Greetings,
This message is an automated, unofficial publication of vote results.
Official results shall follow, sent in by the vote taker, namely
Debian Project Secretary
This email is just a convenience for the impatient.
I remain, gentle folks,
Your humble servant,
De
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
d495b767-7754-4e61-80ea-8b31c07f3595
[ 2 ] Choice 1: Repeal previous GR
[ 1 ] Choice 2: Acknowledge difficulty
[ 4 ] Choice 3: Remain private
[ 3 ] Choice 4: Further Discussion
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between T
,
Devotee (on behalf of Debian Project Secretary)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Starting results calculation at Sun Aug 21 00:00:12 2016
Option 1 "Allow declassifying parts of debian-private"
Option 2 "Further Discussion"
In the following table, tally[row x][col y]
Please ignore this e-mail. It never happened.
Kurt
,
Devotee (on behalf of Debian Project Secretary)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Starting results calculation at Sun Aug 14 00:00:23 2016
Option 1 "Allow declassifying parts of debian-private"
Option 2 "Further Discussion"
In the following table, tally[row x][col y]
On Sun, 2016-08-07 at 01:48 +0200, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt
Roeckx wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is the first call for vote on the General Resolution about
> declassifying debian-private.
>
> Voting period starts 2016-08-07 00:00:00 UTC
> Votes must be receive
Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
> I saw that it's possible to redirect my @debian.org email to an
> address and also redirect debian-private to another email. @debian.org
> is set to @gmail.com. Good. But what do I do with debian-private?
> Is it possible to redirect
Hi!
I am using Frans Pop's procmailrc to split debian-private and
non-debian-private emails. Thank you Frans!
Sincerily, *I* don't belive in privacy with one thousand developers
reading plain text emails, but to avoid more discussions and fights,
I won't read debian-private wi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/06/06 16:17, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
>
>> I thought that very few ISP have really the will and disk space to
>
> I do not think about ISPs only. Have you ever heard about Echelon.
> (Just try Emacs Meta
encrypt debian-private.
I never wrote things to this mailing list that I could not write
open (on a picture postcard) and I have never seen any mail that
would be really worth to be encrypted on this list. So just
calm down and ignore these ugly spys who seem to have fun to
read your mails.
Kind
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 05:08:02AM -0200, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
> What I am wanting is to redirect all my @debian.org emails to my Gmail
> account (the field "email forwarded to") and to read debian-private
> emails on a Debian machine.
Thank God for procmail.
Wait,
tercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected,
> and disclosed at the discretion of Stanford University and
> subject to applicable laws.
> If we're going to disallow getting developers' debian-private mail
> delivered to gmail, then we're going to hav
he discretion of Stanford University and
subject to applicable laws.
If we're going to disallow getting developers' debian-private
mail delivered to gmail, then we're going to have to disallow it
getting delivered to Stanford, too, at least if the developer
ever uses the webmail system
and use it 2) they clearly state that they will keep
> everything.
> Shouldn't that make a difference?
There are, what, 2,000 people on debian-private? Nothing sent there is
going to stay a secret from any determined adversary, and there are far
easier ways of getting that information than
with 1Tb of data).
> The real problem with Google seems to be that 1) they have all the
> infrastructure needed to keep and use it 2) they clearly state that
> they will keep everything.
>
> Shouldn't that make a difference?
no because my neighbour could spy my phone cable
//lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/05/msg02531.html that it's
> > > not nice to redirect debian-private to a Gmail account.
> > Please ignore paranoid people.
>
> Paranoid is OK. Overly-paranoid isn't. (I'm not saying which of those
> any of the particip
Scribit Andreas Tille dies 06/12/2006 hora 14:09:
> > Please ignore paranoid people.
> To be honest you have to regard any nonencrypted mail as world
> readable and you can be nearly sure that all your mails are recorded
> at a place where you have no control over it.
I thought that very few ISP h
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:46:51PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Dec 06, "Nelson A. de Oliveira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > People discussed at this thread
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/05/msg02531.html that it's
> > not nic
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
People discussed at this thread
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/05/msg02531.html that it's
not nice to redirect debian-private to a Gmail account.
Please ignore paranoid people.
To be honest you have to regard any nonencrypted mai
On Dec 06, "Nelson A. de Oliveira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> People discussed at this thread
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/05/msg02531.html that it's
> not nice to redirect debian-private to a Gmail account.
Please ignore paranoid people.
-
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 08:08, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
> What I am wanting is to redirect all my @debian.org emails to my Gmail
> account (the field "email forwarded to") and to read debian-private
> emails on a Debian machine.
>
> Is it easy to do this (using p
On 12/6/06, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 December 2006 03:32, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
> > I saw that it's possible to redirect my @debian.org email to an
> > address and also redirect debian-private to another email. @debian.org
> >
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 03:32, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
> I saw that it's possible to redirect my @debian.org email to an
> address and also redirect debian-private to another email. @debian.org
> is set to @gmail.com. Good. But what do I do with debian-private?
>
Hi!
People discussed at this thread
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/05/msg02531.html that it's
not nice to redirect debian-private to a Gmail account.
Well, the problem is that my main email is from Gmail. I have other 2
emails too. One is temporary (from where I study) and I red
#x27;d ideally I'd like to avoid having an enormous flamewar about
> > it.
> > However, it has come to my attention that at least one developer
> > appears to be reading debian-private at their gmail account.
> I am one of those developers. I have never though that such action
#x27;d ideally I'd like to avoid having an enormous flamewar about
> > it.
I claim I was guilty too. Now I use my local ISP's mailbox. No better
though.
> > However, it has come to my attention that at least one developer
> > appears to be reading debian-private a
t; However, it has come to my attention that at least one developer
> appears to be reading debian-private at their gmail account.
I am one of those developers. I have never though that such action could
be considered a violation of debian-private policy and some reasons for
that have already
Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> it's nice to have your personal gobal & searchable mailing list
> archive, where you can really find anything you have ever received.
Even though it is nice, it's also problematic to scatter around
private and hence sensitive (at least temporarily sensitive)
information
Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
Come to think of it, [pgp encrypting each message] isn't a bad idea. Is it
feasible for this to
be done transparently? Mailing list admins, any comments?
I suspect that the end result of this would be more people keeping their
GPG keys unencrypted on Internet-access
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 25 May 2006 16:21:35 -0500
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Kevin B. McCarty writes ("Re: sending debian-private postings to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kevin B. McCarty writes ("Re: sending debian-private postings to gmail"):
>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> distributed to computers whose owners and operators cannot be expected
>>>
Le mercredi 24 mai 2006 à 19:18 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> However, it has come to my attention that at least one developer
> appears to be reading debian-private at their gmail account.
And at least hundreds of people appear to be reading debian-private on
slashdo
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 04:09:07PM -0400, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> Come to think of it, (2) isn't a bad idea. Is it feasible for this to
> be done transparently? Mailing list admins, any comments?
this has been discussed before a few times. iirc each time the
final result was the mail admins s
On 5/24/06, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
However, it has come to my attention that at least one developer
appears to be reading debian-private at their gmail account.
doh! i have been caught :)
it's nice to have your personal gobal & searchable mailing list
archive
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 04:09:07PM -0400, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> (2) all mail passing through debian-private should, for each
> subscriber to the list, be encrypted individually to the public key
> on file for her/him.
> Come to think of it, (2) isn't a bad idea. Is it feasi
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> (2) all mail passing through debian-private should, for each
> subscriber to the list, be encrypted individually to the public key
> on file for her/him.
>
> Come to think of it, (2) isn't a bad idea. Is it feasible f
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 02:13:38AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit "Kevin B. McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Taken to extremes, this implies that (1) DD's should only receive mail
> > sent to boxes under their own control and (2) all mail passing
Kevin B. McCarty writes ("Re: sending debian-private postings to gmail"):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> [snip]
> > distributed to computers whose owners and operators cannot be expected
> > to refrain from processi
Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> Taken to extremes, this implies that (1) DD's should only receive mail
> sent to boxes under their own control and (2) all mail passing through
> debian-private should, for each subscriber to the list, be encrypted
> individually to the public key on
Scripsit "Kevin B. McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Taken to extremes, this implies that (1) DD's should only receive mail
> sent to boxes under their own control and (2) all mail passing through
> debian-private should, for each subscriber to the list, be encrypted
&g
Ian Jackson wrote:
[snip]
> But it seems clear that Gmail's processing isn't compatible with
> debian-private.
>
> A Debian developer should cause debian-private to be processed only as
> is necessary for providing developers with good and convenient access
> to th
ppears to be reading debian-private at their gmail account.
I think that this is a violation of the privacy rules surrounding the
debian-private list. Google should not get a copy of debian-private,
even if the only current output is aggregate keyword hit reports
(ie ad presentation rate data).
Note
Followups set to -vote; can we please keep this on the list that's
designed for these discussions?
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 11:24:52AM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> There's a lot of personal information inside debian-private,
There is? I got 36 of 494 messages (7%) for the month I
Em Qui, 2005-12-08 às 08:07 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane escreveu:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:39:15AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:47:07PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> >> The first type of publication could embrace the entire content of
> &
s to be able to read stuff.
Well, if you're going to get access to information that if published
could damage people, that's not surprise. There's a lot of personal
information inside debian-private, which can be usefull for someone
doing a research, but even then, should not be ava
Em Qui, 2005-12-08 às 00:08 +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin escreveu:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:47:07PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > The first type of publication could embrace the entire content of
> > debian-private, but restrictions will be applied for those who want to
> >
would be nice to have two types of
>> publications:
>> 1) Selected Readers
>> 2) Selected Content
>> The first type of publication could embrace the entire content of
>> debian-private, but restrictions will be applied for those who want
>> to read, basically, th
ontent
> >
> > The first type of publication could embrace the entire content of
> > debian-private, but restrictions will be applied for those who want to
> > read, basically, the need of identification of the reader and the
> > agreement to a NDA on the same terms applied to e
; google, nor be available without any criteria. This is certainly the
> point that is raising most of the disagreement.
>
> So, my conclusion is that it would be nice to have two types of
> publications:
>
> 1) Selected Readers
> 2) Selected Content
>
> The first typ
On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:47:07PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> So, my conclusion is that it would be nice to have two types of
> publications:
>
> 1) Selected Readers
> 2) Selected Content
>
> The first type of publication could embrace the entire content of
> debian-p
Daniel Ruoso:
> I'll try to move forward in the direction of a more consensual proposal
> about the declassification.=20
>
> In this discussion, two points were made clear to me:
You do not mention the copyright and ethical problems,
but the proposal seems to address them, near enough.
Is the OP
on is that it would be nice to have two types of
publications:
1) Selected Readers
2) Selected Content
The first type of publication could embrace the entire content of
debian-private, but restrictions will be applied for those who want to
read, basically, the need of identification of the reade
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 08:32:59AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> - - requests by the author of a post for that post not to be published
> - will be honoured;
> + - If the author makes a resonable case that some material is
> + sensitive, then that material is redacted from that post
On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 12:35:28 +1000, Anthony Towns said:
> (Followups to -vote)
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 08:30:37AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>> The primary reason for this is that the existing messages were sent
>> to debian-private with an expectation of privacy.
> A
-
> In accordance with principles of openness and transparency, Debian will
> seek to declassify and publish posts of historical or ongoing significance
> made to the Debian Private Mailing List.
>
> This process will be undertaken under the following const
Hi,
Jérôme Marant wrote:
- the list of posts to be declassified will be made available to
developers two weeks before publication, so that the decisions
Two weeks is too short to review, IMO.
I didn't read that as a hard time limit between announcement and
publication, but rather as t
On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 12:35 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> (Followups to -vote)
>
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 08:30:37AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> > The primary reason for this is that the existing messages were sent to
> > debian-private with an expectation of privacy.
&g
(Followups to -vote)
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 08:30:37AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> The primary reason for this is that the existing messages were sent to
> debian-private with an expectation of privacy.
As Matthew pointed out in [0] this expectation of privacy isn't really
going
significance made to the Debian Private Mailing List.
This process will be undertaken under the following constraints:
* The Debian Project Leader will delegate one or more volunteers
to form the debian-private declassification team.
* The team will automatically declas
Em Qui, 2005-12-01 às 08:32 -0600, Manoj Srivastava escreveu:
> a) The post contained sensitive material.
> In this case, if a reasonable case has been made for the
> material being sensitive, and one that the declassification
> teams accepted, then the material should be
; > the message is kept hidden.
> >
> > The primary reason for this is that the existing messages were sent to
> > debian-private with an expectation of privacy. Folk that have changed
> > address or become otherwise not-immediately available may still care,
> &g
at the existing messages were sent to
> debian-private with an expectation of privacy. Folk that have changed
> address or become otherwise not-immediately available may still care,
> and the principle of least surprise should apply.
>
> We can however change the expectations for new m
e to keep the post private, not to
open it up. That is, if the author and other individuals do not reply,
the message is kept hidden.
The primary reason for this is that the existing messages were sent to
debian-private with an expectation of privacy. Folk that have changed
address or become otherwi
Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello,
>
> Jérôme Marant wrote:
>
>> What is this supposed to mean? If no comments have been made by the
>> author for eight weeks, messages will be automatically declassified?
>> It looks like a kind of opt out to me.
>
> True. It may be an idea to have
Here are the urls I didn't find for my other post:
http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/nb/nb.cgi/view/vitanuova/2005/03/13/0
http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/sec2000/full_papers/rao/rao.pdf
http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/NewsBruiser-2.6.1/nb.cgi/view/vitanuova/2005/04/06/0
http://en.w
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> a) The post contained sensitive material.
>
> In this case, if a reasonable case has been made for the
> material being sensitive, and one that the declassification
> teams accepted, then the material should be redacted from the
> post, a
On Thursday 01 December 2005 15.32, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> + - If the author indicates he does not wish to be associated with a
> + post, any identifying information is redacted from that post,
> + and any quotes in subsequent posts, but the rest of the material
> + is published.
Hello,
Jérôme Marant wrote:
What is this supposed to mean? If no comments have been made by the
author for eight weeks, messages will be automatically declassified?
It looks like a kind of opt out to me.
True. It may be an idea to have another proposed amendment reversing the
logic, and see
Quoting Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> * The team will automatically declassify and publish posts made to
> that list that are three or more years old, with the following
> exceptions:
>
> - the author and other individuals quoted in messages being reviewed
> will be
manoj
--
In accordance with principles of openness and transparency, Debian will
seek to declassify and publish posts of historical or ongoing significance
made to the Debian Private Mailing List.
This process will be undertaken under the foll
Martin Godisch wrote:
> Who can tell me, where the debian-private list archives can be found?
> Looks like they moved somewhere...
Did the mailing list footer change while we were not paying attention?
Mine still says:
Please respect the privacy of this mailin
On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 06:50:44AM +0100, Martin Godisch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Who can tell me, where the debian-private list archives can be found?
> Looks like they moved somewhere...
>
master:/home/debian/archive/debian-private/
Pasc
--
Pascal Hakim
> "AY" == Alex Yukhimets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AY: Nothing strange. After a couple of _years_ of struggling in
AY: attempts to learn emacs (I made about 6 attempts total) I found
AY: a *great* relief in... vi (vim actually). I was able to get
AY: used to it only after 2-
> On 18 Dec 1997, Kai Henningsen wrote:
>
> > Remember there are people that can't stand Emacs.
>
> Strange... :)
Nothing strange. After a couple of _years_ of struggling in attempts to
learn emacs (I made about 6 attempts total) I found a *great* relief in...
vi (vim actually). I was able to ge
On 18 Dec 1997, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> Remember there are people that can't stand Emacs.
Strange... :)
---
Turbo_ /// If there are no Amigas in heaven, send me to HELL!
^\\\/
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it'
> "Kai" == Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Kai> Remember there are people that can't stand Emacs.
Bliss. :-)
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy Maor) wrote on 16.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Gonzalo A. Diethelm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Perhaps you could point out how I could force all of those people
> > with broken mailers and/or ideas to use one of your great mail
> > clients, so I won't get four, f
On 17 Dec 1997, Guy Maor wrote:
> > download them is closing the barn door after the horses have eaten the
> > chickens.
Horses are vegetarians anyway.
Will
--
|
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While I agree that Gnus is the best thing since sliced bread, keep in
> mind those in other countries where net access is *much* more
> expensive.
I hardly think the duplicate messages represent a significant
percentage of their bandwidth.
> For these
Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gnus.
While I agree that Gnus is the best thing since sliced bread, keep in
mind those in other countries where net access is *much* more
expensive. For these people, deleting the duplicates after they
download them is closing the barn door after the horses
On Tue 16 Dec 1997, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
> > "James" == James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> James> Alex Yukhimets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> When doing 'g'roup reply in elm, the e-mail of the person goes
> >> into the "To:" header and list address (along with all o
"Gonzalo A. Diethelm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Perhaps you could point out how I could force all of those people
> with broken mailers and/or ideas to use one of your great mail
> clients, so I won't get four, five, six or more duplicates of the
> messages sent to the list.
Gnus.
--
TO UNS
Quoting Gonzalo A. Diethelm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> You seem to be quite happy with the configuration as it is. Good for
> you. Perhaps you could point out how I could force all of those people
> with broken mailers and/or ideas to use one of your great mail
> clients, so I won't get four, five, six
On 17-Dec-1997, James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alex Yukhimets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > When doing 'g'roup reply in elm, the e-mail of the person goes into
> > the "To:" header and list address (along with all other thread
> > participant's adresses) to "Cc:" header.
>
> So, umm
> "James" == James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
James> Alex Yukhimets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> When doing 'g'roup reply in elm, the e-mail of the person goes
>> into the "To:" header and list address (along with all other
>> thread participant's adresses) to "Cc:" he
Alex Yukhimets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When doing 'g'roup reply in elm, the e-mail of the person goes into
> the "To:" header and list address (along with all other thread
> participant's adresses) to "Cc:" header.
So, umm, fix elm?
--
James
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-m
> --- Start of forwarded message ---
> Resent-Date: 16 Dec 1997 22:24:45 -
> Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 15:38:16 -0300
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: "Gonzalo A. Diethelm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Deb
--- Start of forwarded message ---
Resent-Date: 16 Dec 1997 22:24:45 -
Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 15:38:16 -0300
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Gonzalo A. Diethelm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Debian developers l
On Dec 16, 1997, at 11:22, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Tyson Dowd:
> > A couple of us discussed this (and other problems with the mailing
> > list), in the thread "Duplicate messages on this list" in debian-devel
> > about a week ago and eventually came to a standstill where most people
> > in the di
On 16-Dec-1997, Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Please check out http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html . The page
> contains several arguments against the use of "Reply-To". I fully agree to
> what Ian said.
Please don't quote this URL as if all the issues in this web pa
Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please check out http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html . The page
> contains several arguments against the use of "Reply-To". I fully agree to
> what Ian said.
I personally find header-munging of any sort distasteful, however
I think a couple
a rap on the knuckles for jumping lists, then it's
important enough to stop. If I've gone too far wasting people's time
with these issues, I won't bring it up again - but I'd seriously
recommend not using debian-private for anything that should remain
private, until t
On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Alex Yukhimets wrote:
> > Please let noone think that just because that absurd and awful
> > suggestion was the last thing anyone said that everyone is happy with
> > it.
> >
> > Rather, the rest of us have more important things to do than to fight
> > battles with people wit
> Please let noone think that just because that absurd and awful
> suggestion was the last thing anyone said that everyone is happy with
> it.
>
> Rather, the rest of us have more important things to do than to fight
> battles with people with broken mailers and broken ideas about how
> mailers ou
Tyson Dowd:
> A couple of us discussed this (and other problems with the mailing
> list), in the thread "Duplicate messages on this list" in debian-devel
> about a week ago and eventually came to a standstill where most people
> in the discussion were happy with the following solution:
>
>
Christian Meder writes:
> as my email is still not added to debian-private (I don't want to bug
> anyone) and it's election time I would like to ask some kind soul to
> send me the archives of the last two months of debian-private (need
> some background material for voting :
Hi,
as my email is still not added to debian-private (I don't want to bug
anyone) and it's election time I would like to ask some kind soul to
send me the archives of the last two months of debian-private (need
some background material for voting :-)
If possible please in the next coup
Is debian-private running, or have I just been removed from it?
I sent a message to it a couple days ago regarding the "WebPages"
directory now in the distribution, but never saw it, nor any other
messages to debian-private, appear.
98 matches
Mail list logo
