too hard, since
a false dump isn't too painful.
So, am I missing something obvious here? Will an MTA *without* a
caching server actually be affected less (because it's making direct
lookup calls to the zone servers in question)? It's an are
reliable, and I suspect I'm not alone.
People who get duplicate copies because senders don't understand how to
deal with mailing lists, or who won't switch to a *mailer* that
understands how to deal with mailing lists, should have the pain of the
recipients we'
it isn't just me. Note that, in the latter case, it's possible
that you could use formail (from the procmail package) to drop the
non-list copy, assuming you got the list copy first -- but that rarely
happens, for semi-obvious reasons.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth
pain of the
> > recipients we're trying to protect here transferred to *them*.
>
> Can I have you answer the Sourceforge tickets^H^H^H^H^H^Hflames from people
> who are telling me that their life absolutely ends if they can't have the
> reply-to munging on their list
see that there *is* any theoretical way to *keep* loads down
with VERP, by it's very nature.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100
The Suncoast Freenet
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 08:00:18AM -0800, Peter C. Norton wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 10:37:36AM -0500, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 11:17:08PM -0800, J C Lawrence wrote:
> > > The problem isn't making them work with any MTA -- that's actuall
> a lot more interesting. And once you start adding in this functionality, you
> can bring along VERP basically for free, whether or not you use a
> VERP-capable MTA.
At the expense of loading the wire, the MTA, *and* the MLM.
How big are your lists, Chuq? :-)
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ash
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 01:32:20PM -0800, J C Lawrence wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2001 10:37:36 -0500
> Jay R Ashworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't see that there *is* any theoretical way to *keep* loads
> > down with VERP, by it's very nature.
>
&g
ast-Ethernet, then the size of his uplink pretty much
doesn't matter? ;-)
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100
The Suncoast Freenet
ination MTA to put the destination email address, would be the most
flexible approach.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100
The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Th
ESMTP extension then?
I was not aware that ESMTP already *had* an extension for VERP; so,
"yes", I guess. :-)
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RF
e you're clear on this, but just in case: no, I don't think
> ESMTP *does* have any other extension, but there's clearly one
> in some stage of proposal by the Courier guys, and apparently
> Wietse latched on to it too.
Ah; no, I was *not* clear on that; thanks for the clarificati
who need to run mailing lists, rather than
Mailman people, not that it isn't a cool hack.
I think I like Zope, too; I just can't get it to stand still long
enough to learn it. Maybe I'm getting old...
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 10:22:33PM -0600, Stephan Richter wrote:
> At 11:10 PM 12/9/2001 -0500, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> > > I don't understand Zope; can someone describe why I might want this,
> > > what it buys me, etc. (like a sales brochure)?
> >
> >I
ins something weird I saw on a list the other
day; thanks. :-)
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100
The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think
Tampa Bay,
sentence
is just *beyond* funny.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100
The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think
Tampa Bay, Floridahttp://baylink.
d
> other less-public lists for longer. I'm not too sure what else I should
> say by way of introduction, so I guess I'll skip the "my life in a
> nutshell" essay for tonight. :)
Aw, *darn*. :-)
Welcome aboard.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 12:20:35AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I don't see that there *is* any theoretical way to *keep* loads down
> > > with VERP, by it's
ers not to make them easy fodder for the harvesters by publishing
> archives in an easy to harvest format...
Look up "enabler". This is an old argument. I don't know that I
concur that reducing the pain threshold of people who might otherwise
have an incentive to do *usef
can help with.
>
> All it takes is code. Volunteering? (grin)
Because there's not a sufficiently strong method of authenticating that
the person trying to change the address is actually the *user*?
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL
PROTECTED] form *anywhere in the HTML
code that's returned*, I can sift it out.
You'll have to forgive me, but this sort of 'too-clever by all' solution
gives me hives.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 10:47:16AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 2/18/02 10:37 AM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You'll have to forgive me, but this sort of 'too-clever by all' solution
> > gives me hives.
>
>
e former may not be especially mainstream, but anyone who ignores the
latter category (not to mention my blind friend's screen reader) does
so at their peril.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technical Staff Ba
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:04:54AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 2/18/02 7:15 AM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yup, and so does every web page on the net, and it will keep happening
> > until other things outside our control change marked
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 04:46:24AM -0500, Damien Morton wrote:
> > Jay R. Ashworth writes:
> > Well, neither the JavaScript *nor* the picture are going to
> > do me much good on the two browsers I use most often: Lynx
> > 2.8.3 in a konsole window... and GoWeb 6 on m
ess for an off-llist
contact is too steep a hill to climb.
I figure if it's a "public" mailing list (by which I mean, one to which
anyone is invited to belong), then such inquiries are the price you
pay, so I think this is a reasonable analogy, and t
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 08:52:40AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 2/19/02 7:09 AM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I was wondering how long it would be before someone brought up the case
> >> for Lynx. Blind people I had not though abo
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 10:17:58AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 2/20/02 9:45 AM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> While I'll happily tell the "I don't like cookies" people to get over it,
> >
> > Well
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 10:15:33AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 2/20/02 9:31 AM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But I still think it's important to keep firmly uppermost in our minds
> > here that the spam is not *caused* by the mailin
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 01:42:34PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 2/20/02 1:18 PM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> And burglary is not caused by my owning nice things, either. It's caused by
> >> burglars. But that's no e
ddress out*.
> I'm not telling admins what their policies need to be, but I do think
> Mailman needs to understand it's role as a "best practices" tool -- and I do
> feel strongly that whatever an admin does, they do so
l take effect.
Of course, it's pretty much immaterial, since if someome quotes you,
*their* message may not have the header.
Are we beginning to understand the scope of this issue? :-)_
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 06:49:53PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 2/20/02 5:36 PM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> So, you're saying because you protect yourself from the spammers, that
> >> EVERYONE should, too?
> >
> &
"admin mailto problem" with the "list
member mailto problem"; they have fairly widely diverging solutions.
Could we please be a bit more cautious about that?
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technica
t as "smart". I don't
think that requires a whole helluva lot of brains, myself.
> Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties
> are largely ceremonial.
Are you the guy who goes in the convenience store to get him
cigarettes?
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth
ke
> > arguing the advantages of vi in the emacs news groups.
>
> Agreed, appologies to recidivists, luddites and lynx users :)
Nice to know that you understand now that those are three separate
groups. :-)
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth
quot;talking in circle" is a bit
digingenuous, at best.
Please expand.
> else if no
> end of conversation
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100
Th
which side of the "enabler" argument, discussed ad
nauseum last week, you come down on. :-)
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100
The Sunc
ther thoughts in this thread.
Well, I think the argument was over what constituted 'better', on which
topic I think Chuq and I disagree a bit. ;-)
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technical Staff Baylink
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 09:23:59AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 2/25/02 8:56 AM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That said, my normal daily mail load is almost 300 these days,
> > including 9 mailing lists, and my spamcount is about 15;
of security sense) myself,
but in for a penny, in for a pound, I guess... yeah, I'd ignore the
argument.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 210
o vend one or the
> other (probably the obfuscated version) from a cgi.
No, but the performance reasons aren't as much of an issue now...
> Nobody's even mentioned #5, which are available publically via the
> "Visit Subscriber List" button, or the email command &q
e* signatures"
argument... but go back and read all the 'enabler' arguments from last
week. ;-)
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100
The Sun
d a lot of people. But nobody's cared enough to
> code it and own it.
Searching doesn't belong inside of a list archiver that has a web
interface -- why do the same work twice? There are half a dozen or
more web search engine packages which can be pointed at
difficult to tell what the original subscriber name was sometime. This
> would alleviate that.
*Whoa* yeah!
Any error message that doesn't include the parameter of a bad call
should cause it's writer to be shot.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth
mail, even
> with all its worts.
Until Zest is a solution...
> > - I'll note that one of the early design decisions for Pipermail was
> > that public archives should be vended directly from the file system
> > for performance reasons. That
tary, in fact; that stack of paper lives in
a box in my van.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100
The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think
Tampa Bay,
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 11:26:11AM -0600, David Champion wrote:
> On 2002.02.26, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Searching doesn't belong inside of a list archiver that has a web
> > interfa
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 09:59:39AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 2/26/02 9:17 AM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Searching doesn't belong inside of a list archiver that has a web
> > interface -- why do the same work twice? There are
ething, but if so, I still don't see it.
I believe that what you're missing is up in the top of the message --
unless *I'm* missing something.
Pipermail is *not*, so far as I've been able to tell, "an integrated
part of Mailman".
Is it, Barry? For the purposes of Davi
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 03:04:06PM -0600, David Champion wrote:
> On 2002.02.26, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ... and a generic web search engine, running locally on that machine,
> > with access to th
y conduct
business, if you let them; after all, *everything* is a legal exposure.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100
The Suncoast Freenet The
e, one
> to the list machinery and another to a Real Human.
Yeah, that would work, too.
Cheers,
- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100
The Suncoast Freenet
s to complain to.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100
The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think
Tampa Bay, Floridahttp://baylink.pitas.com
ntly. Also, that way bounce handling happens for those sorts of
> notification messages in the "normal" way.
Yup, we're talking about different things.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technical St
sider the user "part of mailman" mean
that you don't think it's important that they have a way to contact the
server admin when everything breaks?
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technical Staff B
e specific software problems.
Aw, c'mon; this is horseshit, y'all.
If you're planning an outdoor event, I assure you, the weather is the
*top* thing on your mind*.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the T
lease make an oblique nazi referenc,e so I can declare Godwin's
> law and we move on?
Nope, sorry, the war march drawing in the Tufte book is the wrong war.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technical Staff
ould corrupt PGP signatures by doing something like this?
I'm pretty sure that the answers there are a) I do and b) we would.
PGP almost certainly won't tolerate rewriting of the body, in much the
same way that IPsec won't tolerate NAT rewrites on the channel.
Cheers,
tion architectures which utilize it...
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100
The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think
Tampa Bay, Floridahttp://b
varied experience with email administration causes me to
characterise such email as "more frangible".
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100
The Su
quot;
>
> I don't agree, certainly not with this issue.
>
> More generally -- the list IS the members -- not the admin or tools used.
Thriller from Manila, part 2.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Tec
the copies in memory when talking to the smtpd.
> These copies would get gc'd after delivery, but we'd still have to
> play the game that I think Marc brought up about not blasting too many
> messages down the same socket connection.
This is the 'range' dilemma. We nee
On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 03:01:10PM -0800, James J. Besemer wrote:
> "Jay R. Ashworth" wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 11:40:11AM -0800, James J. Besemer wrote:
> > > While, OTOH I agree these more robust formats are the future, it's
> > > insane to
I think that's a good idea.
It probably needs a Rude Solo Light, though.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100
The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think
mean "stripping any possible reply-to added by the writer"?
I've read it twice now, and I still can't decide which I think you mean
-- except that the list context was the latter. I'm on Rosenthal's
side concerning the former...
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashwort
FC822 has been supplanted by many many RFCs, but yes, we should
> be treating the charset and content-type both as non-case-sensitive.
You consider "RFC 2822" to be "many, many" RFC's?
Cheers
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth
x Answer Gang list at ssc.com uses multi-player Reply-to's. It
confused me at first, because I keep Mutt set to prompt, and it only
prompts for the *first* address in the list -- subsequently giving you
and edit-mode prompt showing all the reply-to's, which
nvite criticism.
I hate the Jacuzzi.
:-)
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100
The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think
Tampa Bay,
ents.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100
The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think
Tampa Bay, Floridahttp://baylink.pitas.com +1
yet, is it?
This is, of course, a paying gig... and it's not impossible I might sub
out the "interface the back of Mailman to my database" part,
particularly if it can be done generally enough to make accessing
filePro data from Python easy, since that's something
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 12:24:38PM -0500, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
> >>>>> "JRA" == Jay R Ashworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> JRA> The problem is that they're already in a database (filePro
> JRA> for Unix on SCO 5, on a machine behind
On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 04:58:28PM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> I'd *much* rather be working with Barry than DJB, thank you :-)
I'd like to second, third, and *fourth* this.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ok, stupid question time again. What's the latest word on a direct
"unsubscribe" link that does *not* require a password? Is that in 2.1?
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technical St
a default email host and URL host... but they didn't
get picked up on the build for some reason; I had to key them in
manually. Is there somewhere else they are?
Do I have to reinstall *again*?
I'm losing my hair here...
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 11:11:39AM -0700, J C Lawrence wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2002 13:22:53 -0400
> Jay R Ashworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I seem to have managed to get CVS installed and running (and finally
> > ironed out my DNS issues), but for some reason
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:27:58PM -0400, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
> >>>>> "JRA" == Jay R Ashworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> JRA> Defaults.py *has* a default email host and URL host... but
> JRA> they didn't get picked up on the bui
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 11:33:16PM -0400, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
> >>>>> "JRA" == Jay R Ashworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> JRA> Can't remember it if I don't know it. Thanks.
>
> Ah cool. It's an important point that should g
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 09:35:43PM -0700, John W Baxter wrote:
> At 23:21 -0400 5/22/2002, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> >On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:27:58PM -0400, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
> ...
> >> So, you need to fix host_name (and probably web_page_url). Only the
> >>
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 11:02:11AM -0400, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
> >>>>> "JRA" == Jay R Ashworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> JRA> Yeah, yeah; just as soon as I rush the rush job that I'm
> JRA> rushing to rush now. Did you ever actu
hat I've seen, and almost *no* meters.
It's a Subsystem; it needs that stuff.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100
The Suncoast Freenet The
ly. Each new copy should have something
> different, a new comment, a changed status, etc.
Yeah, and unlike BugZilla, sourceFnords' thing puts the mods at the
*bottom* of the message...
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth
ld fashioned way
subj = 'confirm ' + cookie
sender = requestaddr
I added:
VERP_CONFIRMATIONS=1
JRA_INVITE_SUBJECT='This will be the subject line'
to mm_cfg.py.
It's probably worth noting that add_members still works fine.
Anyone g
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 07:51:59PM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> Ok; Barry's busy closing on a house. This time, to the list...
And apologies for not unwiring the References header...
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED
Any ideas?
And, BTW: is there anyway to get the Python traceback to show the damned
*values* of the arguments? Am I the only one who's noticed that the
current scheme is almost useless? ;-)
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTE
y 100% verified opt-in (i.e.,
> that didn't originate with Mailman's confirm subscription feature turned
> on).
That sounds an awful lot like the "invitation" feature in 2.1.
If you haven't already looked at that, take a gander, and see what you
think.
Cheers,
-- jra
-
l* only got about half a dozen a day.
Now, it's 25-50.
People are known to say "it's not my fault", when, damnit, it *is*
their fault. I'd say we need to make damned sure the problem is what
we *think* it is before we "fix" that.
Do you have documentary evidence,
l.
Glad *I'm* not the architect.
> > CVR> Happy Macworld Expo week, all. If you need me, I'll be in the
> > CVR> war room, beating my head against a wall.
> >
> > Any chance you could make it down to DC for a side trip? We could
> > have a Mail
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 05:21:17PM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 7/16/02 3:55 PM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm voting in favor of the lynch mobs you mention later.
>
> > And this is a *perfect* case that supports what has bee
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 07:57:44PM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 7/16/02 5:49 PM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 05:07:48PM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> >> in contact with the author of a message? If the arch
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 08:11:43PM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 7/16/02 5:57 PM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> But without rules, you can't teach the recipient what's right (with a cattle
> >> prod, if necessary),
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 09:25:44PM -0700, John W Baxter wrote:
> At 20:49 -0400 7/16/2002, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> >But *why isn't this the recipients' problem*?
>
> Because the recipient gives up, and takes her ISP payments elsewhere, or
> really gives up and t
n 2 years,
since a bogus bounce dropped me and I didn't bother re-upping."
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100
The Suncoast Freenet
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 10:33:20PM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 7/16/02 9:22 PM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, ok... but in a case like that, your mailer logs would likely have
> > the appropriate information. But still, as rare a
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 10:44:41PM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 7/16/02 9:49 PM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You can document your policies, and the person who wants to sign up can
> > decide whether they can deal.
>
> I don't
TA traffic, have you.
It will be illegal, but more importantly, it simply won't *run* -- you
can't store data on the hard drive if you don't have the encryption
keys to talk to it.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member
JRA> We are on the critical path, folks. I know you know that,
> JRA> but the explicit reminder isn't going to get me fired.
> JRA> Fail-safe isn't just for aerospace anymore.
>
> In a way I agree, but by the same token, email is such a flakey system
>
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 03:21:15AM -0400, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
> >>>>> "JRA" == Jay R Ashworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> JRA> Barry? You've been cowering in the corner there, letting us
> JRA> imitate Spenser and Hawk working
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 11:56:16PM -0700, Satya wrote:
> On Jul 16, 2002 at 22:44, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> >On 7/16/02 9:49 PM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >the policies up. Unless, of course, your policy is "you're screwed if yo
gt;
> Hmm, not a use case I've ever encountered. "localhost.localdomain" is
> about as wacky as it gets.
Well, diagnosing local DNS configuration, mostly. A name that does
*not* end in a dot is supposed to be an invitation to apply the search
list f
1 - 100 of 204 matches
Mail list logo
