On 13:56 Mon 10 Nov , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 05:30 Sat 01 Nov , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> > vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> > Gentoo dev list to see.
>
> If anyone has topics they w
On 05:30 Sat 01 Nov , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.
If anyone has topics they want a council decision on, you really need to
reply to this
This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically
the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
(#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
G
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
> This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically
> the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
> (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
>
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know ! Simpl
With Uberlord's retirement we should do the usual magic voodoo
procedure to summon in the next-in-line member (which would be Jokey if
i'm not mistaken).
cheers,
Wernfried
--
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org
Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org
forum-mods (at) gentoo.org
This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically
the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
(#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
G
On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 17:37 +, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 07:19:44PM +0200 or thereabouts, Alin Nastac wrote:
> > I say we should have +all (SPF-capable MTAs will consider any IP address
> > as authorized to send mail on behalf of g.o - equivalent with "Message
> > source OK")
On 08/11/06, Tobias Klausmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi!
Mr windmill man! ^_^
PPS: Windmills, anyone?
Yes, I'll take two, please. --beu
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Kurt Lieber wrote: [Wed Nov 08 2006, 12:02:04PM EST]
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 10:25:47AM -0500 or thereabouts, Aron Griffis wrote:
> > Gentoo.org has elected to provide the SPF records, effectively marking
> > gentoo.org mail originating from other SMTP servers as rogue.
>
> That simply is not
Francesco Riosa wrote:
Alin Nastac ha scritto:
For Thunderbird, when I say I want to
send mail as [EMAIL PROTECTED], the same address will go also in the
Return-Path.
Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 has it in two places, a) account settings, b) you
can change it for every message you send using the drop d
Alin Nastac ha scritto:
> For Thunderbird, when I say I want to
> send mail as [EMAIL PROTECTED], the same address will go also in the
> Return-Path.
Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 has it in two places, a) account settings, b) you
can change it for every message you send using the drop down on the left
side
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
>> Of course, MUAs such as Thunderbird don't give you the possibility to
>> set that and it will be the same as your From address.
>>
> Shouldn't be your provider's mail server to set it? Both of my SSL-enabled
> mail servers, that are authenticated (GMail an
Am Mittwoch, 8. November 2006 16:07 schrieb Kurt Lieber:
> On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:25:19PM +0100 or thereabouts, Danny van Dyk
wrote:
> > Kurt: Please write up a short text to explain why you think this is
> > necessary for Gentoo mailservers. Thanks in advance!
>
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~klieb
Hi!
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> > On Wednesday 08 November 2006 21:01, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> >
> >> So, in other words, spammers aren't abusing anything related to SPF.
> >> They're sending mail using forged return-paths and SPF is highlighting
On Wednesday 08 November 2006 22:17, Alin Nastac wrote:
> It doesn't matter what From, Sender or whatever else in the message header.
> The part that counts is the Return-Path (the "mail from:" part of the
> SMTP protocol).
Sender or Returh-Path, whatever..
> Of course, MUAs such as Thunderbird do
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 November 2006 21:01, Kurt Lieber wrote:
>
>> So, in other words, spammers aren't abusing anything related to SPF.
>> They're sending mail using forged return-paths and SPF is highlighting
>> that. Which is exactly what SPF is designed to do.
>>
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 09:14:22PM +0100 or thereabouts, Diego 'Flameeyes'
Petten?? wrote:
> If I were to send my gentoo mail through a mail.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org, with
> its own SPF record, (I'm not as this is not a "real" domain I have access to,
> nor a mailserver for what it's worth), with
On Wednesday 08 November 2006 21:01, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> So, in other words, spammers aren't abusing anything related to SPF.
> They're sending mail using forged return-paths and SPF is highlighting
> that. Which is exactly what SPF is designed to do.
I'm no mail expert, but I want something clar
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 20:01:52 + Kurt Lieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 05:54:13PM + or thereabouts, Ciaran
| McCreesh wrote:
| > We've identified one very widely used application that interprets
| > SPF records based upon how they're used by spammers rather than by
|
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 05:54:13PM + or thereabouts, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> We've identified one very widely used application that interprets SPF
> records based upon how they're used by spammers rather than by how the
> specification says they should be interpreted. In this case, SA is
> ent
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:19:30 + Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Wednesday 08 November 2006 17:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > SPF makes the classic incorrect
| > assumption that spammers won't abuse the system.
|
| Ciaran makes the classic incorrect assumption that people can
| magica
On Wednesday 08 November 2006 17:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> SPF makes the classic incorrect
> assumption that spammers won't abuse the system.
Ciaran makes the classic incorrect assumption that people can magically read
his mind to know how he thinks spammers can abuse the system.
--
Roy Marp
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:29:55 + Kurt Lieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I'm not trying to pick on Georgi, but can we please be realistic
| about the true impact of this? So far, we've identified one
| application (SpamAssassin) that incorrectly interprets a neutral SPF
| record. As a result, i
Kurt,
Thanks for expressing your reasons properly on the list and in the text
file on your d.g.o home. It's certainly gone a long way to my own
understanding of your reasoning.
Thanks,
--
Seemant Kulleen
Developer, Gentoo Linux
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 07:19:44PM +0200 or thereabouts, Alin Nastac wrote:
> I say we should have +all (SPF-capable MTAs will consider any IP address
> as authorized to send mail on behalf of g.o - equivalent with "Message
> source OK").
this interpretation is correct.
> He says we should have ?
On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 04:24:59PM +0900 or thereabouts, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> I ain't no dev, but how is this trivial? A typical scenario is: a
> gentoo-dev sends an e-mail to a mailing list (a non-gentoo mailing
> list) and that mail gets nuked by a greedy spam filter because the SPF
> r
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 10:25:47AM -0500 or thereabouts, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Gentoo.org has elected to provide the SPF records, effectively marking
> gentoo.org mail originating from other SMTP servers as rogue.
That simply is not true. Please read the write-up that I prepared that
explains w
maillog: 08/11/2006-09:23:17(-0600): Grant Goodyear types
> Kurt Lieber wrote: [Wed Nov 08 2006, 09:07:40AM CST]
> > On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:25:19PM +0100 or thereabouts, Danny van Dyk
> > wrote:
> > > Kurt: Please write up a short text to explain why you think this is
> > > necessary for Gent
Lance Albertson wrote: [Tue Nov 07 2006, 12:37:53PM EST]
> Nothing is stopping you from sending from another smtp server. The
> problem people have been complaining about is that spamassassin is
> adding a score of 1-2 for anyone who sends from a host other than
> what we stated in the SPF rule.
Kurt Lieber wrote: [Wed Nov 08 2006, 09:07:40AM CST]
> On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:25:19PM +0100 or thereabouts, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> > Kurt: Please write up a short text to explain why you think this is
> > necessary for Gentoo mailservers. Thanks in advance!
>
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~klieber/
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:25:19PM +0100 or thereabouts, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Kurt: Please write up a short text to explain why you think this is
> necessary for Gentoo mailservers. Thanks in advance!
http://dev.gentoo.org/~klieber/spf.txt
--kurt
pgpql1vqP13J5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 09:20:02PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:04:18 + "Elfyn McBratney"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | I guess Wernfried is referring to Ciaran PGP signing his emails with a
> | key that (I guess) still has his old @g.o address as a user ID on the
>
On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 21:34 +0100, Wernfried Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 05:47:28PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Along with the rest of the thread. Notice in particular how Joshua
> > claims that Kurt has never justified using SPF, and how in replies he
> > refuses to do so.
>
> Do
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:04:18 + "Elfyn McBratney"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I guess Wernfried is referring to Ciaran PGP signing his emails with a
| key that (I guess) still has his old @g.o address as a user ID on the
| key.
Mm. As far as I can see from [1] (second key, not the ebuild signin
On 07/11/06, Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wernfried Haas wrote: [Tue Nov 07 2006, 02:34:46PM CST]
> While we're at the whole email stuff, it seems you still sign your
> emails with [EMAIL PROTECTED], which i personally find at least as
> annoying as you find klie^WSPF.
Out of date
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:34:46 +0100 Wernfried Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 05:47:28PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Along with the rest of the thread. Notice in particular how Joshua
| > claims that Kurt has never justified using SPF, and how in replies
| > he refuses
Wernfried Haas wrote: [Tue Nov 07 2006, 02:34:46PM CST]
> While we're at the whole email stuff, it seems you still sign your
> emails with [EMAIL PROTECTED], which i personally find at least as
> annoying as you find klie^WSPF.
Hmmm? I just took a look at all of ciaranm's e-mails to -dev since 21
On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 05:47:28PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Along with the rest of the thread. Notice in particular how Joshua
> claims that Kurt has never justified using SPF, and how in replies he
> refuses to do so.
Do you really care about Gentoo's SPF, or are you just on a vendetta
aga
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:52:04 +0200 Alin Nastac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Kurt didn't back up his views back then. Rather typically, he just
| > told Method that he disagreed and that he wasn't going to budge no
| > matter what anyone said...
| >
| In the year 2005,
Lance Albertson wrote:
> I'm sorry, but when people automatically want to go to the council first
> and ask questions later I have a hard time wanting to help them. I can't
> control what Kurt does/says so that's out of my control.
For the record, I've asked the council first because I thought it
Grant Goodyear wrote:
> With all due respect, I disagree. My recollection was that the SPF
> discussion was held well over a year ago, on a list that isn't archived,
> so the rationale for using SPF isn't available for many of the devs who
> have started raising questions about it. Kurt's reply
Michael Cummings wrote:
> Knowing about port 587 is half the battle (yeah, read the docs mike:).
> Getting it to work from the office with even more restrictive firewalls
> is another thing - but are we actually going to stop devs from being
> able to send mail without going through the gentoo ser
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Kurt didn't back up his views back then. Rather typically, he just told
> Method that he disagreed and that he wasn't going to budge no matter
> what anyone said...
>
In the year 2005, the only gentoo-core discussion related to SPF was
between me and lcars.
Probably you
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:00:49 -0600 Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| With all due respect, I disagree. My recollection was that the SPF
| discussion was held well over a year ago, on a list that isn't
| archived, so the rationale for using SPF isn't available for many of
| the devs who ha
Lance Albertson wrote: [Tue Nov 07 2006, 12:55:39AM CST]
> Personally, after skimming through this thread, I'd say leave it as is
> and stick with Kurt's decision. Our developers clearly have nothing
> better to do than rant on about something as trivial as this. I
> especially didn't like the "let
Lance Albertson wrote: [Tue Nov 07 2006, 01:55:39AM EST]
> Personally, after skimming through this thread, I'd say leave it as is
> and stick with Kurt's decision. Our developers clearly have nothing
> better to do than rant on about something as trivial as this. I
> especially didn't like the "le
On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 08:06 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
> Michael Cummings wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 17:48 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> - make sending gentoo.org mail via gentoo.org mail server
> >> friendly/recommended
> >> -mike
> >
> > Not an option for everyone without a lot of
Michael Cummings wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 17:48 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> - make sending gentoo.org mail via gentoo.org mail server
>> friendly/recommended
>> -mike
>
> Not an option for everyone without a lot of needless hoop jumping, like
> ssh port forwarding. Cox (rhyme it as you
On Tuesday 07 November 2006 13:24, Michael Cummings wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 17:48 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > - make sending gentoo.org mail via gentoo.org mail server
> > friendly/recommended
> > -mike
>
> Not an option for everyone without a lot of needless hoop jumping, like
> ssh p
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 17:48 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> - make sending gentoo.org mail via gentoo.org mail server
> friendly/recommended
> -mike
Not an option for everyone without a lot of needless hoop jumping, like
ssh port forwarding. Cox (rhyme it as you will), my cable provider,
doesn't
Hi!
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> Quoting Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Personally, after skimming through this thread, I'd say leave it as is
> >and stick with Kurt's decision. Our developers clearly have nothing
> >better to do than rant on about something as trivial a
Quoting Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Personally, after skimming through this thread, I'd say leave it as is
and stick with Kurt's decision. Our developers clearly have nothing
better to do than rant on about something as trivial as this.
I ain't no dev, but how is this trivial? A typic
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> (sorry for the infra cc, just need to make sure this particular one gets
> through ... drop it in your replies people :P)
Actually that alias doesn't work :)
> On Monday 06 November 2006 17:38, Harald van Dijk wrote:
>> Sending mail via gentoo.org mail servers is explicit
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 01:06 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:43:24 -0500 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | infra believes using SPF helps fight spam
>
> Then infra are wrong. SPF was not designed to fight spam.
Isn't preventing email forgery one step in fighting
On Monday 06 November 2006 20:06, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:43:24 -0500 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | infra believes using SPF helps fight spam
>
> Then infra are wrong. SPF was not designed to fight spam.
original design does not limit future possibilities ... i coul
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:43:24 -0500 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| infra believes using SPF helps fight spam
Then infra are wrong. SPF was not designed to fight spam.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 06 November 2006 17:09, Alin Nastac wrote:
>
>> I re-stated my case in comment #14
>>
>
> most of your dislike for SPF centers around the idea you dont want to send
> mail via gentoo.org mail servers ... is this really a problem ? seems like
> it's prett
Alec Warner wrote:
http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t1963.html
Anyone who thinks you can block all spam with a single technique, let
alone at all, is not someone I want data from in the first place
http://blog.ferris.com/2005/06/_microsofts_enf.html
Opinion piec
On Monday 06 November 2006 17:40, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> Why don't you do that?
well, my reply was mostly dry sarcasm, but i hope we're all technically
proficient enough to load up google.com and search for SPF ... even Alec
could find three good links in no time and that dude cant even code hi
(sorry for the infra cc, just need to make sure this particular one gets
through ... drop it in your replies people :P)
On Monday 06 November 2006 17:38, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> Sending mail via gentoo.org mail servers is explicitly disallowed (not even
> just strongly discouraged) if the dev in
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 05:11:42PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 06 November 2006 18:03, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > considering that quite a
> > couple of arguments were given against using it
>
> which were a copy and paste of existing websites ... how about for the
> counterargument i cop
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 05:20:26PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 06 November 2006 17:09, Alin Nastac wrote:
> > I re-stated my case in comment #14
>
> most of your dislike for SPF centers around the idea you dont want to send
> mail via gentoo.org mail servers ... is this really a prob
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 05:20:49PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> most of your dislike for SPF centers around the idea you dont want to send
> mail via gentoo.org mail servers ... is this really a problem ? seems like
> it's pretty trivial to do so
While i couldn't care less about the whole SPF
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 06 November 2006 18:03, Jakub Moc wrote:
considering that quite a
couple of arguments were given against using it
which were a copy and paste of existing websites ... how about for the
counterargument i copy and paste url's to pro-spf websites and then we'll
h
Am Montag, 6. November 2006 20:37 schrieb Chris Gianelloni:
> On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 13:36 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > >> it isnt ... so file a bug for infra
> > >
> > > done in bug 154120 .
> >
> > And WONTFIXed in 15 minutes. In that case, I'd like to resubmit it
> > to the council... :/
>
> So be
Am Montag, 6. November 2006 20:37 schrieb Chris Gianelloni:
> On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 13:36 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > Alin Nastac napsal(a):
> > > Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > >> On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:39, Alin Nastac wrote:
> > >>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > that's nice, but again, why are
On Monday 06 November 2006 17:09, Alin Nastac wrote:
> I re-stated my case in comment #14
most of your dislike for SPF centers around the idea you dont want to send
mail via gentoo.org mail servers ... is this really a problem ? seems like
it's pretty trivial to do so
-mike
pgpQQMpR29oZK.pgp
On Monday 06 November 2006 21:35, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> Please stop being ridiculous, Council: if you're not going to actually
> listen to the people who voted for you without talking down to them,
> then, er, why exactly, did you run?
I have to agree with seemant here, we should probably accept
On Monday 06 November 2006 18:03, Jakub Moc wrote:
> considering that quite a
> couple of arguments were given against using it
which were a copy and paste of existing websites ... how about for the
counterargument i copy and paste url's to pro-spf websites and then we'll
have a proper exchange
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 06 November 2006 16:59, Jakub Moc wrote:
>
>> Chris Gianelloni napsal(a):
>>
And WONTFIXed in 15 minutes. In that case, I'd like to resubmit it to
the council... :/
>>> So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsibl
Mike Frysinger napsal(a):
>> No. Not because I didn't like the answer - because I haven't seen a
>> *single* argument *in favour* of using the IMHO completely broken SPF
>> thing.
>
> so what are you looking for ? us to regurgitate the entire SPF argument over
> again ?
No. I expect you to _dec
On Monday 06 November 2006 16:59, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni napsal(a):
> >> And WONTFIXed in 15 minutes. In that case, I'd like to resubmit it to
> >> the council... :/
> >
> > So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsible for
> > this, you'd rather go over their heads
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 13:36 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
Alin Nastac napsal(a):
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:39, Alin Nastac wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ?
It could be co
Chris Gianelloni napsal(a):
>>>
>> And WONTFIXed in 15 minutes. In that case, I'd like to resubmit it to
>> the council... :/
>
> So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsible for
> this, you'd rather go over their heads and try to bring this up to the
> council, so we can over
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 14:37 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsible for
> this, you'd rather go over their heads and try to bring this up to the
> council, so we can override their decisions? Not bloody likely.
Let me post a little more
The council is supposed to be about resolving disputes such as this, is
it not? So what I'm seeing here is that if you (and quite a few others)
do have a problem with the way things are then, see the Council, who
will then ask you who the hell you think you are to ask the Council.
This is like Of
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 14:37:00 -0500 Chris Gianelloni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsible for
| this, you'd rather go over their heads and try to bring this up to the
| council, so we can override their decisions? Not bloody likely.
Isn't t
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> This also falls under Infra. Have you tried asking them, instead?
> Perhaps filing a bug like all other infra requests?
Please see https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154120 .
Cheers,
-jkt
--
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth
signature.asc
Description: Op
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 13:36 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Alin Nastac napsal(a):
> > Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:39, Alin Nastac wrote:
> >>
> >>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>>
> that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ?
>
> >>
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 02:23 -0800, David Shakaryan wrote:
> This is not a question of opinion; this is one of consistency. All of
> the lists are currently doing it a certain way, whilst -core seems to be
> behaving differently. This is bound to cause confusion. As you
> mentioned, we should be dea
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 11:50 +0200, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> > vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> > Gentoo dev list to see.
> >
> I have a problem with our current SPF record
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 01:35 -0800, Peter Gordon wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 08:40 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> > vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> > Gentoo dev list to see.
>
> I have one i
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 05 November 2006 10:00, Alin Nastac wrote:
>
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday 05 November 2006 07:36, Jakub Moc wrote:
>>>
I'd like to resubmit it to the council... :/
>>> not until it pans out with infra
>>>
>> Now
Ryan Tandy wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 01:35:43 -0800 Peter Gordon
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> | On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 08:40 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> | > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
>> | > vote on, let us know ! Simply re
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 01:35:43 -0800 Peter Gordon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 08:40 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
| > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
| > vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
On Sunday 05 November 2006 10:00, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 05 November 2006 07:36, Jakub Moc wrote:
> >> I'd like to resubmit it to the council... :/
> >
> > not until it pans out with infra
>
> Now would be a good time to bring the problem before the council?
> It h
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 04:57 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i dont see anyone talking to infra about it so why dont you start there
> -mike
Will do. Thanks, Mike.
--
Peter Gordon (codergeek42)
Gentoo Forums Global Moderator
GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint:
DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 05 November 2006 07:36, Jakub Moc wrote:
>
>> I'd like to resubmit it to the council... :/
>>
>
> not until it pans out with infra
>
Now would be a good time to bring the problem before the council?
It has been permanently closed as WONTFIX by klieber (
On Sunday 05 November 2006 07:36, Jakub Moc wrote:
> I'd like to resubmit it to the council... :/
not until it pans out with infra
-mike
pgpwXZzS8iG6Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Alin Nastac napsal(a):
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:39, Alin Nastac wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>
that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ?
>>> It could be considered as organization policy, so I assumed council
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:39, Alin Nastac wrote:
>
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>
>>> that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ?
>>>
>> It could be considered as organization policy, so I assumed council had
>> to be involved in this de
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 02:23:02 -0800
David Shakaryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Wow. That's about the pettiest and least relevant thing you could ask
> > them to discuss. Why not ask for a vote on what colour the soft
> > icecream machine should be whilst you're at it?
>
On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:39, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ?
>
> It could be considered as organization policy, so I assumed council had
> to be involved in this decision.
it isnt ... so file a bug for infra
-mik
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ?
>
It could be considered as organization policy, so I assumed council had
to be involved in this decision.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Sunday 05 November 2006 04:50, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> > vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> > Gentoo dev list to see.
>
> I have a problem with our current SPF record. I wa
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Wow. That's about the pettiest and least relevant thing you could ask
> them to discuss. Why not ask for a vote on what colour the soft
> icecream machine should be whilst you're at it?
Silly analogy.
> Clearly this is one of those easy to understand issues where everyone
Alin Nastac napsal(a):
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
>> vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
>> Gentoo dev list to see.
>>
> I have a problem with our current SPF record. I wanna see a +all in this
> reco
On Sunday 05 November 2006 10:59, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 01:35:43 -0800 Peter Gordon
> Clearly this is one of those easy to understand issues where everyone
> has an opinion, and rather than fix their mail client or behaviour they
> try to have a huge debate about it... Don't
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 01:35:43 -0800 Peter Gordon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 08:40 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
| > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
| > vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
| > Gentoo dev list to se
On Sunday 05 November 2006 04:35, Peter Gordon wrote:
> I have one item that I would like to see addressed in the next possible
> council meeting: The reply behavior of gentoo-core messages. What's
> happening is that gentoo-core appears to have no default Reply-To header
> set.
i dont see anyone
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
