[gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Mike Frysinger]

This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically
the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
(#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !

If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.

Keep in mind that every GLEP *re*submission to the council for review
must first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum)
before being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days
before the meeting.  Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be
notified at least 14 days before the meeting itself.

For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 495 bytes --]

On 05:30 Sat 01 Nov     , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.

If anyone has topics they want a council decision on, you really need to 
reply to this email. This is the only way to guarantee they will be 
considered for the agenda.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 700 bytes --]

On 13:56 Mon 10 Nov     , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 05:30 Sat 01 Nov     , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> > vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> > Gentoo dev list to see.
> 
> If anyone has topics they want a council decision on, you really need to 
> reply to this email. This is the only way to guarantee they will be 
> considered for the agenda.

Since nobody replied, we will check on the status of last meeting's 
assigned bugs and figure out what to do with the unassigned bugs.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 546 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
> This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically
> the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
> (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
> 
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.
> 

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=194876

EAPI=1 is not yet used in the tree so perhaps we should talk about how
to best start using it.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Wernfried Haas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 328 bytes --]

With Uberlord's retirement we should do the usual magic voodoo
procedure to summon in the next-in-line member (which would be Jokey if
i'm not mistaken).

cheers,
	Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org
Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org
forum-mods (at) gentoo.org
#gentoo-forums (freenode)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Mike Frysinger]

This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically
the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
(#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !

If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.

Keep in mind that every GLEP *re*submission to the council for review
must first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum)
before being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days
before the meeting.  Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be
notified at least 14 days before the meeting itself.

For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Daniel Ostrow]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1289 bytes --]

On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 17:37 +0000, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 07:19:44PM +0200 or thereabouts, Alin Nastac wrote:
> > I say we should have +all (SPF-capable MTAs will consider any IP address
> > as authorized to send mail on behalf of g.o - equivalent with "Message
> > source OK").
> 
> this interpretation is correct.
> 
> > He says we should have ?all (when another SPF-capable MTA will check the
> > my IP address, it will take my message with a grain of salt - equivalent
> > with "Message source unknown").
> 
> this interpretation is not correct.  What you are describing is ~all, not
> ?all.  ?all instructs the MTA to make no interpretation at all related to a
> failure. In other words, do not add or subtract any salt whatsoever.[1]
> ~all tells the MTA to add some salt.[2]
> 
> --kurt
> 
> [1] http://new.openspf.org/RFC_4408#op-result-neutral
> [2] http://new.openspf.org/RFC_4408#op-result-softfail

Not advocating either option...just pasting additional info.

If anyone wants to see the VERY brief discussion that was had over at SA
about why they decided to ignore the standard (or moreso what they
decided the standard actually meant) check out [1].

--Dan

[1] http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=3616

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Elfyn McBratney]

On 08/11/06, Tobias Klausmann <klausman@schwarzvogel.de> wrote:
> Hi!

Mr windmill man! ^_^

> PPS: Windmills, anyone?

Yes, I'll take two, please. --beu
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 599 bytes --]

Kurt Lieber wrote:  [Wed Nov 08 2006, 12:02:04PM EST]
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 10:25:47AM -0500 or thereabouts, Aron Griffis wrote:
> > Gentoo.org has elected to provide the SPF records, effectively marking
> > gentoo.org mail originating from other SMTP servers as rogue.  
> 
> That simply is not true.  Please read the write-up that I prepared that
> explains what we are, in fact, saying with our curret SPF record.  Please
> pay special attention to the discussion around ?all.

My bad!  I hadn't seen your write-up previously.  Thanks for clearing
this up, Kurt.

Regards,
Aron

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Alec Warner]

Francesco Riosa wrote:
> Alin Nastac ha scritto:
>> For Thunderbird, when I say I want to
>> send mail as joe@nowhere.org, the same address will go also in the
>> Return-Path.
> 
> Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 has it in two places, a) account settings, b) you
> can change it for every message you send using the drop down on the left
> side of the email address.
> 

Indeed, Real Men use Identities(TM).

Set some up.

I'm sending this from my university account but the From: is set 
correctly (I think:)), otherwise I can't even send mail to this list, 
since only my @gentoo.org address is subscribed.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Francesco Riosa]

Alin Nastac ha scritto:
> For Thunderbird, when I say I want to
> send mail as joe@nowhere.org, the same address will go also in the
> Return-Path.

Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 has it in two places, a) account settings, b) you
can change it for every message you send using the drop down on the left
side of the email address.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Alin Nastac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1395 bytes --]

Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
>> Of course, MUAs such as Thunderbird don't give you the possibility to
>> set that and it will be the same as your  From address.
>>     
> Shouldn't be your provider's mail server to set it? Both of my SSL-enabled 
> mail servers, that are authenticated (GMail and the Italian postal service) 
> set this correctly, thus I don't have the SPF_NEUTRAL error on them.
>   

Return-Path header field is introduced by the MTA when it receives the
mail from the other party. The protocol is like this:

    ...
    mail from: mrness@gentoo.ro
    250 Ok
    rcpt to: mrness@gentoo.org
    250 Ok
    data
    354 End data with <CR><LF>.<CR><LF>
    Subject: test
    From: "John Doe" <joe@nowhere.org>
    To: "Suzy" <suzy@foo.bar>

    test message
    .
    250 Ok: queued as 9EE1A64798
    quit
    221 Bye

Here you have mrness@gentoo.ro as Return-Path. Please note the fact that
submitted message does not have such field yet and even if it had, it
would be overridden by the MTA with what I specified in "mail from:"
command.
Because I used telnet, I was able to specify 2 different addresses for
the From and Return-Path addresses, but all the MUAs I worked with have
no such fine grained settings. For Thunderbird, when I say I want to
send mail as joe@nowhere.org, the same address will go also in the
Return-Path.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Danny van Dyk]

Am Mittwoch, 8. November 2006 16:07 schrieb Kurt Lieber:
> On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:25:19PM +0100 or thereabouts, Danny van Dyk 
wrote:
> > Kurt: Please write up a short text to explain why you think this is
> > necessary for Gentoo mailservers. Thanks in advance!
>
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~klieber/spf.txt
Thank you very much. I'm reading it right now

Danny
-- 
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@gentoo.org>
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Tobias Klausmann]

Hi! 

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006, Alin Nastac wrote:

> Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> > On Wednesday 08 November 2006 21:01, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> >   
> >> So, in other words, spammers aren't abusing anything related to SPF.
> >> They're sending mail using forged return-paths and SPF is highlighting
> >> that.  Which is exactly what SPF is designed to do.
> >>     
> > If I were to send my gentoo mail through a mail.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org, with 
> > its own SPF record, (I'm not as this is not a "real" domain I have access to, 
> > nor a mailserver for what it's worth), with a From: flameeyes@gentoo.org and 
> > a Sender: flameeyes@flameeyes.is-a-geek.org, would it be a PASS or a FAIL in 
> > SPF?
> >
> >   
> It doesn't matter what From, Sender or whatever else in the message header.
> The part that counts is the Return-Path (the "mail from:" part of the
> SMTP protocol).

Or so it should be. As I've written earlier, some very misguided
people not only judge the Envelope-From (i.e. "MAIL FROM" in
SMTP-Speak, which usually is identical to the header
"Return-Path") against SPF, but also the in-mail header From:. 

Yes, it's downright stupid because it breaks just about nay
mailing software I know. Yes, it's used by at least two larger
providers in Europe. No, tech support there soesn't think it's a
bad idea after I explained it in easy, friendly words.

Idiots. 

Still: there are two things to keep in mind:

1) Do you "just don't care" about the users of those ISPs. 
2) Does Gentoo as a distro want to "advocate" for the usage of
   SPF (ever so slightly) with the knowledge that it breaks
   several things?

Regards,
Tobias

PS: Even without those idiots, SPF breaks pre-delivery forwards.
But also said that already and it was illustrated why that
happens on the "why SPF isn't quite ideal" page someone mentioned
earlier in the thread.

PPS: Windmills, anyone?
-- 
Never touch a burning system.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 974 bytes --]

On Wednesday 08 November 2006 22:17, Alin Nastac wrote:
> It doesn't matter what From, Sender or whatever else in the message header.
> The part that counts is the Return-Path (the "mail from:" part of the
> SMTP protocol).
Sender or Returh-Path, whatever..

> Of course, MUAs such as Thunderbird don't give you the possibility to
> set that and it will be the same as your  From address.
Shouldn't be your provider's mail server to set it? Both of my SSL-enabled 
mail servers, that are authenticated (GMail and the Italian postal service) 
set this correctly, thus I don't have the SPF_NEUTRAL error on them.

If you "forge" the Return-Path, by simply not providing any protection about 
its value on the mailserver, nor on the client, then I'd say that the 
SpamAssassin behaviour is perfectly fine.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Sound, ALSA, PAM, KDE, CJK, Ruby ...

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Alin Nastac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1099 bytes --]

Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 November 2006 21:01, Kurt Lieber wrote:
>   
>> So, in other words, spammers aren't abusing anything related to SPF.
>> They're sending mail using forged return-paths and SPF is highlighting
>> that.  Which is exactly what SPF is designed to do.
>>     
> If I were to send my gentoo mail through a mail.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org, with 
> its own SPF record, (I'm not as this is not a "real" domain I have access to, 
> nor a mailserver for what it's worth), with a From: flameeyes@gentoo.org and 
> a Sender: flameeyes@flameeyes.is-a-geek.org, would it be a PASS or a FAIL in 
> SPF?
>
>   
It doesn't matter what From, Sender or whatever else in the message header.
The part that counts is the Return-Path (the "mail from:" part of the
SMTP protocol).

Of course, MUAs such as Thunderbird don't give you the possibility to
set that and it will be the same as your  From address.
A SPF-capable MTA will PASS your message to the recipient.
However, SA will add 1.1 to the message spam score because of the
SPF_NEUTRAL test.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Kurt Lieber]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 548 bytes --]

On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 09:14:22PM +0100 or thereabouts, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten?? wrote:
> If I were to send my gentoo mail through a mail.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org, with 
> its own SPF record, (I'm not as this is not a "real" domain I have access to, 
> nor a mailserver for what it's worth), with a From: flameeyes@gentoo.org and 
> a Sender: flameeyes@flameeyes.is-a-geek.org, would it be a PASS or a FAIL in 
> SPF?

It would pass.  I posted an example of this earlier:

http://dev.gentoo.org/~klieber/spf_with_happy_SA.txt

--kurt

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 877 bytes --]

On Wednesday 08 November 2006 21:01, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> So, in other words, spammers aren't abusing anything related to SPF.
> They're sending mail using forged return-paths and SPF is highlighting
> that.  Which is exactly what SPF is designed to do.
I'm no mail expert, but I want something clarified because this whole thing 
might as well be a non issue if it's as I understood it.

If I were to send my gentoo mail through a mail.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org, with 
its own SPF record, (I'm not as this is not a "real" domain I have access to, 
nor a mailserver for what it's worth), with a From: flameeyes@gentoo.org and 
a Sender: flameeyes@flameeyes.is-a-geek.org, would it be a PASS or a FAIL in 
SPF?

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Sound, ALSA, PAM, KDE, CJK, Ruby ...

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1229 bytes --]

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 20:01:52 +0000 Kurt Lieber <klieber@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 05:54:13PM +0000 or thereabouts, Ciaran
| McCreesh wrote:
| > We've identified one very widely used application that interprets
| > SPF records based upon how they're used by spammers rather than by
| > how the specification says they should be interpreted. In this
| > case, SA is entirely reasonable in its behaviour -- SPF makes the
| > classic incorrect assumption that spammers won't abuse the system.
| 
| Ciaran, you obviously do not understand the issue, nor do you know
| what you're talking about.

No, I do, you're just missing the point.

| The impact is that some users happen to send mail in a way that ends
| up looking very similar to a spammer sending an email with a forged
| return-path.  And, because of the way SA has chosen to interpret this,
| those valid, non-spam emails get assigned a positive spam value, even
| when the mail administrator has asked them not to.

And why do you think it does that?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail                : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web                 : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Kurt Lieber]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1315 bytes --]

On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 05:54:13PM +0000 or thereabouts, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> We've identified one very widely used application that interprets SPF
> records based upon how they're used by spammers rather than by how the
> specification says they should be interpreted. In this case, SA is
> entirely reasonable in its behaviour -- SPF makes the classic incorrect
> assumption that spammers won't abuse the system.

Ciaran, you obviously do not understand the issue, nor do you know what
you're talking about.

The issue is that SpamAssassin assigns a score of ~1 to any email that
FAILS an SPF check for a domain that has a ?all (neutral) rating.  I want
to stress that it has to FAIL.  If it doesn't fail, I believe SA's default
behavior is to assign a *negative* score of 0.1.

So, in other words, spammers aren't abusing anything related to SPF.
They're sending mail using forged return-paths and SPF is highlighting
that.  Which is exactly what SPF is designed to do.

The impact is that some users happen to send mail in a way that ends up
looking very similar to a spammer sending an email with a forged
return-path.  And, because of the way SA has chosen to interpret this,
those valid, non-spam emails get assigned a positive spam value, even when
the mail administrator has asked them not to.

--kurt

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 639 bytes --]

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:19:30 +0000 Roy Marples <uberlord@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| On Wednesday 08 November 2006 17:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > SPF makes the classic incorrect
| > assumption that spammers won't abuse the system.
| 
| Ciaran makes the classic incorrect assumption that people can
| magically read his mind to know how he thinks spammers can abuse the
| system.

No, I just assume that they've read the rest of the thread and the bug.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail                : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web                 : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Roy Marples]

On Wednesday 08 November 2006 17:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> SPF makes the classic incorrect
> assumption that spammers won't abuse the system.

Ciaran makes the classic incorrect assumption that people can magically read 
his mind to know how he thinks spammers can abuse the system.

-- 
Roy Marples <uberlord@gentoo.org>
Gentoo/Linux Developer (baselayout, networking)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 859 bytes --]

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:29:55 +0000 Kurt Lieber <klieber@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| I'm not trying to pick on Georgi, but can we please be realistic
| about the true impact of this?  So far, we've identified one
| application (SpamAssassin) that incorrectly interprets a neutral SPF
| record.  As a result, it adds 1.1 to the overall SA score.

We've identified one very widely used application that interprets SPF
records based upon how they're used by spammers rather than by how the
specification says they should be interpreted. In this case, SA is
entirely reasonable in its behaviour -- SPF makes the classic incorrect
assumption that spammers won't abuse the system.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail                : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web                 : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Seemant Kulleen]

Kurt,

Thanks for expressing your reasons properly on the list and in the text
file on your d.g.o home.  It's certainly gone a long way to my own
understanding of your reasoning.

Thanks,
-- 
Seemant Kulleen
Developer, Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Kurt Lieber]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 838 bytes --]

On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 07:19:44PM +0200 or thereabouts, Alin Nastac wrote:
> I say we should have +all (SPF-capable MTAs will consider any IP address
> as authorized to send mail on behalf of g.o - equivalent with "Message
> source OK").

this interpretation is correct.

> He says we should have ?all (when another SPF-capable MTA will check the
> my IP address, it will take my message with a grain of salt - equivalent
> with "Message source unknown").

this interpretation is not correct.  What you are describing is ~all, not
?all.  ?all instructs the MTA to make no interpretation at all related to a
failure. In other words, do not add or subtract any salt whatsoever.[1]
~all tells the MTA to add some salt.[2]

--kurt

[1] http://new.openspf.org/RFC_4408#op-result-neutral
[2] http://new.openspf.org/RFC_4408#op-result-softfail

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Kurt Lieber]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1144 bytes --]

On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 04:24:59PM +0900 or thereabouts, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> I ain't no dev, but how is this trivial? A typical scenario is: a  
> gentoo-dev sends an e-mail to a mailing list (a non-gentoo mailing  
> list) and that mail gets nuked by a greedy spam filter because the SPF  
> rules exclude (oh well, "do not specifically include") the server that  
> forwards the mailing list message.

I'm not trying to pick on Georgi, but can we please be realistic about the
true impact of this?  So far, we've identified one application
(SpamAssassin) that incorrectly interprets a neutral SPF record.  As a
result, it adds 1.1 to the overall SA score.

Different people have different thresholds for spam filtering, surely, but
nobody in their right mind is going to start dropping mails with a positive
score of 1.1.  The default out of the box is (I think) 5.5.  So the message
is still marked as 80% clean.  Even if you want to be ultra aggressive and
drop mail based on a score in the 3-ish range, this SPF issue still won't
even get the message a third of the way towards hitting that threshold.

--kurt



[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Kurt Lieber]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 510 bytes --]

On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 10:25:47AM -0500 or thereabouts, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Gentoo.org has elected to provide the SPF records, effectively marking
> gentoo.org mail originating from other SMTP servers as rogue.  

That simply is not true.  Please read the write-up that I prepared that
explains what we are, in fact, saying with our curret SPF record.  Please
pay special attention to the discussion around ?all.

If other people choose to mis-interpret the data, that's their own fault.

--kurt

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Georgi Georgiev]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 904 bytes --]

maillog: 08/11/2006-09:23:17(-0600): Grant Goodyear types
> Kurt Lieber wrote: [Wed Nov 08 2006, 09:07:40AM CST]
> > On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:25:19PM +0100 or thereabouts, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> > > Kurt: Please write up a short text to explain why you think this is 
> > > necessary for Gentoo mailservers. Thanks in advance!
> > 
> > http://dev.gentoo.org/~klieber/spf.txt
> 
> Thanks, that's quite helpful.
> 
> What did you do (or not do) to avoid paying the SPF_NEUTRAL SA "penalty"
> in your test e-mail sent using gmail?

It's the envelope sender's domain that SPF is testing, and the sender is
kurt.lieber@gmail.com
Not much to do with the SPF record for gentoo.org

Guess

-- 
(*   Georgi Georgiev   (* Why couldn't Helen Heller drive? she was a (*
*)    chutz@gg3.net    *) woman -- gsfgf                             *)
(* http://www.gg3.net/ (*                                            (*

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1146 bytes --]

Lance Albertson wrote:  [Tue Nov 07 2006, 12:37:53PM EST]
> Nothing is stopping you from sending from another smtp server.  The
> problem people have been complaining about is that spamassassin is
> adding a score of 1-2 for anyone who sends from a host other than
> what we stated in the SPF rule. 

Any spam-filtering program should be able to trust the SPF information
if a site provides it.  Gentoo.org has elected to provide the SPF
records, effectively marking gentoo.org mail originating from other
SMTP servers as rogue.  So it's misleading to tell devs they can send
from any SMTP server...

> I personally don't remember the reasons for the SPF argument so
> I can't speak for that in a reasonable manner. When SPF was added,
> I don't believe SA was scoring emails in this way so it wasn't as
> much as a deal then. We probably should look into seeing if we can
> get around that,

It seems a bit ridiculous to broadcast a list of authoritative
gentoo.org SMTP servers, then suggest to devs to send from other
servers, and try to handle the mismatch on the recipient end.  Is that
what you're suggesting?

Aron

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 638 bytes --]

Kurt Lieber wrote: [Wed Nov 08 2006, 09:07:40AM CST]
> On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:25:19PM +0100 or thereabouts, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> > Kurt: Please write up a short text to explain why you think this is 
> > necessary for Gentoo mailservers. Thanks in advance!
> 
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~klieber/spf.txt

Thanks, that's quite helpful.

What did you do (or not do) to avoid paying the SPF_NEUTRAL SA "penalty"
in your test e-mail sent using gmail?

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Kurt Lieber]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 259 bytes --]

On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:25:19PM +0100 or thereabouts, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Kurt: Please write up a short text to explain why you think this is 
> necessary for Gentoo mailservers. Thanks in advance!

http://dev.gentoo.org/~klieber/spf.txt

--kurt

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1469 bytes --]

On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 09:20:02PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:04:18 +0000 "Elfyn McBratney"
> <elfyn.mcbratney@gmail.com> wrote:
> | I guess Wernfried is referring to Ciaran PGP signing his emails with a
> | key that (I guess) still has his old @g.o address as a user ID on the
> | key.
> Mm. As far as I can see from [1] (second key, not the ebuild signing
> one)... The key is listed as having both email addresses, with
> @ciaranm.org first... Not sure that I can safely revuid the @g.o
> address without causing problems for anyone trying to check anything
> signed by the old uid... *shrug* If anyone can confirm for sure (as in,
> not just guessing) that revuid won't break things then I'll use it...
> 
> In the mean time, sylpheed-claws shows my emails as "Good signature
> from Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@ciaranm.org>"...
> 
> 1: http://pgp.rediris.es:11371/pks/lookup?search=ciaranm&op=vindex

Yup, it is safe to revuid on the 5350EEB9 key. Just make sure you add
another uid first. Very few apps actually use the uid , and those that
do are supposed to (for verification of old content) consider the uid as
valid from the date of it's creation to to date of it's expiry or
revocation (So old emails sent while you had an @gentoo.org would still
be valid compared to the From header).

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Seemant Kulleen]

On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 21:34 +0100, Wernfried Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 05:47:28PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Along with the rest of the thread. Notice in particular how Joshua
> > claims that Kurt has never justified using SPF, and how in replies he
> > refuses to do so.
> 
> Do you really care about Gentoo's SPF, or are you just on a vendetta
> against klieber since you mention his name all the time?

This isn't quite a fair attack, to be honest.  It's funny how jaded
we've become to any mail from Ciaran.  In this case, he provided info
without sarcastic remarks.  And I believe the observation (made
elsewhere) that SPF's existence on Gentoo's infrastructure has never
actually been justified to the people it affects, namely the developers.


> While we're at the whole email stuff, it seems you still sign your
> emails with ciaranm@gentoo.org, which i personally find at least as
> annoying as you find klie^WSPF.

Silly silly, and it doesn't belong on the list.  Please don't be part of
the problem.

-- 
Seemant Kulleen
Developer, Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1030 bytes --]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:04:18 +0000 "Elfyn McBratney"
<elfyn.mcbratney@gmail.com> wrote:
| I guess Wernfried is referring to Ciaran PGP signing his emails with a
| key that (I guess) still has his old @g.o address as a user ID on the
| key.

Mm. As far as I can see from [1] (second key, not the ebuild signing
one)... The key is listed as having both email addresses, with
@ciaranm.org first... Not sure that I can safely revuid the @g.o
address without causing problems for anyone trying to check anything
signed by the old uid... *shrug* If anyone can confirm for sure (as in,
not just guessing) that revuid won't break things then I'll use it...

In the mean time, sylpheed-claws shows my emails as "Good signature
from Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@ciaranm.org>"...

1: http://pgp.rediris.es:11371/pks/lookup?search=ciaranm&op=vindex

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail                : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web                 : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Elfyn McBratney]

On 07/11/06, Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Wernfried Haas wrote: [Tue Nov 07 2006, 02:34:46PM CST]
> > While we're at the whole email stuff, it seems you still sign your
> > emails with ciaranm@gentoo.org, which i personally find at least as
> > annoying as you find klie^WSPF.

Out of date PGP keys is really rather a petty thing to counter with.

> Hmmm?  I just took a look at all of ciaranm's e-mails to -dev since 21
> Oct., and in each one I see the following sig:
>
>     Ciaran McCreesh
>     Mail                : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
>     Web                 : http://ciaranm.org/
>     as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13
>
> Where has he used "ciaranm@gentoo.org"?

I guess Wernfried is referring to Ciaran PGP signing his emails with a
key that (I guess) still has his old @g.o address as a user ID on the
key. -- beu
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 922 bytes --]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:34:46 +0100 Wernfried Haas <amne@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 05:47:28PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Along with the rest of the thread. Notice in particular how Joshua
| > claims that Kurt has never justified using SPF, and how in replies
| > he refuses to do so.
| 
| Do you really care about Gentoo's SPF, or are you just on a vendetta
| against klieber since you mention his name all the time?

He's the entire reason Gentoo uses SPF.

| While we're at the whole email stuff, it seems you still sign your
| emails with ciaranm@gentoo.org, which i personally find at least as
| annoying as you find klie^WSPF.

Mmm, I think you just need to repull my key from the keyservers...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail                : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web                 : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 765 bytes --]

Wernfried Haas wrote: [Tue Nov 07 2006, 02:34:46PM CST]
> While we're at the whole email stuff, it seems you still sign your
> emails with ciaranm@gentoo.org, which i personally find at least as
> annoying as you find klie^WSPF.

Hmmm?  I just took a look at all of ciaranm's e-mails to -dev since 21
Oct., and in each one I see the following sig:

    Ciaran McCreesh
    Mail                : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
    Web                 : http://ciaranm.org/
    as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13

Where has he used "ciaranm@gentoo.org"?

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Wernfried Haas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 722 bytes --]

On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 05:47:28PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Along with the rest of the thread. Notice in particular how Joshua
> claims that Kurt has never justified using SPF, and how in replies he
> refuses to do so.

Do you really care about Gentoo's SPF, or are you just on a vendetta
against klieber since you mention his name all the time?

While we're at the whole email stuff, it seems you still sign your
emails with ciaranm@gentoo.org, which i personally find at least as
annoying as you find klie^WSPF.

cheers,
	Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Alin Nastac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 420 bytes --]

Lance Albertson wrote:
> I'm sorry, but when people automatically want to go to the council first
> and ask questions later I have a hard time wanting to help them. I can't
> control what Kurt does/says so that's out of my control. 
For the record, I've asked the council first because I thought it might
be reckoned as Gentoo policy.
You seem to be the only one who took this honest mistake the wrong way. :-\


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1031 bytes --]

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:52:04 +0200 Alin Nastac <mrness@gentoo.org>
wrote:

| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Kurt didn't back up his views back then. Rather typically, he just
| > told Method that he disagreed and that he wasn't going to budge no
| > matter what anyone said...
| >   
| In the year 2005, the only gentoo-core discussion related to SPF was
| between me and lcars.
| Probably you are talking about an IRC conversation.

Nope, looks like it was just a bit earlier than 2005. The post you want
to read is:

From: Joshua Brindle <method@gentoo.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 09:30:37 -0400
Subject: Re: [gentoo-core] gentoo's policy on sender id (-infras use of
spf)

Along with the rest of the thread. Notice in particular how Joshua
claims that Kurt has never justified using SPF, and how in replies he
refuses to do so.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail                : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web                 : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1663 bytes --]

Grant Goodyear wrote:

> With all due respect, I disagree.  My recollection was that the SPF
> discussion was held well over a year ago, on a list that isn't archived,
> so the rationale for using SPF isn't available for many of the devs who
> have started raising questions about it.  Kurt's reply to those devs was
> not particularly helpful.  (My suspicion is that Kurt figures that he's
> been through all of these arguments before, and doesn't want to rehash
> them yet again, but that misses the fact that many of our current devs
> not only weren't part of that earlier discussion, but they have no
> access to it, either.)  Your reply was  very helpful, but between Kurt's
> closing of the bug and your response on -dev it appeared that infra was
> essentially saying "We know best, we're not changing how we do things,
> and we don't want to talk about it".  If that appearance were, in fact,
> the reality, then appealing to the Council would seem to be perfectly
> reasonable.

I'm sorry, but when people automatically want to go to the council first
and ask questions later I have a hard time wanting to help them. I can't
control what Kurt does/says so that's out of my control. I didn't
exactly like his response either but he wanted to take care of mail so
that's what he's doing. Respect around here lately has been at an all
time low and I'm getting sick and tired of it.

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1287 bytes --]

Michael Cummings wrote:

> Knowing about port 587 is half the battle (yeah, read the docs mike:).
> Getting it to work from the office with even more restrictive firewalls
> is another thing - but are we actually going to stop devs from being
> able to send mail without going through the gentoo server, or is this
> still just a discussion (vs an impending action)?

Nothing is stopping you from sending from another smtp server. The
problem people have been complaining about is that spamassassin is
adding a score of 1-2 for anyone who sends from a host other than what
we stated in the SPF rule. I personally don't remember the reasons for
the SPF argument so I can't speak for that in a reasonable manner. When
SPF was added, I don't believe SA was scoring emails in this way so it
wasn't as much as a deal then. We probably should look into seeing if we
can get around that, but as you've seen Kurt/Andrea have already made up
their mind. I let them deal with the mail system so they have a say on
that for now.

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Alin Nastac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 350 bytes --]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Kurt didn't back up his views back then. Rather typically, he just told
> Method that he disagreed and that he wasn't going to budge no matter
> what anyone said...
>   
In the year 2005, the only gentoo-core discussion related to SPF was
between me and lcars.
Probably you are talking about an IRC conversation.



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1044 bytes --]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:00:49 -0600 Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| With all due respect, I disagree.  My recollection was that the SPF
| discussion was held well over a year ago, on a list that isn't
| archived, so the rationale for using SPF isn't available for many of
| the devs who have started raising questions about it.  Kurt's reply
| to those devs was not particularly helpful.  (My suspicion is that
| Kurt figures that he's been through all of these arguments before,
| and doesn't want to rehash them yet again, but that misses the fact
| that many of our current devs not only weren't part of that earlier
| discussion, but they have no access to it, either.)

Kurt didn't back up his views back then. Rather typically, he just told
Method that he disagreed and that he wasn't going to budge no matter
what anyone said...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail                : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web                 : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1839 bytes --]

Lance Albertson wrote: [Tue Nov 07 2006, 12:55:39AM CST]
> Personally, after skimming through this thread, I'd say leave it as is
> and stick with Kurt's decision. Our developers clearly have nothing
> better to do than rant on about something as trivial as this. I
> especially didn't like the "lets take this to the council first"
> approach. I'm with genone on the "I guess people can complain to the
> council every time emerge output changes" crap. I can't believe what I
> read on here...
> 
> People, this whole thread is silly and a disgrace to our user base to
> even read. I'm half tempted to submit iggy's vote-devs-off-the-island
> GLEP :P (Thanks SpankY for reminding me about that).

With all due respect, I disagree.  My recollection was that the SPF
discussion was held well over a year ago, on a list that isn't archived,
so the rationale for using SPF isn't available for many of the devs who
have started raising questions about it.  Kurt's reply to those devs was
not particularly helpful.  (My suspicion is that Kurt figures that he's
been through all of these arguments before, and doesn't want to rehash
them yet again, but that misses the fact that many of our current devs
not only weren't part of that earlier discussion, but they have no
access to it, either.)  Your reply was  very helpful, but between Kurt's
closing of the bug and your response on -dev it appeared that infra was
essentially saying "We know best, we're not changing how we do things,
and we don't want to talk about it".  If that appearance were, in fact,
the reality, then appealing to the Council would seem to be perfectly
reasonable.

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1197 bytes --]

Lance Albertson wrote:  [Tue Nov 07 2006, 01:55:39AM EST]
> Personally, after skimming through this thread, I'd say leave it as is
> and stick with Kurt's decision. Our developers clearly have nothing
> better to do than rant on about something as trivial as this. I
> especially didn't like the "lets take this to the council first"
> approach. I'm with genone on the "I guess people can complain to the
> council every time emerge output changes" crap. I can't believe what I
> read on here...
> 
> People, this whole thread is silly and a disgrace to our user base to
> even read. I'm half tempted to submit iggy's vote-devs-off-the-island
> GLEP :P (Thanks SpankY for reminding me about that).

Hi Lance,

I appreciate that infra have put some thought and effort into setting
up SPF for gentoo.org, but I don't think the complaints are silly.  To
recapitulate what's been said: some devs are having trouble sending
email, infra's posted documentation is wrong, and infra hasn't
provided suggested configs in an easily-accessible manner.  Email is
pretty central to Gentoo development, so could you provide some help
instead of smacking people down?  :-(

Thanks,
Aron

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Michael Cummings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1312 bytes --]

On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 08:06 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
> Michael Cummings wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 17:48 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>  - make sending gentoo.org mail via gentoo.org mail server 
> >> friendly/recommended
> >> -mike
> > 
> > Not an option for everyone without a lot of needless hoop jumping, like
> > ssh port forwarding. Cox (rhyme it as you will), my cable provider,
> > doesn't allow 25 to leave their network. To send mail, I *have* to relay
> > through their mail servers.
> 
> Then use port 587 like I do and it works perfectly fine. I have Cox and
> don't have any problems sending gentoo mail through our system.
> 
Knowing about port 587 is half the battle (yeah, read the docs mike:).
Getting it to work from the office with even more restrictive firewalls
is another thing - but are we actually going to stop devs from being
able to send mail without going through the gentoo server, or is this
still just a discussion (vs an impending action)?
-- 

-----o()o----------------------------------------------
Michael Cummings   |    #gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl
Gentoo Perl Dev    |    on irc.freenode.net 
Gentoo/SPARC
Gentoo/AMD64
GPG: 0543 6FA3 5F82 3A76 3BF7  8323 AB5C ED4E 9E7F 4E2E
-----o()o----------------------------------------------


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 832 bytes --]

Michael Cummings wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 17:48 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>  - make sending gentoo.org mail via gentoo.org mail server 
>> friendly/recommended
>> -mike
> 
> Not an option for everyone without a lot of needless hoop jumping, like
> ssh port forwarding. Cox (rhyme it as you will), my cable provider,
> doesn't allow 25 to leave their network. To send mail, I *have* to relay
> through their mail servers.

Then use port 587 like I do and it works perfectly fine. I have Cox and
don't have any problems sending gentoo mail through our system.

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 705 bytes --]

On Tuesday 07 November 2006 13:24, Michael Cummings wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 17:48 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >  - make sending gentoo.org mail via gentoo.org mail server
> > friendly/recommended
> > -mike
>
> Not an option for everyone without a lot of needless hoop jumping, like
> ssh port forwarding. Cox (rhyme it as you will), my cable provider,
> doesn't allow 25 to leave their network. To send mail, I *have* to relay
> through their mail servers.

For that reason there is a special port (587) for mail submission that should 
be supported by the gentoo servers.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 185 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Michael Cummings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 706 bytes --]

On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 17:48 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>  - make sending gentoo.org mail via gentoo.org mail server 
> friendly/recommended
> -mike

Not an option for everyone without a lot of needless hoop jumping, like
ssh port forwarding. Cox (rhyme it as you will), my cable provider,
doesn't allow 25 to leave their network. To send mail, I *have* to relay
through their mail servers.
-- 

-----o()o----------------------------------------------
Michael Cummings   |    #gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl
Gentoo Perl Dev    |    on irc.freenode.net 
Gentoo/SPARC
Gentoo/AMD64
GPG: 0543 6FA3 5F82 3A76 3BF7  8323 AB5C ED4E 9E7F 4E2E
-----o()o----------------------------------------------


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Tobias Klausmann]

Hi! 

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> Quoting Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>:
> >Personally, after skimming through this thread, I'd say leave it as is
> >and stick with Kurt's decision. Our developers clearly have nothing
> >better to do than rant on about something as trivial as this.
> 
> I ain't no dev, but how is this trivial? A typical scenario is: a  
> gentoo-dev sends an e-mail to a mailing list (a non-gentoo mailing  
> list) and that mail gets nuked by a greedy spam filter because the SPF  
> rules exclude (oh well, "do not specifically include") the server that  
> forwards the mailing list message.
> 
> Or could it be that my understanding of SPF is flawed (quite likely)?

Exactly that happened to me: one of my mailing lists saw very odd
bounces if a mail was coming from provider A who published SPF
records. Unfortunately, provider B (the one who created bounces)
did not only check the Envelope-Sender, but also the Header-From.
This resulted in the mail being refused as it came from my server
which wasn't in the SPF record of ISP A. 

One might argue that it's all provider A's fault (so there!), but
it's not exactly helpful that way, is it?

I *know* it's not my or provider A's fault, still we're the ones
who have to deal with the fall out. So I steer clear of SPF as I
don't want any of my users to fall into the same trap. That it's
notoriously difficult to debug isn't exactly helpful, either.

Regards,
Tobias

PS: That pre-delivery forwards are broken (something used quite
often) is another story. SPF is broken in more ways than one.

-- 
Never touch a burning system.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Georgi Georgiev]

Quoting Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>:

> Personally, after skimming through this thread, I'd say leave it as is
> and stick with Kurt's decision. Our developers clearly have nothing
> better to do than rant on about something as trivial as this.

I ain't no dev, but how is this trivial? A typical scenario is: a  
gentoo-dev sends an e-mail to a mailing list (a non-gentoo mailing  
list) and that mail gets nuked by a greedy spam filter because the SPF  
rules exclude (oh well, "do not specifically include") the server that  
forwards the mailing list message.

Or could it be that my understanding of SPF is flawed (quite likely)?

-- 
/\   Georgi Georgiev   /\ Advertisements contain the only truths to  /\
\/    chutz@gg3.net    \/ be relied on in a newspaper. -- Thomas     \/
/\  http://www.gg3.net /\ Jefferson                                  /\

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2242 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> (sorry for the infra cc, just need to make sure this particular one gets 
> through ... drop it in your replies people :P)

Actually that alias doesn't work :)

> On Monday 06 November 2006 17:38, Harald van Dijk wrote:
>> Sending mail via gentoo.org mail servers is explicitly disallowed (not even
>> just strongly discouraged) if the dev in question can use his/her ISP's
>> server.
>>   http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/dev-email.xml

That doc is terribly outdated and needs to have several things changed
to reflect the current setup. Basically it was originally aimed telling
folks to only send gentoo related email through it. Now that we have an
established authenticated smtp server, I have no problem with us
recommending devs to send email through it. As for configs for
exim/postfix, I know there were some floating around, but of course we
don't have -core archives. If you ask nicely, someone might be able to
dig up those configs. If the current ports we have open don't work, let
us know and we'll find other means of helping you past that. We may need
to document that as well if its not current on the site.

> then *infra* needs to decide on a course here:
>  - disable SPF
>  - make sending gentoo.org mail via gentoo.org mail server 
> friendly/recommended
> -mike

Personally, after skimming through this thread, I'd say leave it as is
and stick with Kurt's decision. Our developers clearly have nothing
better to do than rant on about something as trivial as this. I
especially didn't like the "lets take this to the council first"
approach. I'm with genone on the "I guess people can complain to the
council every time emerge output changes" crap. I can't believe what I
read on here...

People, this whole thread is silly and a disgrace to our user base to
even read. I'm half tempted to submit iggy's vote-devs-off-the-island
GLEP :P (Thanks SpankY for reminding me about that).

Cheers-

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Olivier Crête]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 552 bytes --]

On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 01:06 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:43:24 -0500 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | infra believes using SPF helps fight spam
> 
> Then infra are wrong. SPF was not designed to fight spam.

Isn't preventing email forgery one step in fighting spam ? And that's
what SPF is supposed to be used for.

That said, I still haven't seen any good explanation how to send mail
through the gentoo.org mailserver for exim or postfix.

-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 441 bytes --]

On Monday 06 November 2006 20:06, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:43:24 -0500 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
> | infra believes using SPF helps fight spam
>
> Then infra are wrong. SPF was not designed to fight spam.

original design does not limit future possibilities ... i could make a lot of 
pointless blanket statements about what things were originally designed for 
thus future use is not possible
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 365 bytes --]

On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:43:24 -0500 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| infra believes using SPF helps fight spam

Then infra are wrong. SPF was not designed to fight spam.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail                : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web                 : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Alec Warner]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 06 November 2006 18:03, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> considering that quite a 
>> couple of arguments were given against using it
> 
> which were a copy and paste of existing websites ... how about for the 
> counterargument i copy and paste url's to pro-spf websites and then we'll 
> have a proper exchange of ideas
> -mike

http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t1963.html
http://blog.ferris.com/2005/06/_microsofts_enf.html
http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3388371

Here are some random links I found using "spf rocks" and google.

Enjoy
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1593 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger napsal(a):
>> No. Not because I didn't like the answer - because I haven't seen a
>> *single* argument *in favour* of using the IMHO completely broken SPF
>> thing.
> 
> so what are you looking for ?  us to regurgitate the entire SPF argument over 
> again ?

No. I expect you to _decide_ on the issue, considering that quite a
couple of arguments were given against using it, and none was given in
favour of using it. (Sorry, but "I happen to disagree" is not a valid or
useful one).

> infra believes using SPF helps fight spam, you guys believe SPF does not ... 
> how do you expect to come to a conclusion over such a technology ?
> -mike

Infra didn't say anything useful, and no, they basically say that it's
_not_ an antispam technology and that they'll continue to use it anyway,
not subject to debate, the end... Kinda weird, hmmm?

Last word on this, as it's getting really a frustrating experience.
Quoting your own monthly email:

<snip>
If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know !
</snip>

Well folks, if you outright refuse to discuss/decide on stuff that
people are asking you to discuss/decide on, then please drop the above
from your email. I'll reconsider if it's worth wasting the bandwidth to
vote for anyone next time.


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Alin Nastac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 751 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 06 November 2006 17:09, Alin Nastac wrote:
>   
>> I re-stated my case in comment #14
>>     
>
> most of your dislike for SPF centers around the idea you dont want to send 
> mail via gentoo.org mail servers ... is this really a problem ?  seems like 
> it's pretty trivial to do so
>   
I admit I dislike SPF, but this isn't the issue. I don't ask Gentoo to
join me in a crusade against SPF (I have better things to do with my
life). The issue is we shouldn't have this TXT record for the g.o domain.
While I could use smtp.g.o to send my email, others might be less lucky
than me. Devs should have a choice whether they use Gentoo SMTP server
or not, or at least this is opinion on the matter.



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[kashani]

Alec Warner wrote:
> http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t1963.html
	Anyone who thinks you can block all spam with a single technique, let 
alone at all, is not someone I want data from in the first place

> http://blog.ferris.com/2005/06/_microsofts_enf.html
	Opinion piece.

> http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3388371
	fluff piece. I've seen two page BMW glossy ads with more technical info.

> Here are some random links I found using "spf rocks" and google.

	These links are short on detail and long on marketing. They aren't 
really answering why Gentoo uses what many consider to be a broken as 
designed technology.

kashani
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 405 bytes --]

On Monday 06 November 2006 17:40, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> Why don't you do that?

well, my reply was mostly dry sarcasm, but i hope we're all technically 
proficient enough to load up google.com and search for SPF ... even Alec 
could find three good links in no time and that dude cant even code his way 
out of a paper bag (or something)

i'm not really pro or con SPF, just anti lamer
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 568 bytes --]

(sorry for the infra cc, just need to make sure this particular one gets 
through ... drop it in your replies people :P)

On Monday 06 November 2006 17:38, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> Sending mail via gentoo.org mail servers is explicitly disallowed (not even
> just strongly discouraged) if the dev in question can use his/her ISP's
> server.
>   http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/dev-email.xml

then *infra* needs to decide on a course here:
 - disable SPF
 - make sending gentoo.org mail via gentoo.org mail server 
friendly/recommended
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Harald van Dijk]

On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 05:11:42PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 06 November 2006 18:03, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > considering that quite a 
> > couple of arguments were given against using it
> 
> which were a copy and paste of existing websites ... how about for the 
> counterargument i copy and paste url's to pro-spf websites and then we'll 
> have a proper exchange of ideas

Why don't you do that? When some actual pro-SPF arguments are given, at
least there's a real chance to either debunk or accept them.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Harald van Dijk]

On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 05:20:26PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 06 November 2006 17:09, Alin Nastac wrote:
> > I re-stated my case in comment #14
> 
> most of your dislike for SPF centers around the idea you dont want to send 
> mail via gentoo.org mail servers ... is this really a problem ?  seems like 
> it's pretty trivial to do so

Sending mail via gentoo.org mail servers is explicitly disallowed (not even
just strongly discouraged) if the dev in question can use his/her ISP's
server.
  http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/dev-email.xml
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Wernfried Haas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1091 bytes --]

On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 05:20:49PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> most of your dislike for SPF centers around the idea you dont want to send 
> mail via gentoo.org mail servers ... is this really a problem ?  seems like 
> it's pretty trivial to do so

While i couldn't care less about the whole SPF discussion i'd just
like to point out sending mail via gentoo's email servers is listed as
a last resort according to our docs rather than an alternative.

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/dev-email.xml writes:
> Warning: Do not do this unless absolutely necessary. Please use your
> ISPs relay server whenever possible.

> If you need a relay-server desperately and have no other means of
> sending e-mails, you can use dev.gentoo.org as a relayserver. To do
> Using dev.gentoo.org as a mail relay server

Perhaps that paragraph needs some rethinking if it affects SPF?

cheers,
	Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Danny van Dyk]

Am Montag, 6. November 2006 20:37 schrieb Chris Gianelloni:
> On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 13:36 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > Alin Nastac napsal(a):
> > > Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > >> On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:39, Alin Nastac wrote:
> > >>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > >>>> that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to
> > >>>> infra ?
> > >>>
> > >>> It could be considered as organization policy, so I assumed
> > >>> council had to be involved in this decision.
> > >>
> > >> it isnt ... so file a bug for infra
> > >
> > > done in bug 154120 .
> >
> > And WONTFIXed in 15 minutes. In that case, I'd like to resubmit it
> > to the council... :/
>
> So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsible for
> this, you'd rather go over their heads and try to bring this up to
> the council, so we can override their decisions?  Not bloody likely.

I disagree here. Let's put both items on the agenda. That finalizes the 
decission.

In regard to 'Reply-To:'-munging:
I'm going to vote to keep it as is, and i don't think that anybody would 
be able to convince me otherwise.

In regard to SPF: If klieber (or any other infra member) can explain to 
me why SPF is a good thing(tm) to have for Gentoo Infrastructure, and 
convince me that it is the best way to go, i'll vote to keep it. 
Otherwise, i'm going to vote to remove it.

Kurt: Please write up a short text to explain why you think this is 
necessary for Gentoo mailservers. Thanks in advance!

Danny
-- 
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@gentoo.org>
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 286 bytes --]

On Monday 06 November 2006 17:09, Alin Nastac wrote:
> I re-stated my case in comment #14

most of your dislike for SPF centers around the idea you dont want to send 
mail via gentoo.org mail servers ... is this really a problem ?  seems like 
it's pretty trivial to do so
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 648 bytes --]

On Monday 06 November 2006 21:35, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> Please stop being ridiculous, Council: if you're not going to actually
> listen to the people who voted for you without talking down to them,
> then, er, why exactly, did you run?
I have to agree with seemant here, we should probably accept the request even 
if some of the council already disagrees, that's why we vote on things... 
there's no loss in giving this a try, especially if there's no other thing on 
the agenda.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Sound, ALSA, PAM, KDE, CJK, Ruby ...

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 323 bytes --]

On Monday 06 November 2006 18:03, Jakub Moc wrote:
> considering that quite a 
> couple of arguments were given against using it

which were a copy and paste of existing websites ... how about for the 
counterargument i copy and paste url's to pro-spf websites and then we'll 
have a proper exchange of ideas
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Alin Nastac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1078 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 06 November 2006 16:59, Jakub Moc wrote:
>   
>> Chris Gianelloni napsal(a):
>>     
>>>> And WONTFIXed in 15 minutes. In that case, I'd like to resubmit it to
>>>> the council... :/
>>>>         
>>> So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsible for
>>> this, you'd rather go over their heads and try to bring this up to the
>>> council, so we can override their decisions?  Not bloody likely.
>>>       
>> No. Not because I didn't like the answer - because I haven't seen a
>> *single* argument *in favour* of using the IMHO completely broken SPF
>> thing.
>>     
>
> so what are you looking for ?  us to regurgitate the entire SPF argument over 
> again ?
>
> infra believes using SPF helps fight spam, you guys believe SPF does not ... 
> how do you expect to come to a conclusion over such a technology ?
> -mike
>   
Where the hell is a valid argument in favor of infra pov?
I re-stated my case in comment #14. All I received was "I disagree"!

And now the council do the same thing?!?


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Alec Warner]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 13:36 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Alin Nastac napsal(a):
>>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>> On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:39, Alin Nastac wrote:
>>>>   
>>>>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>>>     
>>>>>> that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ?
>>>>>>       
>>>>> It could be considered as organization policy, so I assumed council had
>>>>> to be involved in this decision.
>>>>>     
>>>> it isnt ... so file a bug for infra
>>>>   
>>> done in bug 154120 .
>>>
>> And WONTFIXed in 15 minutes. In that case, I'd like to resubmit it to
>> the council... :/
> 
> So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsible for
> this, you'd rather go over their heads and try to bring this up to the
> council, so we can override their decisions?  Not bloody likely.
> 

I actually agree with Ciaran; it is your job to decide on stuff like 
this (or to rightly say the issue is stupid and write it off as such). 
Think US Supreme Court (we will hear your case and decide on it or we 
will say your case is frivolous).  In either case a decision from you 
(the council) is required.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 759 bytes --]

Chris Gianelloni napsal(a):
>>>
>> And WONTFIXed in 15 minutes. In that case, I'd like to resubmit it to
>> the council... :/
> 
> So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsible for
> this, you'd rather go over their heads and try to bring this up to the
> council, so we can override their decisions?  Not bloody likely.

No. Not because I didn't like the answer - because I haven't seen a
*single* argument *in favour* of using the IMHO completely broken SPF
thing.


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 813 bytes --]

On Monday 06 November 2006 16:59, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni napsal(a):
> >> And WONTFIXed in 15 minutes. In that case, I'd like to resubmit it to
> >> the council... :/
> >
> > So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsible for
> > this, you'd rather go over their heads and try to bring this up to the
> > council, so we can override their decisions?  Not bloody likely.
>
> No. Not because I didn't like the answer - because I haven't seen a
> *single* argument *in favour* of using the IMHO completely broken SPF
> thing.

so what are you looking for ?  us to regurgitate the entire SPF argument over 
again ?

infra believes using SPF helps fight spam, you guys believe SPF does not ... 
how do you expect to come to a conclusion over such a technology ?
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Danny van Dyk]

Am Montag, 6. November 2006 20:37 schrieb Chris Gianelloni:
> On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 13:36 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > >> it isnt ... so file a bug for infra
> > >
> > > done in bug 154120 .
> >
> > And WONTFIXed in 15 minutes. In that case, I'd like to resubmit it
> > to the council... :/
>
> So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsible for
> this, you'd rather go over their heads and try to bring this up to
> the council, so we can override their decisions?  Not bloody likely.
Uhm, i tend to disagree. I think we should evaluate the situation, and 
if _we_ think it is the best to override Infra's descision, we can and 
should do it.

A completely different thing is, what our evaluation leads to. I for one 
would like to take both Reply-To:-Munging and SPF on our agenda.

My current thoughts re these topics is as following:

- "Reply-To:-Munging": My vote: should stay as it currently is. Chris
  already pointed out how to modify the behaviour using procmail.

- SPF: I currently don't understand what it is useful for in the current
  setup. I would appreciate if Kurt could write up a short text which
  explains why SPF is a good thing(TM) for Gentoo Infrastructure, so I
  can understand it :-)
  My vote would be: Remove, unless there is a real need for it. But this
  could change rather quickly once Kurt (or anybody else from Infra) has
  replied.

Danny
-- 
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@gentoo.org>
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Seemant Kulleen]

On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 14:37 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:

> So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsible for
> this, you'd rather go over their heads and try to bring this up to the
> council, so we can override their decisions?  Not bloody likely.

Let me post a little more productively.  If you (Chris) had bothered to
read the bug, you'd notice it goes like this:

Alin: I have these issues for these reasons
Andrea: I agree the thing isn't the best, and I think we're open to
discussion. Kurt, will you weigh in?
<more back and forth between Alin and Andrea with Andrea maintaining
that infra is a open to discussion>
Kurt: Nope, my opinion differs, I control things, I'm not talking about
it.

That's a summary, by the way, and I'm not quoting anyone, just
paraphrasing closely.  I don't care one way or the other about the
issue, personally, but reading that bug is certainly a good way to get
frustrated.

Please stop being ridiculous, Council: if you're not going to actually
listen to the people who voted for you without talking down to them,
then, er, why exactly, did you run?



-- 
Seemant Kulleen
Developer, Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Seemant Kulleen]

The council is supposed to be about resolving disputes such as this, is
it not?  So what I'm seeing here is that if you (and quite a few others)
do have a problem with the way things are then, see the Council, who
will then ask you who the hell you think you are to ask the Council.

This is like Office Space, only it isn't as funny.  I'll play the bald
Indian guy though.

-- 
Seemant Kulleen
Developer, Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 872 bytes --]

On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 14:37:00 -0500 Chris Gianelloni
<wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
| So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsible for
| this, you'd rather go over their heads and try to bring this up to the
| council, so we can override their decisions?  Not bloody likely.

Isn't that part of why the Council is there? To make decisions on things
where some people consider that those normally in charge of something
are doing it incorrectly and refusing to fix things?

Not saying that either side is right here... But there're a lot of
objections to SPF out there, several people complaining and no
justification from infra beyond "we're using it anyway".

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail                : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web                 : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Jan Kundrát]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 280 bytes --]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> This also falls under Infra.  Have you tried asking them, instead?
> Perhaps filing a bug like all other infra requests?

Please see https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154120 .

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 994 bytes --]

On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 13:36 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Alin Nastac napsal(a):
> > Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:39, Alin Nastac wrote:
> >>   
> >>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>>     
> >>>> that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ?
> >>>>       
> >>> It could be considered as organization policy, so I assumed council had
> >>> to be involved in this decision.
> >>>     
> >> it isnt ... so file a bug for infra
> >>   
> > done in bug 154120 .
> > 
> 
> And WONTFIXed in 15 minutes. In that case, I'd like to resubmit it to
> the council... :/

So because you didn't like the answer from the people responsible for
this, you'd rather go over their heads and try to bring this up to the
council, so we can override their decisions?  Not bloody likely.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 918 bytes --]

On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 02:23 -0800, David Shakaryan wrote:
> This is not a question of opinion; this is one of consistency. All of
> the lists are currently doing it a certain way, whilst -core seems to be
> behaving differently. This is bound to cause confusion. As you
> mentioned, we should be dealing with more important things. Why not
> settle this once and for all, so we constantly don't have to spend time
> having this useless argument?

If people are really going to insist that we vote on this, then I
propose we remove the headers from all of the lists.  While we're at it,
I'd like to propose we have Andrea flogged publicly at the town square
at noon for not having the same opinion as everyone else.  Damn free
thinkers...

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 835 bytes --]

On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 11:50 +0200, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> > vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> > Gentoo dev list to see.
> >   
> I have a problem with our current SPF record. I wanna see a +all in this
> record for 2 reasons:
>   a) SPF is really worthless
>   b) spamassassin have a SPF_NEUTRAL test, with a score bigger than 1
> 
> See http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/43707/focus=43707 .

This also falls under Infra.  Have you tried asking them, instead?
Perhaps filing a bug like all other infra requests?

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2785 bytes --]

On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 01:35 -0800, Peter Gordon wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 08:40 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> > vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> > Gentoo dev list to see.
> 
> I have one item that I would like to see addressed in the next possible
> council meeting: The reply behavior of gentoo-core messages. What's
> happening is that gentoo-core appears to have no default Reply-To header
> set.

Ehh... this is not something that we should be deciding.  This *should*
be up to Infrastructure.  They've made a decision, you just don't happen
to like it.  Well, I know that we're going to back Infrastructure.
Their current position is that this isn't going to change, and I support
that.  Were it left up to me, I'd say quit abusing Reply-To on every
list.

Now, there's three options.

#1. Learn to use your mailer correctly, or switch to a mailer that
doesn't suck.  Since people are rabid about the software they use and
how they use it, I see this one as the least likely to happen.

#2.  Add Reply-to to -core via .procmailrc:

:0 fhw
* ^List-Id:.*gentoo-core\.gentoo\.org
|formail -I 'reply-to: gentoo-core@lists.gentoo.org'

#3.  Remove Reply-to from all the other lists via .procmailrc:

:0 fhw
* ^List-Id:.*gentoo.org
| formail -I "Reply-To:"

Now you aren't forcing anything on anyone.  Everyone is capable of
customizing their own environment.  Use this empowerment to make things
work how you want and quit trying to push your own agenda on everyone
else.

> Secondly, every other Gentoo mailing list that I am subscribed to
> (g-dev, g-devrel, g-gwn) adds a Reply-To header which instructs the
> dev's MUA to default to replying to the list address, rather than to the
> individual sender of the message to which they reply. Unfortunately,
> gentoo-core is the only list which does not follow this behavior.

Umm... bullshit.  The gentoo-gwn list doesn't set Reply-to to anything.
Instead, it is *my* responsibility to set Reply-to to the gwn-feedback
alias (not the list) to replies.  This is the correct behavior and use
of Reply-to and why Reply-to munging on mailing lists sucks to badly.  I
CAN NOT set Reply-to on this list to a location where I want to receive
replies.

Now, Andrea has explained his position on this, and while I do not agree
with him, I do support him.  In other words, so long as he wants it to
remain the way it is, I'll support it, and use procmail to make the
system work the way I want it for myself.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Alin Nastac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 780 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 05 November 2006 10:00, Alin Nastac wrote:
>   
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>     
>>> On Sunday 05 November 2006 07:36, Jakub Moc wrote:
>>>       
>>>> I'd like to resubmit it to the council... :/
>>>>         
>>> not until it pans out with infra
>>>       
>> Now would be a good time to bring the problem before the council?
>> It has been permanently closed as WONTFIX by klieber (our SMTP admin).
>>     
>
> personally i'm just going to go with klieber
> -mike
>   
Well, I'm not against the others winning the debate while they have good
arguments.
Till now, no real contra-arguments were emitted against my request.
Could someone point me to the warehouse where those precious arguments
are saved for better use?


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Josh Saddler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 806 bytes --]

Ryan Tandy wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 01:35:43 -0800 Peter Gordon
>> <codergeek42@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> | On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 08:40 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> | > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
>> | > vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
>> | > Gentoo dev list to see.
>> | | I have one item that I would like to see addressed in the next
>> | possible council meeting: The reply behavior of gentoo-core messages.
>>
>> Wow. That's about the pettiest and least relevant thing you could ask
>> them to discuss. Why not ask for a vote on what colour the soft
>> icecream machine should be whilst you're at it?
> 
> Pink, obviously, to match the ponies.
And to match the infamous elephants.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Ryan Tandy]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 01:35:43 -0800 Peter Gordon
> <codergeek42@gentoo.org> wrote:
> | On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 08:40 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> | > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> | > vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> | > Gentoo dev list to see.
> | 
> | I have one item that I would like to see addressed in the next
> | possible council meeting: The reply behavior of gentoo-core messages.
> 
> Wow. That's about the pettiest and least relevant thing you could ask
> them to discuss. Why not ask for a vote on what colour the soft
> icecream machine should be whilst you're at it?

Pink, obviously, to match the ponies.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 418 bytes --]

On Sunday 05 November 2006 10:00, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 05 November 2006 07:36, Jakub Moc wrote:
> >> I'd like to resubmit it to the council... :/
> >
> > not until it pans out with infra
>
> Now would be a good time to bring the problem before the council?
> It has been permanently closed as WONTFIX by klieber (our SMTP admin).

personally i'm just going to go with klieber
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Peter Gordon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 518 bytes --]

On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 04:57 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i dont see anyone talking to infra about it so why dont you start there
> -mike

Will do. Thanks, Mike.
-- 
Peter Gordon (codergeek42)
Gentoo Forums Global Moderator
GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint:
  DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479
My Blog: http://thecodergeek.com/blog/
The gentoo-core list configuration is broken, and infra
  knowingly leave it so. I guess their only consistency
  is inconsistency itself...

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Alin Nastac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 329 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 05 November 2006 07:36, Jakub Moc wrote:
>   
>> I'd like to resubmit it to the council... :/
>>     
>
> not until it pans out with infra
>   

Now would be a good time to bring the problem before the council?
It has been permanently closed as WONTFIX by klieber (our SMTP admin).


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 789 bytes --]

Alin Nastac napsal(a):
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:39, Alin Nastac wrote:
>>   
>>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>     
>>>> that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ?
>>>>       
>>> It could be considered as organization policy, so I assumed council had
>>> to be involved in this decision.
>>>     
>> it isnt ... so file a bug for infra
>>   
> done in bug 154120 .
> 

And WONTFIXed in 15 minutes. In that case, I'd like to resubmit it to
the council... :/



-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

On Sunday 05 November 2006 07:36, Jakub Moc wrote:
> I'd like to resubmit it to the council... :/

not until it pans out with infra
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 806 bytes --]

Alin Nastac napsal(a):
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
>> vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
>> Gentoo dev list to see.
>>   
> I have a problem with our current SPF record. I wanna see a +all in this
> record for 2 reasons:
>   a) SPF is really worthless
>   b) spamassassin have a SPF_NEUTRAL test, with a score bigger than 1
> 
> See http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/43707/focus=43707 .

I second this request... Thanks.


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Alin Nastac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 397 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:39, Alin Nastac wrote:
>   
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>     
>>> that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ?
>>>       
>> It could be considered as organization policy, so I assumed council had
>> to be involved in this decision.
>>     
>
> it isnt ... so file a bug for infra
>   
done in bug 154120 .


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Marius Mauch]

On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 02:23:02 -0800
David Shakaryan <omp@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Wow. That's about the pettiest and least relevant thing you could ask
> > them to discuss. Why not ask for a vote on what colour the soft
> > icecream machine should be whilst you're at it?
> 
> Silly analogy.

It isn't silly, the color of the icecream machine is a top priority for many people! Well, I guess you don't know how much lobby work went into this over the last years ;)

> > Clearly this is one of those easy to understand issues where everyone
> > has an opinion, and rather than fix their mail client or behaviour they
> > try to have a huge debate about it... Don't you people have any bugs to
> > fix?
> 
> This is not a question of opinion; this is one of consistency. All of
> the lists are currently doing it a certain way, whilst -core seems to be
> behaving differently. This is bound to cause confusion. As you
> mentioned, we should be dealing with more important things. Why not
> settle this once and for all, so we constantly don't have to spend time
> having this useless argument?

Still doesn't make this material for the council, this is entirely infras domain so people who want to get this "fixed" in what way ever should talk to them. Or should I refer people to the council whenever they aren't happy with the output/option handling of emerge (to give you a more realistic analogy)?

Marius
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 301 bytes --]

On Sunday 05 November 2006 05:39, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ?
>
> It could be considered as organization policy, so I assumed council had
> to be involved in this decision.

it isnt ... so file a bug for infra
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Alin Nastac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 207 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ?
>   
It could be considered as organization policy, so I assumed council had
to be involved in this decision.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 419 bytes --]

On Sunday 05 November 2006 04:50, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> > vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> > Gentoo dev list to see.
>
> I have a problem with our current SPF record. I wanna see a +all in this
> record for 2 reasons:

that's nice, but again, why arent these being directed to infra ?
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[David Shakaryan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 906 bytes --]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Wow. That's about the pettiest and least relevant thing you could ask
> them to discuss. Why not ask for a vote on what colour the soft
> icecream machine should be whilst you're at it?

Silly analogy.

> Clearly this is one of those easy to understand issues where everyone
> has an opinion, and rather than fix their mail client or behaviour they
> try to have a huge debate about it... Don't you people have any bugs to
> fix?

This is not a question of opinion; this is one of consistency. All of
the lists are currently doing it a certain way, whilst -core seems to be
behaving differently. This is bound to cause confusion. As you
mentioned, we should be dealing with more important things. Why not
settle this once and for all, so we constantly don't have to spend time
having this useless argument?

-- 
David Shakaryan
GnuPG Public Key: 0x4B8FE14B


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 747 bytes --]

On Sunday 05 November 2006 10:59, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 01:35:43 -0800 Peter Gordon

> Clearly this is one of those easy to understand issues where everyone
> has an opinion, and rather than fix their mail client or behaviour they
> try to have a huge debate about it... Don't you people have any bugs to
> fix?

Also please remember that you can easilly do this yourself if you so desire. 
procmail (and thus formail too) is available on woodpecker, so you can add 
them/remove them from the core list as desired. As it considers -core you 
have access to woodpecker and the mail flows through it too.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1049 bytes --]

On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 01:35:43 -0800 Peter Gordon
<codergeek42@gentoo.org> wrote:
| On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 08:40 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
| > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
| > vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
| > Gentoo dev list to see.
| 
| I have one item that I would like to see addressed in the next
| possible council meeting: The reply behavior of gentoo-core messages.

Wow. That's about the pettiest and least relevant thing you could ask
them to discuss. Why not ask for a vote on what colour the soft
icecream machine should be whilst you're at it?

Clearly this is one of those easy to understand issues where everyone
has an opinion, and rather than fix their mail client or behaviour they
try to have a huge debate about it... Don't you people have any bugs to
fix?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail                : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web                 : http://ciaranm.org/
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 359 bytes --]

On Sunday 05 November 2006 04:35, Peter Gordon wrote:
> I have one item that I would like to see addressed in the next possible
> council meeting: The reply behavior of gentoo-core messages. What's
> happening is that gentoo-core appears to have no default Reply-To header
> set.

i dont see anyone talking to infra about it so why dont you start there
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Alin Nastac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 470 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.
>   
I have a problem with our current SPF record. I wanna see a +all in this
record for 2 reasons:
  a) SPF is really worthless
  b) spamassassin have a SPF_NEUTRAL test, with a score bigger than 1

See http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/43707/focus=43707 .


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Peter Gordon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1773 bytes --]

On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 08:40 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.

I have one item that I would like to see addressed in the next possible
council meeting: The reply behavior of gentoo-core messages. What's
happening is that gentoo-core appears to have no default Reply-To header
set. 

This issue I feel needs to be addressed for two major reasons:
Firstly, with no explicit Reply-To address, most mail clients default to
replying to the sender of the message. This means that, for people who
use such clients must manually replace the To: address in their reply
composition. Unfortunately, there have been prior instances of a dev
accidentally replying to the -core list on -dev. This means that the
conversation intended to stay private and internal to Gentoo suddenly is
in the public eye and many archives. This will inevitably occur if such
behavior is not resolved.

Secondly, every other Gentoo mailing list that I am subscribed to
(g-dev, g-devrel, g-gwn) adds a Reply-To header which instructs the
dev's MUA to default to replying to the list address, rather than to the
individual sender of the message to which they reply. Unfortunately,
gentoo-core is the only list which does not follow this behavior. 

I would appreciate the council voting on making this behavior
consistent: Force gentoo-core to add this header, or remove it from the
other mailing lists. 

Thanks.
-- 
Peter Gordon (codergeek42)
Gentoo Forums Global Moderator
GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint:
  DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479
My Blog: http://thecodergeek.com/blog/

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Mike Frysinger]

This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically the
2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
irc.freenode.net) !

If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.

Keep in mind that every GLEP *re*submission to the council for review
must first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum)
before being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days
before the meeting.  Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be
notified at least 14 days before the meeting itself.

For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list