Hello,
I'm spammed every day, so I decided to removed all my eMail addresses from the
Web. I already did it from all the web sites where I put the eMail addresses
myself, but someone spoofed my eMail on one of your lists :
http://lists.debian.org/debian-security/2002/debian-security-200201/msg
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 04:47:42PM -0600, Debian WWW CVS wrote:
> CVSROOT: /cvs/webwml
> Module name: webwml
> Changes by: jfs 03/05/27 16:47:42
>
> Modified files:
> english/intro : about.wml
>
> Log message:
> Added an approximate figure of current developers
-Debian
Area Tecnica, Caja de Guadalajara, SPAIN
financial
http://CajaGuadalajara.biz
May 28, 2003.
We are using Debian for now in some servers and communications services,
18 computers currently, for our firewall, corporate web server, vpn
routers and application servers. All of them currently are using w
On Wed, 28 May 2003 08:40:10 +0200, Guillaume MULLER wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm spammed every day, so I decided to removed all my eMail addresses
> from the Web. I already did it from all the web sites where I put the
> eMail addresses myself, but someone spoofed my eMail on one of your
> lists :
Package: www.debian.org
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-05-28
Severity: important
When running searches on packages names, or using the URL shortcut
http://packages.debian.org/foo, I'm currently seeing:
Malformed query! (Or something strange happened to this script.)
-- System Informatio
Package: www.debian.org
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-05-28
Followup-For: Bug #195105
By the time this report was put into the bug database the search
had started functioning again.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux albus.progeny.com 2.
On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 02:24:49PM -0500, John R. Daily wrote:
> Followup-For: Bug #195105
>
> By the time this report was put into the bug database the search
> had started functioning again.
Umm. The malformed query error occasionally appears in the Apache error.log,
although not exactly at 13:
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 01:50:37AM +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> Let me briefly outline why lurker has one mailbox per list:
[...]
> For these reasons I consider the new scheme to be superior from a usability
> and robustness stand-point.
I still don't see why any of those reasons are decidin
For what it's worth, the problem persisted for several different
queries over a few minutes, so it certainly didn't feel like a
transient problem.
-John
9 matches
Mail list logo