From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <gentoo-dev-return-15542-arch-gentoo-dev=gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org> Received: (qmail 7148 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2004 23:44:26 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 5 Sep 2004 23:44:26 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C46gL-0000Eb-NY for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 05 Sep 2004 23:44:25 +0000 Received: (qmail 4124 invoked by uid 89); 5 Sep 2004 23:44:25 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-unsubscribe@gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-subscribe@gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 5367 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2004 23:44:25 +0000 Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 23:44:24 +0000 From: Kurt Lieber <klieber@gentoo.org> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: <20040905234423.GW23171@mail.lieber.org> References: <1094392845.2540.14.camel@woot.uberdavis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="QVnmAtMQlEIhp+F+" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1094392845.2540.14.camel@woot.uberdavis.com> X-GPG-Key: http://www.lieber.org/kurtl.pub.gpg User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo's policy on sender id X-Archives-Salt: b53b172d-eb7b-40bb-9f29-aaf109cad852 X-Archives-Hash: 4ebda4885cdc2fa12ed52e19b1764f8b --QVnmAtMQlEIhp+F+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 10:00:45AM -0400 or thereabouts, John Davis wrote: > Hi all - > Recent [1] announcements [2] from other large projects have prompted > this inquiry - should Gentoo adopt similar policies regarding Sender ID > and make a public statement or is it not worth our time? I left Debian in large part because of the stupid politics that went on in that project. I want a distribution that bases its decisions on technical reasons, rather than political ones. Also, for the record, regardless of what decisions are made regarding including support for SenderID in portage, we *will* be implementing SenderID on our infrastructure. --kurt --QVnmAtMQlEIhp+F+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBO6TXJPpRNiftIEYRAietAJ9/jwQKWCYof+Z6kje8FLHuT8e8MwCeKLgm MJ/f6pTK7N+JYzN/f02+4JI= =Z1wE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --QVnmAtMQlEIhp+F+--