing 2% is a piece of cake.
>If users value reliably getting their messages more than they value spam
>reduction, which seems to be the case
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:53:28 -0500, "Seth Goodman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The improper DNS false positive rate is low, less than 2%.
>It's a pity, but very few people think in terms of winning the spam war
>anymore. Most systems would consider this false positive rate unusable
>by a large
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:15:58 -0400, Stephen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But debian-user is more than a mailing list. It's also gated to the
>> Usenet newsgroup linux.debian.user, where anyone can post.
>> Spam filtering of non subscribers, after the fact, is the only method
>> possible, under
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:39:08 -0400, Stephen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It's not appropriate in my view, to allow anyone to post to debian-user,
>without first subscribing. Apparently, anyone can post to debian-user,
>without needing to do that step. I don't buy the argument that it's too
>much of
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:00:24 +0200, "Daniele P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I want only to remark that debian mailing lists are source of spam.
>Additionally I'm not happy with my current solution (whitelist), but
>right now I don't have a plan to add and additional specific filter
>configurati
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:42:35 -0400 (EDT), Justin Piszcz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Any spam blacklist that is not saving my time, is wasting my time.
>> Good riddance to spamcop.
>A better method is to use www.policyd-weight.org,
Believe it or not, not everyone runs postfix.
>this takes the
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:01:58 +0200, "Daniele P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> When spamcop admins don't have enough sense to whitelist servers like
>> murphy.debian.org, it's time to abandon them
>I don't agree. I have whitelisted the debian mailing lists. They are the
>first (and the only) sou
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:01:38 -0500, "Seth Goodman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> require matching DNS, forward and reverse
> it is not strictly RFC-compliant
Though not saying MUST, there is an RFC that recommends it. Which
one, is a good exercise for the reader.
> some large servers won't us
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:33:05 -0500, "Seth Goodman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Did anyone investigate the problem and make this request?
If they're not self motivated, I have no incentive to use them.
>Any DNSBL is subject to gaming by spammers who would like to curtail
>the use of DNSBL's in g
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:08:20 -0500, "Seth Goodman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 20, 2006 7:22 AM -0500, John Kelly wrote:
>> For the second time in the past few days, spamcop has listed
>> murphy.debian.org. That's it. I'm done w
For the second time in the past few days, spamcop has listed
murphy.debian.org. That's it. I'm done with spamcop!
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 19:12:59 -0400, "Roberto C. Sanchez"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I use a customized version version of this configuration:
>http://jimsun.linxnet.com/misc/postfix-anti-UCE.txt
Prohibit piplining? Could be a drag on performance.
I don't even use the 2 second greet pause my di
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 16:19:25 -0400, "Roberto C. Sanchez"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why is someone sending random text to the list?
>It is an effort to screw up spam filters that people train. They
>spammers figure that if they send enough random gibberish, your spam
>filter will overlook the
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 00:05:36 -0600, Nate Duehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Generally anything that requires you to write a configuration file that
>then writes another configuration file ... is over-engineered.
Automake? Autoconf? M4?
>anyone who doesn't know what they're doing can FUBAR any
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 21:29:28 -0700, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Friday 01 September 2006 19:48, John Kelly wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 20:33:38 -0700, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >I follow debian-security and I used to follow Bugtraq fairly c
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 20:33:38 -0700, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I follow debian-security and I used to follow Bugtraq fairly closely.
What's the ratio of sendmail bugs to linux kernel bugs?
>sendmail.cf is not trivial.
Even Eric Allman says to treat it as a binary, and use .mc file
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 18:38:55 -0700, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Design weakness.
Opinions without facts are like [blank] without [blank].
>It's a pretty hefty package with new bugs turning up on a
>somewhat regular basis. It's not as commonly used as it used to be,
>thankfully.
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 12:49:48 +0200, Martin Möller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Do you have some expirience with sendmail
Sendmail has the best integration with cyrus imapd, via socket maps.
Sendmail also has a commercial organization which relies on the open
source codebase, so you have more than
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:35:12 -0700, tom arnall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Is there another place where bootup messages are recorded?
Does your /etc/default/bootlogd say:
> # Run bootlogd at startup ?
> BOOTLOGD_ENABLE=yes
That captures additional messages in /var/log/boot
Be cautious though,
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:23:52 -0400 (EDT), Faheem Mitha
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Release.gpg keys on security.debian.org are currently empty files. This
>only seems to be causing problems on one machine, but does anyone know
>what is going on here, and how long it might be before it is fixed?
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:21:14 -0400, "Roberto C. Sanchez"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 04:31:46PM +0100, John Kelly wrote:
>> When searching for IMAP clients and servers with SASL DIGEST-MD5, I'm
>> overwhelmed by outdated information an
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:47:52 +0300, David Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> >I have no such modules: vzdev, vzmon, vzdquota.
>>
>> OpenVZ won't work without them. Sounds like you don't have an OpenVZ
>> kernel installed (or booted).
>
>make-kpkg listed a lot of patch.o's being compiled and clai
Hello Clive,
Monday, August 28, 2006, 7:16:14 PM, you wrote:
> On (28/08/06 17:24), John Kelly wrote:
>> I know about Dovecot, but it's still a moving target, too new for me.
> I've been running dovecot on a couple of sarge servers for nearly two years
> and it's
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:06:41 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, John Kelly wrote:
>> When searching for IMAP clients and servers with SASL DIGEST-MD5, I'm
>> overwhelmed by outdated information and dead projects.
>
Hi,
When searching for IMAP clients and servers with SASL DIGEST-MD5, I'm
overwhelmed by outdated information and dead projects.
Any (up to date) information welcome.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:59:28 +0300, David Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>( do not know what you mean by set -x here. )
"set -x" in a bash script, can help you debug the script.
man bash
>I have no such modules: vzdev, vzmon, vzdquota.
OpenVZ won't work without them. Sounds like you don't
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:22:33 +0300, David Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Startup of Openvz, which I assume "populates" /dev/vzdev
I don't have a /dev/vzdev
>fails with an error message "unregistered protocal family 17"
>Doing a grep on dmesg for such yields:
>NET: Registered protocol family
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 23:10:21 -0400, you wrote:
>Has anyone on the list used spamcop ( http://www.spamcop.net/ ) to report
>spam? It takes sometime to report the spam. Is it worth investing that much
>time? What are your experiences? Are there any better alternatives?
I don't report any spam to
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:21:27 -0500, Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> $70 dollars seems a bit steep.
> I pay less than that ... at http://tera-byte.com (in Canada)
And I see their $45 package only includes 15GB monthly transfer.
Velocity includes 400GB monthly transfer with their $69.95
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 09:17:03 -0400, Mark D Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>can anyone recommend a good hosting company
I'm considering using http://www.velocityserver.com/ since they offer
a dedicated server for $69.95 monthly and will preinstall debian.
Anybody know much about them?
--
To
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 22:15:31 -0500, Debian User Leonard Chatagnier
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm still trying to get a stable system for the last six months that
>I've been using Debian ... Out of 3 or 4 sarge installs, only the last
>one via testing worked out of the box and booted normally. T
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 00:30:53 +0100, Carlos Rodrigues
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>weird output in /proc/cpuinfo, like "cpu MHz: 0.000"
Have you seen ftp://ftp.cvut.cz/vmware/readme.txt which says:
> Work around problem when cpu MHz is reported as '0.000 MHz'
Looks like Petr's update 91 has a f
I need to choose a filesystem for many small files. I read that
reiser is good, but I also see reports of problems with reiser, so I
wonder if I should use jfs instead.
--
A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
A: Because it m
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:21:06 +0100, michael
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 15:15 -0400, John Kelly wrote:
>> When booting, I see console messages from programs using stdout and
>> stderr, scrolling by too fast to read. They are not logged in dmesg
&g
When booting, I see console messages from programs using stdout and
stderr, scrolling by too fast to read. They are not logged in dmesg
or any /var/log file.
How to capture them?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:51:51 -0400, Patrick Wiseman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I would hate to write a backwards compiler to compile your
>> backwards programs.
> I think I do actually write my programs backwards .. from how it
> will look to the enduser.
That's top down development vs. botto
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 21:09:25 -0400, Patrick Wiseman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I also code a good bit, and appreciate the need to do that
> in an orderly (essentially vertical) way
Programmers know that "sequence" is the first of three fundamental
elements of programming.
> I'm still a b
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 22:06:11 +0100, Graham Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I actually prefer top posting ... I find it quicker to read just
>the top section of each post rather than having to scroll down past
>everything I've already read.
Perhaps, when people are too lazy to trim. But notice
51 matches
Mail list logo
