Le Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 03:16:53PM +0100, Jon Dowland a écrit :
>
> I personally agree. I don't bother munging my email address
> at all anymore, as I don't think it helps a great deal in
> the mid to long term, and it certainly detracts from the
> usefulness of an address. However if an upstream
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... it was already clear that Ben's requests [for valid contact
> information of copyright holders] are pointless.
On the contrary, the request has a clearly- and often-stated point: to
reduce the risk accepted by the Debian project that a copyright
On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 12:40:39AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 28 septembre 2007 à 13:49 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > "You" don't distribute the package?
> > Ben Finney is not a Debian Developer. The views expressed by Ben Finney on
> > this mailing list are not representa
Le vendredi 28 septembre 2007 à 13:49 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> "You" don't distribute the package?
>
> Ben Finney is not a Debian Developer. The views expressed by Ben Finney on
> this mailing list are not representative of the views of the Debian Project
> or any of its members.
Oh, co
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Finney is not a Debian Developer. The views expressed by Ben
> Finney on this mailing list are not representative of the views of
> the Debian Project or any of its members.
With the caveat "not *necessarily* representative", we agree on that.
--
Andre Majorel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2007-09-27 16:39 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > I think [valid contact information for copyright holders at the
> > time of packaging] should be required, in order that Debian users
> > can have more confidence [0] in the copyright status of works in
>
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 10:13:39PM +0200, Andre Majorel wrote:
> On 2007-09-27 16:39 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I don't think there is any requirement to have any upstream contact
> > > information whatsoever in order to be able to distribute a pa
On 2007-09-27 16:39 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't think there is any requirement to have any upstream contact
> > information whatsoever in order to be able to distribute a package.
>
> This seems to be the point of disagreement. I think this
Ben Finney writes ("Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file"):
> I argue that the only fair place to draw the line is "valid RFC 2821
> email address". The alternative is to leave it to ongoing subjective
> judgement of unspecified Debian parties as to wh
Holger Levsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Whether or not it its an requirement to be able to contact the
> author, doesnt have anything to do with obfuscating the email
> address or not. (Assuming its not obfuscated beyond recognitition.)
That just pushes the question to a different location, w
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 02:54:08PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 12:59:18PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > > This one time, at band camp, Darren Salt said:
> > > > I demand that Lars Wirzenius may or may not have writte
This one time, at band camp, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 12:59:18PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > This one time, at band camp, Darren Salt said:
> > > I demand that Lars Wirzenius may or may not have written...
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > > > Obfuscation which can easily be rever
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 12:59:18PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Darren Salt said:
> > I demand that Lars Wirzenius may or may not have written...
> >
> > [snip]
> > > Obfuscation which can easily be reversed by a human, but not so easily by
> > > a
> > > computer, doe
This one time, at band camp, Darren Salt said:
> I demand that Lars Wirzenius may or may not have written...
>
> [snip]
> > Obfuscation which can easily be reversed by a human, but not so easily by a
> > computer, does not render contact information incorrect. If I write my
> > e-mail address as f
I demand that Lars Wirzenius may or may not have written...
[snip]
> Obfuscation which can easily be reversed by a human, but not so easily by a
> computer, does not render contact information incorrect. If I write my
> e-mail address as follows, it's still correct: "My full name is Lars Ivar
> Wi
Hi,
On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:39, Ben Finney wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't think there is any requirement to have any upstream contact
> > information whatsoever in order to be able to distribute a package.
> This seems to be the point of disagreement. I th
Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think there is any requirement to have any upstream contact
> information whatsoever in order to be able to distribute a package.
This seems to be the point of disagreement. I think this should be
required, in order that Debian users can have m
to, 2007-09-27 kello 10:21 +1000, Ben Finney kirjoitti:
> Jon Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > However if an upstream author of a package wishes to conceal their
> > address, I think we should honour that.
>
> This is at odds with "always have correct contact information for the
> copyri
Jon Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However if an upstream author of a package wishes to conceal their
> address, I think we should honour that.
This is at odds with "always have correct contact information for the
copyright holder at the time of packaging", which I think Debian
should stri
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 03:20:09PM -0500, Steve Greenland
wrote:
> I'd bet at least a small sum of money that "not beyond
> human recognition" and "impede machine parsing" are, at
> this point, non-intersecting sets. It's not even like they
> have to get it right on the first try -- just generate a
On 25-Sep-07, 04:13 (CDT), Jon Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The goal is not withold valid contact information, it is to impede
> automatic email-harvesting software. So far we haven't discussed munging
> addresses beyond human recognition, just sufficiently to impede work on
> machine-p
Andre Majorel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The people who mind having their address published are not likely to
> hand it out without obfuscating it.
These aren't email addresses of close personal friends, given to a
select few people. These are email addresses given by the copyright
holder as t
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 02:33:58AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Like say, http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat ?
>
> Yup, exactly like that :-)
>
> Would specifying the copyright line as being structured
> (rather than free-form) not be a p
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 02:33:58AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Like say, http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat ?
Yup, exactly like that :-)
Would specifying the copyright line as being structured
(rather than free-form) not be a prerequisite before
specifying the email address to be
On 2007-09-24 13:17 -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 24-Sep-07, 04:30 (CDT), Andre Majorel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2007-09-24 18:21 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > Andre Majorel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > On 2007-09-23 17:22 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > > > The pack
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Jon Dowland wrote:
> Ben Finney wrote:
>> That is, so that the information can be extracted automatically and
>> presented by a program in various contexts, rather than having the
>> *only* way to get at the information be to read the debian/copyright
>> file in its entirety.
>
Ben Finney wrote:
I'm of the opinion that a copyright statement for the work in a Debian
package should include valid contact details
...
If they want to avoid giving valid contact information
...
The goal is not withold valid contact information, it is to impede
automatic email-harvesting s
Ben Finney wrote:
That is, so that the information can be extracted automatically and
presented by a program in various contexts, rather than having the
*only* way to get at the information be to read the debian/copyright
file in its entirety.
If machine-parsing the copyright file is desired,
ti, 2007-09-25 kello 17:07 +1000, Ben Finney kirjoitti:
> Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If they distribute their work without an e-mail address attached,
> > should the Debian packager go dig one up?
> >
> > If they distribute their work with the attached e-mail address
> > obf
Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If they distribute their work without an e-mail address attached,
> should the Debian packager go dig one up?
>
> If they distribute their work with the attached e-mail address
> obfuscated in some way, should the Debian packager un-obfuscate it?
I'm
ti, 2007-09-25 kello 12:19 +1000, Ben Finney kirjoitti:
> Andre Majorel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > How do you determine that being able to [parse email addresses in
> > package metadata] is more important than concerns over disseminating
> > other people's email addresses without their permiss
Andre Majorel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How do you determine that being able to [parse email addresses in
> package metadata] is more important than concerns over disseminating
> other people's email addresses without their permission ?
They're distributing a work, with their chosen contact e
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 09:02:23PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 01:17:44PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > On 24-Sep-07, 04:30 (CDT), Andre Majorel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 2007-09-24 18:21 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > > Andre Majorel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 01:17:44PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 24-Sep-07, 04:30 (CDT), Andre Majorel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2007-09-24 18:21 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > Andre Majorel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > On 2007-09-23 17:22 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> >
On 24-Sep-07, 04:30 (CDT), Andre Majorel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2007-09-24 18:21 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Andre Majorel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On 2007-09-23 17:22 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > > The package should include in the copyright file the correct email
> >
On 2007-09-24 18:21 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Andre Majorel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 2007-09-23 17:22 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > The package should include in the copyright file the correct email
> > > address for whatever contact information the upstream author(s)
> > > use to
Andre Majorel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2007-09-23 17:22 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > The package should include in the copyright file the correct email
> > address for whatever contact information the upstream author(s)
> > use to receive queries from users and other people.
>
> This e
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Andre Majorel wrote:
> This email address will be used by humans. Why does it have to be
> machine readable ?
Because it will be read by machines too, of course. Unless you plan on
never allowing the information in the copyright file to be extracted
by anything which is rather
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:02:01 +0200, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 11150 March 1977, Marc Haber wrote:
>>>Same goes for those idiots with
>>>"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" addresses.
>> Using a plus sign in the mail address is a _very_ _very_ effective
>> spam filter.
>
>I dont care about the +.
On 2007-09-23 17:22 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007, Andre Majorel wrote:
> > On 2007-09-20 23:10 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> >
> > > I would not be against a policy requirement that email addresses
> > > in package metadata should be the literal address without
> > > munging.
> >
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007, Andre Majorel wrote:
> On 2007-09-20 23:10 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > I would not be against a policy requirement that email addresses
> > in package metadata should be the literal address without
> > munging.
>
> I would not be against a policy requirement that packagers
On 2007-09-20 23:10 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> I would not be against a policy requirement that email addresses
> in package metadata should be the literal address without
> munging.
I would not be against a policy requirement that packagers *ask*
third parties before publishing their email addre
On 11150 March 1977, Marc Haber wrote:
>>Same goes for those idiots with
>>"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" addresses.
> Using a plus sign in the mail address is a _very_ _very_ effective
> spam filter.
I dont care about the +. Thats not my point, im using such addresses myself.
--
bye Joerg
SCSI benötigt
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 09:02:34 +0200, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>You mean the foo at bar dot com value isnt parseable? I dont think it
>has any value to encode an address like this, as any little spambot can
>EASILY decode that.
Agreed.
>Same goes for those idiots with
>"[EMAIL PROTE
Please don't email copies of list messages unless explicitly requested.
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct>
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 11148 March 1977, Ben Finney wrote:
> > IANADD, but would argue that making the copyright file, including
> > any email address
On 11148 March 1977, Ben Finney wrote:
>> Recently, perhaps mainly due to so many spams, it looks common to
>> write email address like "foo at some.where" etc. and I wonder if it
>> is acceptable to use such modified email address in Upstream Author
>> field of debian/copyright file.
> IANADD, bu
On Thursday 20 September 2007 04:44, Ben Finney wrote:
> Atsuhito Kohda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Recently, perhaps mainly due to so many spams, it looks common to
> > write email address like "foo at some.where" etc. and I wonder if it
> > is acceptable to use such modified email address in
Atsuhito Kohda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Recently, perhaps mainly due to so many spams, it looks common to
> write email address like "foo at some.where" etc. and I wonder if it
> is acceptable to use such modified email address in Upstream Author
> field of debian/copyright file.
IANADD, but
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:01:45 +0200 (CEST), "Thijs Kinkhorst" wrote:
> On Wed, September 19, 2007 07:42, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> > Recently, perhaps mainly due to so many spams, it looks common
> > to write email address like "foo at some.where" etc. and I wonder if it is
> > acceptable to use such
Hi,
On Wed, September 19, 2007 07:42, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> Recently, perhaps mainly due to so many spams, it looks common
> to write email address like "foo at some.where" etc. and I wonder if it is
> acceptable to use such modified email address in Upstream Author field of
> debian/copyright f
Hi all,
Recently, perhaps mainly due to so many spams, it looks common
to write email address like "foo at some.where" etc. and
I wonder if it is acceptable to use such modified email address
in Upstream Author field of debian/copyright file.
I come to think this because when I updated one of m
51 matches
Mail list logo
