Re: Accidental spoofing -> Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

[Aaron W. Swenson]

On 2017-12-05 10:51, Georg Rudoy wrote:
> From and Reply-To are two separate fields.

Yes, but that wasn’t what was being discussed. I was giving an example
as to why the From field should be editable in an email client.

I’ll set the Reply-To for emails to be directed to the proper contact
point, but it’s nonsensical to say it’s coming from a human point of
contact when it’s an “automated” message.

The Reply-To still wouldn’t be m...@example.com either. Rather, it’d be set to
customer-serv...@example.com, or whatever it needs to be. donotreply is
a succinct way of communicating that the recipient doesn’t or shouldn’t
have to reply to the email and that it’s an automated email.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Accidental spoofing -> Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

[Georg Rudoy]

On 05.12.17 at 15:14 user Aaron W. Swenson  wrote:
> One reason is to send from a nonexistent account to avoid getting
> replies in the first place.

>From and Reply-To are two separate fields.

But that, of course, depends on the way bans are implemented in the
maillist management software.


-- 
  Georg Rudoy

Re: Accidental spoofing -> Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

[Aaron W. Swenson]

On 2017-12-04 18:08, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 18:01:39 -0500
> "William L. Thomson Jr."  wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:43:15 -0800
> > Matt Turner  wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry. I think I was confusing a number of irritating things you've
> > > done: email spoofing,  
> > 
> > That was a complete accident due to a new version of Kmail that had
> > the from field editable by default. It was NOT intentional. Not the
> > 1st time. The 2nd time was for confirmation. I was in disbelieve such
> > abuse was even possible with @gentoo.org addresses. That was a
> > shocking discovery given I have administrated mail severs for quite
> > some time. In part why I use ASSP.
> 
> I filed a bug with KDE on that but of course went WONTFIX. I think its
> horrible as it allows people to spoof, spam and do bad things...
> 
> Make From field in the composer read only
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373313
> 
> Me personally I would never make software or change it to allow people
> to make such a mistake. Others felt differently. I stopped using
> Kmail2. I use Claws-mail now, but it also has editable from field :(
> 
> Email clients should only allow email address that are in configured
> accounts. But that is my opinion. Others seem to feel differently. I
> cannot see any good reasons for such really.

One reason is to send from a nonexistent account to avoid getting
replies in the first place.

Like donotre...@example.com for order updates, confirmation emails, and
so on. A person doesn’t actually exist behind the email, but emails have
to say they’re coming from somewhere. And, a properly setup SMTP server
will need an credentials to send those email. If donotreply doesn’t
exist, then the account setup will (probably) have an email address that
differs from the one that’s used to compose the email.

I use it myself when I need to inform our customers about a change. I
don’t want to field hundreds of email personally, so I change the from
address.

So, email clients most definitely should allow an individual to change
the from field. It’s a good thing. But, like any other tool, it can be
used improperly.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

[Peter Stuge]

William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> No one questions why I stepped down.

I have wondered what happened, but haven't felt able to investigate.

Please know that I wouldn't take sides without investigating, and I
think that an overwhelming majority is also like that. A problem is
that you'll only ever hear from those who do take sides, but I think
the vast majority doesn't.

In the end I think giving up any position comes down to one of two things:
either feeling that one can not sufficiently meet expectations, or feeling
that others do not meet one's own expectations. I've experienced both.

How those happen is probably always a sad story of personal differences. :\


> I let others convince me I was the problem so I went away. Yet things
> did not improve in my absence. Maybe I wasn't the problem

I hope that everyone always learns. I think almost everyone does.


William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > doing whatever you did to get banned from  GitHub
> 
> You tell me does this make any sense to ban someone from Gentoo's Github?
> https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/1721#issuecomment-300178677

It doesn't make sense to me, because you're trying to help inform a
community contributor. But I also don't know any of the "Gentoo Java"
context - which I think also matters.

Reading the motivation for the ban "not the place to post comments and
recount how Gentoo Java is struggling with its staffing needs" and
"GitHub ..  [is] for code-centric feedback and technical discussions,
not about Gentoo-meta issues or the like" I can understand that someone
would feel that your comment was out of place, but I don't think that
a 14 day ban is an appropriate first response.

That said, expectations were clearly not met, all around.

The expectations of the community contributor were not met by Gentoo,
since (as is mentioned in the ban mail) Gentoo is not a typical GitHub
project, where a PR is the entire process into the repo. I think it is
perfectly fine to communicate about this in a PR, and I think a Gentoo
policy never to do so is a mistake.

The expectations of the Gentoo GitHub Project were not met by you,
since it seems a PR policy is "Everyone can review pull requests. 
However, please make sure that your comments are correct and on
topic." and your comment was also trying to inform about the larger
context, not strictly limited to technical details.

I personally disagree with such expectations in the GitHub team, but I
can't even be bothered to become a proper Gentoo developer, because the
threshold is just too high for me.


I would attribute the contributor's (very valid) disappointment to lack
of communication, ie. to Gentoo not having set accurate expectations.
It is probably true that Gentoo isn't equipped to do so at the moment,
so everyone has to learn on their own. Some will get burnt in the process. :\


> https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/6033
> I felt I should have responded to not be rude.

I agree with you, and you seem to always respond politely. While I
sometimes find it a bit difficult to understand what you intend to
say because of your writing style, it looks to me like you always
intend to equip others with useful information.


> I still do not respond in kind to others.

I think that shows good character. Please keep that up, no matter what
others do.


To the actual topic of Gentoo Java I think the best you can do is
essentially what you are already doing - work on solving your own
problems in your own overlay, if there is a kind of informal team
working mostly to provide life support. You can try to support them,
but you may have very different needs, and if communication doesn't
work so well then there can't be an actual team.

I rarely use Java, but what I do know about Java supports your
argument that Gentoo could need a lot of work for JDK 9, because
the expectations/assumptions of the Java ecosystem are quite far
apart from those of the Gentoo ecosystem, and if a great solution
is even achievable at all then it certainly requires mastering both
Java and Gentoo, which likely requires Java people to get into Gentoo
rather than the other way around, and both environments have long
learning curves, and until there is a critical mass of developers
mastering both, there can't really be a team. :\


Kind regards

//Peter

Accidental spoofing -> Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 18:01:39 -0500
"William L. Thomson Jr."  wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:43:15 -0800
> Matt Turner  wrote:
> >
> > Sorry. I think I was confusing a number of irritating things you've
> > done: email spoofing,  
> 
> That was a complete accident due to a new version of Kmail that had
> the from field editable by default. It was NOT intentional. Not the
> 1st time. The 2nd time was for confirmation. I was in disbelieve such
> abuse was even possible with @gentoo.org addresses. That was a
> shocking discovery given I have administrated mail severs for quite
> some time. In part why I use ASSP.

I filed a bug with KDE on that but of course went WONTFIX. I think its
horrible as it allows people to spoof, spam and do bad things...

Make From field in the composer read only
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373313

Me personally I would never make software or change it to allow people
to make such a mistake. Others felt differently. I stopped using
Kmail2. I use Claws-mail now, but it also has editable from field :(

Email clients should only allow email address that are in configured
accounts. But that is my opinion. Others seem to feel differently. I
cannot see any good reasons for such really.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.


pgpUDnCxn4EyP.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:43:15 -0800
Matt Turner  wrote:
>
> Sorry. I think I was confusing a number of irritating things you've
> done: email spoofing,

That was a complete accident due to a new version of Kmail that had the
from field editable by default. It was NOT intentional. Not the 1st
time. The 2nd time was for confirmation. I was in disbelieve such
abuse was even possible with @gentoo.org addresses. That was a shocking
discovery given I have administrated mail severs for quite some time.
In part why I use ASSP.

> doing whatever you did to get banned from  GitHub

That should never have happened. Over this comment. You tell me does
this make any sense to ban someone from Gentoo's Github? Which did not
go through Comrel or any normal channels. That was Gentoo Github
administrator abuse. I said nothing here that was untrue.
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/1721#issuecomment-300178677

As a result I mentioned it again on this PR and then stopped
responding. Given its off topic, I would be punished not the other.
I felt I should have responded to not be rude. Given their lengthy
response and any reply would be in detail. Just not worth it for me.
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/6033

> and then that time ten years ago that you evaded a mailing
> list ban. My apologies.

Thank you, very few if any have ever said that. It makes a huge
difference! Not that I expect it from anyone. But I do try to say sorry
when I am wrong. Think that is a sign of an adult, or man.

In a nutshell others have cast their negative impression of me onto
others. Who because person A feels this way about me, person B does as
well and the rest of the dominos. No matter if its correct or not. That
has gone on for many years. Been publicly defamed, etc.
Even when I produce facts to counter it seems to not matter.

We are in the group thinking generation it seems. I am not perfect, but
I have never had bad intentions. I should never have been treated as I
have been for a very long time. I would never seek to treat others that
way. Even with the mistreatment I still do not respond in kind to
others. No profanities, etc. Its not in my nature publicly surely not
in written form.

I have a sailors mouth, but I have a hard time typing such words
Some may perceive disrespect or rudeness from me, but that maybe more
my blunt nature than intentional disrespect. I spent to much time in
the hood growing up. I know better, I am still alive... :)

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.


pgpU89xjZTA1P.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Matt Turner  wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:46 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
>  wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:26:26 -0800
>> Matt Turner  wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:52 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
>>>  wrote:
>>> > That being said, that people find it acceptable to talk behind
>>> > another's back. Lobbing lots of insults. Then having the ego to
>>> > assume someone would create a fake identity. Any minimal research
>>> > can show otherwise.
>>>
>>> You did already evade a mailing list ban.
>>
>> If your talking about on -nfp in 2008. It was a ban that should never
>> have happened in the first place. It surely made nothing better.
>
> Sorry. I think I was confusing a number of irritating things you've
> done: email spoofing, doing whatever you did to get banned from
> GitHub, and then that time ten years ago that you evaded a mailing
> list ban. My apologies.
>

If you want to actually get banned from Gentoo you need to do a LOT
worse than that stuff.  People seem to assume that the worst they've
seen somebody behave on a public mailing list is the worst they've
ever behaved anywhere.  People are generally on their best behavior in
public.

The sorts of things I've seen people get banned from Gentoo for are
the sorts of things that would get just about anybody fired from any
large business.  While I wasn't as much of an insider in the days of
yore as I've been in recent years, my general sense has been that
things weren't very different back then.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

[Matt Turner]

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:46 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
 wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:26:26 -0800
> Matt Turner  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:52 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
>>  wrote:
>> > That being said, that people find it acceptable to talk behind
>> > another's back. Lobbing lots of insults. Then having the ego to
>> > assume someone would create a fake identity. Any minimal research
>> > can show otherwise.
>>
>> You did already evade a mailing list ban.
>
> If your talking about on -nfp in 2008. It was a ban that should never
> have happened in the first place. It surely made nothing better.

Sorry. I think I was confusing a number of irritating things you've
done: email spoofing, doing whatever you did to get banned from
GitHub, and then that time ten years ago that you evaded a mailing
list ban. My apologies.

Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:26:26 -0800
Matt Turner  wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:52 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
>  wrote:
> > That being said, that people find it acceptable to talk behind
> > another's back. Lobbing lots of insults. Then having the ego to
> > assume someone would create a fake identity. Any minimal research
> > can show otherwise.  
> 
> You did already evade a mailing list ban.

If your talking about on -nfp in 2008. It was a ban that should never
have happened in the first place. It surely made nothing better.

My single post after ban was point to make a point. That bans can be
easily circumvented. Also you DO NOT ban a just stepped down Trustee
from the -nfp list. That shows massive disrespect. More so given what
all I did. Other Trustees then still show me some respect over my
actions then. I also did not hide, people knew it was me. No fake
account etc. I do not hide ever.

No one questions why I stepped down. Then or now. Nor the actions of
those who motivated me to do that. Why? Because they were members of
DevRel then. Also living near Alec, and having weekly gathers. I know I
hung out with them a few times. It was more personal than anything
against me and that was wrong to use Gentoo for personal reasons.

The entire thing should never have happened. Alec can clear it up if he
will tell his side. But he remains silent, for obvious reasons for
years. I have called him out on this a few times. All it takes is a
simple response from him to clear the air. After all he went to DevRel.
Me being a problem is one Alec started by reporting me to DevRel. He is
at least in part fault for everything since then involving me.

One involved  then Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto  has been very bad for
Gentoo. I used to talk to Petteri Rati all the time. Seeing them in
the following presentation. It is of no surprise to me where Gentoo is
at now. I could see this coming, and I did nothing. I let others
convince me I was the problem so I went away. Yet things did not
improve in my absence. Maybe I wasn't the problem

Gentoo's Reform and Future (Petteri Räty, Jorge Manuel B. S.
Published on Feb 5, 2011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ3vkUBQkyg

You can see me talking to Petteri here, after Jorges comments.
https://bugs.gentoo.org/135927#c5


-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 19:54:12 +
Peter Stuge  wrote:

> I'm quite unimpressed by how mgorny and jstein behave there.

Doesn't matter its ok because it was about me... I never did anything
of that nature or other stuff. Yet action was sought to be taken
against me years go and it propagates.

Mine was a trivial violation if that. Though its been used against me
many times since... Github, etc.
 https://bugs.gentoo.org/135927#c5

> I wouldn't accept that, were I leading the project.

Cyndi Lauper - True Color
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPn0KFlbqX8

Wonder how they feel about others?

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

[Matt Turner]

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:52 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
 wrote:
> That being said, that people find it acceptable to talk behind another's
> back. Lobbing lots of insults. Then having the ego to assume someone
> would create a fake identity. Any minimal research can show otherwise.

You did already evade a mailing list ban.

Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

[Peter Stuge]

I'm quite unimpressed by how mgorny and jstein behave there.

I wouldn't accept that, were I leading the project.


//Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] We Are All wltjr On This Blessed Day

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

It is interesting to see people discussing behavior on list while flat
out ignoring the following.

This person is NOT me! They showed in #gentoo-java the other day.
Prior to that I have never had any contact. They shared the below log
with me then. Which I found flattering and amusing. Haters will hate...

That being said, that people find it acceptable to talk behind another's
back. Lobbing lots of insults. Then having the ego to assume someone
would create a fake identity. Any minimal research can show otherwise.

Further more associating with them me given how they speak of me. That
immediately insults the other person for no reason. They likely had no
idea who I was till others accused them of being me... Which caused
them to research who I was and come to their own conclusions.

The entire situation is laughable and shows a huge double standard. Not
to mention a total lack of respect for others and immature behavior.
Gentoo's status quo

On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 21:49:44 -0600
R0b0t1  wrote:

> 19:09   @floppym | wltjr really seems to make shit up when he
> doen't know what he's talking about.
> 19:20@mgorny | lol
> 19:20@mgorny | we're talking about the real wltjr or the
> r0b0t1 fake identity?
> 19:21   @floppym | mgorny: There's a fake?
> 19:22@mgorny | didn't you notice r0b0t1 on the mailing lists?
> 19:22   @floppym | Nope.
> 19:22   @floppym | I'm talking about the person filing bugs about
> Portage failures on NFS, as well as bug
>  | 637160
> 19:22@mgorny | he appeared out of the blue a few weeks ago
> 19:22  willikins | floppym: https://bugs.gentoo.org/637160
> "dev-python/pbr-3.1.1 access violation with pypy3";
>  | Gentoo Linux, Current packages; UNCO;
> wlt-ml:prometheanfire
> 19:25@mgorny |
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/7f2b9a05baf062acc8bf7b539949f5b9
> 19:25@mgorny | this guy
> 19:25   @floppym | Oh, yes. He seems to conherent to be wltjr.
> 19:26@mgorny | 'i know nothing but i'm going to pretend i'm
> the smartest guy around, and try to prove
>  | everyone who disagrees with me is stupid'
> 19:27   @floppym | I see posts from him dating back to 2016; I
> think it's a different person.
> 19:28 jstein | But this robot seems to need some kind of
> repair or recalibration in my eyes
> 19:29@mgorny | floppym: maybe. but he behaves quite similar
> 19:31  * | floppym shrugs
> 19:32 jstein | the members on our mailinglist handle this
> troll very well and do not get triggered by his
>  | statements.
> 19:32   @floppym | If only the same could be said for wltjr...
> 19:34--> | fekepp
> (~Thunderbi@2a02:8071:31ac:c00:221:ccff:fed4:6de7) has joined
> #gentoo-python
> 19:34 jstein | where do I remember this nick from? Bugs?
> 19:36 jstein | the robot did not write any mail after 9th. I
> expected he was set to "moderated".
> 



-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.


pgppVz4FpIqZj.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature