On 1/12/2015 11:36 AM, i...@thargoid.co.uk wrote:
> Forwarding to the list as I seemed to have managed to leave it off.
> Apologies.
>
>
>>
>>> Knowledge is easier to duplicate than a physical item. You mentioned the
>>> ATM attack.
>>
>> Incorrect. Knowledge cannot be duplicated if there is no
On 1/12/2015 10:10 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 09:19:58AM -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 1/12/2015 8:05 AM, i...@thargoid.co.uk wrote:
>>>
>>> Nope - I am pretty sure it is something I am, within the context of the
>>> above s
On 1/12/2015 8:05 AM, i...@thargoid.co.uk wrote:
>
> While it is possible to enforce certain password policies (e.g. must use
> capital letters, numbers, symbols etc) these
> do not necessarily dictate a secure password. I guess if I know you
> phone number, if it is stored in my phone I have
> it
On 1/10/2015 2:41 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
>
> People like Snowden?? :) Ric
>
>
Snowden had direct access to the files. No hacking required.
Jerry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Arc
On 1/10/2015 6:39 AM, Joel Rees wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 12:24 PM, scott wrote:
>> On 01/09/2015 09:19 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 1/9/2015 8:49 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Martin Steigerwald
>>>> wrote:
On 1/10/2015 12:24 AM, scott wrote:
> On 01/10/2015 12:01 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 1/9/2015 10:24 PM, scott wrote:
>>> On 01/09/2015 09:19 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 1/9/2015 8:49 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 6:25 PM
On 1/9/2015 10:24 PM, scott wrote:
> On 01/09/2015 09:19 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 1/9/2015 8:49 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Martin Steigerwald
>>> wrote:
>>>> Am Freitag, 9. Januar 2015, 00:24:06 schrieb Brian:
>>>
On 1/9/2015 8:49 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Martin Steigerwald
> wrote:
>> Am Freitag, 9. Januar 2015, 00:24:06 schrieb Brian:
>>> On Thu 08 Jan 2015 at 22:36:46 +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
>>>> Am Donnerstag, 8. Januar 201
On 1/9/2015 4:37 PM, Bob Holtzman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 10:49:49AM -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>snip...
>>
>> SSH passwords are very safe, if they are long enough. For instance, if
>> you have a 10 character password, mixed c
On 1/9/2015 11:19 AM, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
> On Sex, 09 Jan 2015, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> SSH passwords are very safe, if they are long enough. For instance, if
>> you have a 10 character password, mixed case and numbers (no special
>> characters), a brute force attac
On 1/9/2015 11:29 AM, Danny wrote:
>> If you want to inspect further, I would suggest you look at each of the
>> jobs being run. See if they are what you expect them to be. Also check
>> your /etc/crontab and /etc/anacrontab to see what is in them.
>
> I would love to investigate further but I a
On 1/9/2015 4:25 AM, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Freitag, 9. Januar 2015, 00:24:06 schrieb Brian:
>> On Thu 08 Jan 2015 at 22:36:46 +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
>>> Am Donnerstag, 8. Januar 2015, 14:20:27 schrieb Jerry Stuckle:
>>>> Just ensure you're us
On 1/8/2015 3:02 PM, Brian wrote:
>
> If you have resorted to using iptables you have lost it. A standard
> Debian install doesn't need it.
>
>
I disagree. iptables is a great tool for blocking unwanted connections.
What do you have against it?
Jerry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-use
On 1/8/2015 3:53 PM, Danny wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> My apologies for replying a little late ...
>
> It was an absolute struggle getting things to work just so that I can give
> more
> information about the intrusion. I narrowed it down to cron ... What would
> happen is this ... After a boot the ne
On 1/6/2015 2:53 PM, Danny wrote:
>> A stab in the dark, but is it possible this machine has services exposed to
>> the internet, and you'd not applied fixes against the recent shellshock bug?
>>
>
> Jip ... ssh, apache, postfix, popa3d ... come to think of it ... all the candy
> is available ...
On 1/6/2015 7:27 AM, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> On 06/01/15 13:12, Brian wrote:
>> On Tue 06 Jan 2015 at 12:11:48 +0100, Gerard ROBIN wrote:
>>
>>> usually when the distribution changes, I update my system rather than
>>> reinstall everything. But for the transition from wheezy to jessie,
>>> I w
On 12/31/2014 3:11 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
> On 12/31/2014 02:32 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> Really, your expectations are unrealistic, especially since you don't
>> know my clients, their business, their employees' qualifications and a
>> whole lot of other th
On 12/31/2014 1:34 PM, Mike McGinn wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 09:45:53 Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 12/31/2014 4:20 AM, Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
>> > Jerry Stuckle writes:
>
>> >> On 12/30/2014 5:49 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
On 12/31/2014 1:10 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 31 dec 14, 09:45:53, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>> I've never said anyone should be obliged to maintain Debian the way I
>> want. I said the way they are going is not acceptable, so my clients
>> are changing dist
On 12/31/2014 1:24 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 12/30/2014 5:49 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
>>> If Debian is important to their business, then they should hire
>>> people to work on the bits of Debian that matter to them.
>&
On 12/31/2014 4:20 AM, Mart van de Wege wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>
>> On 12/30/2014 5:49 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> The people there have enough to do at work, and like to have a life
>>>> outside
On 12/30/2014 10:07 PM, William Unruh wrote:
>>
>> On 12/30/2014 5:49 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> The people there have enough to do at work, and like to have a life
>>>> outside of work. Be
On 12/30/2014 5:49 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> The people there have enough to do at work, and like to have a life
>> outside of work. Believer it or not, not everyone is capable (or
>> interested) in spending their life working on
On 12/30/2014 9:45 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> I should also add - that's why they are looking at other distros now.
>> They are planning to stay on Wheezy as long as possible. It will
>> probably take two years for them to ge
On 12/30/2014 5:37 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Lu, 29 dec 14, 22:06:55, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>> No, from what I've seen, the default is to do preventative fscks,
>> depending on the number of boots (and time? I'm not sure).
>
> Could you please sh
On 12/29/2014 10:05 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
> On 12/29/2014 08:51 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 12/29/2014 1:27 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
>>> On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote:
>>>>> On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM
On 12/29/2014 9:33 PM, William Unruh wrote:
>> On 12/29/2014 1:27 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
>>> On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote:
>>>>> On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>
On 12/29/2014 9:33 PM, William Unruh wrote:
>> On 12/29/2014 1:27 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
>>> On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote:
>>>>> On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>
On 12/29/2014 1:27 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
> On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote:
>>> On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday 28 Decemb
On 12/29/2014 1:31 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
> On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> This is a Debian User list. Why don't you want bugs which affect Debian
>> users discussed here? And that's what I have seen here - at least until
>> you started co
On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote:
> On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
>>> On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500
>>>>
>>>> Jerry St
On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500
>>
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:
>>>> On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuck
On 12/27/2014 7:20 PM, Celejar wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:
>>> On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>>>> I often give presentations with my notebook.
On 12/26/2014 12:48 PM, Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 10:42:21 -0500
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>>>>>> It's possible to corrupt ANY program if you replace a .dll or .so with
>>>>>> your own code.
>>>>>
>
On 12/26/2014 1:51 AM, Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 09:19:49PM -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 12/25/2014 11:23 AM, Reco wrote:
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 10:18:11AM -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 12/25/
On 12/25/2014 11:23 AM, Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 10:18:11AM -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 12/25/2014 8:54 AM, Andre N Batista wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 11:18:36AM -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 12/24/2014 2:01 AM, Danny
On 12/25/2014 8:54 AM, Andre N Batista wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 11:18:36AM -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 12/24/2014 2:01 AM, Danny wrote:
>>> Hi Bob,
>>>
>>> You were right, SFTP, FileZilla and Proftp confused the hell out of me ...
>>> lol
On 12/24/2014 2:48 PM, Danny wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> As a matter of interest, after I installed fail2ban I got this on ssh:
>
> ###
> Hi,
>
> The IP 122.225.109.103 has just been banned by Fail2Ban afte
On 12/24/2014 2:01 AM, Danny wrote:
> Hi Bob,
>
> You were right, SFTP, FileZilla and Proftp confused the hell out of me ... lol
> ... I must add in my defense though that I was in a state of panic after
> syslog
> warned me of an attack by someone during the night via ssh ... So I
> frantically
On 12/12/2014 6:47 PM, Brian wrote:
> On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 22:04:56 -0700, Paul E Condon wrote:
>
>> On 20141211_1332+, Brian wrote:
>>>
>>> Multiply your experience by 10,000 or 100,000 similar accounts and a
>>> picture begins to emerge and you can decide on how much confidence you
>>> can
On 12/12/2014 2:34 PM, Brian wrote:
> On Fri 12 Dec 2014 at 13:54:39 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 12/12/2014 12:07 PM, Brian wrote:
>>>
>>> The ^C method only postpones the fsck to another time. The issue of when
>>> to run one remains.
>>
&
On 12/12/2014 12:07 PM, Brian wrote:
> On Fri 12 Dec 2014 at 09:36:33 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 12/12/2014 6:02 AM, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>>>
>>> > This means fsck will never run because I don't use
>>&g
On 12/12/2014 6:02 AM, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>
> > This means fsck will never run because I don't use
> > the laptop outside of those times.
>
> Plan to use it outside of these times as a maintenance call. Or check
> the discussion f
On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:
> On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> If Windows can give you the option as to when to perform a potentially
>> critical (do not shut down!) and long running process, why can't Linux?
>
> As far as ha
On 12/11/2014 5:53 AM, Bonno Bloksma wrote:
> Hi,
>
fsck may take time. Relax, it needs that time.
>>>
>>> What if I do not have that time,
>>
>> Find it (this includes planning - of infrastructure and procedures if
>> required).
>
> Ok, so that means anyone with a nice laptop who wants to
On 12/8/2014 9:42 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2014, Christian Groessler wrote:
>> Why don't the systemd proponents understand that someone might want to
>> interrupt a running fsck? Don't scrutinize the reasons, just accept
>> the fact.
>
> Handwaving issues away is int
On 12/8/2014 6:25 AM, Alex wrote:
> Thank you all for some useful and "interesting" (strange??) replies.
>
> There is no decrease in stolen bandwidth - still approx 5 - 6Mbyte/10min
> using Reko's settings:-
>
> browser.safebrowsing.malware.enabled = false
> browser.safebrowsing.enabled =
On 12/7/2014 6:03 AM, Alex wrote:
> Warm greetings to all the wonderful maintainers,
>
> I am sorry to report that, with the latest Iceweasel (31.3.0) update
> came something I did NOT want:-
>
> This version is constantly loading two google cookies - google.com
> google.com.au (country s
On 12/3/2014 9:38 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 12/03/2014 at 07:43 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 05:15:36PM -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
Nothing is final yet, jessie is still a moving target IOW not
yet stabl
On 11/24/2014 1:14 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
> On 11/24/2014 08:18 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> And while Wheezy will still be supported for a couple of years, it's not
>> necessarily the answer. While many people don't want the "latest and
>> greatest",
On 11/24/2014 1:08 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 11/24/2014 10:52 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>> On 25/11/14 01:57, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 11/24/2014 8:54 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>&
On 11/24/2014 1:00 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 11/24/2014 8:54 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 11/24/2014 2:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, and while the
On 11/24/2014 12:37 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 25/11/14 03:26, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 11/24/2014 10:52 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>> On 25/11/14 01:57, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 11/24/2014 8:54 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>>>> Jerry Stuck
On 11/24/2014 12:22 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 25/11/14 03:13, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 11/24/2014 10:05 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>> On 25/11/14 00:25, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 11/24/2014 2:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, and
On 11/24/2014 11:01 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 25/11/14 02:01, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 11/24/2014 8:58 AM, Martin Read wrote:
>>> On 24/11/14 13:25, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> And exactly what is the "Debian way" to add custom (NOT customized
&
On 11/24/2014 10:52 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 25/11/14 01:57, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 11/24/2014 8:54 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 11/24/2014 2:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, and while the Linux commu
On 11/24/2014 10:05 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 25/11/14 00:25, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 11/24/2014 2:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>>> Yes, and while the Linux community continues, Debian will lose a
>>>> lot of dedicated users due to this decision.
On 11/24/2014 8:58 AM, Martin Read wrote:
> On 24/11/14 13:25, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> And exactly what is the "Debian way" to add custom (NOT customized
>> pre-packaged) software to the system?
>
> As far as I can tell, the obvious things that go into the "
On 11/24/2014 8:54 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 11/24/2014 2:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes, and while the Linux community continues, Debian will lose a lot of
>>>> dedicated users due to this decision. Possibly anothe
On 11/24/2014 2:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> Yes, and while the Linux community continues, Debian will lose a lot of
>> dedicated users due to this decision. Possibly another fork, or
>> possibly another distro. But Debian will lose users.
>
> 1. At best that's pure speculation. With all due
On 11/23/2014 11:25 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
> On 11/23/2014 09:20 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 11/23/2014 8:42 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
>>> On 11/23/2014 12:17 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> That is the huge majority of Debian users.
>>>> Some will get a rude surp
On 11/23/2014 8:42 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
> On 11/23/2014 12:17 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> That is the huge majority of Debian users.
>> Some will get a rude surprise when they upgrade and things don't work as
>> expected.
>
> Like what?? I first installed systemd
On 11/23/2014 5:29 PM, seeker5528 wrote:
>
> On 11/23/2014 1:15 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> We're not talking non-technical people here. We are talking companies
>> with ITcd departments managing multiple servers and desktops. We are
>> talking small companies who c
On 11/23/2014 1:27 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 11/23/2014 12:43 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
>> On Sunday 23 November 2014 17:23:15 Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> 'installing systemd, then removing
>>> and installing sysvinit' - was absolutely not and never could be
>>> considered the *equivalent*
>>> of doing a *c
On 11/23/2014 2:20 PM, seeker5528 wrote:
>
> On 11/23/2014 9:17 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> What I see missing in these discussions is the vast number of people
>> who don't monitor the lists. That is the huge majority of Debian
>> users. Some will get a rude surprise
On 11/23/2014 1:15 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Du, 23 nov 14, 12:17:00, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>> What I see missing in these discussions is the vast number of people who
>> don't monitor the lists. That is the huge majority of Debian users.
>
> I agree that t
On 11/23/2014 11:43 AM, John Hasler wrote:
> Andrew McGlashan writes:
>> You will never see the full picture of the problem if you only listen to
>> what is allowed to be received via the debian-user list...
>
> What makes you think debian-user is my only source of information?
>
>> ...and you ar
On 11/16/2014 10:29 AM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>> The problem here is lack of time and/or skills. I would love to help,
>> but I already have my plate full. Additionally, I've done device
>> drivers and applications, but never
On 11/16/2014 12:33 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>
> In general, debian-user is not the right venue for complaints about
> Debian decisions; the continuation of the debian-user hijack by these
> discussions is a disgrace to this list; please stop. Seriously.
>
> OdyX
>
>
Your continued ra
On 11/16/2014 6:40 AM, Klistvud wrote:
> Dne, 21. 10. 2014 04:06:23 je Marty napisal(a):
>> On 10/20/2014 03:45 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
>>> After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to systemd,
>>> I wonder... What is a better alternative? And it can't be sysvinit.
>
> Why not?
On 11/10/2014 3:10 AM, Rick Thomas wrote:
>
> On Nov 7, 2014, at 6:37 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 11/7/2014 2:40 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>>> On Jo, 06 nov 14, 22:11:59, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
>
>>> I thought he took special care to no
On 11/7/2014 2:40 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Jo, 06 nov 14, 22:11:59, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately, from the tone of the message I can almost guess whet the
>> result of the GR will be. I hope I'm wrong - but if I'm not, it's going
>> t
On 11/6/2014 4:55 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> - Forwarded message from Sam Hartman -
>
> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 09:58:29 +
> From: Sam Hartman
> To: debian-proj...@lists.debian.org
> Cc: debian-de...@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Time for compassion and the Init GR
> User-Agent: Gnus/5.
On 11/5/2014 2:37 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Le mardi, 4 novembre 2014, 21.13:36 Jerry Stuckle a écrit :
>> Yes, but you seem to want to stifle any discussion of a possible fork.
>
> Discussions about possible forks are off-topic on debian-user, please
> re-re
On 11/4/2014 6:08 PM, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> Le Tue, 04 Nov 2014 17:26:40 -0500,
> Miles Fidelman a écrit :
>
>> Laurent Bigonville wrote:
>>> Le Tue, 04 Nov 2014 16:57:20 -0500,
>>> Jerry Stuckle a écrit :
>>>
>>>> On 11/4/2014 4:41 P
On 11/4/2014 4:41 PM, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> Le Tue, 04 Nov 2014 21:08:50 +0100,
> Peter Nieman a écrit :
>
>> On 04/11/14 19:04, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
>>> Using the threat of forking to make people change their mind
>>
>> I didn't threaten anybody.
>>
>>> do not send 100 mails to ML's
>
On 11/3/2014 8:36 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
> I suppose it may be polemic to assert that forking debian and setting up
> a new community would be labor-intensive, fractious, divisive, and
> general not a wise use of precious free/libre/open community resources,
> in short, "dumb".
>
But just the fact
On 10/30/2014 3:16 AM, Johann Spies wrote:
> This is not Debian specific, but as I experienced it on Debian and
> initially thought that it might be a Debian problem, it may help some
> other users.
>
> I recently bought the scanner specified in the subject line after
> reading that the saned team
On 10/20/2014 6:48 PM, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote:
> If this Debian Fork doesn't make use of:
>
> systemd
> dbus
> pam
> gnome
>
> And uses EFL + E19, then, I'm in!
>
> I'm sure that there is room for a new distro, that will sit in the
> middle of Debian 7 and Slackware... ;-)
>
> Cheers!
>
I ha
On 10/18/2014 4:41 PM, Joe wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 15:15:16 -0400
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>
>>
>> You obviously don't understand. MX records identify MTAs - that is,
>> machines which can receive email. MUAs cannot do that.
>>
>> To identif
On 10/16/2014 9:25 PM, lee wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>
>> On 10/12/2014 10:24 PM, lee wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>>>
>>>> Among other things, legitimate MTAs have MX records. Anti-spam routines
>>>
>>> Who prevents a MUA
On 10/15/2014 4:44 PM, Joe wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 15:15:24 -0400
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>
>>
>> It is either OK to delete an email or it is not. You can't have it
>> both ways.
>
> It is *not* OK to silently delete an already accepted email,
On 10/15/2014 12:40 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 10/15/2014 12:06 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 10/15/2014 8:14 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2014 3:28 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> But you just said it was OK to delete emails.
>
>>> Please don&#x
On 10/15/2014 12:34 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 10/15/2014 at 12:06 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 10/15/2014 8:14 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/14/2014 3:28 PM, Jerry Stuckle
>>> wrote:
>
>>>> But you just said it was OK to delete emai
On 10/15/2014 10:17 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 10/14/2014 at 03:28 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 10/14/2014 12:03 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/14/2014 11:17 AM, Jerry Stuckle
>>> wrote:
>
>>>> Wrong on two counts. First of all, the f
On 10/15/2014 8:14 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 10/14/2014 3:28 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 10/14/2014 12:03 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2014 11:17 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2014 8:05 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>>>> If you think I'
On 10/14/2014 6:50 PM, lee wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>
>> On 10/13/2014 7:57 PM, lee wrote:
>>> Martin Read writes:
>>>
>>>> On 12/10/14 23:04, lee wrote:
>>>>> Bas Wijnen writes:
>>>>>> Because for a GR, a member
On 10/14/2014 12:03 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 10/14/2014 11:17 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 10/14/2014 8:05 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> If you think I'm kidding, please by all means go make these silly
>>> statements on the postfix list and I'll just sit an
On 10/14/2014 11:24 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 10/14/2014 10:52 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:48:38AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> Rejecting will actually *reduce* traffic, because it doesn't accept the
>>> entire messages, it slams the door at the RCPT-TO stage.
>
>> Re
On 10/14/2014 8:05 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 10/13/2014 9:53 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Not a grey area at all. "...dropping mail > without notification of the
>> sender is permitted...". As for the "...long tradition and community
>> expectations..
On 10/13/2014 7:57 PM, lee wrote:
> Martin Read writes:
>
>> On 12/10/14 23:04, lee wrote:
>>> Bas Wijnen writes:
Because for a GR, a member of Debian has to request it and it needs to
be seconded by at least 5 other members (constitution 4.2.1, 4.2.7).
This has not happened.
>>>
On 10/13/2014 9:53 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Apologies if this comes through twice - it doesn't look like the first
> one made it (and I got no bounce message :) ).
>
Crap - then I didn't get it threaded properly. Sorry about that, all.
Jerry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Apologies if this comes through twice - it doesn't look like the first
one made it (and I got no bounce message :) ).
On 10/13/2014 8:40 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 10/13/2014 7:10 PM, lee wrote:
>>> Brian writes:
>>>
>>>> T
On 10/13/2014 7:18 PM, lee wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>
>> And, in fact, more and more ISPs are just accepting and discarding
>> emails to non-existent users because rejecting such email helps spammers
>> (any non-rejected email must be a valid user).
>
> Th
On 10/13/2014 7:10 PM, lee wrote:
> Brian writes:
>
>> The mail is accepted. What the recipient does with the mail after that
>> is outside the scope of an RFC. There is no obligation on the recipient
>> to inform the sender that he has ripped up the mail and junked it.
>
> When the MTA delivers
On 10/13/2014 10:36 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 08:28:32AM -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Which ones? Specific names, please.
>
> Newcastle University, UK, at least when I worked in that section
> last (a few years ago), for one.
>
>
And they
On 10/13/2014 9:49 AM, Mark Carroll wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle writes:
>
>> On 10/13/2014 8:18 AM, Erwan David wrote:
> (snip)
>>> That's an error and completely idiot : big service provider use
>>> different MTAs for inbound (with MX records pointing to the
On 10/13/2014 8:55 AM, Joe wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 08:19:37 -0400
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 10/13/2014 5:43 AM, Joe wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 07:32:40 +0100
>>> Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 09
On 10/13/2014 5:25 AM, Brian wrote:
> On Mon 13 Oct 2014 at 04:06:27 +0200, lee wrote:
>
>> Harry Putnam writes:
>>
>>> lee writes:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Thanks for the tips.
>>>
> SMTP>> EHLO 2xd
>>>
That's an invalid helo string.
>>>
>>> Is a valid one made up of just the full fqdn
On 10/13/2014 8:18 AM, Erwan David wrote:
> Le 13/10/2014 14:14, Jerry Stuckle a écrit :
>> On 10/13/2014 2:32 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 09:05:14PM -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> Among other things, legitimate MTAs have MX record
1 - 100 of 654 matches
Mail list logo
