None of those things are realproblems. I've set up the port to be
hosted on MASTER_SITE_LOCAL for now, but Lyndon's free to go and host
it wherever he likes, organise whatever community support he likes (if
theres nontrivial interest he could surely even get a freebsd.org
mailing list set
On Sat, Oct 06, 2001 at 03:26:40AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
I could rent one at a colocation facility. But I live in Silicon
Valley, and I can't even get a connection faster than an ISDN line;
I'm 2000 feet too far away for DSL.
Uh Terry, you know very well you have a freefall.freebsd.org
David O'Brien wrote:
On Sat, Oct 06, 2001 at 03:26:40AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
I could rent one at a colocation facility. But I live in Silicon
Valley, and I can't even get a connection faster than an ISDN line;
I'm 2000 feet too far away for DSL.
Uh Terry, you know very well
On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 01:25:29AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
So while you are correct that there is an account there, I can't
log into it right now, and I don't know to whom I should send
the passwd file line now that I'm able to do that, since the
changeover was long enough ago that the
On Sat, Oct 06, 2001 at 02:23:35PM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
On Sat, 6 Oct 2001 02:53:21 -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sat, Oct 06, 2001 at 02:25:37AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
I know *you* have full-time IP connectivity to the internet and the
ability
Okay, I hope putting my $.02 in here does not get me into this war. I just
have a comment/concern.
Taking uucp out of the system will leave a security hole around will it not?.
Actually I think this will make it worse. Now the users (unless they install
a fresh system) are left with the uucp
In regards to UUCP as a port, I think it's a good idea. There is
nothing preventing us from including the dist files in the CD
distribution so network connectivity is not needed for someone to
install it.
If someone else puts together the port I would be happy to provide
Matt Dillon wrote:
In regards to UUCP as a port, I think it's a good idea. There is
nothing preventing us from including the dist files in the CD
distribution so network connectivity is not needed for someone to
install it.
If someone else puts together the port I
On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 12:33:56 CST, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
What are *you* doing to address the problem? Are you stepping up as a
maintainer?
Yes. If you read the list archives you will see I've done so
twice in the past already.
This looks good. I can think of several people who must
Mike Bristow wrote:
I support it's removal, because I think that software that is used
by a tiny fraction of the userbase (and I suspect that uucp fits
into that catagory) should be removed from the core distribution,
and made into a seperate package; provided that obtaining the
package and
Nate Williams wrote:
Umm, how did you get FreeBSD installed in the first place, if you didn't
have IP connectivity and no CDROM?
Start with 386BSD 0.1 floppies and upgrade your way to
-current via uuencoded email...
Oh yeah, baby!
IP connectivity is necessary to get the OS installed, so
. o O ( Why am I bothering to answer these questions again? Terry is
just talking to hear his own voice. )
On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 02:54:49AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
Who commists the patches to the port?
A FreeBSD ports committer. Me, if the maintainer (Lyndon) can't find
anyone
UUCP has many valid uses. Even today. If you don't understand the
software, that's fine with me. Just don't use your ignorance as
an excuse to dike the software out. Or more precisely, admit
you want to rip the code out because you don't understand what
it is, rather than making up specious
Just like with anonymous FTP, don't make it world writable if you don't
want the world writing to it.
Right - that's what actually was done.
Don't install it unless you need.
Oh give me a break. You do not disable anonymous FTP uploads by
'rm /usr/libexec/ftpd'.
I'm talking about the
Again I ask: if maintenance is an issue, why would you not even
attempt to find a maintainer?
How do you find a maintainer? Do you run a contest on your favourite TV
channel or what? Maintainers appear by themselves or they don't. Considering
how long UUCP has been unmaintained, they don't in
I don't get your point - what is wrong with having it a port?
Well, here's one reason:
1) Remove all the network interfaces from your system (Ethernet,
PPP, SL/IP, etc).
2) cd into /usr/ports and try to build UUCP.
Unless you have a prepopulated /usr/ports/distfiles, it won't
What are *you* doing to address the problem? Are you stepping up as a
maintainer?
Yes. If you read the list archives you will see I've done so
twice in the past already.
Are you willing to fix the problems with UUCP in FreeBSD as it is
Yes.
How much time are you willing to contribute?
As
What are *you* doing to address the problem? Are you stepping up as a
maintainer?
Yes. If you read the list archives you will see I've done so
twice in the past already.
Are you willing to fix the problems with UUCP in FreeBSD as it is
Yes.
How much time are you willing to
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 12:14:49PM -0600, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
I'm talking about the one in FreeBSD.
uux job is to setup the commands for the next site and break the
next sitename if it equals 8 letters.
That's strange. For over two years I've talked hourly to a pair
of UUCP sites
On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 01:36:26PM -0600, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
All these solutions assume that everyone is wired up with IP
connectivity. The original questions was who uses UUCP?
Me.
UUCP has many valid uses. Even today. If you don't understand the
software, that's fine with me. Just
There are many other points - some examples I know of:
The /var/spool/uucppublic which is writeable by everyone.
Usually you don't want this.
Just like with anonymous FTP, don't make it world writable if you don't
want the world writing to it.
Ever received a mail with an envelope like foo
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 10:35:14AM +0930, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
UUCP still gets used. It's one of the few sane ways to handle email in
a laptop environment when you're always connecting through different
dialups/ISPs. It has mostly fallen out of favour due to ignorance and
FUD. Which
All these solutions assume that everyone is wired up with IP
connectivity. The original questions was who uses UUCP?
Correct.
One answer is: those without IP connectivity.
Do you mean 'full-time IP connectivity', because if you can setup a UUCP
connection, you can just as easily setup a PPP
All these solutions assume that everyone is wired up with IP
connectivity. The original questions was who uses UUCP?
One answer is: those without IP connectivity. Part of the problem
here I suspect is that the people who develop and maintain FreeBSD
live a life where a T-3 into your livingroom
Nate Williams wrote:
POP and IMAP (I think) will lose all the envelope information,
You've been listening to Terry too long. It's certainly not the case,
although I've decided to quit arguing with Terry, since it's an
excercise in futility. No matter what you say, he'll either change the
POP and IMAP (I think) will lose all the envelope information,
You've been listening to Terry too long. It's certainly not the case,
although I've decided to quit arguing with Terry, since it's an
excercise in futility. No matter what you say, he'll either change the
subject or
Julian Elischer wrote:
See above. fetchmail + pop works fine. I've been get all of my envelope
information, and there is no worries.
This has noty been the case where I have seen..
This requires that you have a mailbox set up on the server which can
'encode' all of the envelope
Interestingly, Microsoft Exchange is one of the few commercial
SMTP servers that can handle more than a few hundred ETRN based
virtual domain instances. Go figure...
Any Q-Mail based solution using the commonly available ETRN patch also
scales well, although you have to 'roll your own'
On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 02:34:51PM -0600, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
Do you mean 'full-time IP connectivity', because if you can setup a UUCP
connection, you can just as easily setup a PPP connection over the same
medium, giving you IP connectivity.
True, but there's a lot more
Do you mean 'full-time IP connectivity', because if you can setup a UUCP
connection, you can just as easily setup a PPP connection over the same
medium, giving you IP connectivity.
True, but there's a lot more infrastructure overhead involved in
setting up a group of disconnected machines via
On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:55:08PM -0600, Nate Williams wrote:
Tell me, is your mail compliant with the non-disclosure of Bcc:
recipients requirement? If fetchmail doesn't strip the tunneling
headers (it doesn't), then the headers disclose Bcc:'ed
recipients to anyone who chooses to
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 11:51:32AM -0600, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
Ruslan == Ruslan Ermilov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ruslan It doesn't really matter what the home directory is set to
Ruslan (IIRC), but the shell must be uucico(8).
No, this is wrong on both counts.
By
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 07:12:37PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
NO,
POP and IMAP (I think) will lose all the envelope information,
There are ugly methods of puting these into extended header.
I don't like it.
UUCP keeps that..
SMTP is a PUSH operation..
Not neccesarily - there are
On 02-Oct-2001 Bernd Walter wrote:
But UUCP is also independend from an IP connection and can run on
nearly every bidirectional communication channel - even loosy.
And UUCP restarts a dropped transmission exactly where it stopped
and doesn't try to retransmit the complete message.
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 02:22:31PM -0600, Nate Williams wrote:
POP3 is a mail retriever, designed to retrieve mail for a single user.
It preserves all of the necessary information that a 'receiver' needs.
Now, if you're doing something that POP3 was never intended to do (ie;
POP and IMAP (I think) will lose all the envelope information,
You've been listening to Terry too long. It's certainly not the case,
although I've decided to quit arguing with Terry, since it's an
excercise in futility. No matter what you say, he'll either change the
subject or simply
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 09:34:17AM -0600, Nate Williams wrote:
POP and IMAP (I think) will lose all the envelope information,
You've been listening to Terry too long. It's certainly not the case,
although I've decided to quit arguing with Terry, since it's an
excercise in futility. No
Can anyone tell me why the uucp user needs to have a default shell and
home directory set?
uucp:*:66:66:UUCP pseudo-user:/var/spool/uucppublic:/usr/libexec/uucp/uucico
Both of those no longer exist by default in FreeBSD, with my changes.
Is there any reason why this can't be changed to:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2001 02:02:46 MST, Kris Kennaway wrote:
uucp:*:66:66:UUCP pseudo-user:/:/sbin/nologin
Please use /nonexistent while it's the prevailing convention, or change
the prevailing convention.
Thanks,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe
Lyndon Nerenberg writes:
Garrett == Garrett Wollman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Garrett I remember, back in the mists of ancient time, it was
Garrett common practice to provide ``anonymous UUCP'' service
Garrett along the lines of anonymous FTP in (what was at that
On 01-Oct-2001 Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
UUCP still gets used. It's one of the few sane ways to handle email in
a laptop environment when you're always connecting through different
dialups/ISPs. It has mostly fallen out of favour due to ignorance and
FUD. Which is a shame, as it can still
NO,
POP and IMAP (I think) will lose all the envelope information,
UUCP keeps that..
SMTP is a PUSH operation..
so for a PULL operation that can handle envelope information (e.g. BCC)
you need UUCP
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
On 01-Oct-2001 Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
UUCP
On 02-Oct-2001 Julian Elischer wrote:
POP and IMAP (I think) will lose all the envelope information,
UUCP keeps that..
What use is it? I don't know what I'm missing...
SMTP is a PUSH operation..
I meant that I tunnel SMTP back to my work to send email from a foreign
location.
---
Ruslan == Ruslan Ermilov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ruslan It doesn't really matter what the home directory is set to
Ruslan (IIRC), but the shell must be uucico(8).
No, this is wrong on both counts.
By convention, the home directory of the uucp login has corresponded
to the UUCP
On Mon, 01 Oct 2001 11:51:32 -0600, Lyndon Nerenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
And you should *never* allow remote site UUCP logins (those that run
uucico) under the `uucp' login, for obvious security reasons.
I remember, back in the mists of ancient time, it was common practice
to provide
Garrett == Garrett Wollman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Garrett I remember, back in the mists of ancient time, it was
Garrett common practice to provide ``anonymous UUCP'' service
Garrett along the lines of anonymous FTP in (what was at that
Garrett time) ARPANET.
Yup, I used to
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 02:02:46AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Can anyone tell me why the uucp user needs to have a default shell and
home directory set?
uucp:*:66:66:UUCP pseudo-user:/var/spool/uucppublic:/usr/libexec/uucp/uucico
Both of those no longer exist by default in FreeBSD, with
The convention was to use ``uucp'' as the default anonymous login
service.
I think we're talking about two different things. Yes, many
UNIX distributions shipped with a passwordless 'uucp' account
with uucico as the shell. My comments about the 'nuucp'
convention were referring to the
On Mon Oct 1 14:00:56 2001 Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2001 11:51:32 -0600, Lyndon Nerenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
And you should *never* allow remote site UUCP logins (those that run
uucico) under the `uucp' login, for obvious security reasons.
I remember, back in the
Lyndon Nerenberg writes:
The convention was to use ``uucp'' as the default anonymous login
service.
I think we're talking about two different things. Yes, many
UNIX distributions shipped with a passwordless 'uucp' account
with uucico as the shell. My comments about the 'nuucp'
50 matches
Mail list logo
