On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:22:45AM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
> It is a typo, try this:
Hmm... the behavior I notice, with this change, doesn't quite
mimic what one is used to from vi.
With this patch, say I do the following:
$ ls
IMG_0586.PNGyoyo.txt
I enter 'copy mode
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:58:58AM +0530, Sunil Nimmagadda wrote:
> Second iteration...
>
> 1. Fixed CRLF issues in RETR and TOP commands that caused message
> truncation.
> 2. Properly "byte stuff" a line beginning with termination
> character "." .
> 3. Implemented STLS and CAPA. (STARTTLS RFC 2
Second iteration...
1. Fixed CRLF issues in RETR and TOP commands that caused message
truncation.
2. Properly "byte stuff" a line beginning with termination
character "." .
3. Implemented STLS and CAPA. (STARTTLS RFC 2595)
Comments?
Source: https://poolp.org/~sunil/pop3d.tar.gz
uuencoded gzipped
On 7.11.2012. 12:57, Hrvoje Popovski wrote:
>
> 82546GB
> pf (with henning's patch) + ipforward and with or without em tcp/udp
> checksum
> - not working
>
>
> 82541GI
> pf (with henning's patch) + ipforward + em tcp/udp checksum
> - works like charm
>
I don't know if it's a good time, but no
On 2013/07/10 12:40, Christopher Zimmermann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm still struggeling with my IPsec settup and routing.
> This time I'm wondering how the third cloned route below was created.
>
> 172.26.153.0/28link#1 UC 00 - 4 em0
> 172.26.153/24 link#
Hi,
I'm still struggeling with my IPsec settup and routing.
This time I'm wondering how the third cloned route below was created.
172.26.153.0/28link#1 UC 00 - 4 em0
172.26.153/24 link#5 UCS10 - 9 vether0
172.26.15
It is a typo, try this:
Index: window-copy.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/tmux/window-copy.c,v
retrieving revision 1.93
diff -u -p -r1.93 window-copy.c
--- window-copy.c 5 Jul 2013 14:44:06 - 1.93
+++ window-copy.c
On Sun, Jul 07, 2013 at 10:17:11PM -0700, Aaron Stellman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 07:06:43AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > I think you missed the renogiate case. Anyway, I posted almost the
> > same diff some time ago.
>
> You're right -- renegotiate case was missed. Your patch from Apr