John Rudd wrote:
> Dennis Peterson wrote:
>> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 07:28 -0700, John Rudd wrote:
(to the developers, not in answer to Burnie)
See, the current name scheme needs to be fixed. And no one responded at
all to my proposed scheme from a
Andy Fiddaman wrote:
> It's not just core Clam signatures either, SaneSecurity recently changed
> the capitalisation on some of their sigs which caused me a few issues (I'm
> checking case-insensitively now!
Sorry about that... bit of finger trouble on a output script... normal
service should no
Kelson wrote:
> John Rudd wrote:
>> But, without a coherent and explicit name convention, the rules for
>> doing so would be so complex as to be not be worth the effort in writing
>> them. In some cases, it's even ambiguous as to which of the above
>> categories a given message falls in to.
>
John Rudd wrote:
> But, without a coherent and explicit name convention, the rules for
> doing so would be so complex as to be not be worth the effort in writing
> them. In some cases, it's even ambiguous as to which of the above
> categories a given message falls in to.
Or, alternatively, a p
Dennis Peterson wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 07:28 -0700, John Rudd wrote:
>>> (to the developers, not in answer to Burnie)
>>>
>>> See, the current name scheme needs to be fixed. And no one responded at
>>> all to my proposed scheme from a month or two ago.
>> Coi
Andy Fiddaman wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
> ; On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 07:28 -0700, John Rudd wrote:
> ; > (to the developers, not in answer to Burnie)
> ; >
> ; > See, the current name scheme needs to be fixed. And no one responded at
> ; > all to my proposed scheme f
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
; On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 07:28 -0700, John Rudd wrote:
; > (to the developers, not in answer to Burnie)
; >
; > See, the current name scheme needs to be fixed. And no one responded at
; > all to my proposed scheme from a month or two ago.
;
; Coinci
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 07:28 -0700, John Rudd wrote:
>> (to the developers, not in answer to Burnie)
>>
>> See, the current name scheme needs to be fixed. And no one responded at
>> all to my proposed scheme from a month or two ago.
>
> Coincidentally, my very first q
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 07:28 -0700, John Rudd wrote:
> (to the developers, not in answer to Burnie)
>
> See, the current name scheme needs to be fixed. And no one responded at
> all to my proposed scheme from a month or two ago.
Coincidentally, my very first question on this list years ago was a
On 9/12/07, John Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> (to the developers, not in answer to Burnie)
>
> See, the current name scheme needs to be fixed. And no one responded at
> all to my proposed scheme from a month or two ago.
+1
--
/peter
___
Help us
(to the developers, not in answer to Burnie)
See, the current name scheme needs to be fixed. And no one responded at
all to my proposed scheme from a month or two ago.
Burnie wrote:
> Just a bit curious - what "classification" is this signature?
> I can't find this naming scheme mentioned som
11 matches
Mail list logo
