On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 09:22:45PM +0100, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > I'm one of the small minority of people who have a very negative
> > opinion about gmail. I realise I'm a bit of a kook on this subject
> > and I'd ideally I'd like to avoid having an enorm
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I'm one of the small minority of people who have a very negative
> opinion about gmail. I realise I'm a bit of a kook on this subject
> and I'd ideally I'd like to avoid having an enormous flamewar about
> it.
>
> However, it has come to my attention that a
Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> it's nice to have your personal gobal & searchable mailing list
> archive, where you can really find anything you have ever received.
Even though it is nice, it's also problematic to scatter around
private and hence sensitive (at least temporarily sensitive)
information
Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
Come to think of it, [pgp encrypting each message] isn't a bad idea. Is it
feasible for this to
be done transparently? Mailing list admins, any comments?
I suspect that the end result of this would be more people keeping their
GPG keys unencrypted on Internet-access
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 25 May 2006 16:21:35 -0500
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Kevin B. McCarty writes ("Re: sending debian-private postings to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kevin B. McCarty writes ("Re: sending debian-private postings to gmail"):
>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> distributed to computers whose owners and operators cannot be expected
>>>
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 04:09:07PM -0400, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> Come to think of it, (2) isn't a bad idea. Is it feasible for this to
> be done transparently? Mailing list admins, any comments?
this has been discussed before a few times. iirc each time the
final result was the mail admins s
On 5/24/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
However, it has come to my attention that at least one developer
appears to be reading debian-private at their gmail account.
doh! i have been caught :)
it's nice to have your personal gobal & searchable mailing list
archive, where you can re
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 04:09:07PM -0400, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> (2) all mail passing through debian-private should, for each
> subscriber to the list, be encrypted individually to the public key
> on file for her/him.
> Come to think of it, (2) isn't a bad idea. Is it feasible for this
> to
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> (2) all mail passing through debian-private should, for each
> subscriber to the list, be encrypted individually to the public key
> on file for her/him.
>
> Come to think of it, (2) isn't a bad idea. Is it feasible for this
> to be done transparently
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 02:13:38AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit "Kevin B. McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Taken to extremes, this implies that (1) DD's should only receive mail
> > sent to boxes under their own control and (2) all mail passing through
> > debian-private should, for
Kevin B. McCarty writes ("Re: sending debian-private postings to gmail"):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> [snip]
> > distributed to computers whose owners and operators cannot be expected
> > to refrain from processi
Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> Taken to extremes, this implies that (1) DD's should only receive mail
> sent to boxes under their own control and (2) all mail passing through
> debian-private should, for each subscriber to the list, be encrypted
> individually to the public key on file for her/him.
>
>
Scripsit "Kevin B. McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Taken to extremes, this implies that (1) DD's should only receive mail
> sent to boxes under their own control and (2) all mail passing through
> debian-private should, for each subscriber to the list, be encrypted
> individually to the public key
Ian Jackson wrote:
[snip]
> But it seems clear that Gmail's processing isn't compatible with
> debian-private.
>
> A Debian developer should cause debian-private to be processed only as
> is necessary for providing developers with good and convenient access
> to the mailing list. They should no
15 matches
Mail list logo
