On Mon, 2022-08-22 at 07:12 -0500, Steven Robbins wrote:
> NOTE for whoever is maintaining the very nice
> db.debian.org/machines.cgi page:
https://salsa.debian.org/dsa-team/mirror/userdir-ldap-cgi/
> I guess that one should really be searching in the Description field
>
el>
> > eller has mips64el chroots too,
Ah, thank you.
NOTE for whoever is maintaining the very nice db.debian.org/machines.cgi page:
The way I use this page is to search the Architecture column for the
architecture I want. It would help me (and, I expect, others) if there were a
Hi,
with todays update of userdir-ldap-cgi, i have applied the 'spacefun'
theme from Kalle, we applied to the debian website (www.debian.org) also
to db.debian.org.
Cheers,
Martin
--
Martin Zobel-Helas | Debian System Administrator
Debian & GNU/Linux Developer |
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 08:41:25AM +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Do, 15 Mai 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > > > I beg to differ. This particular mail is important enough to be sent to
> > > > d-d-a instead of d-i-a.
> > >
> > > I agree, dia is not what I would be subscribed to under normal
Peter Palfrader skrev:
On Thu, 15 May 2008, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Do, 15 Mai 2008, Mike Hommey wrote:
I beg to differ. This particular mail is important enough to be sent to
d-d-a instead of d-i-a.
I agree, dia is not what I would be subscribed to under normal
circumstances, and with all
On Do, 15 Mai 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > > I beg to differ. This particular mail is important enough to be sent to
> > > d-d-a instead of d-i-a.
> >
> > I agree, dia is not what I would be subscribed to under normal
> > circumstances, and with all the caos that type of announce is for dda.
>
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 11:30:40PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008, Norbert Preining wrote:
>
> > On Do, 15 Mai 2008, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > I beg to differ. This particular mail is important enough to be sent to
> > > d-d-a instead of d-i-a.
> >
> > I agree, dia is not what
On Thu, 15 May 2008, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Do, 15 Mai 2008, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > I beg to differ. This particular mail is important enough to be sent to
> > d-d-a instead of d-i-a.
>
> I agree, dia is not what I would be subscribed to under normal
> circumstances, and with all the caos t
On Do, 15 Mai 2008, Mike Hommey wrote:
> I beg to differ. This particular mail is important enough to be sent to
> d-d-a instead of d-i-a.
I agree, dia is not what I would be subscribed to under normal
circumstances, and with all the caos that type of announce is for dda.
Best wishes
Norbert
--
Aoki wrote:
> > >
> > > > Considering recent issues, http://db.debian.org/password.html requires
> > > > updated as "s/id_dsa.pub/id_rsa.pub/".
> > >
> > > My mail to d-i-a said that you need to use RSA keys. You have read
> > &g
On Thu, 15 May 2008, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 03:03:55PM +0200, Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 May 2008, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> >
> > > Considering recent issues, http://db.debian.org/password.html requires
> >
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 03:03:55PM +0200, Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008, Osamu Aoki wrote:
>
> > Considering recent issues, http://db.debian.org/password.html requires
> > updated as "s/id_dsa.pub/id_rsa.pub/".
>
> My
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 03:03:55PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008, Osamu Aoki wrote:
>
> > Considering recent issues, http://db.debian.org/password.html requires
> > updated as "s/id_dsa.pub/id_rsa.pub/".
>
> My mail to d-i-a said that y
On Thu, 15 May 2008, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Considering recent issues, http://db.debian.org/password.html requires
> updated as "s/id_dsa.pub/id_rsa.pub/".
My mail to d-i-a said that you need to use RSA keys. You have read
that, right?
The page on db.d.o will get updated eve
Hi,
Considering recent issues, http://db.debian.org/password.html requires
updated as "s/id_dsa.pub/id_rsa.pub/".
Discussion as below. Do I need to make rt thingy? I am not yet
familiar with it.
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 07:50:29PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Osamu Aoki
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 19:50 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Recent openssl issue lead me to http://db.debian.org/password.html and
> > made me wonder why script example uses DSA key while main text only
> > talks about RSA key.
>
Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Recent openssl issue lead me to http://db.debian.org/password.html and
> made me wonder why script example uses DSA key while main text only
> talks about RSA key.
The text talks about RSA keys as they are preferred over DSA keys.
> | Alterna
Hi,
Recent openssl issue lead me to http://db.debian.org/password.html and
made me wonder why script example uses DSA key while main text only
talks about RSA key.
| Alternatively, you can do without a password and use PGP to manipulate your
| LDAP information through the mail gateway and use
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 01:16:24PM +0100, Amaya wrote:
> Nicolas Boullis wrote:
>> What about gender? How is it specified?
> Currently it is a drop down that allows you to choose:
> - unspecified
> - male
> - female
> Which in my opinion reflects sex and not gender.
And if it wants to cover the
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 10:26:34PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Paul Waring:
>> I've seen a lot of announcement/verification emails (such as Amazon
>> orders) which go out from an address that does not exist -
> In the SMTP envelope? I strongly doubt that.
Oh yeah, I have seen that rather o
hi
I keep statistics of my email
before I activated "greylisting" and "sender verification callouts", my
average was ~200 spam/day (with peaks of ~400) ; after that, it is ~40
spam/day (and most do not pass thru debian.org, but are delivered
directly at my account)
so I want to kudo all people
--- Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:02:16 +0100 (CET), Miriam Ruiz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Anyway, I don't think that classification will fit Debian's
> > needs. It's self described as "sex of a subject for clinical
> > purposes, such as the sele
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:02:16 +0100 (CET), Miriam Ruiz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Anyway, I don't think that classification will fit Debian's
> needs. It's self described as "sex of a subject for clinical
> purposes, such as the selection of sex-based grown metrics". To
> start with, it talks abo
--- Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> I found a document for DICOM that includes more options
> cheers,
> Kev
> [0] http://medical.nema.org/Dicom/CP/CPack_23/cp373_lb.pdf
Thanks a lot for the reference, it's a good one :)
Anyway, I don't think that classification will fit Debian's needs
rtain how to specify the own gender LDAP field is invited
to ask the Oracle for help which would be the right choice (for the moment
and in future).
Unfortunately I fail to see in how far the definition of a gender field
in db.debian.org would bring us closer or farer to our goal to release
the best o
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 09:31:26PM +0200, Debian Oracle wrote:
> I hope that this explains everything, Kev. You owe the Oracle an e-mail
> quotation trimming device.
Greetings O great Oracle, I did manage to extract most of the meaning
out of the consise phrases electronically transmitted by the my
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 01:47:48PM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 06:32:10PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 12:50:27AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ldapsearch -h 'db.debian.org' -b
On ke, 2007-01-03 at 13:47 -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
> I have yet to see a use case for this LDAP item. Is it strictly for a
> male/femaie survey that other FLOSS projects will join? Does this mean
> that people who dont self-identify as male or female are just not
> counted? According to some stats
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 06:32:10PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 12:50:27AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ldapsearch -h 'db.debian.org' -b'cn=Subschema' -x -s
> > base '(objectClass=*)' at
On Monday 01 January 2007 22:20, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 01 janvier 2007 à 17:51 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> > On Jan 01, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > rejecting email blindly based on data as
> > > reliable as RBLs is likely to give tons of false positives.
> >
>
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If your SMTP server is listed in a DNSBL which I told db.debian.org
> to use for my debian.org email and you try to send me a message,
> then master will say "I don't accept this message" to your SMTP
> server, and you
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 06:32:10PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 12:50:27AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > breaking that would break software that expects this particular field to
> > be in that particular syntax.
>
> That's not completely true; you could have an attrib
Steve Langasek wrote:
> But if all of our Japanese, Chinese, Greek Orthodox, Muslim, and
> French Revolutionary developers can tolerate having to enter their
> birthdates using the Gregorian calendar, I think we'll be able to make
> do with an opt-in binary gender classification too.
ROTFL
You are
On Jan 02, Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As if those smtp servers were completely innocent. Most probably,
> they are sending spam to CBL spamtrap addresses to begin with.
CBL would not list these servers.
The person you are replying to is just confused.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.a
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 12:50:27AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ldapsearch -h 'db.debian.org' -b'cn=Subschema' -x -s
> base '(objectClass=*)' attributeTypes | grep gender
> attributeTypes: ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.9586.100.4.2.30 NAME '
en classified as spam?
A notification is sent, but it's not master.debian.org who sends it
but your SMTP server.
If your SMTP server is listed in a DNSBL which I told db.debian.org
to use for my debian.org email and you try to send me a message,
then master will say "I don't accept
familiar with LDAP:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ldapsearch -h 'db.debian.org' -b'cn=Subschema' -x -s base
'(objectClass=*)' attributeTypes | grep gender
attributeTypes: ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.9586.100.4.2.30 NAME 'gender' DESC 'ISO 5218 rep
resentation of human
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Moreover, if you send a message using a real smtp server, and its IP
> is listed in a DNSBL I use, you will receive a message from
> mailer-daemon saying so. This may and will surely happen, hopefully
> not often, but IMHO it's better than the message ar
Hi
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 20:59:09 +0100 (CET)
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As if those smtp servers were completely innocent. Most probably,
> they are sending spam to CBL spamtrap addresses to begin with.
Yes, most likely they send spam to spamtrap. You can not 100% filter
spam on fr
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Michal iha wrote:
> Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This list (called CBL for short) has the following properties:
> > [...]
> > * Tries very hard not to list "real" SMTP servers.
> > [...]
>
> * Almost every time there is at least one SMTP server from each
> freem
Hi
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 13:12:56 +0100 (CET)
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For those of you who are afraid about reliability of a DNSBL,
> I can highly recommend cbl.abuseat.org as the absolute minimum.
> This list (called CBL for short) has the following properties:
>
> * Takes its d
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 01:12:56PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> For those of you who are afraid about reliability of a DNSBL,
> I can highly recommend cbl.abuseat.org as the absolute minimum.
> This list (called CBL for short) has the following properties:
>
> * Takes its data from very large spa
tant:
* You can avoid approximately 50% of all the spam just by using this list.
So I would call the CBL a very useful list.
BTW: I'd like to thank Ryan for the db.debian.org stuff and share my happiness
with everybody here: I enabled zen.spamhaus.org and greylisting on 2006-12-31.
Now I r
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 10:20:32PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 01 janvier 2007 à 17:51 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> > On Jan 01, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Thanks for the explanations. Unfortunately that doesn't make these
> > > measures really useful, as re
Le lundi 01 janvier 2007 à 17:51 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> On Jan 01, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the explanations. Unfortunately that doesn't make these
> > measures really useful, as rejecting email blindly based on data as
> > reliable as RBLs is likely t
On Jan 01, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the explanations. Unfortunately that doesn't make these
> measures really useful, as rejecting email blindly based on data as
> reliable as RBLs is likely to give tons of false positives.
This can be easily disproven by anybody w
Le lundi 01 janvier 2007 à 16:11 +0100, Andreas Metzler a écrit :
> One match is sufficient for a deny, afaiui you end up with two
> colon delimited lists (one for rbl, one of rhbl) like in
> like http://www.exim.org/exim-html-4.63/doc/html/spec_html/index.html#toc0325
> Unconditional greylisting.
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le samedi 30 décembre 2006 à 05:34 -0800, Ryan Murray a écrit :
[...]
>> The exim4 config has been updated to make use of these new fields,
>> giving developers the ability to:
>> * disable their @debian.org email address entirely with a
>>
Le samedi 30 décembre 2006 à 05:34 -0800, Ryan Murray a écrit :
> Here's some news on recent db.debian.org changes that are now available:
>
> The LDAP schema has been updated to include several new fields:
> * Date of Birth (developer-only visible)
> * G
> 1) I don't see any relevance in having a gender field. The only exception I
> might find is for genderifying the texts in web pages and mails, or maybe for
> statistics.
I see some relevance, speaking for myself. I *do* behave differently
with men and women. This is a social issue I fully accep
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 04:15:53PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I was considering: sex & gender options and realized that the only
> > reasonably non-changing question would be 'sex chromosomes'[0] which ca
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 12:06:55AM +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
>
> 1) I don't see any relevance in having a gender field. The only exception I
> might find is for genderifying the texts in web pages and mails, or maybe for
> statistics.
>
> 2) I see ev
Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was considering: sex & gender options and realized that the only
> reasonably non-changing question would be 'sex chromosomes'[0] which can
> be XX or XY (unless gravity or any person with relevant info can add to
> this).
Sex chromosones in humans can,
--- Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> Hi Miry,
>
> > social relevance of it, and that means gender. Any other solution seems
> more
> > trying to justify that field than anything really useful.
> When you specify 'social' relevance, does that mean 'the larger society'
> or 'the Debi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 09:57:31PM +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
>
> --- Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
>
> > Hi Amaya,
> > I was considering: sex & gender options and realized that the only
> > reasonably non-changing question would be 'sex ch
--- Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> Hi Amaya,
> I was considering: sex & gender options and realized that the only
> reasonably non-changing question would be 'sex chromosomes'[0] which can be
> XX or XY (unless gravity or any person with relevant info can add to
> this). 'Men' can add
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 07:18:36PM +0100, Amaya wrote:
> Kevin Mark wrote:
> > Whats the use for such data? for postal mail? For gift giving? I've
> > yet to see anyone in cyberspace address someone as 'genderqueer' or
> > 'male',YMMV.
>
> Yeah, I als
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:16:24 +0100, Amaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nicolas Boullis wrote:
>> What about gender? How is it specified?
>
> Currently it is a drop down that allows you to choose:
> - unspecified
> - male
> - female
>
> Which in my opinion reflects sex and not gender.
Would it n
On Dec 31, Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe that question would be a good starting point: What's the use for a
> gender field there?
Stalking.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Kevin Mark wrote:
> Whats the use for such data? for postal mail? For gift giving? I've
> yet to see anyone in cyberspace address someone as 'genderqueer' or
> 'male',YMMV.
Yeah, I also wonder what this LDAP field is good for, but if we are
going to have it, let's make it, at least, accurate.
--
Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[gender entry in db.debian.org]
> Whats the use for such data? for postal mail? For gift giving? I've yet
> to see anyone in cyberspace address someone as 'genderqueer' or
> 'male',YMMV.
Preferred pronouns is the
--- Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> Whats the use for such data? for postal mail? For gift giving? I've yet
> to see anyone in cyberspace address someone as 'genderqueer' or
> 'male',YMMV.
> feliz ano nuevo,
> Kev
Maybe that question would be a good starting point: What's the use for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 06:40:46PM +0100, Amaya wrote:
> Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
> > What other kinds of gender are there? It would be interesting to see
> > some examples.
>
> I paste some email I already privately answered.
>
> Someone wrote:
>
Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
> What other kinds of gender are there? It would be interesting to see
> some examples.
I paste some email I already privately answered.
Someone wrote:
> Wildly OT, but don't people generally self identify more with one
> gender or the other?
If "generally" equals "whi
On Dec 31, Alexey Feldgendler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What other kinds of gender are there? It would be interesting to see some
> examples.
Or maybe not. Who cares?
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Le dimanche 31 décembre 2006 à 07:29 -0700, Wesley J. Landaker a écrit :
> > I would rather have it as an input field where people can express their
> > gender in the way they want to, as gender has little to do with
> > biological sex, and there's more than two options for it.
>
> I think if some
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:16:24 +0100, Amaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Currently it is a drop down that allows you to choose:
- unspecified
- male
- female
Which in my opinion reflects sex and not gender.
I would rather have it as an input field where people can express their
gender in the way t
On Sunday 31 December 2006 05:16, Amaya wrote:
> Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> > What about gender? How is it specified?
>
> Currently it is a drop down that allows you to choose:
> - unspecified
> - male
> - female
>
> Which in my opinion reflects sex and not gender.
>
> I would rather have it as an in
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 02:19:02PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I figure it's a consequence of the ldapmodify default changetype being
> > 'replace'. I suppose that's a sane default, but it could still be a bit
> > confusing to people who don't know/notice.
>
> Nothing new here, this is how th
El sábado, 30 de diciembre de 2006 a las 15:42:33 +, Nicolas Boullis
escribía:
> > - the birthDate field isn't currently available via the mail daemon,
> >this will be fixed soon.
> What about gender? How is it specified?
> with a ldapsearch, I can find 1, 2 and 9...
It appears to be 1
Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> What about gender? How is it specified?
Currently it is a drop down that allows you to choose:
- unspecified
- male
- female
Which in my opinion reflects sex and not gender.
I would rather have it as an input field where people can express their
gender in the way they wa
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 05:14:30PM +0100, Francois Petillon wrote:
> Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >For a start that sites performing sender verification will partecipate
> >in a DDoS on the mail infrastructure of domains forged by spammers.
> [...]
>
> There are two things I really dislike in sender veri
Josip Rodin wrote:
Yes. Just like any other large amount of traffic could be harmful on
big domains.
I will be more precise. Answering a rcpt-to is, in my case, around 20 to
30% of the job of the "storage cluster" to deliver a mail (I am not
talking about CPU, just disks IOs). If the number o
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 03:14:45PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 05:34:28AM -0800, Ryan Murray wrote:
> [...]
> > The mail gateway, web scripts, and userdir-ldap command line interface
> > have all been updated to deal with the new fields.
> Thanks Ryan. As usual, you do the
* Paul Waring:
> I've seen a lot of announcement/verification emails (such as Amazon
> orders) which go out from an address that does not exist -
In the SMTP envelope? I strongly doubt that.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 05:34:28AM -0800, Ryan Murray wrote:
>> * Mail greylisting
> What happens with a mail which is delivered to an user with greylisting
> enabled and one with it disabled?
>> * Mail whitelist
>> * Mail RBL list
>>
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 05:14:30PM +0100, Francois Petillon wrote:
> As we have started to collect stats, out of 1K connections, there are from
> 30 to 50 connections that look like sender verify. This is quite low right
> now but it could be harmful on big domains if more people use it.
Yes. Just
On Dec 30, Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Um, that happens if your domain is used in spam to so many different mail
> servers and with so many various local parts (so as to avoid caching),
> and all that are three-verb SMTP conversations. TBH I've never actually
This happens often indeed
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 05:34:28AM -0800, Ryan Murray wrote:
> * Mail greylisting
What happens with a mail which is delivered to an user with greylisting
enabled and one with it disabled?
> * Mail whitelist
> * Mail RBL list
> * Mail RHSBL list
What happens with this list
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 04:44:06PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > It's sad to see Debian promoting and supporting use of antisocial
> > > software.
> > There's nothing more anti-social in sender verification than in any other
> > similar check - if someone sends mail from an address that cannot b
Marco d'Itri wrote:
For a start that sites performing sender verification will partecipate
in a DDoS on the mail infrastructure of domains forged by spammers.
As we have started to collect stats, out of 1K connections, there are
from 30 to 50 connections that look like sender verify. This is q
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 04:37:15PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> I personally would love, if you go and whitelist, that you also
> whitelist the following set of hosts:
Wouldn't this be useful in the greylistd configuration on master, then?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Dec 30, Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's sad to see Debian promoting and supporting use of antisocial
> > software.
> There's nothing more anti-social in sender verification than in any other
> similar check - if someone sends mail from an address that cannot be
> delivered to, I
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 04:31:12PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> - the birthDate field isn't currently available via the mail daemon,
>this will be fixed soon.
What about gender? How is it specified?
with a ldapsearch, I can find 1, 2 and 9...
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema
On 10884 March 1977, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Hehe, reply to myself, but it didnt really fit for d-d-a.
> - If you whitelist hosts - dont bother to whitelist any .debian.org
>host, they are automagically whitelisted.
I personally would love, if you go and whitelist, that you also
whitelist the
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 03:32:02PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> >> I've seen a lot of announcement/verification emails (such as Amazon
> >> orders) which go out from an address that does not exist - presumably
> >> such emails would be blocked by sender verification?
> > Yes. Sender callo
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 03:27:46PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
>> I've seen a lot of announcement/verification emails (such as Amazon
>> orders) which go out from an address that does not exist - presumably
>> such emails would be blocked by sender verification?
> Yes. Sender callout verification i
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 02:10:14PM +, Paul Waring wrote:
> I've seen a lot of announcement/verification emails (such as Amazon
> orders) which go out from an address that does not exist - presumably
> such emails would be blocked by sender verification?
Yes. Sender callout verification is ba
hi [& thanks Ryan for the work]
Ryan Murray ha scritto:
> The mail gateway, web scripts, and userdir-ldap command line interface have
> all been updated to deal with the new fields.
I connected to the web interface at
https://db.debian.org/update.cgi?id=mennucc1
I found fields for
On 10884 March 1977, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> * Mail sender verification callouts
> It's sad to see Debian promoting and supporting use of antisocial
> software.
And if you would simply read the mail you would understand that this is
a per-user setting. If you dont like it - dont use it.
--
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 05:34:28AM -0800, Ryan Murray wrote:
[...]
> The mail gateway, web scripts, and userdir-ldap command line interface
> have all been updated to deal with the new fields.
Thanks Ryan. As usual, you do the right thing. I'm still sad that we all
have to wait for you to get suff
Josip Rodin wrote:
There's nothing more anti-social in sender verification than in any other
similar check - if someone sends mail from an address that cannot be
delivered to, I don't want to accept it, because I can't deliver a reply to
them. If they want to talk to me, but won't accept replies
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 02:49:20PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > * Mail sender verification callouts
> It's sad to see Debian promoting and supporting use of antisocial
> software.
There's nothing more anti-social in sender verification than in any other
similar check - if someone sends mail
On Dec 30, Ryan Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Mail sender verification callouts
It's sad to see Debian promoting and supporting use of antisocial
software.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 10:17:44PM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Following the instructions on
> https://db.debian.org/password.html, I have tried to get a new
> password. This has had no apparent effect, although I've tried
> it a few times now. I haven't received a bounce or
Ben Pfaff wrote:
Following the instructions on
https://db.debian.org/password.html, I have tried to get a new
password. This has had no apparent effect, although I've tried
it a few times now. I haven't received a bounce or a reply.
Anyone else experienced this?
Use the "| mail [
Following the instructions on
https://db.debian.org/password.html, I have tried to get a new
password. This has had no apparent effect, although I've tried
it a few times now. I haven't received a bounce or a reply.
Anyone else experienced this?
(Not a huge deal, because I can still l
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Hugo van der Merwe wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Seems db.debian.org is still offline. Is there any way I can change my
> mail forwarding without it? It forwards to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> currently bach is broken, so bounces are going all over the place
> (mailing list
Hello,
Seems db.debian.org is still offline. Is there any way I can change my
mail forwarding without it? It forwards to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
currently bach is broken, so bounces are going all over the place
(mailing list subscriptions). I need to change it to... maybe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Cannot
* Glenn McGrath
| Is there a list of developer accessible machines anywhere ?
|
| A mirror of http://db.debian.org/machines.cgi would have been handy
http://raw.no/debian/machines.html
is the list I have. Please send me updates and I'll update it.
--
Tollef Fog
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
