> You _will not_ persuade me to abandon this. If you make it mandated
> policy that I only have one email address I shall simply ignore you.
Come on Ian, what kind of attitude is this? I sure everyone can think
of things in the "policy" that they don't like. I find this type of
remark to be sim
Hi,
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[ description of [IMHO] idiotic mail scheme deleted]
Ian> Furthermore, role addresses make it much easier to move
Ian> responsibility for tasks from one person or account to another
Ian> without needing to reeducate all one's correspondents.
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I currently have about 5 different addresses that I publish for use in
> the Debian project, about 8 that I publish for system administration
> on my personal system, about 4 that I publish for personal use to
> various people, and 2 that I use for my empl
I currently have about 5 different addresses that I publish for use in
the Debian project, about 8 that I publish for system administration
on my personal system, about 4 that I publish for personal use to
various people, and 2 that I use for my employment. These addresses
filter to 4 different ph
> I've only heard about using "+" end of last year.
AFAIK, the first place the idea of having user+foo for mail sorting
was widely used was the CMU Andrew project; they used + as the
seperator, and were doing this as far back as 1988, I think...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) wrote on 14.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > "Martin" == Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 1998 at 03:16:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> >> Some people might want to be able to prefilter their mail into
> >> f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) wrote on 15.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Here's a paste-in of the `sendmail-8.8.8' ruleset 5. The part after
So sendmail defaults to using "+" (and in an IMHO only half-implemented
way - why am I not surprised?). So?
Exim can use anything at all, both
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 15.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 1998 at 10:17:26AM +, Philip Hands wrote:
> > I thought that the convention was to use ``minused'' addresses for this:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > That's certainly the qmail way of doing things, and I seem to re
On Thu, Jan 15, 1998 at 11:57:09AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Seeing that the Email Addressing FAQ
> (http://www.qz.to/~eli/faqs/addressing.html) is posted with a subtitle "(How
> to use [EMAIL PROTECTED] addresses)", I think that plusses are quite common
> too.
Any simple way to configure
> "Philip" == Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I thought that the convention was to use ``minused'' addresses
> for this:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> That's certainly the qmail way of doing things, and I seem to
> remeber a discussion on djb-qmail that concluded tha
On Thu, Jan 15, 1998 at 10:17:26AM +, Philip Hands wrote:
> > >> Some people might want to be able to prefilter their mail into
> > >> folders for different packages, and so encode the package into
> > >> the email address.
> >
> > They should use `plussed' addresses for that, pe
On Thu, Jan 15, 1998 at 10:17:26AM +, Philip Hands wrote:
> Of course qmail can handle plusses too, but minusses are the default.
Exim's the same
On Thu, Jan 15, 1998 at 10:17:26AM +, Philip Hands wrote:
> I thought that the convention was to use ``minused'' addresses for this:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> That's certainly the qmail way of doing things, and I seem to remeber a
> discussion on djb-qmail that concluded that someone who was u
> > "Martin" == Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 1998 at 03:16:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> >> Some people might want to be able to prefilter their mail into
> >> folders for different packages, and so encode the package into
> >> the emai
> "Martin" == Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 1998 at 03:16:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Some people might want to be able to prefilter their mail into
>> folders for different packages, and so encode the package into
>> the email address.
T
Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm still not convinced by your arguments. Of course, these packages
> are complicated (and another problem might be that we are the
> upstream developers of "dpkg" so we'll have to do the coding, too).
The same applies to the boot-floppies package
On 10 Jan 1998, James Troup wrote:
[snip]
> > Just let me note, that all packages that are currently maintained by
> > a group of developers, have a much longer list of outstanding bug
> > reports than most one-maintainer packages, for example dpkg,
> > boot-floppies, doc-debian containing the FAQ
Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don't believe me?
Nope.
> Just let me note, that all packages that are currently maintained by
> a group of developers, have a much longer list of outstanding bug
> reports than most one-maintainer packages, for example dpkg,
> boot-floppies, doc-d
On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Santiago Vila wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> > [...] doc-debian containing the FAQ (not much bugs, but the
> > FAQ is actually orphaned)...
>
> I now maintain the FAQ, just that I have not had time to do my first
On 9 Jan 1998, Guy Maor wrote:
> Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Don't believe me? Just let me note, that all packages that are currently
> > maintained by a group of developers, have a much longer list of
> > outstanding bug reports than most one-maintainer packages, for exam
Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don't believe me? Just let me note, that all packages that are currently
> maintained by a group of developers, have a much longer list of
> outstanding bug reports than most one-maintainer packages, for example
> dpkg, boot-floppies, doc-debian cont
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> [...] doc-debian containing the FAQ (not much bugs, but the
> FAQ is actually orphaned)...
I now maintain the FAQ, just that I have not had time to do my first
"maintainer release"...
BTW: Before, I agreed with Mar
On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Martin Schulze wrote:
[snip]
> I was about requesting a change lately but didn't find the right
> example. Now here it is. I believe that developers have agreed that
> it makes sense to maintain packages as a group. Boot-floppies is another
> package that seems to be maintai
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
[ moving to debian-policy ]
On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > [...] However, this address has to be unique for all packages of
> > that maintainer to simplify our tools. Unfortunately, not all
> > maintainers com
On Fri, Jan 09, 1998 at 03:16:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > This has been discussed several times now and I don't think there is a
> > need to raise the discussion again. Current policy says that it is up
> > to each maintainer which email address he/she prefers as "Maintainer:"
> > address.
25 matches
Mail list logo
