also sprach Noah L. Meyerhans [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.07.16.0251 +0200]:
Basically what's happening is that FreeS/WAN very emphatically
refuses to accept any contributions from US citizens.
I usually support any political statement against the US government,
the Patriot Act, etc. because I
Jamin W. Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since when is a list header from a known list unreliable?
Since people may cc you personally, giving a transit path for a
message which does not contain said header. In other words, the
reason this subthread exists.
--
Alan Shutko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 08:31:30AM -0500, Alan Shutko wrote:
Jamin W. Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since when is a list header from a known list unreliable?
Since people may cc you personally, giving a transit path for a
message which does not contain said header. In other words,
also sprach Jamin W. Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.07.16.1709 +0200]:
Then the message was a peronsal message not a list message and thus the
filtering on list headers is not unreliable it worked perfectly.
Messages to the list end in the list box, messages to me end in a
personal box.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 12:52:11PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Noah L. Meyerhans [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.07.13.1935 +0200]:
Yeah, I'm not too happy about how freeswan is handled right now, either.
I just talked to Rene. the 1.99 to 2.0 switch requires a rewrite of
the
also sprach Mike Fedyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.07.15.2304 +0200]:
Unfortunately, what they are doing to keep the possibility of the
US government trying to take action against them, has caused the
mainline kernel developers to refuse to include their work in the
mainline kernel.
I haven't
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:28:30PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Mike Fedyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.07.15.2304 +0200]:
Unfortunately, what they are doing to keep the possibility of the
US government trying to take action against them, has caused the
mainline kernel developers to
also sprach Mike Fedyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.07.15.2358 +0200]:
If you read the mailing list you'll see many flame wars about
this. Also, it was mentioned on LKML before the competing IPsec
was merged too.
I don't read either anymore. I guess I'll get at the archives when
I have some time.
On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 12:02:53AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Mike Fedyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.07.15.2358 +0200]:
If you read the mailing list you'll see many flame wars about
this. Also, it was mentioned on LKML before the competing IPsec
was merged too.
I don't read
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 04:02:42PM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote:
Both messages will be identical except for the Received headers!
Procmail should put both in the same place, since if the message is
addressed to you, and the list, both messages will have the same
contents in To: and Cc:. They will
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 05:17:01PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 04:02:42PM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote:
Both messages will be identical except for the Received headers!
Procmail should put both in the same place, since if the message is
addressed to you, and the
Jamin W. Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not if you sort your mail by list headers rather than unreliable To: or
Cc: header lines.
Obviously both are unreliable. So sort on both.
--
Alan Shutko [EMAIL PROTECTED] - I am the rocks.
Oh boy, I'm supposed to speak Italian. -- Sam Beckett
--
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:28:30PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Mike Fedyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.07.15.2304 +0200]:
Unfortunately, what they are doing to keep the possibility of the
US government trying to take action against them, has caused the
mainline kernel developers to
Noah L. Meyerhans writes:
Basically what's happening is that FreeS/WAN very emphatically refuses to
accept any contributions from US citizens.
That's utterly asinine. If true it is sufficient reason for me to never
use FreeS/WAN.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood,
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 08:12:05PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Noah L. Meyerhans writes:
Basically what's happening is that FreeS/WAN very emphatically refuses to
accept any contributions from US citizens.
That's utterly asinine. If true it is sufficient reason for me to never
use
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 06:46:03PM -0500, Alan Shutko wrote:
Jamin W. Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not if you sort your mail by list headers rather than unreliable To: or
Cc: header lines.
Obviously both are unreliable. So sort on both.
Since when is a list header from a known
also sprach Noah L. Meyerhans [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003.07.13.1935 +0200]:
Yeah, I'm not too happy about how freeswan is handled right now, either.
I just talked to Rene. the 1.99 to 2.0 switch requires a rewrite of
the kernel-patch. Thus it will take a little longer. But there will
be a kernel
Rene isn't answering my mails. What happened to the FreeS/WAN kernel
patches? kernel-patch-freeswan-ext is gone, and
kernel-patch-freeswan is back to 1.96 (with 1.99 being the current
version). Moreover, freeswan-modules-source seems to be new.
I hope that Debian doesn't expect people to run
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 02:59:04PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
Rene isn't answering my mails. What happened to the FreeS/WAN kernel
patches? kernel-patch-freeswan-ext is gone, and
kernel-patch-freeswan is back to 1.96 (with 1.99 being the current
version). Moreover, freeswan-modules-source
19 matches
Mail list logo
