On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:43:53 -0400
Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 12:48:46AM +0200, Rico Secada wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:05:51 +0200
> > Joachim Schipper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:28:53PM +0200, Rico Secada wrote:
>  > 
> > > This is a public mailing list. Trim your message at 72 columns.
> > 
> > Meaning?
>  
> The following line is as I received it.  It is 401 characters wide.
> I have left it as is for your edification.
> > Using OpenBSD as a server works perfectly. The server needs nothing more 
> > than SSH. About the client I have succesfully setup Debian with fuse and it 
> > works perfectly with OpenBSD serving. I also know that FreeBSD has a port 
> > for client installation. Fuse uses the sftp part of SSH. On Debian all it 
> > takes is installing the package and using modprobe. On FreeBSD it should be 
> > almost as easy and quick.
> 
> This line was also received.  It is 471 characters wide.  I have
> wrapped it.  Using vim I only had to do a gqap.

I am sorry if I sound stupid, but I have never heard of this being a 
problem before :-) Has it something to do with people using console 
based mailreaders?

> > The only consern I have is users snooping around because they are able
> > to ssh in, besides that sshfs works like a charm and its so easy and
> > quick to setup. I have combined scponly with the servers, and that
> > works well too, but since scponly isn't "safe", as in a lot of work is
> > done security wise, I would not want to run with that as a permanent
> > solution. I trust OpenSSH over any VPN solution anyday, but SSH might
> > cause a problem in other areas, hence the question.
> 
> >>> [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type
> >>> application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
> > 
> 
> > I have got no idea what this is about. I havent made any attachments.
> 
> _somebody_ signed a post on this thread and instead of a signature
> the mail list server put a message that it was removed.

Ok, that makes sense :-) Thanks.

> Doug.

Reply via email to