On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:45:13 +0200, Pierre Habouzit
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We don't see the point to bend our ideals for obnoxious or invalid
>reasons (having RFCs in the source package is completely useless to the
>user in the first place).
If you truly believe that users will never see t
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:45:07 +0200, Roland Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>John Kelly, 2007-09-12 18:33:12 + :
>
>> Again, if Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the
>> benefit of users, then why not let users vote?
>
>We do, actually.
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:27:41 +0200, "Miriam Ruiz"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>2007/9/12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> If Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the benefit of
>> users, then why not let users vote. The outcome may be di
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:28:53 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>IF you close your eyes while people get attacked beside you for trying
>to do what you are calling for, then you have nothing to complain when
>things not happen like you want. Especially when those people who
>involve the
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:20:44 -0700, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>We previously had a vote on whether the DFSG should extend to the entire
>contents of the archive or only to software, and the vote outcome was that
>it extended to the entire contents of the archive.
Recently, or some t
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:35:18 +0200, Pierre Habouzit
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>there is little point in shipping rfc's that are mirrored everywhere
>on the interwebs, and rfc's are clearly non-free
Your sentence is self contradictory. For all practical intents and
purposes, "mirrored everywhere
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:13:53 +0200, Pierre Habouzit
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > Only you are talking about willy-nilly changes... besides we as Debian
>> > > only want our users the freedom to be able to if they wanted it, to
>> > > willy-nilly modify the RFC text.
>>
>> > I'm shaking my hea
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:00:34 -0500, Ron Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Only you are talking about willy-nilly changes... besides we as Debian
>> only want our users the freedom to be able to if they wanted it, to
>> willy-nilly modify the RFC text.
>I'm shaking my head in stunned disbelief
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:57:23 +0200, "Miriam Ruiz"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> They're RFCs. They're not code. If you want to "modify" an RFC
>> you have to write your own and submit it, see?
>What about ... making a derivative specification out of it
You hit it. They're SPECIFICATIONS. If y
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:41:29 + (UTC), Sune Vuorela
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 2007-09-12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Distribution of this memo is unlimited."
>>
>> With RFCs available to anyone with a web browser, it's absurd
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:56:20 +0200, "Miriam Ruiz"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>2007/9/12, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
>> > 2007/9/12, John Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > > An obsessio
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:39:05 -0400, Nathanael Nerode
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Non-free material is being included in main for the benefit of *precisely
>zero*
>users. There's no two ways about this: this is a Social Contract violation.
>I guess the Social Contract really is a joke. I don't
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 14:50:25 -0600, "Dwayne C. Litzenberger"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On most of my boxes, passwords are useless for anything except local
>authentication, and even for that, they aren't used much.
>How about a Debian policy that enumerates the specific cases where
>passwords
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 12:31:15 +0300, Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I stop brute force attacks by sending auth log messages to a FIFO which I
>> read with a perl script. After 10 login failures, your IP is firewalled for
>> 24 hours.
>I'm sure it does work great. Can you work on m
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 07:53:08 + (UTC), Oleg Verych
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What about having more secure Debian's sshd_config by default?
>PermitRootLogin no
>DenyUsers *
Doing remote ssh installations without any console access will make
you unhappy with that default.
--
Internet
On Sep 3, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
ti, 2007-09-04 kello 10:17 +0900, Miles Bader kirjoitti:
If the system is excessively anal about what passwords it will let you
use, people will just start writing them down...
That is arguably better than having passwords which can be guessed by
doing brute
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:09:54 +0100, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 06:12:44PM +0000, John Kelly wrote:
>> Heil Hitler!
>QED.
Godwin's law only applies when the comparison is unfair.
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 19:54:13 +0100, Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I actually see no good reason to want to use flock() over fcntl().
Maybe because the fcntl()
>interface follows the completely stupid semantics of System V and
>IEEE Std 1003.1-1988 (``POSIX.1'') that require that all l
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 19:09:33 +0100, Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Anyway, from the linux/Documentation/locks.txt file:
>1.2.1 Typical Problems - Sendmail
>-
>Because sendmail was unable to use the old flock() emulation
I believe flock() *emulation* is no
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:33:10 +0100, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 03:37:56PM +0000, John Kelly wrote:
>> I'm discussing flock() with the debain sendmail package and the linux
>> 2.6 kernel.
>>
>> Or does that annoy you
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:42:21 +0100, Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 01:02:15PM +0000, John Kelly wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 11:14:21 +, Roger Leigh
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >It's almost al
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 11:14:21 +, Roger Leigh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It's almost always a bad idea to use flock() instead of fcntl().
>fnctl() locking is effectively deprecating flock()
I heard it was the other way around. Please explain ...
>If you look at SUSv3/POSIX, you'll see that
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:24:34 -0800 (PST), Richard A Nelson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>** NOTE: Override HASFLOCK as you will but, as of 1.99.6, mixed-style
>>** file locking is no longer allowed. In particular, make sure
>>** your DBM library and sendmail are both using either flock(
sendmail defines HASFLOCK=0, apparently because, as configure says:
># flock() doens't work over NFS and there's a rumour of b0rkedness in
># Linux 2.4.x kernels ;(
and include/sm/conf.h says:
>** NOTE: Override HASFLOCK as you will but, as of 1.99.6, mixed-style
>** file locking is no lo
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 01:58:19 +0100, Magnus Holmgren
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Prayer is geared towards large-scale, perhaps even *very* large-scale
>installations. It offers speed and low resource usage
That's attractive to me.
>Changing the appearance is rather hard
Like the doctor said: if
25 matches
Mail list logo
