John Jolet wrote:
While we're at it, could people get a clue and stop including moronic
little tags in their email like:
this is required by many companies legal departments. Some places even add it
at the mta, not the client.
No, it is not required by ALL, or even MOS
On Wednesday 19 October 2005 12:09 am, Phill MV wrote:
> Well, it's just weird. What if said person is engaging in harassment?
That's a separate can of worms altogether. First you'd have to prove to the
court that you are actually getting harrassed. A statement like the one
automagically appe
Legally binding, maybe But enforcable, hardly. Had the individual mailed youdirectly and you published it to the web, then you would have been violating
the original intent of the sender, to establish a protected conversationbetween the two of you (or, from the company's perspective, to sharepri
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:32:03 -0400 Phill MV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| :\ that sucks.
| That just leaves me with one question: is it really legally binding?
| Is it actually forseeable that someone might give me a hard time for
| say posting such an email verbatim on a website?
Well... UK financ
On Tuesday 18 October 2005 08:32 pm, Phill MV wrote:
> That just leaves me with one question: is it really legally binding? Is it
> actually forseeable that someone might give me a hard time for say posting
> such an email verbatim on a website?
Legally binding, maybe But enforcable, hardly. Had
this is required by many companies legal departments. Some places even add itat the mta, not the client.
:\ that sucks.
That just leaves me with one question: is it really legally binding? Is
it actually forseeable that someone might give me a hard time for say
posting such an email verbatim on
Scott Stoddard said:
> Look I'm not at all suggesting that we "dignify LSB" but what the o.p.
> is suggesting is not at all a bad idea.
>
> An easy, distro-independent, method for determining what distro,
> version, release, toolchain versioning, and/or portage timestamp can
> only help maintainers
On Tuesday 18 October 2005 02:25 pm, Scott Stoddard wrote:
> An easy, distro-independent, method for determining what distro,
> version, release, toolchain versioning, and/or portage timestamp can
> only help maintainers of heterogenous networks to do their jobs with
> less frustration.
Come on, f
On Tuesday 18 October 2005 02:20 pm, Phill MV wrote:
> "We are writing remote systems management software for Linux systems and
> are looking for a standard way to obtain a remote systems distribution name
> and release version."
>
> Well, there isn't a standard way to any distro, come to think abo
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:25:07 -0400 Scott Stoddard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| An easy, distro-independent, method for determining what distro,
| version, release, toolchain versioning, and/or portage timestamp can
| only help maintainers of heterogenous networks to do their jobs with
| less fru
"We are writing remote systems management software for Linux
systems and are looking for a standard way to obtain a remote systems
distribution name and release version."
Well, there isn't a standard way to any distro, come to think about it.
LSB is sort of a pain and one sided, based on their 'st
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 10:41:32 -0400 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| We are writing remote systems management software for Linux systems
| and are looking for a standard way to obtain a remote systems
| distribution name and release version. The "lsb_release -ir" commands
| se
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 10:41:32 -0400 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| We are writing remote systems management software for Linux systems
| and are looking for a standard way to obtain a remote systems
| distribution name and release version. The "lsb_release -ir" commands
| seems to provide what we are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> Also from a system administrators point of view it is helpful to know
> the operating system running on a particular server if you are
> responsible for managing a diverse environment with thousands of
> systems.
I'd check for the existence of "emerge" and/or /etc/mak
>On Tuesday 18 October 2005 17:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> If you "cat /etc/gentoo-release" it give back " Gentoo Base System
>> version 1.4.16".
>>
>> Though being LSB compliant may not make sense for Gentoo as a whole,
>> there is sense in having an ability to remotely identify the system
as
On Tuesday 18 October 2005 17:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If you "cat /etc/gentoo-release" it give back " Gentoo Base System
> version 1.4.16".
>
> Though being LSB compliant may not make sense for Gentoo as a whole,
> there is sense in having an ability to remotely identify the system as a
> Ge
If you "cat /etc/gentoo-release" it give back " Gentoo Base System
version 1.4.16".
Though being LSB compliant may not make sense for Gentoo as a whole,
there is sense in having an ability to remotely identify the system as a
Gentoo distribution. If the distribution could support "lsb_release -ir
it sounds like one of the Linux Standard Base stuff... you won't see it
at gentoo in any time soon i guess
On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 10:41 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We are writing remote systems management software for Linux systems
> and are looking for a standard way to obtain a remote system
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are writing remote systems management software for Linux systems and
are looking for a standard way to obtain a remote systems distribution
name and release version. The “lsb_release –ir” commands seems to
provide what we are looking for and works under a number of p
We are writing remote systems management software for Linux
systems and are looking for a standard way to obtain a remote systems
distribution name and release version. The “lsb_release –ir”
commands seems to provide what we are looking for and works under a number of
popular distributions.
20 matches
Mail list logo
