On 4/27/07, Shantanoo Mahajan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mailing list software can do that if it is able to understand the
difference between forged and genuine email. Upto certain limit, one
can find spam, but you can not fight it 100%. This is where digitally
signed messages come into picture.
+++ Nishit Dave [PLUG] [20-04-07 10:29 +0530]:
| On 4/20/07, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| wrote:
Hi,
This is Shantanoo. I have put the 'Sender:' header in the mail. This
is one of the reason why people need digitally signed messages :)
Shantanoo
hmm...interesting! Shouldn't
On 4/21/07, A G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Cosmic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/19/07, Nishit Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On 4/19/07, Nishit Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 4/19/07, A G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > Part I
On 4/21/07, A G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes. Now at least we are on the same page that
softwares are licensed and we are not using some
car/hood etc examples.
I believe, from *consumer* point of view, software is no different
from hardware. They just give more fun or make his day-to-day
li
--- BVK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/21/07, A G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 2. You dont own vista is what the fsf says.
> > Well, I also dont own ubuntu tht I am using
> neither do
> > I own FF with which I am replying.
>
> Sure, you don't own Ubuntu as a company and you
> don't own F
On 4/21/07, A G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2. You dont own vista is what the fsf says.
Well, I also dont own ubuntu tht I am using neither do
I own FF with which I am replying.
Sure, you don't own Ubuntu as a company and you don't own FF as a trademark.
Why do you think you don't own Ubuntu a
--- Cosmic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/19/07, Nishit Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On 4/19/07, Nishit Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 4/19/07, A G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > Part II
> >
> > Of course, both Vista and Linux are
On 4/19/07, Nishit Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/19/07, Nishit Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 4/19/07, A G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Part II
Of course, both Vista and Linux are distributed under licenses, but there is
a major difference between their terms. Vist
+++ Nishit Dave [PLUG] [20-04-07 10:29 +0530]:
| On 4/20/07, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| wrote:
| >
| >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
| >-END PGP SIGNATURE-
| >
| >
| As this is OT, I'll risk the question: what's the use of digitally signing
| messages posted to a dis
On 4/20/07, A G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I only hope that fsf does not do harm to OSS with
SCOish arguments and claims.
What arguments? what claims? Can you enlight us with any? Your
comparision of FSF with SCO tells us a *lot* about your knowledge on
these topics.
FYI, all FSF owned soft
On 4/19/07, A G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The content writer is idiot to say the least. Argue on
the merits of Linux and not the bad things of others.
That site is about VISTA and whats BAD in it. Not about Linux.
These fsf guys have problem even w/ Linux kernel not
being moved to V3.
Do
On 4/20/07, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
As this is OT, I'll risk the question: what's the use of digitally signing
messages posted to a discussion forum? Any comment would invalidate the
original signature
On 4/20/07, A G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While I agree that the above points 'may' occure, it
would be better if some hard examples are given. Else
the credentials of the accuser gets a dent.
This is a distinct possibility. Vista has been designed to *impinge* on
your rights.
Eg. MS talk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
manoj mahajan wrote:
> Interesting site, please have a look
> http://badvista.fsf.org
On a completely different track, there's a FSF group in Pune now with a
mailing list at http://mm.gnu.org.in/mailman/listinfo/fsf-pune
Siddharthya is the coordinato
--- Nishit Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/19/07, A G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> 1. Vista can block unauthorised code execution,
> under the guise of virus
> protection. This can mean that it will allow only
> software authorised by
> Microsoft or its honchos to run.
On 4/19/07, Nishit Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/19/07, Nishit Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 4/19/07, A G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Part III
GPL v3 has been necessitated to deal with businesses trying to get cute with
GPL v2, viz. TiVo and Microsoft / Novell.
On 4/19/07, Nishit Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/19/07, A G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
Part II
Of course, both Vista and Linux are distributed under licenses, but there is
a major difference between their terms. Vista EULAs very minutely specify
what you can do with it, while
On 4/19/07, A G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1. Vista can block unauthorised code execution, under the guise of virus
protection. This can mean that it will allow only software authorised by
Microsoft or its honchos to run.
Therefore, if somebody decides that vlc circumvents content protec
--- manoj mahajan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting site, please have a look
> http://badvista.fsf.org
>
>
http://badvista.fsf.org/what-s-wrong-with-microsoft-windows-vista
1. DRM gives power to Microsoft and Big Media.
* They decide which programs you can and can't use
on your com
Interesting site, please have a look
http://badvista.fsf.org
Thanks,
--
Have a nice day!
--
``
Manoj S. Mahajan
MCSE 2003+Security+Messaging,
MCSA 2003+Security+Messaging & RHCE
M: 9423022370
`
20 matches
Mail list logo
