Brett Glass wrote:
At 07:05 AM 1/1/2003, Cliff Sarginson wrote:
Let's stop kicking Richard Stallman.
He has his own agenda.
It should remain his own.
But GCC is why you can compile FreeBSD.
No, it's not. You can compile FreeBSD because it's
written in C. GCC just happens to
On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 18:58, Mike Jeays wrote:
Brett Glass wrote:
At 07:05 AM 1/1/2003, Cliff Sarginson wrote:
Let's stop kicking Richard Stallman.
He has his own agenda.
It should remain his own.
But GCC is why you can compile FreeBSD.
snipped
Please
Please stop cc'ing the list on this thread.
1. Don't bottom quote, it's terribly annoying.
2. Since you're a clueless negro who couldn't compile helloworld.c if his
life depended on it, shut the fuck up.
Sincerely,
Paul
--
Paul Saab
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
http://fastmail.fm -
On 04 Jan 2003 19:13:13 +, Stacey Roberts
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Dude,
You don't know me, nor have any idea what I'm about.
Well, since Vicki gives me head everyday, I'd say I know you quite well.
Not that she's good at it, but hey, what more can you expect for $5?
For your
On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 01:58:59PM -0500, Mike Jeays wrote:
Brett Glass wrote:
GCC is a great gift to the world, and has made a huge difference to
the development of open-source software. It can't be all that mediocre
if it has destroyed the market for higher-quality compilers!
Windows is
Oh come on, we can behave better than this...In normal conversation,
there is no reason to use such potentially offensive language, when
discussing FreeBSD. Which I might add what this list is supposed to be
about. At least, I know that's why I signed up for it.
On 04 Jan 2003 19:13:13 +,
On Saturday, 4 January 2003 at 17:05:26 -0500, Daniel Goepp wrote:
On 04 Jan 2003 19:13:13 +, Stacey Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Dude,
You don't know me, nor have any idea what I'm about.
Well, since Vicki gives me head everyday, I'd say I know you quite
well. Not that she's
On Saturday, 4 January 2003 at 13:58:59 -0500, Mike Jeays wrote:
Brett Glass wrote:
At 07:05 AM 1/1/2003, Cliff Sarginson wrote:
Let's stop kicking Richard Stallman. He has his own agenda.
It should remain his own.
But GCC is why you can compile FreeBSD.
No, it's not. You can compile
At 2003-01-05T00:27:01Z, Greg 'groggy' Lehey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
there's one thing that everybody on the list can do to help: don't reply
to off-topic or offensive mail messages.
Actually, Greg, there are two things we can do. The second is to GPG-sign
*and* GPG-verify email. I'm as
Mike, this message was originally posted to the FreeBSD-chat mailing
list, where by definition it's on topic. It is definitely not on
topic for FreeBSD-questions. Please don't forward this sort of thing
to this list.
Greg
--
When replying to this message, please copy the original recipients.
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2002-12-28 13:49:31 -0700:
Seems to me that this is an invitation to government
regulation -- interfering with the mail is a criminal
offense for good reason.
so you think you have a *right* to send me email? you must be
joking.
--
If you cc me or remove the
At 06:13 PM 12/28/2002, Harry Tabak wrote:
I've been in contact with the port maintainer. His position: 1) This problem is out
of scope for him, 2) He is away on holiday and can't easily access the FreeBSD
cluster, 3) Other pressures will keep him from this problem for several weeks. He
[This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD's spam
filter, I've had to send this from another account]
I am not sure which list is best for this issue, hence the cross
posting. I believe spam and anti-spam measures are security issues --
the 'Availability' part of C-I-A.
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Harry Tabak wrote:
I recently discovered, and quite by accident, that a FreeBSD ported
package -- spambnc (aka Spambouncer or SB) -- was blocking mail from
me to an unknown number of businesses and individuals on the
internet.
More precisely, people who have chosen to
There's not much you can do but what you already are doing. Complain.
You complain to the people using the software, and if they can't
configure it, they will probably stop using it if they care.
You complain to the people that actually wrote the software. Usually found
in the source code and
From: Harry Tabak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is so crazy I had to respond.
My tiny x/29 block is sub-allocated from my DSL provider's x/23 block.
The DSL provider's block is a sub-allocation from Inflow.com's
66.45.0.0/17 block. Spambouncer doesn't like Inflow. While they have a
right to
Subject: Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 09:19:32 -0600 (CST)
From: Chuck Rock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Harry Tabak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There's not much you can do but what you already are doing. Complain.
You complain
Tabak
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 8:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Harry Tabak
Subject: Bystander shot by a spam filter.
[This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD's spam
filter, I've had to send this from another account]
I am not sure
Someone, quite probably Harry Tabak, once wrote:
From: Chuck Rock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There's not much you can do but what you already are doing. Complain.
You complain to the people using the software, and if they can't
configure it, they will probably stop using it if they care.
I know only
How do you find if you are on the list? And who has the list?
Can they be sued?
Thanks,
Duncan (Dhu) Campbell
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 08:45:23 -0500
Harry Tabak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD's spam
filter, I've had to send this
Seems to me that this is an invitation to government
regulation -- interfering with the mail is a criminal
offense for good reason.
Dhu
On 28 Dec 2002 15:46:10 -0500
Shawn Duffy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The lists are usually kept on the websites of whatever particular
organizations are doing
Are you sure that the 66.45.0.0/17 block is from sb-blockdomains.rc file?
My guess is that it is from a listing on Five-Ten-SG blacklist, check out:
http://www.five-ten-sg.com/blackhole.php?ip=66.45.0.0
SpamBouncer supports a variety of blacklists including the Five-Ten-SG
blacklist, though
At 09:16 AM 12/28/2002, Harry Tabak wrote:
I can't really stop the Spambouncer people from shouting fire from their own
website -- freedom of speech and all that. But should FreeBSD act as an amplifier.
I personally believe that spam is a serious security issue (see
my paper at
Seems to me that this is an invitation to government
regulation -- interfering with the mail is a criminal
offense for good reason.
Email is not regulated by the government.
Rick
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the
On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 02:00:12PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
I personally believe that spam is a serious security issue (see
my paper at http://www.brettglass.com/spam/). However, be warned
that this list's Supreme Moderator may declare your posting to
be off-topic, because it doesn't relate
Abe wrote:
Are you sure that the 66.45.0.0/17 block is from sb-blockdomains.rc file?
Nevermind. I found the Inflow entry in sb-blockdomains.rc file. :)
Regards,
Abe Ro
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Bosko Milekic wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 02:00:12PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
I personally believe that spam is a serious security issue (see
my paper at http://www.brettglass.com/spam/). However, be warned
that this list's Supreme Moderator may declare your
(please tell me this is just a dream, and this thread really isn't
happening and I am not participating...)
++ 28/12/02 08:45 -0500 - Harry Tabak:
| I am not sure which list is best for this issue, hence the cross
| posting. I believe spam and anti-spam measures are security issues --
The
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 14:11:50 -0800 (PST)
Rick Hamell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems to me that this is an invitation to government
regulation -- interfering with the mail is a criminal
offense for good reason.
Email is not regulated by the government.
Rick
Yup.
I _really_ fail to see what this has to do with FreeBSD.
Can you please move this to a more appropriate forum ? I'm sure
there are lists and groups out there where the black-listing
crew communicates.
Thankyou!
Poul-Henning
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Duncan Patton a Campb
ell writes:
So theoretically scanning email attatchments for viruses is illeagal too?
and the same goes for filtering out porn?
-chris
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
Seems to me that this is an invitation to government
regulation -- interfering with the mail is a criminal
offense
The law would have to consider intention of the sender:
Virii are (generally) not intended by the sender, except
for the original author. If I didn't intend to send the
virus, there is no constraint on you scanning and chopping
it. As for porn, if you are a minor, then by sending it
to you I
Harry Tabak wrote:
[This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD's spam
filter, I've had to send this from another account]
I'm sorry to hear that you've had problems with spam filters; like most things
(and most people), they aren't perfect and they sometimes make
So we should let the govt open all unopened mail to make sure nothing is
illegal in it? and then leave it up to them to determine if it was
intentional?
please...
On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 16:51, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
The law would have to consider intention of the sender:
Virii are
No. The automated systems to filtre spam and virii better
be *really* careful about what they block.
If you block or subvert discrete communications between humans then
you are asking for real trouble. That's all.
Dhu
On 28 Dec 2002 17:00:54 -0500
Shawn Duffy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So
*doesnt want to get laws very involved with the internet*
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
No. The automated systems to filtre spam and virii better
be *really* careful about what they block.
If you block or subvert discrete communications between humans then
you are
Here is the difference...
The US Postal Service is a government agency owned by the people,
hence, interfering with regular mail is bad..
email runs over corporate networks and uses private resources, none
owned by the people... hence a corporation, ISP, can certainly
decide what it allows into
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Chris Orr wrote:
*doesnt want to get laws very involved with the internet*
better yet, who's laws should be followed then? should the world follow
the american laws like loyal puppies or should we follow another countries
laws? perhaps the law of the country of the sending
I would say a better solution that blocks would be header/body based
phrase and word matching on a weighting system like spamassassin
provides. The False positive rates for such a system are MUCH lower
than what you could ever hope for with a blacklist. Also regarding
Inflow. They have been
CAN WE GET THIS THREAD KILLED NOW ???
It has nothing to do with FreeBSD.
Please shut up and move this thread somewhere else!
Poul-Henning
In message 1041114029.3577.60.camel@pitbull, Shawn Duffy writes:
--=-hYgamAC/8Ubo1V9A/Ysq
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
Brett Glass wrote:
At 09:16 AM 12/28/2002, Harry Tabak wrote:
I can't really stop the Spambouncer people from shouting fire from their own website -- freedom of speech and all that. But should FreeBSD act as an amplifier.
I personally believe that spam is a serious security issue (see
my
Chuck Swiger wrote:
snip
If one sends a message that could not be delivered, an error report
(called a DSN) is returned, describing the problem. People sending
legitimate email know who they've sent mail to, right? And when they
get DSN's, as you most probably did, you talk to your ISP,
Geez, Is this *still* going on?
Why are you still cc'ing the list
Regards,
Stacey
On Sun, 2002-12-29 at 03:11, Harry Tabak wrote:
Chuck Swiger wrote:
snip
If one sends a message that could not be delivered, an error report
(called a DSN) is returned, describing the problem. People
43 matches
Mail list logo
