On 11/8/06, Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I was wondering about was what mechanism you might use to provide those
binary packages; would other devs also be contributing? Or is there simply
nothing that might be useful for a binary distro?
Wrt the Seeds project, it's too early to
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:25:19PM +0100 or thereabouts, Danny van Dyk wrote:
Kurt: Please write up a short text to explain why you think this is
necessary for Gentoo mailservers. Thanks in advance!
http://dev.gentoo.org/~klieber/spf.txt
--kurt
pgpql1vqP13J5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Kurt Lieber wrote: [Wed Nov 08 2006, 09:07:40AM CST]
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:25:19PM +0100 or thereabouts, Danny van Dyk wrote:
Kurt: Please write up a short text to explain why you think this is
necessary for Gentoo mailservers. Thanks in advance!
Lance Albertson wrote: [Tue Nov 07 2006, 12:37:53PM EST]
Nothing is stopping you from sending from another smtp server. The
problem people have been complaining about is that spamassassin is
adding a score of 1-2 for anyone who sends from a host other than
what we stated in the SPF rule.
maillog: 08/11/2006-09:23:17(-0600): Grant Goodyear types
Kurt Lieber wrote: [Wed Nov 08 2006, 09:07:40AM CST]
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:25:19PM +0100 or thereabouts, Danny van Dyk
wrote:
Kurt: Please write up a short text to explain why you think this is
necessary for Gentoo
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 10:25:47AM -0500 or thereabouts, Aron Griffis wrote:
Gentoo.org has elected to provide the SPF records, effectively marking
gentoo.org mail originating from other SMTP servers as rogue.
That simply is not true. Please read the write-up that I prepared that
explains
On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 04:24:59PM +0900 or thereabouts, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
I ain't no dev, but how is this trivial? A typical scenario is: a
gentoo-dev sends an e-mail to a mailing list (a non-gentoo mailing
list) and that mail gets nuked by a greedy spam filter because the SPF
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 07:19:44PM +0200 or thereabouts, Alin Nastac wrote:
I say we should have +all (SPF-capable MTAs will consider any IP address
as authorized to send mail on behalf of g.o - equivalent with Message
source OK).
this interpretation is correct.
He says we should have ?all
Kurt,
Thanks for expressing your reasons properly on the list and in the text
file on your d.g.o home. It's certainly gone a long way to my own
understanding of your reasoning.
Thanks,
--
Seemant Kulleen
Developer, Gentoo Linux
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:29:55 + Kurt Lieber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I'm not trying to pick on Georgi, but can we please be realistic
| about the true impact of this? So far, we've identified one
| application (SpamAssassin) that incorrectly interprets a neutral SPF
| record. As a result, it
On Wednesday 08 November 2006 17:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
SPF makes the classic incorrect
assumption that spammers won't abuse the system.
Ciaran makes the classic incorrect assumption that people can magically read
his mind to know how he thinks spammers can abuse the system.
--
Roy
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:19:30 + Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Wednesday 08 November 2006 17:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| SPF makes the classic incorrect
| assumption that spammers won't abuse the system.
|
| Ciaran makes the classic incorrect assumption that people can
| magically
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 05:54:13PM + or thereabouts, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
We've identified one very widely used application that interprets SPF
records based upon how they're used by spammers rather than by how the
specification says they should be interpreted. In this case, SA is
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 20:01:52 + Kurt Lieber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 05:54:13PM + or thereabouts, Ciaran
| McCreesh wrote:
| We've identified one very widely used application that interprets
| SPF records based upon how they're used by spammers rather than by
|
On Wednesday 08 November 2006 21:01, Kurt Lieber wrote:
So, in other words, spammers aren't abusing anything related to SPF.
They're sending mail using forged return-paths and SPF is highlighting
that. Which is exactly what SPF is designed to do.
I'm no mail expert, but I want something
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 09:14:22PM +0100 or thereabouts, Diego 'Flameeyes'
Petten?? wrote:
If I were to send my gentoo mail through a mail.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org, with
its own SPF record, (I'm not as this is not a real domain I have access to,
nor a mailserver for what it's worth), with a
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Wednesday 08 November 2006 21:01, Kurt Lieber wrote:
So, in other words, spammers aren't abusing anything related to SPF.
They're sending mail using forged return-paths and SPF is highlighting
that. Which is exactly what SPF is designed to do.
If
On Wednesday 08 November 2006 22:17, Alin Nastac wrote:
It doesn't matter what From, Sender or whatever else in the message header.
The part that counts is the Return-Path (the mail from: part of the
SMTP protocol).
Sender or Returh-Path, whatever..
Of course, MUAs such as Thunderbird don't
Hi!
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006, Alin Nastac wrote:
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Wednesday 08 November 2006 21:01, Kurt Lieber wrote:
So, in other words, spammers aren't abusing anything related to SPF.
They're sending mail using forged return-paths and SPF is highlighting
that.
On Wednesday 08 November 2006 04:47, Steve Long wrote:
I understand the ABI changes at major compiler upgrades, especially for
C++. Is this such a problem for C? I thought that was the whole point of
the Linux ABI (so developers can in fact use the same binary for different
distros.)
I'm
Am Mittwoch, 8. November 2006 16:07 schrieb Kurt Lieber:
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:25:19PM +0100 or thereabouts, Danny van Dyk
wrote:
Kurt: Please write up a short text to explain why you think this is
necessary for Gentoo mailservers. Thanks in advance!
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
Of course, MUAs such as Thunderbird don't give you the possibility to
set that and it will be the same as your From address.
Shouldn't be your provider's mail server to set it? Both of my SSL-enabled
mail servers, that are authenticated (GMail and the
Alin Nastac ha scritto:
For Thunderbird, when I say I want to
send mail as [EMAIL PROTECTED], the same address will go also in the
Return-Path.
Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 has it in two places, a) account settings, b) you
can change it for every message you send using the drop down on the left
side of
Francesco Riosa wrote:
Alin Nastac ha scritto:
For Thunderbird, when I say I want to
send mail as [EMAIL PROTECTED], the same address will go also in the
Return-Path.
Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 has it in two places, a) account settings, b) you
can change it for every message you send using the drop
On Tuesday 07 November 2006 11:56, Roy Marples wrote:
So - how do people feel about always keeping it mounted as a ramdisk
(default tmpfs, then ramfs then ramdisk) in /lib/rcscripts/init.d? That
means we're not writing to /lib directly and not using /var which makes me
happy.
no-ones objected
On Monday 06 November 2006 16:53, Roy Marples wrote:
However, one issue is a concern. All baselayouts defined svcdir
in /etc/conf.d/rc which defines where we hold the state information of the
running services. This defaulted to /var/lib/init.d - which is bad as /var
could be on a different
On Wednesday 08 November 2006 19:00, Roy Marples wrote:
just slap a large warning on the ebuild?
that's fine by me
-mike
pgpgK8CQrFiYy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Description:
GNOME 1.x is no longer supported by upstream GNOME developers.
Maintaining GNOME 1.x adds unnecessary complexity to the Gentoo GNOME
developers' workload. Some of the contributing factors are security
vulnerabilities, as-needed fixes, and general breakages over time due
Saleem Gnome Team,
I think it's high time this was done. My suggestion would be to
publicise this *beyond* just the gentoo-dev list. I would put this on
-user and in the forums (and one of you should probably blog before the
fact as well).
Thanks,
--
Seemant Kulleen
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
Saleem Gnome Team,
I think it's high time this was done. My suggestion would be to
publicise this *beyond* just the gentoo-dev list. I would put this on
-user and in the forums (and one of you should probably blog before the
fact as well).
Thanks,
GWN, #gentoo,
Seemant Kulleen wrote:
Saleem Gnome Team,
I think it's high time this was done. My suggestion would be to
publicise this *beyond* just the gentoo-dev list. I would put this on
-user and in the forums (and one of you should probably blog before the
fact as well).
Thanks,
Agreed. Can the
Okay, doing some QA work with my new scripts, found a few ebuilds with local USE
flags that do not have an entry in use.local.desc. Bad, bad!
For some of the missing use flags (net, avahi, libnotify), I recommend moving
them into global USE flags, and will unless someone objects.
multislot
On Thursday 09 November 2006 00:20, Steve Dibb wrote:
multislot and multitarget are actually in an eclass (toolchain-binutils)
which is being sourced by a few ebuilds, so should probably be global in
the first place.
no
-mike
pgpso9N1Lccri.pgp
Description: PGP signature
33 matches
Mail list logo
