ving selinux available.
>
> I thought Russell Coker put a lot of effort in having SELinux ready
> with Debian as well. Maybe I just dreamed that...
Yes, I put in a lot of effort, but that was not enough. So far I have never
had more than two other DD's involved in SE Linux w
I am willing to give up fcron if someone is interested in taking it over. I
have done everything I wanted to do with this package, I put SE Linux support
in it, I updated it to the latest upstream version, and I worked with
upstream to fix all the bugs that seemed significant to me.
Now I don'
On Wednesday 01 December 2004 18:41, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > You could. However there is no sign of a repeat of that now so it's less
> > of an issue. The actions of the crusaders bear
On Thursday 02 December 2004 07:07, Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Are you claiming that there are NOT, at this time, plenty of people
> killing random innocents, and waving the Islamic Crescent to justify it?
Random innocents? No, I don't see any evidence of that.
Killing targett
On Thursday 02 December 2004 09:15, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I would not like to be in the position of panderingf to such
> insanity. Hmm, if we flood iran with enough pr0n, perhaps they'll
> all kill each other off, and we can inject some sanity into the
> country.
I th
On Thursday 02 December 2004 04:30, Everton da Silva Marques
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's pure anti-speech insanity leading the way
> to socialism.
That's an amusing statement. Please learn what socialism is before re-joining
the discussion.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA S
On Thursday 02 December 2004 04:54, Michelle Konzack
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was already on time 17 and another time 3 month in prison...
> ...for nothing ! I do not like to continue this in Iran.
The solution is to not live in Iran.
I know it sounds harsh, but we can't adapt the rest of
On Thursday 02 December 2004 11:38, Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 02:38:54AM +0100, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo wrote:
> > I can volunteer to provide some naked photos of myself, but I guess they
> > will be more suitable for section "fun" than section "erotic".
>
On Thursday 02 December 2004 20:00, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> The internet community that Debian is apart of would consider this
> fairly tame, considering what a mistyped search engine address seems
> to pop up on the screen.
A few years ago I visited a "sex museum" in Ams
On Friday 03 December 2004 02:25, Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Amazingly, not all women believe that any depiction of the naked human
> body is automatically pornography and offensive.
As an example see some of the books of advice for pregnant women. They have
LOTS of photos of
On Friday 03 December 2004 05:46, "cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (btw, is gay porn demeaning to women?)
>
> or femdom porn (if so I'd _really_ like to hear the reasoning behind that
> verdict)
Some people say that in B-D the submissive controls the dominant. I've nev
On Friday 03 December 2004 04:07, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > They are confusing somethings when compares sexual discrimination
> > with any other kind of. Be a women is not a religion choice and is
> > not a the same thing than choose a Desktop Manager. You are
> > argumenting
On Friday 03 December 2004 03:20, Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Then distributing of porn journals in Iran to destabilize the
> Gouvernement...
What is this about? Can you provide some URLs that give background
information on it?
> > If you are in Iran/Saudi Arabia/Myanmar/ you
On Thursday 02 December 2004 23:38, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hmm. I would like some Raphael budes, yes. and some studies by
> > michelangelo too. Oh, you think that is not porn?
>
> I think calling the hot-babe package and images 'art' is a bit
> farfetched.
Do you consider
On Thursday 02 December 2004 19:21, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As for violent games & religion, the question *does* need to be
> asked: how far will D-Ds bend their mostly libertarian/Leftist
> views in order to ensure that Debian *disks* can be possessed in
> as much of the world as
On Friday 03 December 2004 16:19, Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 2) can not be sexist
Bad idea. We should avoid subjective criteria.
> 3) has to be able to be mirrored by all mirrors based on the laws of the
> location of the server
Bad idea. Some countries have stupid laws and we sh
On Tuesday 07 December 2004 11:22, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 10:01 +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > So are you saying I should take my web pages of my naked dogs down?
>
> Depends on who's prurient interests are appealed to by your naked
> dogs.
>
> Fortunately, thou
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 01:09, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Fortunately, though, pictures of naked dogs are *not* considered
> >> to be appealing to prurient interests. Unless, *maybe*, a hyper-
> >> horny 13 year old boy is seeing a picture of dogs copulating, and
> >> not i
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 07:42, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > Fortunately, though, pictures of naked dogs are *not* considered
> > > to be appealing to prurient interests. Unless, *maybe*, a hyper-
> > > horny 13 year old boy is seeing a picture of dogs copulating, and
> > > n
On Thursday 09 December 2004 14:06, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're coming very late to the "conversation". A District
> Attorney angling for higher office or someone in the Morality
> Police (think Saudi Arabia) or a petty member of the CCP might not
> care about "there will be co
On Sunday 02 January 2005 16:34, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Any anti-spam measure that gets any large portion of the spam will have
> > some false positives.
>
> What is this, "you go to wa
On Sunday 02 January 2005 18:21, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sunday 02 January 2005 16:34, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> write
On Sunday 02 January 2005 20:19, Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 08:03:48PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > That's not the point. The point was that you are comparing the actions
> > of a scumbag (I am being nice) who delibe
On Monday 03 January 2005 07:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is true whether the bad things are false positives in email or
> the deaths of hundreds of people. Certainly deaths are worse, but I
> wasn't comparing false positives to deaths.
>
> I was explaining why your st
On Monday 03 January 2005 09:22, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Monday 03 January 2005 07:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > This is true whether the bad things are f
On Saturday 06 November 2004 02:57, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> debian doesn't GIVE users that choice [remember the adamantix
> bun-fight, anyone?] and instead settles for about the lowest possible
> common denominator - no consideration to modern security AT ALL!
On Friday 31 December 2004 06:22, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 08:43:32 +1100, Russell Coker
> > Everyone who has a legitimate cause to send me email
> > knows to use English.
>
> Your arrogance is remarkable.
Why is it arrogant?
On Sunday 02 January 2005 18:32, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Way OT, but what the heck. If you must, flame me privately:]
>
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005, Russell Coker wrote:
> > On Sunday 02 January 2005 16:34, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Wednesday 05 January 2005 07:58, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Save for the fact that it was Rumsfeld who said this, not Bush or bin
> > > Laden:
> >
> > It's the same thing.
&
On Wednesday 05 January 2005 03:34, Darren Salt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I demand that Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo may or may not have written...
>
> > El lun, 03-01-2005 a las 21:35 +1100, Russell Coker escribió:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Human lives are much more i
On Wednesday 05 January 2005 15:13, Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, it's clear that trying to discuss thing swith you is a pointless
> excercise in frustration, so I guess it doesn't matter one way or
> another if you stop; hopefully others can continue the discussion in a
> more t
On Friday 07 January 2005 06:01, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You cannot justify the bad consequences your actions just by saying
> that they are the only way to get the good goals you desire.
The problem with s
On Friday 07 January 2005 10:03, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The problem with spam filtering is that it's always a matter of
> > trade-offs. If there is too much spam then when deleting all the spam
On Monday 31 January 2005 16:16, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >>1) - a community where people are pleasant to each other, where
> >>disagreements are discussed politely, and where people who are unable to
> >>be civil are not glorified for their behaviour.
> >
> > This isn't too far from the situation w
Netdump is the network dump facility. It's purpose is to transfer an image of
a machine's memory over the network when it crashes for the purpose of
debugging.
The main advantage of using the network over disk is that network hardware is
often simpler than storage hardware (and easier to opera
On Monday 19 December 2005 11:49, Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > If /run is tmpfs, it means everything stored there eats virtual memory.
> > So a musch metter strategy would be to move everything from /run to
> > /var/run at the end of the
On Monday 19 December 2005 23:04, Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 01:49:37AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > tmpfs stores run ressources in vm more efficiently (since they are
> > otherwise in th buffercache and the filesystem).
>
> Quite the contrary. tmpfs need
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 01:27, Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 10:09:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The other aspect is that /var's the place for stuff that varies during
> > normal use; introducing some other place for the same thing is redundant
> > a
On Thursday 22 December 2005 20:58, "Miquel van Smoorenburg"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well actually, perhaps we should not even use mount --move. Just
> copying the files is enough:
Copying the files won't work well if some of them are open at the time...
> There are 2 conditions for program
On Friday 23 December 2005 10:48, Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 05:09:02PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > 368K is an issue on a machine with 8M of RAM, it's an annoyance if you
> > have 16M, beyond about 32M it stops being a pr
On Friday 23 December 2005 10:36, Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 05:18:43PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > Putting system directories under /tmp is a really bad idea, it opens
> > possibilities of race condition attacks by unprivileged use
On Saturday 24 December 2005 11:35, Goswin von Brederlow
> > Also as for sym-links, there's no reason why /var/run couldn't be used
> > all along. Imagine we have a system where /var is mounted from an LVM
> > volume (or something else that can't be mounted early on). So we start
> > with a /var
On Sunday 25 December 2005 00:55, Goswin von Brederlow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Saturday 24 December 2005 11:35, Goswin von Brederlow
> >
> >> Basicaly everything that needs /run doesn't use /var/run an
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 12:10, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2) We take the patent issue seriously, and drop all MP3 support.
MP3 software does not belong in Debian/main. Unlike many patents the MPEG
patents probably have a good basis.
Any software which is based on Frauhoffe
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 17:40, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 17:08 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > MP3 software does not belong in Debian/main. Unlike many patents the
> > MPEG patents probably have a good basis.
>
> To make i
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 22:40, Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim Cutts wrote:
> > [...] In my case I was mounting /var/run
> > and /var/lock as tmpfs filesystems all the time to reduce hard disk
> > access on a machine that was running all the time.
>
> Ubuntu is already mounting t
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 21:53, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is no difference between decoders and encoders. Both require
> patent licenses. There are a few references to a statement by some of
> the patent holders (Thomson IIRC, the company representing one of the
> larg
On Tuesday 25 January 2005 11:26, Helen Faulkner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do not believe that being thick-skinned enough to cope with people who
> are very agressive or insulting should be a requirement for involvement
> in Debian. Sadly, it seems to me that this is effectively the case.
>
On Tuesday 25 January 2005 12:21, Helen Faulkner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From the point of view of behaviour in Debian lists that is
> intimidating to newcomers and especially people who are shy or not very
> thick-skinned, the most troubling post to this thread, in my opinion,
The most shy
On Monday 24 January 2005 21:01, "SR, ESC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and don't bother replying, i've unsubbed from this list. get on with
> your lives and ignore this if you can't/won't deal with it - i don't
> want to deal with people that will waste my time for their petty little
> politics.
On Sunday 30 January 2005 07:47, Helen Faulkner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > For those of you who don't know Rusty has a fine collection of flames
> > (and other silly messages) written to some very skillful Linux
> > programmers. You can write excellent code and be nice and still get
> > flame
On Sunday 30 January 2005 08:58, Helen Faulkner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> neither childish nor unreasonable, though it is possibly not actually
> much fun for Rusty and others.
Receiving a flame that you can display at a conference dinner is something to
be proud of!
Some people are (in)famo
On Monday 31 January 2005 02:03, Andreas Rottmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > For those of you who don't know Rusty has a fine collection of flames
> > (and other silly messages) written to some very skillful Linux
On Thursday 24 March 2005 03:40, Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the free software fanatics succeed in kicking non-free from being
> supported by Debian assets, such that the FSF documentation were no
> longer available, I'd probably end up agreeing with you and probably
> would do wh
On Monday 28 February 2005 14:26, sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i came up with the number by totalling the mailbox sizes of a 3000 user
> mail system, and then dividing by the total number of messages in these
> mailboxes. this generated a number around 13k average message size.
> i had
On Wednesday 16 March 2005 22:14, David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Just that it is not lost: SELinux soft support (patched utilities available
> in main). There seems to be a repository that mostly works (I'm not in the
> loop about currentness though) and it'd is probably an important s
On Thursday 14 April 2005 20:05, Gerrit Pape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > automatically starting a screen session at startup?
>
> While I think that user specific services are useful, I don't think cron
> is the right place for that. The init system should support user-owned
> services and an in
On Tuesday 12 April 2005 23:20, Klaus Ethgen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Di den 12. Apr 2005 um 15:01 schriebst Du:
> > Though, rather than having a seperate package for this, it'd probably be
> > better to add it to some other package of small toys.
>
> Maybe not as it is like fakeroot a prelo
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 09:32, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The fact that the release team now sees the light at the end of the
> tunnel for the release of sarge means that now is the time we need to
> begin planning for etch. Allowing unstable development to pick back up
> after a relea
On Tuesday 08 March 2005 10:46, David Härdeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> o Especially on laptops, it might be interesting to also encrypt all of
> /home and/or other parts of the harddrive to make the data unusuable
> without the USB key. But how to integrate this with the other
> requirem
On Sunday 27 March 2005 00:26, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Is there a project-wide policy for support for devfs (and devfs-style,
> e.g. udev devfs.rules) device naming?
The SE Linux kernel code doesn't and won't support devfs. Devfs is on the way
out and there is no interest in ad
On Friday 22 April 2005 21:28, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > SE Linux also has a list of device names for initially labelling a file
> > system. Neither devfs nor devfs device names will work with SE Linux.
>
> That's fine. But regular packages should not limit thems
It seems that Red Hat has a lot of programs under /usr/libexec that are
under /usr/lib in Debian. One example is /usr/lib/postfix
vs /usr/libexec/postfix.
It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things, and having
the same directory names used across distributions provides r
On Monday 09 May 2005 17:17, Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In principle, there could be files which can be used as both a shared
> library and an internal binary. Where would you put such files?
Anything that's a shared object has to be in a directory that ldconfig knows
about. The
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 02:18, Goswin von Brederlow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It seems to me that /usr/libexec is a better name for such things, and
> > having the same directory names used across distributions provides
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 10:36, Goswin von Brederlow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - / can't be on lvm, raid0, raid5, reiserfs, xfs without causing
> problems for /boot.
I believe that there are LILO patches for /boot on LVM. There's no reason why
GRUB and other boot loaders couldn't be updated in
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 00:55, GOMBAS Gabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:16:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > the bootloader does not need to access the root filesystem. It only loads
> > the kernel and the initrd from /boot.
>
> (I assume that /boot is on /. If not
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:39, Goswin von Brederlow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tuesday 10 May 2005 10:36, Goswin von Brederlow
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> - / can't be on lvm, raid
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:28, Goswin von Brederlow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why would it be desirable to have arch-os directories under libexec?
On fedora-devel Bill Nottingham suggested having /usr/lib vs /usr/lib64 for
programs that care about such things and /usr/libexec for programs
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 05:47, Goswin von Brederlow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > / on LVM allows for snapshot backups which are the most convenient method
> > of backup.
>
> Except that the kernel freezes the device because the DM lock and
> device node updating deadlock.
>
> Might work with ud
On Wednesday 11 May 2005 05:50, Goswin von Brederlow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wednesday 11 May 2005 01:28, Goswin von Brederlow
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > Why would it be
On Thursday 19 May 2005 12:26, Camm Maguire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greetings! It seems that we are in need of a 'big usermem' kernel
> patch in Debian, so I am considering contributing such a package. It
> appears there are two approaches on the net, both in various
> incarnations of redhat
The current Debian kernels have SE Linux compiled in, but not in a form that
is usable.
The option CONFIG_AUDIT needs to be enabled to allow SE Linux access denials
to be logged, without this it is impossible to use SE Linux. While making
such changes enabling the option CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL wo
On Monday 30 May 2005 06:01, Laszlo Boszormenyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (*) I don't have time to take on another package at the moment. But I
> > would be happy to help someone who wants to package auditd.
>
> I have a little time and would like to package auditd. There are two
> problems
On Friday 10 June 2005 09:58, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since d-i currently puts the initrd that reads the second floppy (or
> other USB media) on the boot floppy with the kernel, we either have to
> shoehorn that initrd, which is currently 644k, onto the same floppy,
> reducing its si
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 19:31, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> What about switching from getty to mingetty? Is there any reason to use
> getty by default?
Is there any reason to change?
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://ww
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 19:12, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 01:47:12AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Jun 07, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > - _No_ bugs in base packages (well, at least no old bugs). Base system
> > > sho
On Sunday 12 June 2005 08:38, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 12 June 2005 00:24, Russell Coker wrote:
> > New laptops tend to ship without floppy drives and desktop machines
> > will surely follow soon. Plans for future hardware support should not
>
On Sunday 12 June 2005 09:14, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some older BIOSes don't allow booting from CD-ROM, let alone netbooting or
It's easy to solve the problem of a BIOS that doesn't support booting from
CD-ROM. You have a boot loader on a floppy disk that loads the kernel and
in
On Sunday 12 June 2005 19:54, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> El Domingo 12 Junio 2005 01:24, Russell Coker escribió:
> > wrote:
> > > What about switching from getty to mingetty? Is there any reason to use
> > > getty by default?
>
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 02:32, Darren Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> ISTM that a non-standard disk format (21 sectors per track and/or more
> tracks) would help - or would this just cause too many problems?
AFAIK it's not possible for the BIOS to boot from a 21 sector track.
I have heard of p
regarding prelink
On Thursday 16 June 2005 08:18, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One of the points of the md5sum verification is to ensure that the
> > binaries haven't been tampered with. If one can tamper with the binaries
> > by modifying some file in /var/cache instead, doesn't
On Friday 17 June 2005 22:06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But if someone can change the cache of data written by prelink then why
> > couldn't they also change the program that does the md5 checks to make it
> > always return a good result?
>
> They can, but I've never seen a root
On Sunday 19 June 2005 08:22, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> If you don't want to accept mail from users, for whatever reason, you
> don't have to. But Debian requires that uploads have a valid email
> address: and that means one that ac
On Sunday 19 June 2005 08:24, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> An email address with such blocking on it is therefore not suitable
> for the Maintainer: field of a Debian package.
What anti-spam measures do you consider acceptable for a De
On Saturday 18 June 2005 01:07, Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I perfectly understand what SMTP is, and I perfectly *don't* understand
> why having a 30 minutes delay or even a 2 or 3 hours delay in some
> conditions is tolerable.
Why is it tolerable to receive 200 spams in a day? O
On Saturday 18 June 2005 01:33, Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you didn't read one of my first posts : when the mail you receive
> comes from a big big big MX, and that they see a greylisted domain,
> since the time is sometimes 5 minutes, somtimes 10 and sometimes 20,
> they choose
On Thursday 16 June 2005 23:48, Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do _not_ want to have my debian.org mail forwarding go through a
> greylisting "service". I've had to deal with one too many user
> complaints due to greylisting. If it is a configurable service, then
> fine, other people
On Monday 20 June 2005 18:09, Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why would it be such a problem if you use a non-Debian email address for
> > Debian correspondence? As far as I recall I have never used my Debian
&g
On Monday 20 June 2005 18:17, Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Do you have any evidence to support yout claim that big mail servers
> > are configured to handle gray-listing servers differently from other
> > mail servers?
>
> I do. I know personnaly some admins of big MX (not necessa
On Monday 20 June 2005 18:20, Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know that, but it does not (IMHO) justify the use of greylising for
> everybody by default. I prefer to receive spam (and I do a lot through
> my @debian.org address, despite the fact that it's quite recent) that
> is filt
On Tuesday 21 June 2005 09:21, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 05:58:11PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > Rejecting every suggestion for an improvement is not helpful.
>
> Yes, it is, if every suggestion for "improvement" is a poor
On Tuesday 21 June 2005 01:46, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > You could help by listing the anti-spam measures that you consider to be
> > acceptable. Rejecting every suggestion for an improvement is not
&g
On Monday 20 June 2005 21:45, "Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, the major problem now are the @packages.debian.org addresses, I
> have ~20 of them and most days they account for 1/3 to 1/2 of all the
> spam I receive (and almost all of it could be blocked with the CBL).
Why not j
On Wednesday 22 June 2005 19:32, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I am ok with anti-spam measures which enable a well-behaving false
> >> positive sender to know they have run afoul, and in which the
> >> maintainers of the mechanism promise to try and adjust the system so
> >> t
On Wednesday 22 June 2005 19:23, "Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 22, Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why not just block mail sent to the packages.debian.org addresses?
> > No-one sends real mail to them anyway so
Could the Debian mail servers be reconfigured to put more information in the
Received: lines?
Below is a sample from the headers of a mail sent to me by gluck. You will
note that my server logs that the envelope recipient was [EMAIL PROTECTED]
while gluck puts no such data in the log entry.
T
On Thursday 23 June 2005 07:17, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Yes, it is, if every suggestion for "improvement" is a poor one. Lack
> > > of good ideas does not justify bad ones; not having any good ideas does
> > > not invalidate or in any way reduce the value of pointing out the
On Thursday 23 June 2005 21:54, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050622 11:22]:
> > On Monday 20 June 2005 21:45, "Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Anyway, the major problem now are the @packa
On Friday 24 June 2005 00:29, Rob Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 12:45:14PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > Below is a sample from the headers of a mail sent to me by gluck. You
> > will note that my server logs that the envelope recipient was
1 - 100 of 731 matches
Mail list logo
