On 3/23/21 1:07 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> This removes the driver on the premise that it has been unused for a long
> time. This is a better approach compared to changing untestable code nobody
> cares about in the first place. Similarly, the umem.com website now shows a
> mere Godaddy parking
On Tue, Mar 23 2021, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> I'm also Ccing Neil, who is one of the authors.
Thanks!
I have no objection to the removal. The driver served its purpose at
the time, but technology has moved on.
Add
Acked-by: NeilBrown
if you like (not necessary).
Thanks,
NeilBrown
>
> On
I'm also Ccing Neil, who is one of the authors.
On Tue, 23 Mar 2021, Bueso wrote:
This removes the driver on the premise that it has been unused for a long
time. This is a better approach compared to changing untestable code nobody
cares about in the first place. Similarly, the umem.com
This removes the driver on the premise that it has been unused for a long
time. This is a better approach compared to changing untestable code nobody
cares about in the first place. Similarly, the umem.com website now shows a
mere Godaddy parking add.
Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig
We had to say goodbye when Hans passed away recently. Hans was a
free-software enthusiast and an active contributor. He was the main author
and maintainer of the UIO subsystem and contributed in various ways to the
Linux kernel as a professional and hobbyist. He is greatly missed.
Signed-off
We had to say goodbye when Hans passed away recently. Hans was a
free-software enthusiast and an active contributor. He was the main author
and maintainer of the UIO subsystem and contributed in various ways to the
Linux kernel as a professional and hobbyist. He is greatly missed.
Signed-off
We've been setting the PCI resources correctly in the PCI layer for some
time so remove this special casing.
Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff -u --new-file --exclude-from /usr/src/exclude --recursive
linux.vanilla-2.6.22-rc6-mm1/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c
We've been setting the PCI resources correctly in the PCI layer for some
time so remove this special casing.
Signed-off-by: Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
diff -u --new-file --exclude-from /usr/src/exclude --recursive
linux.vanilla-2.6.22-rc6-mm1/drivers/ata/libata-sff.c
Ficamos tristes com a sua ida.
Você anulou a sua subscrição da nossa newsletter.
Este será o último email que irá receber de nós. Nós o adicionamos à
nossa "blacklist", o que quer dizer que nenhuma das nossas newsletters irão
ser enviadas para si, sem intervenção manual do administrador
Ficamos tristes com a sua ida.
Você anulou a sua subscrição da nossa newsletter.
Este será o último email que irá receber de nós. Nós o adicionamos à
nossa blacklist, o que quer dizer que nenhuma das nossas newsletters irão
ser enviadas para si, sem intervenção manual do administrador do
On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 11:17:29PM -0500, David Fries wrote:
> There is a lot of comfort looking at /var/log/mail.log and seeing mail
> accepted by the computer servicing the other person's account. Now
> all I have is, accepted by university, hope it gets there...
>
While I operate my own mail
On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 11:17:29PM -0500, David Fries wrote:
There is a lot of comfort looking at /var/log/mail.log and seeing mail
accepted by the computer servicing the other person's account. Now
all I have is, accepted by university, hope it gets there...
While I operate my own mail
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 01:00:08AM +0300, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> > Dave said "remove DUL", I did that.
> >
> > VGER uses now RBL and RSS, no others.
>
> Thank you, I don't believe there is anyone on this list who is likely
> to object to
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 01:00:08AM +0300, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> Dave said "remove DUL", I did that.
>
> VGER uses now RBL and RSS, no others.
Thank you, I don't believe there is anyone on this list who is likely to
object to these lists.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>> So, Mr. Admin, setup your laptop to use SSL to your SMTP and POP
>> server and authenticate with a client side certificate on your
>> laptop. Welcome to the 21st century. You may, however, need a little
>> more infrastructure than you can pull from your favourite distribution
>> box.
>
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 09:34:04PM +, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Michael Peddemors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >Uh... use their ISP relay service anyway???
> >I take my laptop all over, to lot's of my clients locations, and if I
> >could relay through their servers, then I had
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> Dave said "remove DUL", I did that.
> VGER uses now RBL and RSS, no others.
Thanks !
To come back to the spamfilter promise I made some time ago,
people can now get a CVS tree with spam regular expressions
and a script to generate a
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 02:50:55AM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
> > Rik van Riel writes:
> > > Anyway, since linux-kernel has chosen to not receive email from me
> > Funny how this posting went through then...
> >
> > If it is specifically when you are
Alan Cox wrote:
> > I really would like to run "ORBS" on my incoming-mail-server. However
> > I find it unacceptable to be rejecting Email from possibly legitimate
> > clients. So Adding an "relay is listed on orbs" line would allow me to
> > sort this into a low priority "probably spam" mailbox,
> The other exception is untestable-netblocks.orbs.org, which blocks
> everything it cannot test and is just as bad as DUL.
untestable-netblocks is the killer for 20% of the actual spam I get (almost
entirely from rr.com)
> Anyway, since linux-kernel has chosen to not receive email from me
> I
Uh... use their ISP relay service anyway???
I take my laptop all over, to lot's of my clients locations, and if I
could relay through their servers, then I had better give them some good
advice.. Some places I just pick an available IP and it might not be in
the allowed relay list. And this
> I really would like to run "ORBS" on my incoming-mail-server. However
> I find it unacceptable to be rejecting Email from possibly legitimate
> clients. So Adding an "relay is listed on orbs" line would allow me to
> sort this into a low priority "probably spam" mailbox, just like I'd
> do with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Let's see, ORBS takes out the ISP route, DUL takes out the direct one. Is
> >it any wonder people are hostile toward those two lists?
>
> Exactly. I hate spam, but I hate ORBS and DUL even more. If I'm going to get
>
Or you can do as I have and setup port 26 SMTP, thereby routing around
nazi ISP created damage. Believe me, the damage that RBL, ORBS, etc can
do is incredible. I still use them, but I use them carefully and I
provide escape routes for people who are still under a global
David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"self-appointed"
>
>Are you implying that the people who run ORBS and the other RBL lists
>actually hacked into vger.kernel.org and changed the MTA configuration to
>use those lists? I was of the opinion that it was a free choice made by the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Exactly. I hate spam, but I hate ORBS and DUL even more. If I'm
> going to get the shaft, I'd rather it be from the "bad guys"
> (spammers) than from self-appointed net.cops.
"self-appointed"?
Are you implying that the people who run ORBS and the other RBL lists
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Let's see, ORBS takes out the ISP route, DUL takes out the direct one. Is
>it any wonder people are hostile toward those two lists?
Exactly. I hate spam, but I hate ORBS and DUL even more. If I'm going to get
the shaft, I'd rather it be from the
> The ISP could have blocked outgoing port 25 instead, forcing you to go
> via the relay. Then you'd have no choice.
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard
Any ISP that blocks any port I want to use will see me in court.
Billy
-
To
Rik van Riel writes:
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
> > Rik van Riel writes:
> > > Anyway, since linux-kernel has chosen to not receive email from me
> >
> > Funny how this posting went through then...
> >
> > If it is specifically when you are sending mail from some other place,
Rik van Riel writes:
On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
Rik van Riel writes:
Anyway, since linux-kernel has chosen to not receive email from me
Funny how this posting went through then...
If it is specifically when you are sending mail from some other place,
state so,
The ISP could have blocked outgoing port 25 instead, forcing you to go
via the relay. Then you'd have no choice.
Regards,
Richard
Any ISP that blocks any port I want to use will see me in court.
Billy
-
To
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's see, ORBS takes out the ISP route, DUL takes out the direct one. Is
it any wonder people are hostile toward those two lists?
Exactly. I hate spam, but I hate ORBS and DUL even more. If I'm going to get
the shaft, I'd rather it be from the "bad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Exactly. I hate spam, but I hate ORBS and DUL even more. If I'm
going to get the shaft, I'd rather it be from the "bad guys"
(spammers) than from self-appointed net.cops.
"self-appointed"?
Are you implying that the people who run ORBS and the other RBL lists
David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"self-appointed"
Are you implying that the people who run ORBS and the other RBL lists
actually hacked into vger.kernel.org and changed the MTA configuration to
use those lists? I was of the opinion that it was a free choice made by the
administrators
Or you can do as I have and setup port 26 SMTP, thereby routing around
nazi ISP created damage. Believe me, the damage that RBL, ORBS, etc can
do is incredible. I still use them, but I use them carefully and I
provide escape routes for people who are still under a global
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's see, ORBS takes out the ISP route, DUL takes out the direct one. Is
it any wonder people are hostile toward those two lists?
Exactly. I hate spam, but I hate ORBS and DUL even more. If I'm going to get
the shaft,
I really would like to run "ORBS" on my incoming-mail-server. However
I find it unacceptable to be rejecting Email from possibly legitimate
clients. So Adding an "relay is listed on orbs" line would allow me to
sort this into a low priority "probably spam" mailbox, just like I'd
do with
Uh... use their ISP relay service anyway???
I take my laptop all over, to lot's of my clients locations, and if I
could relay through their servers, then I had better give them some good
advice.. Some places I just pick an available IP and it might not be in
the allowed relay list. And this
The other exception is untestable-netblocks.orbs.org, which blocks
everything it cannot test and is just as bad as DUL.
untestable-netblocks is the killer for 20% of the actual spam I get (almost
entirely from rr.com)
Anyway, since linux-kernel has chosen to not receive email from me
I
Alan Cox wrote:
I really would like to run "ORBS" on my incoming-mail-server. However
I find it unacceptable to be rejecting Email from possibly legitimate
clients. So Adding an "relay is listed on orbs" line would allow me to
sort this into a low priority "probably spam" mailbox, just
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 02:50:55AM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
Rik van Riel writes:
Anyway, since linux-kernel has chosen to not receive email from me
Funny how this posting went through then...
If it is specifically when you are sending
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Matti Aarnio wrote:
Dave said "remove DUL", I did that.
VGER uses now RBL and RSS, no others.
Thanks !
To come back to the spamfilter promise I made some time ago,
people can now get a CVS tree with spam regular expressions
and a script to generate a
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 09:34:04PM +, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
Michael Peddemors [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Uh... use their ISP relay service anyway???
I take my laptop all over, to lot's of my clients locations, and if I
could relay through their servers, then I had better give
So, Mr. Admin, setup your laptop to use SSL to your SMTP and POP
server and authenticate with a client side certificate on your
laptop. Welcome to the 21st century. You may, however, need a little
more infrastructure than you can pull from your favourite distribution
box.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 01:00:08AM +0300, Matti Aarnio wrote:
Dave said "remove DUL", I did that.
VGER uses now RBL and RSS, no others.
Thank you, I don't believe there is anyone on this list who is likely to
object to these lists.
--
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 01:00:08AM +0300, Matti Aarnio wrote:
Dave said "remove DUL", I did that.
VGER uses now RBL and RSS, no others.
Thank you, I don't believe there is anyone on this list who is likely
to object to these lists.
On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
> Rik van Riel writes:
> > Anyway, since linux-kernel has chosen to not receive email from me
>
> Funny how this posting went through then...
>
> If it is specifically when you are sending mail from some other place,
> state so, don't make blanket
Rik van Riel writes:
> Anyway, since linux-kernel has chosen to not receive email from me
Funny how this posting went through then...
If it is specifically when you are sending mail from some other place,
state so, don't make blanket statements which obviously are not wholly
true.
Later,
On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> The incentive behind the DUL is to force users not to post
> straight out to the world, but to use their ISP's servers
> for outbound email --- normal M$ users do that, after all.
> Only spammers - and UNIX powerusers - want to
On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> SMTP receivers should have the option of inserting a header line
> instead of blocking "bad" Emails. Then other layers can decide what to
> do with this Email.
http://www.exim.org/exim-html-3.20/doc/html/spec_46.html#SEC810
rbl_domains =
john slee wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 07:07:20PM -0700, Colonel wrote:
>
>> Some ISPs rely on crap software & OS to process email, and have other
>
>
> so you don't use those ISPs
Some people don't have a choice of ISPs. Some people are lucky if they
can even *get* dial-up.
-b
-
On 08-Apr-2001 Rogier Wolff wrote:
> Matti Aarnio wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 02:10:52PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > How about creating an additional ML,
>> > the new ML (say LKML-DUL) is used to send mails from DUL to LKML, but
>> > such mails are not sent to LMKL.
>>
>>
On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 02:22:49PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > ORBS ... well, they called one of my old ISPs' mail an open relay when
> > it wasn't and took 3 months to decide to rectify the situation and
> > remove us from their list. That doesn't instill much confidence.
>
> I've heard
Matti Aarnio wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 02:10:52PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > How about creating an additional ML,
> > the new ML (say LKML-DUL) is used to send mails from DUL to LKML, but
> > such mails are not sent to LMKL.
>
> Layering and technology problem.
>
>
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:
> ORBS ... well, they called one of my old ISPs' mail an open relay when
> it wasn't and took 3 months to decide to rectify the situation and
> remove us from their list. That doesn't instill much confidence.
I've heard that accusation many times, and
john slee wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 07:07:20PM -0700, Colonel wrote:
> > Some ISPs rely on crap software & OS to process email, and have other
>
> so you don't use those ISPs
Out here I have choice between
dialup (lots to chose from): $200/month(*), not always online.
cable (one
Also sprach Joseph Carter
>Even in those cases where broadband users are given a choice of providers,
>they have to know to ask for that choice since it is never offered and by
>exercising that choice you will usually find the price to be at least
>double if not triple - often through no fault of
> It scares me that peoples' messages would be denied based on what
> degree of connection they choose to mail via. I sincerely hope that
> the DUL lists only list netblocks that are actively being used for
> spam. This would be sort of like the Usenet Death Penalty, instating
> bans on providers
On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 02:10:52PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How about creating an additional ML,
> the new ML (say LKML-DUL) is used to send mails from DUL to LKML, but
> such mails are not sent to LMKL.
Layering and technology problem.
SMTP receiver does those
On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 02:32:28AM +0300, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> The incentive behind the DUL is to force users not to post
> straight out to the world, but to use their ISP's servers
> for outbound email --- normal M$ users do that, after all.
> Only spammers - and UNIX
On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 02:32:28AM +0300, Matti Aarnio wrote:
The incentive behind the DUL is to force users not to post
straight out to the world, but to use their ISP's servers
for outbound email --- normal M$ users do that, after all.
Only spammers - and UNIX
On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 02:10:52PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about creating an additional ML,
the new ML (say LKML-DUL) is used to send mails from DUL to LKML, but
such mails are not sent to LMKL.
Layering and technology problem.
SMTP receiver does those
It scares me that peoples' messages would be denied based on what
degree of connection they choose to mail via. I sincerely hope that
the DUL lists only list netblocks that are actively being used for
spam. This would be sort of like the Usenet Death Penalty, instating
bans on providers who
Also sprach Joseph Carter
Even in those cases where broadband users are given a choice of providers,
they have to know to ask for that choice since it is never offered and by
exercising that choice you will usually find the price to be at least
double if not triple - often through no fault of
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:
ORBS ... well, they called one of my old ISPs' mail an open relay when
it wasn't and took 3 months to decide to rectify the situation and
remove us from their list. That doesn't instill much confidence.
I've heard that accusation many times, and on
john slee wrote:
On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 07:07:20PM -0700, Colonel wrote:
Some ISPs rely on crap software OS to process email, and have other
so you don't use those ISPs
Out here I have choice between
dialup (lots to chose from): $200/month(*), not always online.
cable (one
Matti Aarnio wrote:
On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 02:10:52PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about creating an additional ML,
the new ML (say LKML-DUL) is used to send mails from DUL to LKML, but
such mails are not sent to LMKL.
Layering and technology problem.
SMTP
On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 02:22:49PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
ORBS ... well, they called one of my old ISPs' mail an open relay when
it wasn't and took 3 months to decide to rectify the situation and
remove us from their list. That doesn't instill much confidence.
I've heard that
On 08-Apr-2001 Rogier Wolff wrote:
Matti Aarnio wrote:
On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 02:10:52PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about creating an additional ML,
the new ML (say LKML-DUL) is used to send mails from DUL to LKML, but
such mails are not sent to LMKL.
Layering and
john slee wrote:
On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 07:07:20PM -0700, Colonel wrote:
Some ISPs rely on crap software OS to process email, and have other
so you don't use those ISPs
Some people don't have a choice of ISPs. Some people are lucky if they
can even *get* dial-up.
-b
-
To
On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, Rogier Wolff wrote:
SMTP receivers should have the option of inserting a header line
instead of blocking "bad" Emails. Then other layers can decide what to
do with this Email.
http://www.exim.org/exim-html-3.20/doc/html/spec_46.html#SEC810
rbl_domains =
On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, Matti Aarnio wrote:
The incentive behind the DUL is to force users not to post
straight out to the world, but to use their ISP's servers
for outbound email --- normal M$ users do that, after all.
Only spammers - and UNIX powerusers - want to post
Rik van Riel writes:
Anyway, since linux-kernel has chosen to not receive email from me
Funny how this posting went through then...
If it is specifically when you are sending mail from some other place,
state so, don't make blanket statements which obviously are not wholly
true.
Later,
On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
Rik van Riel writes:
Anyway, since linux-kernel has chosen to not receive email from me
Funny how this posting went through then...
If it is specifically when you are sending mail from some other place,
state so, don't make blanket statements
Matti Aarnio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I just verified this particular aspect of VGER's MTA
> configurations. It has been unmodified since 21-Mar-2000,
> that is, over a year...
On the subject of vger configuration, the FAQ states that vger "will"
start using ECN as of 22
At 09:02 PM 4/7/01 -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
>Not always an option. There are many places in the world in which your
>ISP is a monopoly. And even in your simplistic view of the world, there
>are many places in the United States where you are held captibe by not
>having more than one local
On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 02:32:28AM +0300, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 06:14:33PM -0700, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> Well, comparing how much spam goes thru linux-mm vs. linux-kernel,
> I would say our methods are fairly effective.
>
> The incentive behind the
On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 02:32:28AM +0300, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> The incentive behind the DUL is to force users not to post
> straight out to the world, but to use their ISP's servers
> for outbound email --- normal M$ users do that, after all.
> Only spammers - and UNIX
On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 12:56:21PM +1000, john slee wrote:
> > Some ISPs rely on crap software & OS to process email, and have other
>
> so you don't use those ISPs
Not always an option. There are many places in the world in which your
ISP is a monopoly. And even in your simplistic view of
On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 07:07:20PM -0700, Colonel wrote:
> Some ISPs rely on crap software & OS to process email, and have other
so you don't use those ISPs
> bad habits besides. Censorship usually does more bad than good
> (especially since dealing with 80% of the spam is trivial for
>
In list.kernel, you wrote:
>
>On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 06:14:33PM -0700, Michael Peddemors wrote:
>> I think that this is one list where we have to keep the ability to post
>> from individuals separate from the need to make sure that their ISP or
>> company is compliant to a set a of rules.. The
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 06:14:33PM -0700, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> This would be a shame, as he has been a valuable resource..
> Why has the list become more restrictive?
I just verified this particular aspect of VGER's MTA
configurations. It has been unmodified since
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 06:14:33PM -0700, Michael Peddemors wrote:
This would be a shame, as he has been a valuable resource..
Why has the list become more restrictive?
I just verified this particular aspect of VGER's MTA
configurations. It has been unmodified since
In list.kernel, you wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 06:14:33PM -0700, Michael Peddemors wrote:
I think that this is one list where we have to keep the ability to post
from individuals separate from the need to make sure that their ISP or
company is compliant to a set a of rules.. The LKML
On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 07:07:20PM -0700, Colonel wrote:
Some ISPs rely on crap software OS to process email, and have other
so you don't use those ISPs
bad habits besides. Censorship usually does more bad than good
(especially since dealing with 80% of the spam is trivial for
procmail),
On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 12:56:21PM +1000, john slee wrote:
Some ISPs rely on crap software OS to process email, and have other
so you don't use those ISPs
Not always an option. There are many places in the world in which your
ISP is a monopoly. And even in your simplistic view of the
On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 02:32:28AM +0300, Matti Aarnio wrote:
The incentive behind the DUL is to force users not to post
straight out to the world, but to use their ISP's servers
for outbound email --- normal M$ users do that, after all.
Only spammers - and UNIX
On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 02:32:28AM +0300, Matti Aarnio wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 06:14:33PM -0700, Michael Peddemors wrote:
Well, comparing how much spam goes thru linux-mm vs. linux-kernel,
I would say our methods are fairly effective.
The incentive behind the DUL is
At 09:02 PM 4/7/01 -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
Not always an option. There are many places in the world in which your
ISP is a monopoly. And even in your simplistic view of the world, there
are many places in the United States where you are held captibe by not
having more than one local ISP.
Matti Aarnio [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just verified this particular aspect of VGER's MTA
configurations. It has been unmodified since 21-Mar-2000,
that is, over a year...
On the subject of vger configuration, the FAQ states that vger "will"
start using ECN as of 22 Feb
This would be a shame, as he has been a valuable resource..
Why has the list become more restrictive?
I think that this is one list where we have to keep the ability to post
from individuals separate from the need to make sure that their ISP or
company is compliant to a set a of rules.. The
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:56:57 -0500, Matthew Fredrickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have decided to leave lkml because everybody else is doing it too.
I have decided to switch to Windows because everybody else is doing it too.
Oh, wait.. wrong mailing list. It's not hosted on aol.com. :-)
I have decided to leave lkml because everybody else is doing it too.
Matthew Fredrickson
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ
I have decided to leave lkml because everybody else is doing it too.
Matthew Fredrickson
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:56:57 -0500, Matthew Fredrickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have decided to leave lkml because everybody else is doing it too.
I have decided to switch to Windows because everybody else is doing it too.
Oh, wait.. wrong mailing list. It's not hosted on aol.com. :-)
Ion
This would be a shame, as he has been a valuable resource..
Why has the list become more restrictive?
I think that this is one list where we have to keep the ability to post
from individuals separate from the need to make sure that their ISP or
company is compliant to a set a of rules.. The
96 matches
Mail list logo
