Re: unofficial mozilla 0.8 deb

2001-03-19 Thread Greg Stark
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > alternatively, we're only talking about a couple of dozen crypto > packages I count 183 packages in non-US currently. And I think the current awkwardness of uploading to non-us is holding us back. When we put crypto in main we'll get fetchmail with ss

Re: unofficial mozilla 0.8 deb

2001-03-13 Thread Nick Moffitt
begin Craig Sanders quotation: > for fun (and the chance to win an all expenses paid vacation to a > maximum security cell block), the script could sign the > notificiation message as "Mr T. Errorist, Libya" :-) I pity da foo'. -- You are not entitled to your opinions. 0123456

Re: unofficial mozilla 0.8 deb, autonotification in dupload

2001-03-12 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Friday 9 March 2001, at 20 h 52, the keyboard of Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On an additional note, would Stephane Bortzmeyer accept a patch that causes > dupload to mail a copy of the upload to a list of email addresses before it > is uploaded? It could be used, for example,

Re: unofficial mozilla 0.8 deb, autonotification in dupload

2001-03-10 Thread Joseph Carter
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 08:52:55PM -0500, Brian Ristuccia wrote: > On an additional note, would Stephane Bortzmeyer accept a patch that causes > dupload to mail a copy of the upload to a list of email addresses before it > is uploaded? It could be used, for example, to automagically mail a copy to

Re: unofficial mozilla 0.8 deb

2001-03-09 Thread Craig Sanders
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 06:04:59PM -0700, John Galt wrote: > > This issue has been done to death. Basically, there's a notification > requirement in the BXA rules. Nobody that can do it wants to, and nobody > that wants to do it can. yes, there's a notification requirement. i pointed that out

Re: unofficial mozilla 0.8 deb, autonotification in dupload

2001-03-09 Thread Brian Ristuccia
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 06:04:59PM -0700, John Galt wrote: > > This issue has been done to death. Basically, there's a notification > requirement in the BXA rules. It seems to me that once someone has met the notification requirement for a given bit of software, the export restrictions on it m

Re: unofficial mozilla 0.8 deb

2001-03-09 Thread John Galt
This issue has been done to death. Basically, there's a notification requirement in the BXA rules. Nobody that can do it wants to, and nobody that wants to do it can. On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Craig Sanders wrote: >On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 01:25:03AM +0200, Sampo Niskanen wrote: >> >> On Wed, 7 Mar 2

Re: unofficial mozilla 0.8 deb

2001-03-08 Thread Craig Sanders
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 01:25:03AM +0200, Sampo Niskanen wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Gregor Hoffleit wrote: > > AFAIR, the new legislation said that companies could apply at > > the government for a permission to release specific versions of > > strong-crypto software to a world-wide public. I