Re: Change to Mail Infrastructure - SPF and DKIM verification will now be enforced

2015-12-09 Thread Ben Cooksley
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 4:37 AM, Jan Kundrát wrote: > On Tuesday, 8 December 2015 16:09:43 CET, Nicolás Alvarez wrote: >> >> It is irrelevant what our personal preference about doing modifications to >> messages is (like the tag in the subject). The fact of life is that there >>

Re: Change to Mail Infrastructure - SPF and DKIM verification will now be enforced

2015-12-09 Thread Valorie Zimmerman
Can we please lower the temperature on this discussion a bit? On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 1:54 AM, Ben Cooksley wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 4:37 AM, Jan Kundrát wrote: >> On Tuesday, 8 December 2015 16:09:43 CET, Nicolás Alvarez wrote: >>> >>> It is irrelevant

Re: Change to Mail Infrastructure - SPF and DKIM verification will now be enforced

2015-12-09 Thread Ben Cooksley
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Jan Kundrát wrote: > On Friday, 4 December 2015 10:56:42 CET, Ben Cooksley wrote: >> >> To be specific I will be enabling the following line: >> >> On-BadSignature tempfail >> >> within the configuration of OpenDKIM on our servers. > > >

Re: Change to Mail Infrastructure - SPF and DKIM verification will now be enforced

2015-12-09 Thread Martin Graesslin
On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 2:09:01 AM CET Valorie Zimmerman wrote: > We *can* do this, we need to do this, and Ben doesn't have time to do > all the work himself. So we need to do our part to help. That's what I suggested in one of my mails. We need to tackle this as a coordinated project

Re: Change to Mail Infrastructure - SPF and DKIM verification will now be enforced

2015-12-09 Thread Jan Kundrát
I've taken the liberty to remove the ad-hominem which you used. I'm not happy with your approach to this discussion, but I'll try to stick with the technical points. There is active work within the DMARC WG, with first drafts being published only *two months ago* [1]. My suggestion for

Re: Change to Mail Infrastructure - SPF and DKIM verification will now be enforced

2015-12-09 Thread Boudhayan Gupta
Hi all, I'm going recount a personal experience here. I have my own domain (BaloneyGeek.com) and I use Google Apps for Business for my E-Mail. A couple of months ago I shifted DNS providers and took the opportunity to properly set up E-Mail verification and signing. Using Google's documentation,

Re: Why is C90 enforced in KDE?

2015-12-09 Thread Michael Pyne
On Sun, December 6, 2015 16:08:04 Antonio Rojas wrote: > Hi, > Kipi-plugins fails to build with flex 2.6. This is due to the autogenerated > code in libpanorama containing //-style comments, which are disallowed in > C90. Adding -std=c99 to the CFLAGS at compile time doesn't have any effect, >

Re: Why is C90 enforced in KDE?

2015-12-09 Thread Boudhayan Gupta
On 10 December 2015 at 12:04, Boudewijn Rempt wrote: > I'm right now using msvc 2015 myself -- which gives other problems with > other > dependencies. Microsoft now has clang (running on the Microsoft Code Generator as well as LLVM) - maybe we could look into using that on

Re: Why is C90 enforced in KDE?

2015-12-09 Thread Boudewijn Rempt
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015, Boudhayan Gupta wrote: On 10 December 2015 at 12:04, Boudewijn Rempt wrote: I'm right now using msvc 2015 myself -- which gives other problems with other dependencies. Microsoft now has clang (running on the Microsoft Code Generator as well as LLVM) -