This isn't a problem with our IT folks, they solve their part in record
time, typically. Google groups has been having troubles lately picking
up both this and another group that was recently created. We've
contacted them about it, but we don't really want a bunch of people
posting threads in
Can we please have someone at Mozilla light a fire under the sysadmin
staff to get this working?
-Kyle H
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> Having a separate policy list would help the technology folks focus
>> on what they do best. It would also hel
On 9/2/09 20:15, Ben Bucksch wrote:
On 09.02.2009 17:45, Ian G wrote:
I've posted something ... hopefully non-contraversial ...: a
suggestion on the list charter.
That was a good one.
It didn't last more than 30 seconds :-) Oh well, I suppose the list
will be active some time.
iang
--
d
On 09.02.2009 17:45, Ian G wrote:
I've posted something ... hopefully non-contraversial ...: a
suggestion on the list charter.
That was a good one.
--
dev-tech-crypto mailing list
dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto
On 5/2/09 18:34, Frank Hecker wrote:
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
so perhaps it's working as well. (I don't read these forums via email,
perhaps you or someone else can try subscribing.)
Yes, email is working fine. Dunno about the rest.
Given the problems we've ha
On 5/2/09 18:34, Frank Hecker wrote:
Ian G wrote:
OK, I'll wait. I don't have an NNTP reader, or don't know what one is.
We'll forgive you the confusion. It's like saying "HTTP reader" instead
of "browser" :-)
Oh, it's newsgroup reader, got it, thanks.
Is it something in Firefox or Thunde
Ian G wrote:
OK, I'll wait. I don't have an NNTP reader, or don't know what one is.
We'll forgive you the confusion. It's like saying "HTTP reader" instead
of "browser" :-)
Is it something in Firefox or Thunderbird?
You can read Mozilla newsgroups in Thunderbird by creating a "newsgroup
On 5/2/09 14:22, Eddy Nigg wrote:
On 02/05/2009 03:14 PM, Ian G:
Excellent, OK, so I went here:
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security
and subscribed. I guess it is up to each person to do that.
Ian, this is the wrong list. The new list is called dev.security.policy,
not dev.securi
On 02/05/2009 03:14 PM, Ian G:
Excellent, OK, so I went here:
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security
and subscribed. I guess it is up to each person to do that.
Ian, this is the wrong list. The new list is called dev.security.policy,
not dev.security.
It seems that the new list d
Excellent, OK, so I went here:
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security
and subscribed. I guess it is up to each person to do that.
Now, the list charter! As a starting point:
==
a. Discussion on security policy, governance, directions and
architecture in common for
On 02/04/2009 09:11 PM, Frank Hecker:
OK, thanks for the info. I guess we'll just wait for this to resolve
itself, then we can verify that the new group is operating properly (and
the mailing list also) and then make an announcement in m.d.t.crypto and
m.d.security.
Seems to work here. Cross-p
Johnathan Nightingale wrote re bug 475473:
I think that bug isn't resolved yet because google groups has been
acting up a bit lately. Another recent newsgroup creation,
(mozilla.dev.tree-management) was finally picked up about a week after
creation, but messages still aren't appearing there.
On 4-Feb-09, at 1:37 PM, Frank Hecker wrote:
Gervase Markham wrote:
Paul Hoffman wrote:
Having a separate policy list would help the technology folks focus
on what they do best. It would also help keep the policy people keep
their discussion out of bits-on-the-wire and up in the "what should
w
Gervase Markham wrote:
Paul Hoffman wrote:
Having a separate policy list would help the technology folks focus
on what they do best. It would also help keep the policy people keep
their discussion out of bits-on-the-wire and up in the "what should
we be doing" layer.
OK, then.
https://bugzilla
On 29/1/09 12:53, Ben Bucksch wrote:
On 27.01.2009 05:20, Gervase Markham wrote:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=475473
filed to create mozilla.dev.security.policy
(Only caveat: phishing doesn't really belong in either group. It's
usually handled in security, although it's ab
At 12:53 PM +0100 1/29/09, Ben Bucksch wrote:
>On 27.01.2009 05:20, Gervase Markham wrote:
>>https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=475473
>>filed to create mozilla.dev.security.policy. And please let's not have a
>>bikeshed discussion about the name.
>>
>
>Sorry to do just that, but I thin
On 29-Jan-09, at 6:53 AM, Ben Bucksch wrote:
On 27.01.2009 05:20, Gervase Markham wrote:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=475473
filed to create mozilla.dev.security.policy. And please let's not
have a
bikeshed discussion about the name.
Sorry to do just that, but I think it's
On 27.01.2009 05:20, Gervase Markham wrote:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=475473
filed to create mozilla.dev.security.policy. And please let's not have a
bikeshed discussion about the name.
Sorry to do just that, but I think it's more than bikeshed:
I do not think that CA po
Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Having a separate policy list would help the technology folks focus
> on what they do best. It would also help keep the policy people keep
> their discussion out of bits-on-the-wire and up in the "what should
> we be doing" layer.
OK, then.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_b
On 16/1/09 17:33, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 6:05 AM + 1/16/09, Gervase Markham wrote:
Nelson B Bolyard wrote:
3. I wonder if the non-developer topics are already within the scope of
another extant low-traffic list, namely dev-security (a.k.a.
mozilla.dev.security), except that I think the new
At 6:05 AM + 1/16/09, Gervase Markham wrote:
>Nelson B Bolyard wrote:
>> 3. I wonder if the non-developer topics are already within the scope of
>> another extant low-traffic list, namely dev-security (a.k.a.
>> mozilla.dev.security), except that I think the new list does not belong
>> in the "
Nelson B Bolyard wrote:
> 3. I wonder if the non-developer topics are already within the scope of
> another extant low-traffic list, namely dev-security (a.k.a.
> mozilla.dev.security), except that I think the new list does not belong
> in the "dev" hierarchy.
In an ideal world, it wouldn't, but i
Eddy Nigg wrote:
> On 01/05/2009 01:36 AM, Nelson B Bolyard:
>> 3. I wonder if the non-developer topics are already within the scope of
>> another extant low-traffic list, namely dev-security (a.k.a.
>> mozilla.dev.security), except that I think the new list does not belong
>> in the "dev" hierarch
Paul Hoffman wrote:
> I propose that Mozilla form a new mailing list,
> dev-policy-trustanchors. The topics for that list would include:
>
> - All new trust anchors being added to the Mozilla trust anchor pile
> - Proposals for changes to the Mozilla trust anchor policy -
> Complaints about parti
Paul,
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 1:35 PM -0800 1/5/09, Wan-Teh Chang wrote:
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
I propose that Mozilla form a new mailing list, dev-policy-trustanchors. The
topics for that list would include:
- All new trust anchors being added to the Mozilla tr
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 12:11 AM +0100 1/4/09, Jan Schejbal wrote:
Why is this relevant to this mailing list?
Because there was a security failure in one of the Firefox trusted CAs allowing
anyone to get fake certificates. This event and the reaction of the CA are
important to determine if the
Paul Hoffman wrote:
> You are missing the parts where there are actual technical questions
> or assertions in the middle of threads that started as trust anchor
> rants.
Requesting actual details in the middle of a long ranty thread is a good
way to get missed no matter what newsgroup or topic.
__
At 1:35 PM -0800 1/5/09, Wan-Teh Chang wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>
>> I propose that Mozilla form a new mailing list, dev-policy-trustanchors. The
>> topics for that list would include:
>>
>> - All new trust anchors being added to the Mozilla trust anchor pile
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> I propose that Mozilla form a new mailing list, dev-policy-trustanchors. The
> topics for that list would include:
>
> - All new trust anchors being added to the Mozilla trust anchor pile
> - Proposals for changes to the Mozilla trust ancho
On 05.01.2009 01:35, Nelson B Bolyard wrote:
There's no mozilla.policy hierarchy.
It can be created.
There's already a mozilla.governance, which would fit there, too.
___
dev-tech-crypto mailing list
dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.moz
On 05.01.2009 01:00, Eddy Nigg wrote:
A dev.security...yes, the forgotten step child of crypto. At times
we used to post there (and cross post to crypto) and don't know why
crypto became the de-facto list for all CA/SSL/Policy related issues.
Because crypto (including CA) is just a small a
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>Ian G wrote, On 2009-01-04 16:01:
>>There's no mozilla.policy hierarchy. So I'm searching for ideas for a
>>good hierarchy for these discussions. Here are some ideas. How about:
>>
>>mozilla.security.CA
>>mozilla.security.UI
>>mozilla.securi
>Ian G wrote, On 2009-01-04 16:01:
>> On 4/1/09 21:32, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>
>>> I propose that Mozilla form a new mailing list,
>>> dev-policy-trustanchors. The topics for that list would include:
>>>
>>> - All new trust anchors being added to the Mozilla trust anchor pile
>>> - Proposals for cha
Ian G wrote, On 2009-01-04 16:01:
> On 4/1/09 21:32, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
>> I propose that Mozilla form a new mailing list,
>> dev-policy-trustanchors. The topics for that list would include:
>>
>> - All new trust anchors being added to the Mozilla trust anchor pile
>> - Proposals for changes to
On 01/05/2009 01:36 AM, Nelson B Bolyard:
3. I wonder if the non-developer topics are already within the scope of
another extant low-traffic list, namely dev-security (a.k.a.
mozilla.dev.security), except that I think the new list does not belong
in the "dev" hierarchy.
A dev.security...yes
On 4/1/09 21:32, Paul Hoffman wrote:
I propose that Mozilla form a new mailing list, dev-policy-trustanchors. The
topics for that list would include:
- All new trust anchors being added to the Mozilla trust anchor pile
- Proposals for changes to the Mozilla trust anchor policy
- Complaints abo
Paul Hoffman wrote, On 2009-01-04 12:32:
> I propose that Mozilla form a new mailing list, dev-policy-trustanchors.
> The current list is way too unfocused. People asking actual tech
> questions get drowned out by threads that have literally nothing to do
> with crypto but everything to do with po
On 1/4/09 12:32 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
I propose that Mozilla form a new mailing list, dev-policy-trustanchors.
Yes. I'd also very much like to see this split. I'm interested in the
technical side of things, but not so much the policy stuff (and,
frankly, the incessant bickering and advocac
On 01/04/2009 10:32 PM, Paul Hoffman:
The current list is way too unfocused. People asking actual tech questions get
drowned out by threads that have literally nothing to do with crypto but
everything to do with policy.
Thoughts?
+1 from me.
--
Regards
Signer: Eddy Nigg, StartCom Ltd.
Ja
At 12:11 AM +0100 1/4/09, Jan Schejbal wrote:
>>Why is this relevant to this mailing list?
>
>Because there was a security failure in one of the Firefox trusted CAs
>allowing anyone to get fake certificates. This event and the reaction of the
>CA are important to determine if the CA is (still) tr
40 matches
Mail list logo
