KCLUG

kclug@kclug.org

4 participants
3302 discussions

RE: BitTorrent + INDUCE Act + Linspire 5.0
by James Sissel 17 Oct '04

17 Oct '04

What happens over time as Hitler is slowly fogotten? Will somone else replace him, like Ashcroft? >From: "Dustin Decker" <dustin.decker(a)1on1security.com> >Reply-To: dustin.decker(a)1on1security.com >To: <kclug(a)kclug.org> >Subject: RE: BitTorrent + INDUCE Act + Linspire 5.0 >Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:19:49 -0500 > >It's not about winning - nor did I myself actually invoke Godwin's Law >(which if you do your research you'll find isn't effective); I left that to >someone else. > >I _did_ however do my best to make it easy for the word Hitler to find its >way into this thread by other means. The whole idea was a hope that this >ridiculous thread, filled with folks who won't even "agree to disagree", >might come to an end. It's a polite way to say, "Shut the **** up, you're >dancing with /dev/null!" > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law > >D. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: kclug-bounces(a)kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf > > Of Leo Mauler > > Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 7:34 AM > > To: Brian Densmore > > Cc: kclug(a)kclug.org > > Subject: RE: BitTorrent + INDUCE Act + Linspire 5.0 > > > > > > --- Brian Densmore <DensmoreB(a)ctbsonline.com> wrote: > > > > > Is it possible to invoke Godwin's law by naming > > > Eva Braun, it being a circular reference to > > > Hitler? Or does that invoke the corollary of > > > Godwin's law? Or is it in itself a circular > > > reference to Godwin's law? > > > > I think its a good time to point out that "Godwin's > > Law" is nothing more and nothing less a statement of > > the probability of Hitler being mentioned in a given > > discussion, being that the probability of Hitler being > > mentioned in a UseNet discussion ("Godwin's Law" was > > originally developed on UseNet NEWS) is directly > > proportional to the length of the UseNet discussion. > > > > It does not make any mention of who "wins" the > > discussion, a common misconception about "Godwin's > > Law". _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

6 5

BitTorrent + INDUCE Act + Linspire 5.0
by Jeremy Turner 17 Oct '04

17 Oct '04

Speaking of BitTorrent, I don't know if you read Michael's Minutes: http://www.linspire.com/lindows_michaelsminutes.php [Michael Robertson, the [in]famous CEO of MP3.com and current CEO of Linspire] This week's Michael's Minutes talked about how Linspire 5.0 might be illegal because it incorporates BitTorrent/P2P. The INDUCE Act is trying to make all P2P software illegal, but it could have a lot broader effect than just a bunch of copyrighted music. No matter what you think of Linspire or whatever, I think it's cool that they are giving new technology a shot. Not to mention that their CEO writes (sometimes he just edits) a column addressing the crowd. I find it... Linspiring? *ducks and runs* Jeremy -- Jeremy Turner <jeremy(a)linuxwebguy.com> Linux Tips and News! ---> http://linuxwebguy.com

6 12

This may be of interest and is topical for political impact on and from Linux
by Oren Beck 16 Oct '04

16 Oct '04

Someone forwarded this link to me about an ambitious well laid out distributed storage project . http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/eternity/node4.html What makes this On Topic for the list is that Open Source transparency as in Linux is essential for being able to TRUST such a project . Now for example if every LUG were a quorum of admins in a thing of this type and our servers hosted a mirror ? Oren www.campdownunder.com

1 0

Re: RE: Re: Help configuring procmail (was: Help configuring fetchmail)
by linux＠bizniche.com 15 Oct '04

15 Oct '04

Jeremy Turner <jeremy(a)linuxwebguy.com> wrote on 10/15/2004, 10:40:19 PM: > On Fri, October 15, 2004 3:10 pm, Brian Kelsay said: > > Are you saying that he can't filter on the "To:" field? If he is only > > subscribed on one address of the two he has talked about, he could scan > > for kclug(a)kclug.org in any of the 3 "To:, CC:, BCC:" and then have those > > dropped in whichever of the folders. I use built-in filters in > > Thunderbird, but this is what I look for and it works fine. This sounds like what I need to do. Watch the To and TO fields, as you say, and maybe create some rules for consisten type emails that get through..from lists etc. I guess those exceptions will happen for things like kclug where even the recipient username and server don't appear anywhere. I'll give it a shot and let you guys know how it's going. Awesome conversations about this though...I'm learning so much! Matt

1 0

ReiserFS: hda2: warning: vs-8115:
by hanasaki 15 Oct '04

15 Oct '04

Ut O!!!! any thoughts on the below msg? did a fsck and also a rebuild tree and still get this every couple weeks. ReiserFS: hda2: warning: vs-8115: get_num_ver: not directory item

2 3

RE: Re: Help configuring procmail (was: Help configuring fetchmail)
by Brian Kelsay 15 Oct '04

15 Oct '04

Are you saying that he can't filter on the "To:" field? If he is only subscribed on one address of the two he has talked about, he could scan for kclug(a)kclug.org in any of the 3 "To:, CC:, BCC:" and then have those dropped in whichever of the folders. I use built-in filters in Thunderbird, but this is what I look for and it works fine. GroupUnwise however, sucks and frequently misses email. It is a very inflexible mail client. Brian Kelsay >>> "Brian Densmore" <> 10/15/04 02:24PM >>> Nope, that won't work for KCLUG mail. The "To:" field will not always, in fact hardly ever, have the proper recipient of the email. Hence, Matt's dilemma. You have to look at the crazy headers for KCLUG. I'd say he needs both of the approaches you stated. One filter by list and to by "To:". That *should* get most if not all filtered into his appropriate mailboxes. Now, I have to go to my server and play with some of these rules. ;')

3 2

RE: Re: Help configuring procmail (was: Help configuring fetchmail)
by Brian Kelsay 15 Oct '04

15 Oct '04

BCC should show either your address or the kclug(a)kclug.org when you receive it. It just blocks you from seeing the other recipients' addresses and vice-versa. Now if the list server rewrites this part of the header, then you should just see kclug(a)kclug.org in the To: field. But I could be wrong. I have GroupUnwise 6.03 here, which still sucks and I would welcome Outlook (LookOut) or any other mail client including Pegasus. The Bat! would be sweet. Brian Kelsay >>> "Jeremy Turner" <> 10/15/04 03:40PM >>> the ^TO_ and ^TO aliases (or whatever you want to call them) are the shortcuts to taking care of To/CC/BCC and also checking the envelope for your address. Very handy. But I thought that B(lind)CC meant that it didn't list your address at all, except on the envelope. I'm not a certified email admin. I just play one at home sometimes. I'd never used GroupUnwise until 2 months ago. It makes me long for MS LookOut. Well atleast GroupUnwise 5.5 makes me want to use LookOut 2003. Or anything. Maybe even a 16-bit copy of Pegasus Mail. Jeremy

1 0

RE: Re: Help configuring procmail (was: Help configuring fetchmail)
by Brian Densmore 15 Oct '04

15 Oct '04

Please read Jeremy's reply to my incorrect post. Or alternatively this: <shamelessly lifted from the KCLUG archives> If the regular expression contains '^TO_' it will be substituted by '(^((Original-)?(Resent-)?(To |Cc |Bcc) |(X-Envelope |Apparently(-Resent)?)-To) :(.*[^-a-zA-Z0-9_.])?)', which should catch all destination specifications containing a specific address. </shamelessly lifted from the KCLUG archives> In other words, Procmail reads '^TO_' as anyplace that could be used as a "To:" field including the "Apparently-To" header record which the KCLUG mailer uses. Or as you asked also the CC and BCC records. My post was due to my ignorance of how the '^TO_' works. > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Kelsay > > Are you saying that he can't filter on the "To:" field? If > he is only subscribed on one address of the two he has talked > about, he could scan for kclug(a)kclug.org in any of the 3 > "To:, CC:, BCC:" and then have those dropped in whichever of > the folders. I use built-in filters in Thunderbird, but this > is what I look for and it works fine. GroupUnwise however, > sucks and frequently misses email. It is a very inflexible > mail client. > > > Brian Kelsay > > >>> "Brian Densmore" <> 10/15/04 02:24PM >>> > > Nope, that won't work for KCLUG mail. > The "To:" field will not always, in fact hardly ever, > have the proper recipient of the email. Hence, Matt's > dilemma. You have to look at the crazy headers for KCLUG. > I'd say he needs both of the approaches you stated. One > filter by list and to by "To:". That *should* get most if > not all filtered into his appropriate mailboxes. > Now, I have to go to my server and play with some of these > rules. ;') >

1 0

Re: Re: Help configuring procmail (was: Help configuring fetchmail)
by linux＠bizniche.com 15 Oct '04

15 Oct '04

On Fri, October 15, 2004 10:38 am, linux(a)bizniche.com said: > To: KCLUG<kclug(a)kclug.org> > Envelope-To: linux(a)bizniche.com > > That makes for easy filtering...either by the kclug addy, or by the > Envelope-To address, which would be more comprehensive it seems. > > When I use fetchmail to get the same message, I see: > To: KCLUG<kclug(a)kclug.org> > Envelope-To: mdg@localhost > > So, when that 'Envelope-To' changes, I lose any idea (from the headers) > as to what address it was fetched from. There is no more record of > linux(a)bizniche.com anywhere. >This procmailrc tries to identify mailing lists (mailman, Yahoo groups, >etc) by using various headers that they use. You can subscribe to new >lists, and it would automatically create the new folder for you. >For your multi-mailbox setup you could have a structure something like: >INBOX >INBOX.mailacct1 >INBOX.mailacct1.somefolder >INBOX.mailacct2 >INBOX.mailacct2.somefolder >INBOX.mailacct3 >INBOX.mailacct3.somefolder >INBOX.lists >INBOX.lists.kclug > >Is this something of what you're looking for? This is nearly what I'm looking to do. What I really want to do, is.. _Anything_ that comes to linux(a)bizniche.com goes in one folder, doesn't matter if it was sent to the address directly, or to a list like kclug. _Anything_ that comes to matt(a)bizniche.com goes in another folder, no matter where it comes from. etc. I'm not so interested in filtering based on content yet...just by the account it was sent to. Am I way off? Are things just not done this way? matt Jeremy -- Jeremy Turner <jeremy(a)linuxwebguy.com> Linux Tips and News! ---> http://linuxwebguy.com

2 1

RE: Help configuring procmail (was: Help configuring fetchmail)
by Brian Densmore 15 Oct '04

15 Oct '04

Also, I think you could use this to capture mail from kclug (although I haven't tested it and it may be slightly wrong): :0: * ^Delivered To: * kclug(a)kclug.org .kclug/ If you just wanted to do the single thing. I really didn't grok Jeremy's snippet. I understand what it's doing and why, but I still have a really hard time reading string processing syntax and mapping into an actual example of what it translate to. And I don't like using things I can't easily modify to use to a different purpose. I suppose it's time I took a shell string processing class. Actually it's just the "\/[^@]+" and the "/[\/]/_/g'`" that confuse me. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Turner > > > On Fri, October 15, 2004 10:38 am, linux(a)bizniche.com said: > > To: KCLUG<kclug(a)kclug.org> > > Envelope-To: linux(a)bizniche.com > > > > That makes for easy filtering...either by the kclug addy, or by the > > Envelope-To address, which would be more comprehensive it seems. > > > > When I use fetchmail to get the same message, I see: > > To: KCLUG<kclug(a)kclug.org> > > Envelope-To: mdg@localhost > > > > So, when that 'Envelope-To' changes, I lose any idea (from > the headers) > > as to what address it was fetched from. There is no more record of > > linux(a)bizniche.com anywhere. > > Here's a question: for a mailing list, do you care what > mailbox/address it > came in as? Consider the following procmailrc snippet: > > # Used by the perl6-all list to break out into seperate mailboxes > :0: > * ^X-Mailing-List-Name: \/[^@]+ > lists/`echo $MATCH | sed -e 's/[\/]/_/g'` > > # Majordomo uses Sender header to tell when it is coming from > :0: > * ^Sender: owner-\/[^@]+ > lists/`echo $MATCH | sed -e 's/[\/]/_/g'` > > :0: > * ^X-BeenThere: \/[^@]+ > lists/`echo $MATCH | sed -e 's/[\/]/_/g'` > > :0: > * ^Delivered-To: mailing list \/[^@]+ > lists/`echo $MATCH | sed -e 's/[\/]/_/g'` > > :0: > * ^X-Mailing-List: <\/[^@]+ > lists/`echo $MATCH | sed -e 's/[\/]/_/g'` > > :0: > * ^X-Loop: \/[^@]+ > lists/`echo $MATCH | sed -e 's/[\/]/_/g'` > > :0: > * ^X-List-ID: <\/[^(a)\.]+ > lists/`echo $MATCH | sed -e 's/[\/]/_/g'` > > :0: > * ^X-list: \/[^(a)\.]+ > lists/`echo $MATCH | sed -e 's/[\/]/_/g'` > > This procmailrc tries to identify mailing lists (mailman, > Yahoo groups, > etc) by using various headers that they use. You can subscribe to new > lists, and it would automatically create the new folder for you. > > For your multi-mailbox setup you could have a structure > something like: > > INBOX > INBOX.mailacct1 > INBOX.mailacct1.somefolder > INBOX.mailacct2 > INBOX.mailacct2.somefolder > INBOX.mailacct3 > INBOX.mailacct3.somefolder > INBOX.lists > INBOX.lists.kclug > > Is this something of what you're looking for? > > Jeremy > > -- > Jeremy Turner <jeremy(a)linuxwebguy.com> > Linux Tips and News! ---> http://linuxwebguy.com > > _______________________________________________ > Kclug mailing list > Kclug(a)kclug.org > http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug >

2 1

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

KCLUG