> 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 s
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
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 v
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
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
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
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 b
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
. 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
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 t
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
> packag
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 12:33:56PM -0600, 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.
>
> > Are you willing to fix the problems with
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
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
> > 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 willi
> 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?
> > 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
> 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
> > 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 abou
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 10:56:15AM -0600, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> > 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
>
> 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 "
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.
> 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 speci
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 infra
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 choo
> 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 v
> 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 set
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 living
> 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' rel
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 envel
> > > 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
> > s
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 chang
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
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 (i
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.
> 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 overwhe
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 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 a
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.
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.
---
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:
> > U
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 sti
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 'nuuc
On Mon Oct 1 14:00:56 2001 Garrett Wollman wrote:
> <
>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 ``ano
> 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 publica
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 a
> "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.
Yu
<
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 ``anonymous UUCP'' service along the lines of anonymous FTP
in (what wa
> "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
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,
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 freebsd-
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:
uucp:*:
52 matches
Mail list logo
