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
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 a
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 or
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, etc.
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
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 to
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
On 11/8/06, Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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/ini
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 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 objec
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 d
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
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 an
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!
>
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~klieb
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'
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
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 do
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.
>>
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
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 clar
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 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
> ent
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
| magica
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 Marp
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, i
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, 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 ?
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
> r
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 w
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 Gent
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.
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!
>
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~klieber/
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
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 ha
34 matches
Mail list logo