nse is swift: there was a debian developer wrongfully arrested
for running a TOR exit node. their key was revoked immediately.
How was this incident detected?
On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 12:07 PM lkcl wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 7:59 PM Adam McKenna wrote:
> > You are talking about a d
keys are compromised and an attacker uploads a
compromised package?
Do we have ways of detecting these breaches or do we rely solely on user
reports?
On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 11:22 AM lkcl wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 6:28 PM Adam McKenna wrote:
> >
> > > i believe the
> i believe the answer is in the question. debian is based on distributed
trust. i did the analysis (took 3 weeks): it is literally the only distro
in the world with an inviolate chain of trust from a large keyring dating
back 20 years that is itself GPG-signed as a package, with a package
distrib
d non-DD's.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 03:11:42PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> Likewise, there are plenty of DD's whose S/N ratio is pretty high, and are
(pretty low, that is..)
--Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
s
that block development. Putting it in terms of DD's versus non-DD's is just
prejudice and elitism at its worst.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 11:46:11AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> But a number of people were taken in by this social
> engineering crack and failed to ask for the real ID.
How is it a 'crack' if the information on the ID was all accurate?
--Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL P
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 04:47:17PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Well, I agree with you that overruling the foundation documents is out of
> scope for the technical committee; except the tech ctte has not been asked to
> interpret or overrule the foundation documents. The Social Contract
> mandat
an consider it individually, or even jointly, and make individual
recommendations to ftpmaster like any other developers. It would be
inappropriate for them to make an official statement about it.
I tried, poorly, to make this point in the other thread. Thanks for
elucidating.
--Adam
--
Adam Mc
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 12:06:51AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> However, some people like to define "Debian" just as "main" and use the
> main section as the single acceptable set of free software. Which
> is, of course, wrong, because requirements for contrib are defined by
> DFSG, exactly as for
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 02:38:53PM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> One point that nobody raised so far: _reliable_ working on ndiswrapper
> depends on the 16k-stack patch that is not available in Debian AFAIK.
> Without that patch, drivers requiring ndiswrapper (being free or not)
> only work by pure
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 04:45:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> But I don't know; everyone seems to be dancing around the actual
> question: are there any free drivers for which ndiswrapper is useful?
> CIPE has been mentioned, but it has also been said that ndiswrapper
> was not useful in t
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 05:03:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> The definition of "contrib" is that it is for a package which is a
> wrapper for non-free-software.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [E
y is compiling
evidence that any of those others are actually being done, however, the
ndiswrapper-in-main proponents (including myself) are arguing that that is
beside the point. Packages are not required to be useful in order to be in
Debian.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
t; implemented, then I think the proposed use should not count.
I think it's the task of those who would ask the tech committee to overrule
the maintainer's judgement and remove ndiswrapper from Debian to prove that
ndiswrapper is not useful without non-free software, not the other way a
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 05:42:51PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> This lists several signs that a package requires another package, but
> it is not presented as an exhaustive list. If you use a broad
> definition of "require", it is reasonable to exclude ndiswrapper from
> main on the grounds that
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 02:36:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> The tech-ctte is there to address technical disputes.
This isn't a technical dispute, it's an ideological one. The technical
details very clearly support keeping ndiswrapper in main.
--Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMA
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 02:48:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> The question is not whether there is such a dependency declared; the
> question is whether the software is useful without the use of non-free
> software.
All right, who pushed the 'thread reset' button?
--Adam
--
To UNSUBSC
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 02:19:05PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Let's see, maybe you didn't read the paragraph where I said:
I did.
> Is this CIPE? Or is that some other case?
No, it's not CIPE. I guess you have some more reading to do.
--Adam
--
Adam McKen
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 01:50:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The question is not what problems it would cause. The problems are side
> > effects. It should stay in main because it is free software that is able to
ne
of which is inaccessibility to the installer. The overall effect is
decreased utility for our users.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
elongs in main.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 11:29:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> It seems to me that there is no reason ndiswrapper can't be available
> to the installer whether it's in main or contrib.
AFAIK, it would need to be on the first CD.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL P
nted laptop (if such a thing even exists) in order to get support for
their devices.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 10:33:47AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Taking it out of main moves us in the wrong direction if our goal is to
> > give our users a *usable* operating system, as opposed to some kind of
> &
system, as opposed to some kind of
'proof of concept' OS that some people here seem to want to create, but
that the majority of our users will not want to use.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wi
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 09:56:46AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I think this is clearly incorrect. The DFSG and the SC do not say
> anything about the requirements for main that I can see.
>
> And it is the *job* of the tech-ctte to resolve disputes.
I don't enjoy speaking with you, and I
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 01:30:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Help me out then. You seemed to suggest that not putting ndiswrapper
> in main would be to "ignore rules that are very clearly laid out in
> the SC and DFSG."
I suggested that the CTTE overriding the developer's judgement in t
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 05:55:01PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > As far as the second statement being the reason that most of us want
> > ndiswrapper in main, that may be true, but it is no excuse to ignore rules
> &
s the second statement being the reason that most of us want
ndiswrapper in main, that may be true, but it is no excuse to ignore rules
that are very clearly laid out in the SC and DFSG.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 09:20:47AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 09:32:26PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Well, yeah, I am, since I'm both on ftpmaster and on the tech ctte, the
> > latter of which is considering a resolution to move it right now.
#x27;ve already
> indicated I don't accept, than actually talk about it properly?
Because you're wrong.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 03:33:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Whether CIPE and Windows driver development "count" isn't a fact, it's
> an opinion. Since they're both thoroughly pointless, I don't think they do.
The fact is it doesn't matter whether they 'count'. They exist, and that
is enough
t have for
this software, and since it unambiguously fulfills the requirements, it
should stay in main.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 05:43:59PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 01:45:24PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > > Please also stop insulting ndiswrapper users and developers by calling
> > > it a "warez wrapper".
>
> Actualy, since such "ndis drivers" are often provided with v
und argument
that is not similar to "CIPE, and Windows driver developers who want to test
on Linux don't count."
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 03:36:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 09:01:40PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > IMHO, the main purpose of contrib is to avoid shipping things on CD that
> > depend on programs in non-free. It is not a section that we put programs
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 09:13:15PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> The driver should stay in main and hooks should be written into the
s/driver/package..
--Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 01:45:24PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> And for fuck's sake, stop filling up my inbox w/ this crap. I'm not
> doing a thing unless either a) you people come to a consensus on the
> issue (which you have not in the past threads, and probably never will),
> or b) a governin
ith
non-free drivers (from floppy/cd) during the install process, I'd say that
it makes even more sense for ndiswrapper to go into main (and maybe even
into base).
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:54:23PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> No, like chosing ati over nvidia for graphic cards, or silicon image over
> others for SATA cards.
Wait a minute, did I miss a memo? ATI isn't the devil anymore?
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ssue.
The changes could only have been referred to as 'editorial' if wide consensus
and understanding had already been reached about their effects.
I think it's fair to say that this was not the case at the time.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL P
e.
> > > It's not.
> > What if they are *wrong* then?
> This is not supposed to happen.
Famous last words...
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ting and/or report him to the relevant
authorities if you want satisfaction.
--Adam
[1] http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#ads
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 02:18:01PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> > -
> > Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger
> > Téléchargez le ici !
>
> Non merci, je ne suis pas intéressé. Par contre, Debian est assez
> opposé à ce qu
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:00:17PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
>
> But I don't think it's good for our users for Debian to have rights
> that the user don't have.
We are only concerned with the rights that apply to the software, not the
name. The users have all of the same rights to the software
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 03:38:33AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> This just seems like change for the sake of change, with trivial benefits,
> if any.
I agree, and I admit to not having read this whole thread, but has anyone
made a serious argument as to why we need yet another directory for non-u
ll request its removal.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 12:48:14PM -0600, Adam Majer wrote:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
>
> > Actually, I believe the Debian project as whole _wants_ to getting
> >
> >software released. That was at least the decision in all GRs where
> >people didn't hide the intents ("editorial changes").
>
> Indeed.
ropose to 'ban' someone from d-d?
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 10:05:00AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op do, 16-12-2004 te 17:07 -0800, schreef Adam McKenna:
> > On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 01:13:11AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > I think Wouter is only asking for reciprocity here. If they don't care
>
s are our users and free software. Just because
someone works for an ISV or develops on/for proprietary software does not
make them a second class user.
That said, I am not arguing for or against LCC, I just didn't like the tone
of Wouter's e-mail, or the sentiment implied in it.
--Adam
-
s of how you feel about proprietary software, it is someone else's
work and they are free to sell or license it as they see fit. I don't see
how someone advocating "freedom" can in the same (virtual) breath presume to
dictate what other people do with their work.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
dth on it? Advogato has discussion boards.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and is
> certainly not binding on other developers who are making changes to
> packages in *unstable*.
I don't see how the package being in unstable affects any part of this
argument. Will the feature backport be less desirable when the
kernel-source package is released in a stable
lf or anyone else who would be
> interested) can go ahead and "hijack" it? I couldn't seem to find any
> relevant information regarding this in the developers reference, the
> policy manual or on google.
Thunderbird is too important a package for us not to be distributing. I
think a
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 09:20:53AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> The comparison to mailing list software makes no sense.
Maybe not in the context of viruses, but for the "Joe Job" problem it does.
Viruses can and should be filtered out before they reach the C-R system.
--Adam
--
systems) are merely
stopgap measures that try to make up for SMTP's shortcomings.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 12:12:58PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:16, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > When the next address-spoofing virus hits, if I need to update my filters
> > again, I'll make a better effort to do it ASAP instead of letting it go for
> &
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 09:20:49PM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> on Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:03:37AM -0700, Adam McKenna ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>
> > Also, I don't have any hard data to support this, but it's obvious to
> > me that the volume of mail
fected
due to my misconfiguration, but it was user error (or laziness in this case)
that caused this, not a fundamental problem with the software.
When the next address-spoofing virus hits, if I need to update my filters
again, I'll make a better effort to do it ASAP instead of letting it g
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 10:27:43AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Adam McKenna ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > I suggest you take these suggestions to the TMDA worker's mailing list at
> > tmda.net, and file wishlist bugs against TMDA for each desired feature.
>
> Thi
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 05:10:07PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 08:21:22AM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 12:35:25PM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
>
> > > - TMDA should carry a warning to the user about possible consequences
&g
suggest you take these suggestions to the TMDA worker's mailing list at
tmda.net, and file wishlist bugs against TMDA for each desired feature.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 08:20:52AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 21:39:43 -0700, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Yes, it does present a very good example of poorly written C-R software.
> >Paul should switch to TMDA.
>
> In which way wou
hat you are a human.
>
> I almost wonder if someone sent this intentionally in light of the
> TDMA bug thread.
>
> Either way, it presents a convincing argument.
Yes, it does present a very good example of poorly written C-R software.
Paul should switch to TMDA.
--Adam
--
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 05:40:46PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > TMDA does not ship with any defaults, except a couple of customizable
> > text files (templates). It is entirely up to the user to create a
> > TMDA configurati
that the user should be sure to whitelist if he expects to be able
to communicate with the BTS.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 07:49:27PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 12:30:07PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Adam McKenna wrote:
> > > The arguments are facile and specious, I do not intend to waste my
> > > precious time responding to them.
>
>
rsten or anyone else wants to
have a debate about which of these arguments apply to TMDA, and why, then I
suggest he take his complaints to the upstream mailing lists @tmda.net. I
will not debate this in the BTS or on any debian list.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:55:14AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 02:41:44PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:25:58PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > > Trivialities such as people refusing to disclose their real names
&
en why should Debian
(and Debian's users) trust them?
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 10:03:38AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> that north america contains not one, but three countries: Candada, USA,
> and Mexico
Candada? Is that near Canadia?
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
local address).
This is the correct behavior. I don't know what Darren is talking about but
I've never seen a mail server that refused to accept e-mails with a local
envelope sender from remote hosts. It should be obvious why this wouldn't
be a good idea.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 09:22:35AM +0100, Andreas Fuchs wrote:
> On 2002-12-03, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Please enlighten me, anyway: Why is bouncing the full body of the
> >> mail you received from a person who claims to be Adam back to Adam a
>
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 11:52:38PM +0100, Andreas Fuchs wrote:
> Today, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:49:09PM +0100, Andreas Fuchs wrote:
> >> Right. I just thought up a scheme to exploit this, based on the fake
> >> sourc
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 09:58:28AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 09:55:34AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > The key issue here is that the mail isn't blocked. It's simply held in
> > another place until confirmed. It doesn't become a "f
nt.
>
> Are there suppost to be some sort of checks placed on this address?
He's talking about the envelope sender address on the confirmation messages,
which is empty (<>), the same as for bounce messages.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 06:16:48PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 09:55:34AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > BTW, anyone who e-mails you and then asks you to confirm your reply is
> > either using broken software, or doesn't have their outgoing mail
> &g
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 03:40:53AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 09:26:34AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > > It's easy to be effective if you don't care about false positives.
> > Yes, and unless you consider people who either:
> > 1) are
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 05:13:42PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 08:56:10AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:49:09PM +0100, Andreas Fuchs wrote:
> > > Thus, my conclusion: These things are evil. Don't use them or somebody
>
ion, and at that time it will be easy enough to just turn it
off and use something else.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 07:20:39PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 01:42:39PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > Perhaps some of us feel that "The Way Things Are Now" is consistent with
> > our
> > Social Contract and our list of committme
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 04:34:52PM -0500, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> wu-ftpd
HEH.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 04:19:45PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:22:42AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 12:56:05PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 01:56:46AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> &
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 12:56:05PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 01:56:46AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > Why does the "GR-opposition party" need to stand "for" anything, other than
> > preserving the status quo?
>
> Thanks for
tant data point, I'd think...
Yes, someone write that down. Michelle in Strabourg doesn't need non-free.
Anecdotal evidence is so much more compelling when it supports your cause,
eh?
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 06:22:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 12:30:31PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 05:47:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > This certainly flies in the face of the common argument that Free
> > > Software only "ch
ObPleaseDon'tFeedTheTroll
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 02:59:32AM +0200, Russell Coker wrote:
> What does a sex tractor have to do with astronomy?
Well, if you were having sex on a tractor, you'd probably be outside, looking
up at the stars.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PRO
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 12:34:22PM +0200, Martin F Krafft wrote:
> also sprach Adam McKenna (on Sun, 16 Sep 2001 03:17:37AM -0700):
> > Interesting highlighting bug in mutt -- could confuse an unsuspecting person
> > into thinking Branden actually signed this.
>
> oooh. this
uot;
gpg: Fingerprint: 1573 D544 73C3 988F 0096 3E4F EA4C 661F 2B46 A27C
[-- End of PGP output --]
[-- The following data is signed --]
Interesting highlighting bug in mutt -- could confuse an unsuspecting person
into thinking Branden actually signed this.
[-- End of signed data --]
--Adam
--
27;t want /etc/sysctl.conf to become another debconf
> [mis]managed config file.
I agree -- sysctl.conf should never be touched by the distribution -- it is
for local settings, specific to each machine, and there should never be a
chance that it could possibly be overwritten automatically, as
of his software to be included in main.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
.25.206.10 80]
Err http://http.us.debian.org unstable/main libxaw6 4.0.3-1
404 Not Found [IP: 192.25.206.10 80]
Err http://http.us.debian.org unstable/main libxaw7 4.0.3-1
404 Not Found [IP: 192.25.206.10 80]
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 09:23:23PM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 01:18:40AM -0500, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > > if this is the case the solution is fixing broken mailers, many of
> > > them are Free software so why have patches to support M-F-T
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 09:07:27PM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
> > have been added to Mail-Followup-To by other Mutt users, and I don't use
> > the
> > lists command at all.
>
> in that case there would be something funny going on, here is my
> theory:
>
> you post to list, you M-F-To: is set to
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 08:36:54PM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
> > listed in Mail-Followup-To. The thing that bugs me about this is that mutt
> > often adds other list-readers' e-mail addresses to Mail-Followup-To,
> > effectively rendering this feature useless.
>
> try reading the FM. in mutt 1
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 08:41:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 11:38:13PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > and respect my Mail-Followup-To header next time.
>
> I'd sooner killfile you than respect a lame Mail-Followup-To like this:
>
> Mail-Followup-To: Peter Palfra
ward mirroring and producing
their own CD images with the debian-cd package.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "No matter how much it changes,
http://flounder.net/publickey.html | technology's just a bunch of wires
GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA| con
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
