On Sun, 24 May 2009 10:43:36 -0300, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI in
gmane.linux.debian.user wrote:
> Tony Baldwin wrote:
>> You would think, icedove being the brainchild of the debian movement,
>> that it would include this option for users on the debian lists.
>> Não faz sentido...
>>
>
> Even if Deb
On Sun,24.May.09, 09:38:01, Tony Baldwin wrote:
> Andrei Popescu wrote:
>> On Sun,24.May.09, 08:04:09, Tony Baldwin wrote:
>>
Well, one can always use some other client. Claws-mail is a very
good one if you don't like/want mutt.
>>> Yeah, I've noted this behavior (using icedove).
>>> Wh
Tony Baldwin wrote:
> You would think, icedove being the brainchild of the debian movement,
> that it would include this option for users on the debian lists.
> Não faz sentido...
>
Even if Debian made a patch, it should be sent upstream to be added to
the main trunk. It's quite annoying that
Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
Tony Baldwin wrote:
Yeah, I've noted this behavior (using icedove).
Why don't replies go to the list?
Are you saying that they will if I use mutt?
Not automatically. But mutt includes a command 'reply to list' (shift+L,
I think) that eases replying to the list.
Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Sun,24.May.09, 08:04:09, Tony Baldwin wrote:
Well, one can always use some other client. Claws-mail is a very good
one if you don't like/want mutt.
Yeah, I've noted this behavior (using icedove).
Why don't replies go to the list?
Because you must use reply-to-list ;
Tony Baldwin wrote:
> Yeah, I've noted this behavior (using icedove).
> Why don't replies go to the list?
>
> Are you saying that they will if I use mutt?
>
Not automatically. But mutt includes a command 'reply to list' (shift+L,
I think) that eases replying to the list. Icedove lacks such a co
On Sun,24.May.09, 14:43:56, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
> What a heck is that auto-reply thing (below)?
[snip]
Looks like a challenge-response to me. Quite bad, but on the other hand
you did Cc him ;)
Regards,
Andrei
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(Albert E
On Sun,24.May.09, 08:04:09, Tony Baldwin wrote:
>> Well, one can always use some other client. Claws-mail is a very good
>> one if you don't like/want mutt.
>
> Yeah, I've noted this behavior (using icedove).
> Why don't replies go to the list?
Because you must use reply-to-list ;)
> Are you s
On Sun, 2009-05-24 at 14:37 +0200, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 13:18 -0700, Todd A. Jacobs wrote:
> > On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 01:53:08AM +0700, Sthu Deus wrote:
> >
> > > I have noticed that for some users in /etc/passwd the shell
> > > environment is set as bash and for some as
On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 13:18 -0700, Todd A. Jacobs wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 01:53:08AM +0700, Sthu Deus wrote:
>
> > I have noticed that for some users in /etc/passwd the shell
> > environment is set as bash and for some as sh. This has led me to the
> > following questions:
> > . Why is it
Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Thu,21.May.09, 14:43:03, Paul Scott wrote:
Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Wed,20.May.09, 21:09:02, Muzer wrote:
Damn, I did it again, sending it to one person rather than everyone! I
really need to get used to this mailing list lark.
There's a reply-to-list exten
On Thu,21.May.09, 13:46:19, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 01:19:24PM -0700, Ken Teague wrote:
> > Sthu Deus wrote:
> >> Good day.
> >>
> >> I have noticed that for some users in /etc/passwd the shell environment
> >> is set as bash and for some as sh. This has led me to the followi
On Thu,21.May.09, 14:43:03, Paul Scott wrote:
> Andrei Popescu wrote:
>> On Wed,20.May.09, 21:09:02, Muzer wrote:
>>
>>> Damn, I did it again, sending it to one person rather than everyone! I
>>> really need to get used to this mailing list lark.
>>>
>>
>> There's a reply-to-list extensi
Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Wed,20.May.09, 21:09:02, Muzer wrote:
Damn, I did it again, sending it to one person rather than everyone! I
really need to get used to this mailing list lark.
There's a reply-to-list extension for Thunderbird.
Not counting that the current version of
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 01:53:08AM +0700, Sthu Deus wrote:
> I have noticed that for some users in /etc/passwd the shell
> environment is set as bash and for some as sh. This has led me to the
> following questions:
> . Why is it so, meaning what is the meaning of it?
System accounts and system s
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 01:19:24PM -0700, Ken Teague wrote:
> Sthu Deus wrote:
>> Good day.
>>
>> I have noticed that for some users in /etc/passwd the shell environment
>> is set as bash and for some as sh. This has led me to the following
>> questions:
>>
>> . Why is it so, meaning what is the me
Ken Teague writes:
> In Debian, absolutely nothing since it's a symbolic link to bash...
"man bash" and read the "INVOCATION" section.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Wed,20.May.09, 21:09:02, Muzer wrote:
Damn, I did it again, sending it to one person rather than everyone! I
really need to get used to this mailing list lark.
There's a reply-to-list extension for Thunderbird.
Regards,
Andrei
Thanks, I'll look that up
Sthu Deus wrote:
Good day.
I have noticed that for some users in /etc/passwd the shell environment
is set as bash and for some as sh. This has led me to the following
questions:
. Why is it so, meaning what is the meaning of it?
. Do I give more insecure environment to a user setting for him sh
On Wed,20.May.09, 21:09:02, Muzer wrote:
> Damn, I did it again, sending it to one person rather than everyone! I
> really need to get used to this mailing list lark.
There's a reply-to-list extension for Thunderbird.
Regards,
Andrei
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it
Sthu Deus wrote:
Good day.
I have noticed that for some users in /etc/passwd the shell environment
is set as bash and for some as sh. This has led me to the following
questions:
. Why is it so, meaning what is the meaning of it?
. Do I give more insecure environment to a user setting for him s
On Thu,21.May.09, 01:53:08, Sthu Deus wrote:
> Good day.
>
> I have noticed that for some users in /etc/passwd the shell environment
> is set as bash and for some as sh. This has led me to the following
> questions:
>
> . Why is it so, meaning what is the meaning of it?
bash is better suited for
Good day.
I have noticed that for some users in /etc/passwd the shell environment
is set as bash and for some as sh. This has led me to the following
questions:
. Why is it so, meaning what is the meaning of it?
. Do I give more insecure environment to a user setting for him sh
instead of bash?
23 matches
Mail list logo
