From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <gentoo-user+bounces-72438-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@gentoo.org>) id 1J0kXB-0008Kx-J5 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 21:14:58 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with SMTP id lB7LDckr015515; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 21:13:38 GMT Received: from smtp2.cybercity.dk (smtp2.cybercity.dk [212.242.43.252]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with ESMTP id lB7L9I6G010633 for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 21:09:18 GMT Received: from user2.cybercity.dk (user2.cybercity.dk [212.242.41.35]) by smtp2.cybercity.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E914313C64 for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 22:09:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.0.0.3] (port78.ds1-abs.adsl.cybercity.dk [212.242.227.17]) by user2.cybercity.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 624C42866DC for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 22:09:18 +0100 (CET) From: Bo =?utf-8?q?=C3=98rsted_Andresen?= <bo.andresen@zlin.dk> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Emerging virtual/editor installs nano - why? Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 22:07:46 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <2457217.LCgPyxjfGR@kn.gn.rtr.message-center.info> <200712071637.30019.bo.andresen@zlin.dk> <ae1cf3f40712070958h49c8832doc7390c67449d7072@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <ae1cf3f40712070958h49c8832doc7390c67449d7072@mail.gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart6091186.S3YWFslBxJ"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200712072207.49939.bo.andresen@zlin.dk> X-Archives-Salt: 81cf94f4-baa4-4460-b524-e6fe6910de99 X-Archives-Hash: d4c35b37fddf3f51a376522dfa80e87f --nextPart6091186.S3YWFslBxJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Friday 07 December 2007 18:58:57 Alexander Skwar wrote: > > You are right except for the fact that virtual/mta will not be converted > > any time soon (if ever). Old style virtuals allow their providers to > > block all other providers by blocking the virtual. This isn't possible > > with the current format for new style virtuals so it isn't going to > > happen. editor didn't need that feature and thus could easily be > > converted... > > Ah, okay. Pretty bad situation, though, isn't it? I mean, > with the way it is now, we've got some virtuals which > work with virtuals and some, which don't. Do you happen > to know, if there's a bug which should rectify this > broken situation? If by 'broken' you mean 'inconsistent' then I can assure you that there are= =20 plenty of much more important bugs open... ;) But I guess bug #148251 shoul= d=20 be of interest in reference to virtual/mta. Personally I happen to hate old= =20 style virtuals and want them dead asap. As you can see on the bug there's n= ot=20 much indicating that'll happen anytime soon though.. =2D-=20 Bo Andresen --nextPart6091186.S3YWFslBxJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBHWbYl8/kKEzmwNNoRAjb3AKDaTj//vTY+rILsYY/A0xaRwU79swCfQNvf AaoHcyMFfYSJdllR881pPA4= =/PVB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart6091186.S3YWFslBxJ-- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list