Re: Debian-devel subscriber count

1997-12-13 Thread Thomas Lakofski
Here's one lurker sticking his head up for a second. I lurk so I get some picture of what's happening on the hamm front, beyond what I get on debian-user. I don't post because I don't develop (yet ;). TL On 13 Dec 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: debian-devel@lists

Re: Buffer overrun in Redhat 5.0 (fwd)

1997-12-16 Thread Thomas Lakofski
Hi, This concerns a potential buffer overrun problem with glibc2 -- wanted to make sure that the relevant Debian people were aware of it. I'm not running a hamm system anymore so I can't test it against the Debian libc6. TL -- Forwarded message -- From: Wilton Wong - ListMail <[

Re: SPAM to mailing lists! STOP NOW.

1997-12-16 Thread Thomas Lakofski
On 16 Dec 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > We do use qmail. It might be worth applying the MAPS RBL (Realtime Blackhole List) patches to qmail available at http://www.qmail.org/rbl/ Given the volume of the debian lists, it would make sense for a DNS server on the lists.debian.org LAN to be a seco

Re: unwanted e-mail

1997-12-29 Thread Thomas Lakofski
Correction. Since you are subscribed to the digest version of debian devel, send the email to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' with the word 'unsubscribe' in the body of the message. Sorry for the confusion. Thomas Lakofski. On Mon, 29 Dec 1997, Eric Lewis wrote: > From: Eric

Re: non-hub 10baseT connections

1997-12-30 Thread Thomas Lakofski
On Mon, 29 Dec 1997, Stephen Zander wrote: > Vincent Renardias wrote: > > Yes, you can, but you need a special ethernet cable with a pair of wires > > crossed. (I made a few ones, but you should consider to buy it if you have > > no special wiring knowledge. Costs about $8 here.) > > Given the sp

Re: I2O specs mailed to webmaster

1998-10-12 Thread Thomas Lakofski
On 12 Oct 1998, Gregory S. Stark wrote: > On the off chance that the original sender is reading this, or looking at the > e-mail archive: Hotmail is not an anonymous mailing system, and makes no > pretense of such. They will happily hand over records if needed. Equally the information you supply

sendmail logging disappeared

1998-10-14 Thread Thomas Lakofski
hmmm, just rebooted for the first time in 20 days and my sendmail daemon isn't doing any logging. no problems in /etc/syslog.conf, and sendmail invoked by pine drops logs in the right places. daemon logs its invocation and then goes about its business (correctly), but doesn't log anything as far

Re: sendmail logging disappeared (fixed)

1998-10-14 Thread Thomas Lakofski
Removed and reinstalled sendmail binary, working again. Mysterious. On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Thomas Lakofski wrote: > From: Thomas Lakofski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org > Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 14:05:43 + (UTC) > Subject: sendmail logging disappear

latest sysklogd broken?

1998-10-14 Thread Thomas Lakofski
Hi, Going to contradict myself after some more investigation that I've done: Seems that the latest sysklogd package breaks sendmail's (and cron's, just checked) logging to syslog -- it works for a few minutes, and then no more logs. I don't know if this is universal (only checked 2 daemons), but

apache-ssl 1.3.3+1.27-1 depends on libssl09

1998-10-16 Thread Thomas Lakofski
...and as of yet, no libssl09 on non-us.debian.org. (there's a 180 day old bug report on this one) -Thomas

new unstable please

1998-10-18 Thread Thomas Lakofski
Hi, I noticed that with the transition to frozen, as expected, packages too unstable to be in frozen have vanished (on ftp.debian.org, at least). I hope I can expect a new unstable to appear within a few days, if only to drop those packages which were removed from frozen into it. I guess a name

Re: getting kernel 2.2 into slink

1999-01-22 Thread thomas lakofski
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Brian White wrote: > I'll share that fantasy. As linux becomes more and more mainstream, it's > going to be even more difficult to dream. Of course, the reality is that > most users don't need the 2.2 kernel anyway. unfortunately (maybe) for Debian, very few inexperienced u

Re: Reality check! [was: Re: Debian goes big business?]

1999-01-23 Thread thomas lakofski
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Paul Seelig wrote: > Please don't let's start *this* kind of discussion yet again. It's > *not* about appeasing to the masses of unskilled consumers. It's > about increasing ease of installation, use and maintenance. Skilled > people definitely benefit from such time saving

Re: Reality check! [was: Re: Debian goes big business?]

1999-01-23 Thread thomas lakofski
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Raul Miller wrote: > thomas lakofski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I also am disappointed with the attitude of some people towards making > > these things easier to do. Is it some kind of techno-snobbery, maybe? > > In the context of initial

Re: Reality check! [was: Re: Debian goes big business?]

1999-01-24 Thread thomas lakofski
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 08:51:25PM +0000, thomas lakofski wrote: > > OK, since it seems that this kind of thing will probably only happen in a > > commercial context, maybe it would make sense to arrange commercial > > spons