On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> This is all very well, except for those of us who email from work, and
> have their PGP key at home...
Well, depending on how paranoid you may be, there are a few solutions:
* Keep a copy of at least your `secring.pgp' on a floppy disk, and
use
On Fri, 24 September 1999 09:12:31 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> This is all very well, except for those of us who email from work, and
> have their PGP key at home...
Best point of all.
At work even on a "private" box my co-workers also have root
on it. I don't dare having my private key there.
Samuel Tardieu writes:
> On 23/09, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>
> | I see no point in checking signatures if you don't also reject unsigned
> | messages.
>
> For me, a message with no signature is a message with a bad signature :)
This is all very well, except for those of us who email from work,
On 23/09, Marco d'Itri wrote:
| I see no point in checking signatures if you don't also reject unsigned
| messages.
For me, a message with no signature is a message with a bad signature :)
pgpRhxmqgVtup.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sep 21, Samuel Tardieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, IMO, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] should.
I see no point in checking signatures if you don't also reject unsigned
messages.
--
ciao,
Marco
> It would be nice to have a mail server command `resurrect', or
> similar, that would bring a dead bug back to life (if it were found
> not to be dead, or whatever; several reasons were listed above).
You mean "reopen". Existing feature. Presumably "reopen" now also
works for bugs closed longer
On 21/09, Darren Benham wrote:
| The BTS should check pgp signatures?
Well, IMO, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] should.
pgpOO3jJIuj3l.pgp
Description: PGP signature
The BTS should check pgp signatures?
On Tue, Sep 21, 1999 at 10:49:44PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Joseph Carter wrote:
> > Essentially, it does exactly what people like me have been complaining it
> > didn't do: IGNORE the MIME/PGP/whatever crap and just read the message.
>
> T
Previously Joseph Carter wrote:
> Essentially, it does exactly what people like me have been complaining it
> didn't do: IGNORE the MIME/PGP/whatever crap and just read the message.
That would be bad. At the very least it should complain loudly if the
message does not verify.
Wichert.
--
=
On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, Darren Benham wrote:
> Bugs are no longer deleted!!! We don't have a way for you to access them
> directly but there's an "official" location in the database where they're
> being archived. We're trying to decide how to serve them up... by
> requesting a bug number, obviousl
On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 07:18:54PM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
> > > Does anything special happen if the a message is signed?
> > Other than it gets processed? Nope...
>
> Oh, do you mean that it will work with [EMAIL PROTECTED] If so then I
> understand what you are saying, if not then I don't.
On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, Michael Stone wrote:
> Definately by package. I can think of several circumstances where this
> is useful: when a bug is closed in unstable but someone using stable
> wants an explanation for a problem; when a bug is inadvertantly
> reintroduced; when a maintainer closes a bug
On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 07:18:54PM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
> Darren Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > All @bugs.debian.org will accept PGP/GPG clearsigned and most forms of
> > > > mime
> > > > formated email. Most? Let me put it this way, I havn't found one that
> > > > it
> > > > b
Darren Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > All @bugs.debian.org will accept PGP/GPG clearsigned and most forms of
> > > mime
> > > formated email. Most? Let me put it this way, I havn't found one that it
> > > barfs on but I'm sure there's some evil MUA that will prove it's not
> > > perfect
On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 02:27:20PM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
> With an alias so that X-Debian-CC still works?
Not guarenteed... It's not in the "upstream" package so I'd have to remeber to
put it in every time I upgrade..
> > Some of the perl scripts have been made -w clean.
>
> and `use strict;
Darren Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the new software, the X-Debian-CC was changed to X-Debbugs-CC (more
> general) and it appears to be working.
With an alias so that X-Debian-CC still works?
> Some of the perl scripts have been made -w clean.
and `use strict;' clean?
> Bugs are no lo
Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Definately by package. I can think of several circumstances where this
> is useful: when a bug is closed in unstable but someone using stable
On a side note, it would be nice to be able to see the bugs filed against
all binary packages of a source packa
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Bugs are no longer deleted!!! We don't have a way for you to access them
> directly but there's an "official" location in the database where they're
> being archived. We're trying to decide how to serve them up... by
> requesting a bug number, obviousl
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 04:09:17PM -0700, Darren Benham wrote:
> Bugs are no longer deleted!!! We don't have a way for you to access them
> directly but there's an "official" location in the database where they're
> being archived. We're trying to decide how to serve them up... by
> requesting a
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 04:09:17PM -0700, Darren Benham wrote:
> In the new software, the X-Debian-CC was changed to X-Debbugs-CC (more
> general) and it appears to be working.
Oh yeah, indeed :)
> Some of the perl scripts have been made -w clean.
Ueber-Cool.
> Bugs are no longer deleted!!! W
I thought some of you might be interested in a few changes that have been
made to the BTS software...
In the new software, the X-Debian-CC was changed to X-Debbugs-CC (more
general) and it appears to be working.
Some of the perl scripts have been made -w clean.
A column was added to http
21 matches
Mail list logo
