heh

Intelligent first start

You don't think you're - I don't know - overreacting, or something?

Hmmm.... NO I guess that you have a DVD drive or broadband.

Without a cdrom you can't install it either, only old slackware distros are shipped on floppies. Evil conspiracy?

No evil conspiracy. Look at the situation. People on this list reported issues with DVD's. Some with success some have horror sotries. All that I was stating was why do I need to change hardware to get everything that I need???? I still think that it is a lack of judgement.

With a 486 you can't install it, since all packages are compiled for i586. Evil conspiracy?

I'm aware of that! I only have a 486 laptop here. I know that they changed the way SuSE was compiled for performance reasons. If I needed to install something on a 486, I still own copies of Linux that will install on a 486.

Come join the 21st century. It's fun here

You must not be. If you are talking about my hardware, I right now don't have the funds and even so, I want the code for the DVD's to mature. I do not want to buy a DVD and then find out that it will not work! Now if you are taking a pop-shot at my ideals, then all I have to say is that that is VERY immature! Why don't you look at others point of views BEFORE shooting off your ideas! Obviously, you don't. That is sad. According to the way you think, I guess now SuSE being like MS is OK. -- Marshall "Nothing is impossible, We just do not have all the anwsers to make the impossible, possible."

I believe "heh" is common vernacular to illustrate a brief, derisive chuckle I musunderstood the context of which it was intended. I apologize.

...

...

Without a cdrom you can't install it either, only old slackware distros are shipped on floppies. Evil conspiracy?

No evil conspiracy. Look at the situation. People on this list reported issues with DVD's. Some with success some have horror sotries. All that I was stating was why do I need to change hardware to get everything that I need????

I think you're sort of missing the point here. Noone is forcing you to buy it. You can get all the sources (yes, *all* the sources) completely gratis either from the internet by downloading yourself, or by getting a friend to download it and give it to you.

True that no one is twisting my arm to purchase it. But on your point of having a freind download it for me, Why? When you buy the distro you should have the sources there that you can use. I guess that a DVD drive is still accessable but as I do not have a DVD drive, they become inaccessable.

Now you tell me, why should I have to suffer with old technology simply because you and a handful of others won't get a dvd drive?

How said that you have to suffer? I did not state that. But the ones of us who do not have a DVD drive it seems have been made to suffer by this.

You have chosen to remain with older technology, that's fair enough, that's your choice.

Fair enough

...

I still think that it is a lack of judgement.

...

With a 486 you can't install it, since all packages are compiled for i586. Evil conspiracy?

I'm aware of that! I only have a 486 laptop here. I know that they changed the way SuSE was compiled for performance reasons. If I needed to install something on a 486, I still own copies of Linux that will install on a 486.

And you still have copies of linux that has everything on cdrom. Any significant upgrades maybe gotten from the internet at your leisure.

Yeah with several hours worth of downloads.

...

...

Come join the 21st century. It's fun here

You must not be. If you are talking about my hardware, I right now don't have the funds and even so,

If you don't have the funds to get a dvd drive then you don't have the funds to upgrade to every version of suse that gets published.

And guess what: *you don't have to*

Fair enough. I usually try for the upgrade. I usually can get that and it usually is cheaper than a DVD. Now from what I hear from you is that not only will I (if I decide to purchase) have to get the distro but I have to get hardware too?

...

I want the code for the DVD's to mature. I do not want to buy a DVD and then find out that it will not work! Now if you are taking a pop-shot at my ideals,

I don't know what a pop-shot is, and if your ideals consist of having linux distros cater to the lowest common denominator, then get one that does just that. Any changes SuSE has made are/will be freely available. How very MS, right?

You sort of missed the point here. My arguement was that in order to do everything that I was able to in Linux (recompiling programs) cannot be done by us who either cannot get a DVD because of funds or don't want to. Especially when you pay extra for not only the tools but the sources as well.

...

then all I have to say is that that is VERY immature!

Hm, let me see. You say that SuSE are like MS just because they won't serve everything to you on 8-track magnetic tape for your PDP-11 and *I'm* immature?

Well call it like you see it. I had to change hardware in a machine in the house for XP and from your standpoint, I have to change hardware again for SuSE.

...

Why don't you look at others point of views BEFORE shooting off your ideas! Obviously, you don't. That is sad. According to the way you think, I guess now SuSE being like MS is OK.

And you were how old again?

Old enough to see others point of view which you obviously will not see but that is your choice.

...

"Nothing is impossible,

Except, apparently, getting a dvd drive

Here is a example of a pop-shot FYI -- Marshall "Nothing is impossible, We just do not have all the anwsers to make the impossible, possible."

On Thursday 13 March 2003 08:33, Marshall Heartley wrote: [stuff deleted]

...

I don't know what a pop-shot is, and if your ideals consist of having linux distros cater to the lowest common denominator, then get one that does just that. Any changes SuSE has made are/will be freely available. How very MS, right?

[stuff deleted]

Here is a example of a pop-shot FYI

I believe that the word you are looking for is pot-shot not pop-shot. It is derived from shooting something in a pot (or very close, confined area). It is also sometimes called a cheap-shot. Now as to DVD drives, I recently saw one at Comp-USA for $19.95 after rebate. That is pretty cheap. I will have to admit that I only recently got a DVD drive also, but it was not a real problem to get it working. As a matter of fact, it worked for data immediately after I plugged it into the system. It did take a little coaxing to get it to play movies properly. -- Kelly L. Fulks Home Account

The 03.03.13 at 13:26, Anders Johansson wrote:

I think you're sort of missing the point here. Noone is forcing you to buy it. You can get all the sources (yes, *all* the sources) completely gratis either from the internet by downloading yourself,

You may... but, for example, not me, I pay by the minute of inet conection. Others pay per megabyte, I heard. Not gratis, certainly. Worse, some people do not even have any internet nearby.

Now you tell me, why should I have to suffer with old technology simply because you and a handful of others won't get a dvd drive?

Why should you suffer? Why not have a choice? I use the dvd, but I like to have the cds as well. And, getting a dvd reader can be too expensive or impossible for some people. A cd only version could be sold by Suse as well. -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson

John wrote:

You do also understand that most people still only have dial-up, don't you?

I understand you can still pick up DOS 5 diskettes at many computer fairs. Assuming you have some kind of transport to get there. (A bicycle will do if that's all you have) sjb

On Thursday 13 March 2003 10:07 am, sjb wrote:

John wrote:

...

You do also understand that most people still only have dial-up, don't you?

I understand you can still pick up DOS 5 diskettes at many computer fairs. Assuming you have some kind of transport to get there. (A bicycle will do if that's all you have)

sjb

Naw! Really? I understand that tureds that don't flush need a little help with a plunger...are ya ready? John

On Thursday 13 March 2003 16:57, John wrote:

How in the world can you even justify yourself saying that? How do you know that he, or *anyone* on this list buys 'every version' that comes out!? You are acting like a snot nosed rich kid brat! I'm a poor SOB, I don't get every version that comes out. I don't have and can't afford a dvd drive. Does this make me a 20th century screw up too? You do also understand that most people still only have dial-up, don't you? Or are you so lost in your "21st century" to know about the "real world"...not just your 21st century?

The person I was responding to was saying, basically, that since he couldn't afford - or didn't want to buy - a DVD player, nobody else should be allowed to enjoy the benefits. I was suggesting further that if one distro doesn't suit your needs, there are plenty others to choose from since there is no lock-in, and that one distro's moving towards DVDs doesn't make them Microsoft. Please spare me your blue collar antics. I've been unemployed for a long time now and am almost certainly poorer than you (nyah!), yet I can afford a DVD. It's only about $30 - $40 for a used one

On Thursday 13 March 2003 07:15, Marshall Heartley wrote:

I guess now SuSE being like MS is OK.

That is a silly remark. How much source did you receive with your last Windows release? *************************************************** Powered by SuSE Linux 8.0 Professional KDE 3.0.0 KMail 1.4 This is a Microsoft-free computer Bryan S. Tyson bryantyson@earthlink.net ***************************************************

On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 08:37, Bryan Tyson wrote:

On Thursday 13 March 2003 07:15, Marshall Heartley wrote:

...

I guess now SuSE being like MS is OK.

That is a silly remark. How much source did you receive with your last Windows release? As far as source is concerned, there was none. But my point is that I now have to do a MS thing by buying new hardware in order to do what I was able to do before. That is what I was comparing SuSE to.

-- Marshall "Nothing is impossible, We just do not have all the anwsers to make the impossible, possible."

On Thursday 13 March 2003 09:44 am, Marshall Heartley wrote:

On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 08:37, Bryan Tyson wrote:

...

On Thursday 13 March 2003 07:15, Marshall Heartley wrote:

...

I guess now SuSE being like MS is OK.

That is a silly remark. How much source did you receive with your last Windows release?

As far as source is concerned, there was none. But my point is that I now have to do a MS thing by buying new hardware in order to do what I was able to do before. That is what I was comparing SuSE to.

-- Marshall

Marshall, I want to step in here for just a second please and interrupt this whole thread. Let me ask each of you complaining a question. When was the last time you used all 7 cds to install your SuSE? I barely used 5 when installing 8.0 and hardly 3 when installing 8.1, so what will we be missing on 2 cds we don't use? I can say, if SuSE decided to be rid of a few programs on the cds that just take up space and 9.5 people wouldn't use, then why not cut the number down to 5 cds? I suspect with the number of programs, etc SuSE presently supplies, something like 5300 I believe, some of those could be dropped and if we wanted them later, they are always available online. Whining about not having a dvd is pointless and serves no purpose as they are indeed cheap and very available now. If finances still don't allow the purchase, then you still have 5 cds full of wonderful Linux stuff. Wonder how many programs one can cram on a about 3.3gb these days? ;o) Point is, SuSE is moving forward with their Linux, they have too and should! If a few of us can't keep up all the time, then we have other choices, even with SuSE for our Linux. You almost sound like some of the old Amiga users that cried foul each time the rest of the world moved forward, but didn't continue to supply stuff for them too, as they fell further behind in updated programs. As Anders pointed out, things move forward, no way to stop that, a fact of life we live with now. What we have to decide to do is either try to catch up with it and live with it or cut ourselves off and stay with what suits us and our budgets, even though that requires us to use older stuff. Patrick -- --- KMail v1.5 --- SuSE Linux Pro v8.1 --- Registered Linux User #225206 On any other day, that might seem strange...

On Thursday 13 March 2003 05:53 am, Anders Johansson wrote:

On Thursday 13 March 2003 12:54, Marshall Heartley wrote:

...

This is a VERY POOR judgement call on your part SuSE!!! I like a few others on this list do not own a DVD drive but now you insist on putting the sources on a DVD??? What good is that going to do me??? Especially if I need to recompile something. I guess it is to cut down on cost but without the sources, you are no better than MS and like I stated before, others like me do not have broadband to download the sources. So what do users without a DVD and broadband do? I guess you are telling us like MS that we need to change our hardware!!!! What next activation??

heh

You don't think you're - I don't know - overreacting, or something?

Without a cdrom you can't install it either, only old slackware distros are shipped on floppies. Evil conspiracy?

With a 486 you can't install it, since all packages are compiled for i586. Evil conspiracy?

Come join the 21st century. It's fun here

Name a company that sells computer 'systems' that *doesn't* put at *least* a cdrom in though. That's what he's saying. *Everyone and their grandma has a cdrom, but only a few have or can afford a dvd drive. I have a base of approximately 60 customers, just your everyday average Joe, and I can only recall seeing maybe 4 or 5 of those systems with a dvd in it. Hell man...*I* don't have a dvd in *my* system. You do understand *why* most don't have one, don't you? Most people watch dvd's on a tv system. Most apps, don't come on 'dvd's', and most people just can't afford one at the moment or see any need to 'have' one. So instead of bitching, how about telling us you'll buy each of us that does *not* own a dvd, a new one to put in our system, so that we can have access to *everything* we have access to now up 8.1. John

<snip>

http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?query=dvd+drive

*sheesh*

Thanks for the info but you miss the point entirely. I was stating why do you have to get new hardware in order to get the sources that you need? -- Marshall "Nothing is impossible, We just do not have all the anwsers to make the impossible, possible."

On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 09:20, Anders Karlsson wrote:

You don't. And that is the point. The sources are all available online, just as before. SuSE just moves with the times. Most computers today that will install SuSE Professional 8.2 will be equipped with a DVD drive. It really is as simple as that.

Maybe so but what about those who want to use their existing machines and have no knowledge to install DVD drives? Yes there are people out there like that. I know that the sources are on the net. But by that logic, you might as well get the personal edition and download what you need off the site. I paid for the pro version to try and avoid doing just that. Because dialup is painfully slow. -- Marshall "Nothing is impossible, We just do not have all the anwsers to make the impossible, possible."

On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 14:54, Marshall Heartley wrote:

Maybe so but what about those who want to use their existing machines and have no knowledge to install DVD drives? Yes there are people out

Uhm, you know what an IDE CD-ROM looks like at the back? Guess what, the DVD-ROM looks exactly like it. And even better, the DVD-ROM is backwards compatible so it will read all your old CD's you got lying around as well. Surely, the people that have a PC with an old CD-ROM knows someone that can help them update that CD-ROM to a DVD-ROM.

there like that. I know that the sources are on the net. But by that logic, you might as well get the personal edition and download what you need off the site. I paid for the pro version to try and avoid doing just that. Because dialup is painfully slow.

So get a DVD-ROM for your PC and your troubles are all over. And even better, you will then have futureproofed your "ol' faithful" for another handful of years. Really, you have a non-problem here. If you can afford the SuSE update, you can afford a DVD-ROM. Once you have the DVD-ROM, you can access all those sources you were going to recompile. However, if your PC is that old that it does not have a DVD-ROM or can not cope with one, it must be painful to rebuild all those sources as it must be absolutely dog-slow. Rgds, -- Anders Karlsson Trudheim Technology Ltd

On Thursday 13 March 2003 06:03 am, sjb wrote:

Marshall Heartley wrote:

...

This is a VERY POOR judgement call on your part SuSE!!! I like a few others on this list do not own a DVD drive but now you insist on putting the sources on a DVD???

http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?query=dvd+drive

*sheesh*

Too bad my income doesn't amount to enough for me to *GET* a dvd drive at the moment, not for quite a while. Fixed incomes seem to do that, or are you one of those high and mighty people with lots of money who looks down on us 'poor' folk? *sheesh*! John

On Thursday 13 March 2003 09:55 am, sjb wrote:

John wrote:

...

are you one of those high and mighty people with lots of money who looks down on us 'poor' folk?

Yes.

sjb

Then you're either a lawyer or a turd that won't flush...or is that redundant? John

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Sheesh, it's getting ugly in here! Curtis Rey On Thursday 13 March 2003 16:27 pm, Matt wrote:

Ok enough...

Want to do name calling and be abusive please take it usenet or something...Or even better take it to personal mails.

Matt

On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 13:53, John wrote:

...

On Thursday 13 March 2003 09:55 am, sjb wrote:

...

John wrote:

...

are you one of those high and mighty people with lots of money who looks down on us 'poor' folk?

Yes.

sjb

Then you're either a lawyer or a turd that won't flush...or is that redundant?

John

- -- - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) mQGiBD5TsKcRBACXc11nz+pdunhZ1XBCoFB8SO06Hnvm+e3zJRG3XNkpatvQpKzc 67FmMDDtI+menX9BBLEZ05U7SYkHNfKER96nPXmoO4jL0KFZxYmhizXnVvZYSXpU cXNQa1ABWq6WgHOyeYLREjarZSgtWBluJ0tEB13ptneRjCjacvxrzKCGXwCg7wvt Wae/N25itO1t5hQ0+w/pXl0EAJJIGuTSEHrG2GxSx73Q2Ib6cDYhYMWYyAaG52iE wPZDJ7HO9aPfgPayetwXRjMnrnIQAZSMd/SVmEYRox8Z1X+oACm6KWLumq70UsMP 5K1Zlqe5HSIcfbsyhMvV5xWMRItqEYuuGaC9iqysycvHHfRIec55qEAQZ8yKYqCh 6S8GA/wOBdC8TtE0tvh6QUqHXlRtWXT6Bq0g2/G/eyIEJ+dx8WM6WE/qMlhAA1vE 2nxNQ4HPo4CQnIgVv3ZA6E7a2eetQB7znC1QJJ4jzfklpd3gODBeBmbq548dgwAi g8Ge9y6EFpfErkI/Nn1pwShdR3P+L+vTPVnDUgfZETufSe7ZYbQeQ3VydGlzIFJl eSA8Y3JyZXlAY2hhcnRlci5uZXQ+iFkEExECABkFAj5TsKcECwcDAgMVAgMDFgIB Ah4BAheAAAoJEO1lS4g66npLZ4UAn2vDDYbNL8m0lCgRefbuv/+exZhLAKCEr7EH xF/zq5kR1wxkFpgGLLjnZrkBDQQ+U7CoEAQA6/LnK6yXDAUTelM0Q+YUvwxzYMaf eWAzLIxkms8pu7r4R5S9RqcLJAOjpeMcMpw5AW7F9Xr2JUOvy5snaEYOw8UEAGAf ZZwecXhuuWyA0mj3oCBnH1vhiPj/F1Ft0LPjuYf2I5VtnP+s6/qq6eH6AgEXa2lr QgdFvl/vkApk6B8AAwUD/0YmJAFb+ptU6VzWR3Pzy6Uow/Bsqi6UPT8+g4Nj31q/ zY2+kFxHVkWOELlHQYfNhbmK8XCG9rj4S7wuWy804oDnN9NNpP4Yx2S04nYJx1an NHqTUheJjq1AteVHmjKRGhEyct9WdXIcN5+lbAmTn34HbJkFnxTZu84doCOTNbjR iEYEGBECAAYFAj5TsKgACgkQ7WVLiDrqekv1+QCeIa94/uImG9o/IJ8nCY8w2aoe +jwAoM1e6VVCroJ1RUPC+xMgpHVILL+c =WL2Z - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+cQgT7WVLiDrqeksRAklPAKDTGzgz6hF6ZD+RN5HhMUK4v7WslQCffp3M o4zDDvrjNQNSNapLFK0TIkw= =6EhO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

* Peter B Van Campen (peterb924@ameritech.net) [030313 16:57]:

Since he has now stooped to toilet terms can we BLOCK this guy from the List?

Sorry, we're at the mercy of Godwin's Law. -- -ckm

xxxx pgpgp unsigned xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx * Curtis Rey [03-14-03 02:58]:

...

Sorry, we're at the mercy of Godwin's Law.

You/SuSE-e are, but not I - Filter :)

Curtis, your responses are witty and enjoying, but your 32 line announced proof of your existance after a broken sig-indicator are a bit galling, especially after a *one* line comment. Please, if you *must* pgp sign your posts, the public key block is superfluous and the proper sig-indicator is <dash><dash><space>. Thankyou xxxx pgpgp unsigned xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx beware, i may have not written this message xxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Patrick Shanahan Please avoid TOFU and trim >quotes< http://wahoo.no-ip.org Registered Linux User #207535 icq#173753138 @ http://counter.li.org

On Friday 14 March 2003 10:32 am, Curtis Rey wrote:

Ya, I know. I've been having some problems. I hope there fixed.

I've been watching your posts and noticed the inclusion of the public key was semi-random -- I generally ignored the overlong sig-with-key and chalked it up to user error. I just checked, the "attach" menu has three options at the top: append sig, attach <any> public key, and attach MY key. This is "next to" the "options" menu which has the "sign/encrypt" message actions. I can see how it would be (semi) easy to pick the wrong menu item and therefore attach the key rather than sign the message. OTOH, there is a global option: sign every message, which I'm reasonably sure you've chosen. It would be interesting to know whether or not the inclusion of the full key is an artifact of Kmail as (a) I'm using it myself, (b) we JUST held a "keysigning party" at my Linux user group last night, and (c) I intend to start using this "feature" myself [in fact, as I was writing this message I just pulled up the settings screen and checked "automatically sign all messages", so you'll get my (unverified) signature on this message...]

On Friday 14 March 2003 06:32 am, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

[...] the proper sig-indicator is <dash><dash><space>.

I've often wondered about the trailing "space" -- how can you tell whether or not it's there without resorting to a hex dump of the message? As such, the sig indicator is not something under direct control of kmail users. For instance, I have a signature set for this "identity", and all I put into this is the line "Yet another Blog: http://osnut.homelinux.net". Kmail itself prepends the "--<spc>" when writing messages [and actually, I can somewhat verify there is a trailing space by noting where the cursor appears if I move to that line and press <end>] However, what happens of some transport "somewhere" in the chain of sending the message decides to strip trailing spaces on lines? [after all, save for the "proper" indication of a sig, there is no reason to send something that nobody will ever see, right?] -- Yet another Blog: http://osnut.homelinux.net

xxxx pgpgp unsigned xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx * Tom Emerson [03-14-03 14:36]: ... snip ...

which I just noticed "didn't happen" -- I know there have been some "signature issues" brought up on the kmail bug/bitch list, but as I look at my screen now I think I see what happened, and it was inferred above: I changed the setting WHILE I was writing the message -- as I write this one, I see that the toolbar icon for "sign this message" is "pushed in", meaning that when I hit send it will prompt for my passphrase and do the signature; when I changed the setting, it didn't update the toolbar of the message I was working on... - -- Yet another Blog: http://osnut.homelinux.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

notice the line above 'Yet another Blog:', another ?broken? sig-indicator. Is gpg/pgp doing it or kmail or gpg/pgp/kmail? -- Patrick Shanahan Please avoid TOFU and trim >quotes< http://wahoo.no-ip.org Registered Linux User #207535 icq#173753138 @ http://counter.li.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 14 March 2003 12:46 pm, Tom Emerson wrote:

I'm hesitant to report this to the kmail group as a "bug" because it appears that this may be a known, and possibly moot, issue:

Known, yes; moot, maybe -- I just found this bug report: http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39029 which is marked as "closed"; the gist of it was that the alteration of the "--" indicator caused Evolution to fail to verify the signature. The consensus appears to be "not kmail's fault", since one report/comment went along the lines of "well, kmail can verify signed messages, and so can pine & mutt, the only one having a problem is evolution" [and while not mentioned in this discourse, I think I've heard the same about MS Outlook not being able to verify messages either...] So, while mainly cosmetic, it appears a potential source-of-the-problem is that the quoted-printable translation of a line beginning with a dash may not always be "decoded" properly. It also appears that the "next release" wont have [as much of] a problem because [appearntly] "detached" signatures are a preferred way of working with things - -- Yet another Blog: http://osnut.homelinux.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+ckoIV/YHUqq2SwsRApXMAJ9l96FMXnNOyRD2IkxOXpw/IbeS4wCeJa3C rCdghyAYL8Zezt6FAKkDyOo= =ehH/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

* Curtis Rey [03-14-03 15:14]: .... big...snip ....

On that note, does this message appears as it should?

Yes, but if you intended a sig-indicator or the gpg/pgp notice, there was none. BUT, a *great* improvement. tks, -- Patrick Shanahan Please avoid TOFU and trim >quotes< http://wahoo.no-ip.org Registered Linux User #207535 icq#173753138 @ http://counter.li.org

xxxx pgpgp unsigned xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx * Curtis Rey [03-14-03 13:37]:

Ya, I know. I've been having some problems. I hope there fixed.

thanks, *much* better, imnsho. tks, xxxx pgpgp unsigned xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx beware, i may have not written this message xxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Patrick Shanahan Please avoid TOFU and trim >quotes< http://wahoo.no-ip.org Registered Linux User #207535 icq#173753138 @ http://counter.li.org

Too bad my income doesn't amount to enough for me to *GET* a dvd drive at the moment, not for quite a while. Fixed incomes seem to do that, or are you one of those high and mighty people with lots of money who looks down on us 'poor' folk? *sheesh*!

Having just upgaded a couple of customers machines with CD/RW/DVD drives which cost me UK£50 and TAKEN OUT UK£30 of DVD my only comment would be. If people can't afford a DVD drive, then they can't afford the upgrade to 8.2 anyway, unless they are downloading it free, in which case - what is the problem? Perhaps when we are allowed access to broadband connections, then the need for any distribution disks will be removed - and how would SUSE make any money then! With hardware costs at a level where making any profit is difficult, and the software can be free, this whole discussion is a joke. -- Lester Caine ----------------------------- L.S.Caine Electronic Services

* Mitch Thompson [03-18-03 19:30]:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - -- Mitch Thompson, San Antonio TX // WB5UZG -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iQIXAwUBPneua9GDyPawr2auFAKbsQf7Brl26+wXP9WK+NeDZoZ3E6qa7QapZaEl h56uzordRLr66IXArNDKDCnINj9a/9WMjera2TviLL4icqlLQzK3+FSyVIXt8lSw bCPDECiN21pKWGvbRLnpgk+nXQ1nJuVC58hZj3RNUAjEGt4zrXTn8nRq7qoWVakm Y1GpCmzIBC2O658eklN220i9/ZgeiVBt4qLrAWFlFToFImD6EHTnr/ANNRCDal86 xjxiKQ6Un9+AiJICB37RzrQDWdHvA6QScX9ml/R3fXQwp6t5LoPvMguxiIrWTKmP UrE/jOCjIKCY/yPp8oANnWcZyEMLjyMIWximvowg77KbBK045NWhYwf/TcMx/M6B LIlDDhaEbURqOHaS0FPzd00z5PDznZxexLkUmNgAZlPB8eauiKKK+YZCOZ8AZ6BO zAkyw01KH7O7jqY1bqYJuR58WZNsk9lY29bD9zJ3a2l/Hy6lTuLDDrGsoJq66YA7 uwDJZt1cCO1cgjeq103TtIA/iNeB7LcDjYqnoqaMCT0+8LZXEV2vpeERFDxIgYK/ 66NgFBcsmlki5rHbonTU/thOqDLzEPkHlE2ASe4TeT91q0LZ4I71GrC8fbIKnBHS izDETR65udOuR3CK6i6t5GkQnvjLrl1k/J01Ab4HRuiOp9pUEAlv5zgChtpjeKC8 kN0hnYCEw7PKXA== =x/zC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

*What* makes people so ??proud?? of their public keys. I apologize for the quote. And what use is a pgp signed post in a mail list other than vanity? 36 lines total: 7 Quote 9 Sig (with broken 2 indicators) 18 PGP key/sign 2 Actual content <don flame-retardent armor> -- Patrick Shanahan Please avoid TOFU and trim >quotes< http://wahoo.no-ip.org Registered Linux User #207535 icq#173753138 @ http://counter.li.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 18 March 2003 18:45, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

*What* makes people so ??proud?? of their public keys. I apologize for the quote.

And what use is a pgp signed post in a mail list other than vanity?

36 lines total: 7 Quote 9 Sig (with broken 2 indicators) 18 PGP key/sign 2 Actual content

<don flame-retardent armor>

So, quoting my signature does not compound the problem? I have KMail set up for signing every message I send. PGP signed means *I* sent it. Deal with it.

-- Patrick Shanahan Please avoid TOFU and trim >quotes< http://wahoo.no-ip.org Registered Linux User #207535 icq#173753138 @ http://counter.li.org

- -- Mitch Thompson, San Antonio TX // WB5UZG Red Hat Certified Engineer (RHCE) http://home.satx.rr.com/mlthompson Independent Amsoil Dealer http://amsdealer.webhop.biz GPG: BBDA 3A2A 4483 BD0D 7CED B8A9 D183 C8F6 B0AF 66AE wget -O - http://home.satx.rr.com/mlthompson/pubkey.gpg | gpg --import - -- "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iQIXAwUBPnnMF9GDyPawr2auFAKe5wf/bcgLvw0dvlBHNFb1TUu3aAs/LWQRuBf8 lfOv/Y8655J7JtF6yvO78ZtpUlSawolfnn0xYAHcl+T+q1BarLcMKfZLHpYo+Any 1vIFd8OpVFCKKTz+esgcJkbxqaqko533t64aUgQspk3zawhGO4y/T0SOQtXH6H/n NVsvcmDUREdoU9sweYPRvjUjLM4EWW8QGIS5PR0HOt136dZAr6cINu3a097+JTbV 0PUoc9R9VKawEGjSzFKRdWztxnkx1qfeQ+HZbHJdOPeo3dv1EtXN5D/tFM1OgIkG iGhvi+0vSc/Ei9mfcSDl+9hK+GJeeHXtmztB7EcZShMhyuRTYxr+nwf+KxAbubiU kwupiNpwnDq1Qsp1KjHNLbwYV+sikGVXHxnL+VZvgvO+M315rL06pXO1hGuAUQVh HVNL+dyB+rVS095UEbS711G4WoiOuqBXjvZSjfr8cBps04KtX1jaI76eYQsbjx66 eSHOeB3aYaZHPOJhgqeaBI74gjFEZj1QjBP1ywG2WLnFOV8hKxOcDjf1VAZ+XiOG pRhQ5hKU8LxjG1xOI0jd2VToYm0zKbA1/B/Elg+hYHCa7wxiSKqMmoUh+JVBsV1J GJK82B+SUxsx3xiMcHSCm7s9HCTgpzF1iPJEEQdwMeVlTgg0flO0R5q6+ML0GQSZ hiOcFFzYgrCf4Q== =Ht4v -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:59:53 +0000 fsanta wrote:

Nope. Sorry folks, you've lost me on this one. Is it better to have pgp or not? On the one hand it seems to guarantee something but on the other it's a waste of space. It says here. Confused. Steve.

I think most mail programs have the option of signing or not. I save the signing for important stuff. This mail list is like coffee room chatter, hardly the place for signatures. All the signatures do is make it hard to read the real content. But you learn to quickly ignore it. (Look at it like it's "speed-reading training" on how to avoid the "clutter"). -- use Perl; #powerful programmable prestidigitation

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 note: some may consider this a shade "off-topic", so if it degenerates further I'll mark it as such. For now, however, this should be some "good info" for those that are curious [and besides, it centers around a feature that is implemented more completely in Linux than in windows ;) ] On Thursday 20 March 2003 10:59 am, fsanta wrote:

Nope. Sorry folks, you've lost me on this one. Is it better to have pgp or not? On the one hand it seems to guarantee something but on the other it's a waste of space. It says here. Confused. Steve.

Perhaps the most authoritative (and possibly self-promotional) answers can be found on the gnuPG site: http://www.gnupg.org/ but I'll take a shot at an explanation anyway :)

On Thursday 20 March 2003 14:11, Mitch Thompson wrote:

...

On Tuesday 18 March 2003 18:45, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

*What* makes people so ??proud?? of their public keys. I apologize for the quote.

I don't know if "proud" is the right word to describe the attitude of people who have decided to use signatures (thought I suspect you are being satorical or facetious with that comment ;) perhaps "concerned" would be a better word [but that isn't quite right either -- I've basically just started with signing myself, so I haven't completely formalized my reasons. It is just something that I'm coming to the conclusion "is a good thing to do", but I cannot express why just yet]

...

...

And what use is a pgp signed post in a mail list other than vanity?

I have to admit -- some of your earlier arguments have merit [headers CAN be inspected to see if they've been forged or not] BUT, just like people who run a nimda-infected IIS server, how many people are actually GOING TO LOOK (or even CARE) that the headers are "not correct"? After all, without a signature I could have easily re-configured my client to "look like" I was you in this response -- set the name, signature block, return address, etc., all to match what shows publicly in your messages, and outside of the fact that the style & tone of the message doesn't match the way you write, I'd bet almost no one [other than yourself] would even BOTHER to look at the headers (and if the tone/style/wording was "close enough", anyone who checked might just think you're switching providers) I could turn around and ask, "what use is the following in a sig other than vanity?" > > > Patrick Shanahan Please avoid TOFU and trim >quotes< > > > http://wahoo.no-ip.org Registered Linux User #207535 > > > icq#173753138 @ http://counter.li.org however I now have a pointer to my website in my .sig, so I have less room to talk ;) BUT: your name is at the top of the message, so why include it in the signature [oh, wait, it IS a "signature"] likewise, what point is telling me you are registered user number 207535? I could tell you my registration numbers are 8116 and 70364 [which are my TRA and NAR numbers respectively] but outside of rocketry, that is rather meaningless to you :) Finally, I don't use icq or any variant thereof [I keep my e-mail client running 24x7 on a DSL line -- that's pretty much the equivalent of ICQ with the advantage that it automatically logs via "sent messages" ;) ] so that is meaningless to me. [Mitch further commented]

...

... I have KMail set up for signing every message I send.

This is kind of "where it gets interesting" -- KMail does some "neat things" in regards to signatures. As noted, it can be set to "always sign messages". It also recognizes keys on incoming messages and automatically checks to see if the contents are still "pristine" -- if there are any changes, KMail displays the message with a red background [green if it is "good", and yellow if it at least matches the stated signature, but you don't have a "web of trust" pointing to that signature so that you, personally, can be sure it was sent by the originator] furthermore, when you reply to (or forward) a signed message, KMail is smart enough to actually remove the signature block on the new message -- in effect, you don't "see" the additional lines --ever-- [well, unless you look at the full message, headers and all, but that's like "view source" for a web page...]

...

PGP signed means *I* sent it. Deal with it.

And that is the heart of the issue. You can go to the site listed in my signature and download my "public key" from the link on the page. Since the webserver is running from my very own home, there is sufficient "physical security" that I'm certain nobody has altered the key locally [and a firewall to prevent "outsiders" from doing things remotely, but this isn't an absolute guarantee...] Furthermore you can find my key on a "public key server" such as wwwkeys.us.pgp.net and see that the keys are the same [unless I'm out of sync, which isn't entirely impossible ;) ] Either way, once you have retrieved that key, you can check to see that this message "is valid" [and if you happen to "trust" a certain employee of Mandrake, you would also "know" that it really is "me" that is sending it -- even if you have never seen me "face to face". Patrick's comment about public lists does have a problem he hasn't addressed: security of the list server itself. This is one point where signing a message that is on a public list has merit. If someone compromised the SuSE-list-e server, they could re-write messages or message content in such a way that a "header check" would show that my messages come from my IP address, but with a signature in place, even a single-byte change of the content would flag the contents as "suspect" and thus alert anyone reading it [and checking the signature] to some funny goings-on.

...

- --

finally, the "broken signature indicator" issue: I've checked with the KMail developers, and the consensus is that your e-mail client [patrick] is broken. Messages that are "signed" are turned into "quoted-printable" for the purposes of signing [remember, I said a "single byte change" would invalidate a message, so to properly validate a message, you need some assurance you are seeing every byte as it was intended, which includes trailing spaces on a line, indicated by "=20"] As such, "quoted-printable" alters lines that begin with dashes to be "=2D<space><rest of the line>" -- whatever routine your client is using to decode the "quoted printable" portion apparently is not "undoing" the "=2D<space>" indicator, hence it appears to the naked eye that the signature indicator is "broken" [note also this is pgp/gpg's doing, not KMail -- you can find this discussion on the KMail bug list at http://kmail.kde.org] - -- Yet another Blog: http://osnut.homelinux.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://osnut.homelinux.net/TomEmerson.asc iD8DBQE+ehQsV/YHUqq2SwsRAuPrAJ0fQqmoEYVHFgVqV6OETKDzDsVHRgCgtaj0 AxOwtsSjmNmLL6M9zeF3oI0= =TDji -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In a previous message, Mitch Thompson wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[snip]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

[snip]

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

Unfortunately, your PGP sig is not being filtered out (rendered invisible) on email readers. I don't expect to see PGP sigs, only an indication of whether they're valid, because my software deals with them automatically. However, your emails aren't detected as being PGP signed at all. It might be because the list is adding this footer after the PGP sig block, and the message is declared as containing only a single text/plain part. In a PGP-signed email, the PGP delimiters are supposed (AFAIK) to bracket the whole message, so the list-added footer is breaking your post, leading to people having to see this huge PGP block. Perhaps you could sign messages using PGP/MIME for those who support it - it would then not annoy people reading the text part because it would be in a separate part? John -- John Pettigrew Headstrong Games john@headstrong-games.co.uk Fun : Strategy : Price http://www.headstrong-games.co.uk/ Board games that won't break the bank Knossos: escape the ever-changing labyrinth before the Minotaur catches you!

Mitch Thompson [2003-03-21 08:38]:

On Friday 21 March 2003 02:39, John Pettigrew wrote:

...

Perhaps you could sign messages using PGP/MIME for those who support it - it would then not annoy people reading the text part because it would be in a separate part?

I will look into it, especially if it will promote peace and harmony here.

FWIW, my Mutt setup doesn't show your sig (which is normal). The message looks like: ========================================================================== [-- BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE --] On Friday 21 March 2003 02:39, John Pettigrew wrote:

Perhaps you could sign messages using PGP/MIME for those who support it -

[...] "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't." [-- END PGP SIGNED MESSAGE --] ========================================================================= Apparently, the reason it looks as it should is because my .procmailrc inserts the proper headers: =====================> .promailrc <========================= [...] ## PGP ## :0 * !^Content-Type: message/ * !^Content-Type: multipart/ * !^Content-Type: application/pgp { :0 fBwh * ^-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- * ^-----END PGP MESSAGE----- | formail \ -i "Content-Type: application/pgp; format=text; x-action=encrypt" :0 fBwh * ^-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- * ^-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- * ^-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- | formail \ -i "Content-Type: application/pgp; format=text; x-action=sign" } [...] =========================================================== However, PGP 6.58 fails to verify your sig. Anyone been able to get a good sig report on Mitch's sigs? (yes, Mitch's public key is on my keyring). I second John's suggestion to sign messages using PGP/MIME. Sigs that don't verify are not of much use. -rex -- Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you." -- George Orwell, 1984

* Mitch Thompson [03-21-03 18:10]: [snip]

When I see a message signed by me in KMail, I get this (indented by me for clarity):

Message was signed by James M. THompson (Key ID: 0xB0AF66AE). The signature is valid, but the key is untrusted.

-- Mitch Thompson, San Antonio TX // WB5UZG Red Hat Certified Engineer (RHCE) http://home.satx.rr.com/mlthompson Independent Amsoil Dealer http://amsdealer.webhop.biz wget -O - http://home.satx.rr.com/mlthompson/pubkey.gpg | gpg --import -- "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't."

I occasionally get emails stating they cannot verify my key.

When I created my key, I created a 2048-bit key (yah, way overboard, I know).

Also, it is a key type of "ElGamal". It was created 2 years ago, today (what a coincidence).

Could the key type be the cause of the problem? I forget why I chose ElGamal versus DSA. Now, I need to go read up on problems with ElGamal versus DSA.

[to me in mutt] your sig looked as below, but the current post was respectable, tks: - -- Mitch Thompson, San Antonio TX // WB5UZG Red Hat Certified Engineer (RHCE) http://home.satx.rr.com/mlthompson Independent Amsoil Dealer http://amsdealer.webhop.biz GPG: BBDA 3A2A 4483 BD0D 7CED B8A9 D183 C8F6 B0AF 66AE wget -O - http://home.satx.rr.com/mlthompson/pubkey.gpg | gpg --import - -- "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iQIXAwUBPnshcdGDyPawr2auFALLYQf+KpCPX3FsWO9ioOWED1Sr36M3r0WtK9GS u9RJvrFOAQItOmjSjRTs+jeYQtaU3puK+kJVUlAiNjs0Kv2Kcl7s3+1YPyMQko51 3Sxd28rLagnyKlHsK7zZkyiytNiuS82tlZ90gDvEGHSYg6EGXv7yXJxmv2q5Gpsk llOX2ucCrs6KXoON/DNiPc9hbxFNCrlGx6T3DV+pKOhyVFNuIFK+C+KI9O9/TYqI VXUVojGYImTZRQrtmoipBZlvR8EK7rm0DjiJzW4iSUIOAc+pjJVIzRC45WikGv4P wNrcWtZxFVZJci0aw/FI7xUO40NR68xYRAZhNH8QVvcjVPMyvX4dGggAlo0lycTV L8OP/DGkStJNj8AoIWi0WMYwUHKe3tKRlcnnI8PrS1aiXZ0AnYGcpONsC1Fp7aae Mzjy4xy3lk3R8Vtje0tyqRUa9/k/P93s2JszNjNyhrQL+4dNrrMzutKl3L2qshvT QDCMEZi3tDXg7bXH1mx75eggsl+7CIf6kXAvrmy0AorwxzNdDNJ2/DQEnRiXbu5m /oMLRh5WdqXj0n/ynxAwKMS8364Q3muI4G0sevc87nE8LnpHTUN0HmvTxQzgf/4+ RwDM3X2PFNfmICwkfonimWW5VQu96aHvo8N2qFlCi8dHJxlhrG1+a3EkmG3EN6ys z66gpjH81Xtwtw== =HLQS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Patrick Shanahan Please avoid TOFU and trim >quotes< http://wahoo.no-ip.org Registered Linux User #207535 icq#173753138 @ http://counter.li.org Linux, a continuous *learning* experience

On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, rex just had to get this off his chest:

Mitch Thompson [2003-03-21 08:38]:

...

On Friday 21 March 2003 02:39, John Pettigrew wrote:

...

Perhaps you could sign messages using PGP/MIME for those who support it - it would then not annoy people reading the text part because it would be in a separate part?

I will look into it, especially if it will promote peace and harmony here.

FWIW, my Mutt setup doesn't show your sig (which is normal). The message looks like:

========================================================================== [-- BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE --]

On Friday 21 March 2003 02:39, John Pettigrew wrote:

Here it looks like: Message-Id: <200303210828.02136.mitchthompson@satx.rr.com> Subject: Re: [SLE] pgp/gpg signatures & security (was 8.2 Announced) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by maildrop5.xs4all.nl id h2LEcD2n081783 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,PGP_SIGNATURE version=2.20 X-Spam-Level: Content-Type: application/pgp; format=text; x-action=sign [-- PGP output follows (current time: Sat 22 Mar 2003 01:06:33 AM CET) --] gpg: Signature made Fri Mar 21 15:28:01 2003 CET using ELG key ID B0AF66AE gpg: Good signature from "James M. THompson " gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner. Primary key fingerprint: BBDA 3A2A 4483 BD0D 7CED B8A9 D183 C8F6 B0AF 66AE [-- End of PGP output --] [-- BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE --] On Friday 21 March 2003 02:39, John Pettigrew wrote: [..]

However, PGP 6.58 fails to verify your sig.

gpg-1.2.1-1 has no problem

Anyone been able to get a good sig report on Mitch's sigs? (yes, Mitch's public key is on my keyring).

As you see.

I second John's suggestion to sign messages using PGP/MIME. Sigs that don't verify are not of much use.

Using MIME is definitly better than the "old" way of dumping all of it in the body as text. -- Theo v. Werkhoven Registered Linux user# 99872 http://counter.li.org ICBM 52 13 27N , 4 29 45E. SuSE 8.0 x86 Kernel k_Athlon 2.4.19-4GB See headers for PGP/GPG info.

On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, John just had to get this off his chest:

In a previous message, Theo v. Werkhoven wrote:

...

On Friday 21 March 2003 02:39, John Pettigrew wrote: [..]

...

However, PGP 6.58 fails to verify your sig.

gpg-1.2.1-1 has no problem

For the record, that wasn't me!

I never said it was. I reacted to Rex who commented on Mitch, commenting on your comments ;-) So the last bit ("However, PGP 6.58 fails to verify your sig.") was Rex's. Cheers, Theo -- Theo v. Werkhoven Registered Linux user# 99872 http://counter.li.org ICBM 52 13 27N , 4 29 45E. SuSE 8.0 x86 Kernel k_Athlon 2.4.19-4GB See headers for PGP/GPG info.

On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, rex just had to get this off his chest:

Theo v. Werkhoven [2003-03-22 09:31]:

...

So the last bit ("However, PGP 6.58 fails to verify your sig.") was Rex's.

Theo, I'm getting a bad sig message from PGP:

[-- PGP output follows (current time: Sat 22 Mar 2003 12:15:03 PM PST) --] WARNING: Bad signature, doesn't match file contents!

Bad signature from user "Theo v. Werkhoven (Usenet and personal mail) ". Pretty Good Privacy(tm) Version 6.5.8 [...] [-- End of PGP output --]

It is strange, yes. Today I asked some people on IRC to check my GPG sig. One person had no problem verifiying the sig (ihe is using Mutt 1.4i and GPG 1.2.1), the other person said my sig wasn't valid according to his setup (he is using Mutt 1.3.27 and GPG 1.0.6).

I emailed you about it (your key shows as expired in PGP), but your ISP is blocking mail from dialup IP ranges:

They're not, I am.

Error 571: ACCESS DENIED by Wirehub! Internet DynaBlock a.k.a. Dynamic IP range listed by Wirehub! Internet DynaBlock (Nederlands)

The only dynamically assigned IP addresses (esp. dynamically assigned dial-up connections) our mail servers want to talk to are our own. Plain and simple. You're not accused of being a spammer, but the fact is that spammers prefer to use dial-up connections to send unwanted e-mail. If you feel victimized by this, you're a victim of the spamming industry, just like we are.

This makes about as much sense as not allowing anyone on a bus who pays cash because a few people who pay cash cause problems.

In: MAIL From: SIZE=694 Out: 250 Ok In: RCPT To: Out: 554 Service unavailable; Client host [209.221.198.133] blocked using dynablock.wirehub.net; Dynamic IP range listed by Wirehub! Internet DynaBlock - http://dynablock.wirehub.net/errors.html I'm sorry you're on the "wrong" end of the stick, but it is your choice to use a mail-setup that is a known source of spam. Please read the rest of the advice: If your Internet connection is based on dynamic IP assignments, please send your outgoing mail through your ISP's smtp server; if you're running a mail server on a dynamic IP address, make your ISP's smtp server your smarthost/relayserver/nexthop. If these terms mean nothing to you, you should not be running a mailserver in the first place. If you're on a fixed IP (e.g. you're running a mail server on a static IP address) and you're blocked by our DynaBlocker, chances are that your IP address is located within a netblock full of dynamic IP addresses (which is a sign of poor network and/or systems management!) Please contact abuse@abuse.wirehub.net and state the IP address that was rejected. We will see what we can do.

It's quite disappointing to see that signing/encryption failures are so common after public key encryption has been in use for so long (I started using PGP in 1994 and used another public-key encryption program before that). It's bad enough when the parties can communicate openly, but it's much worse when remailers and pseudonyms are used.

I coudn't agree more. Theo -- Theo v. Werkhoven Registered Linux user# 99872 http://counter.li.org ICBM 52 13 27N , 4 29 45E. SuSE 8.0 x86 Kernel k_Athlon 2.4.19-4GB See headers for PGP/GPG info.

On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, rex just had to get this off his chest:

Theo v. Werkhoven [2003-03-22 14:58]:

...

It is strange, yes. Today I asked some people on IRC to check my GPG sig. One person had no problem verifiying the sig (ihe is using Mutt 1.4i and GPG 1.2.1), the other person said my sig wasn't valid according to his setup (he is using Mutt 1.3.27 and GPG 1.0.6).

Any ideas on what the problem is? I've looked at the raw (well, not quite, because all messages go through procmail) message in /var/mail/rex with the same result.

Not a clue. Maybe a MUA's problem dealing with MIME, or quoted printable messages? The FAQ on gnupg.org only mentions incompatibilities between old versions of GPG and PGP.

...

...

but your ISP is blocking mail from dialup IP ranges:

They're not, I am.

Good, you have a choice.

...

I'm sorry you're on the "wrong" end of the stick, but it is your choice to use a mail-setup that is a known source of spam. Please read the rest of the advice:

[advice that was previously read snipped]

You're obviously a knowledgeable user and I don't expect that anything I can say will alter your position. Nevertheless, for others who may be reading the thread: your argument is similar to a shopkeeper barring blacks from his shop because blacks indisputably (in the USA, at least) commit crimes at a higher rate than other racial groups, never mind that in spite of the higher rate, the percentage of blacks who are criminals is small. IOW, your policy

Wrong analogy. The dynablock doesn't discriminate between ISP's, countries, etnics groups etc., it just says that dialup users should use another way to deliver the mail then directly.

of blocking dialup IPs punishes a largely innocent group for the infractions of a few. It also hurts you because people you may want to get mail from cannot get through (yes, I know how to use my ISP as a smart host, but my choice is to run my own mail server (sendmail) and bypass my ISP. Those who have been following the evisceration of the Bill of Rights in the USA may understand why.)

This dynablock rule is hardly ever triggered by mail I receive, and in fact yours was the very first "false-positive". I seriously doubt that there are many people who wish (let alone known how) to run their own MTA on a dail-up line. I'll consider disabling the rule, to see if many more spam appear in my Junkmail box after SA dealt with it. As for your political situation.. You get to vote again in a couple of years right? Theo -- Theo v. Werkhoven Registered Linux user# 99872 http://counter.li.org ICBM 52 13 27N , 4 29 45E. SuSE 8.0 x86 Kernel k_Athlon 2.4.19-4GB See headers for PGP/GPG info.

The 03.03.23 at 01:32, Theo v. Werkhoven wrote:

...

shop because blacks indisputably (in the USA, at least) commit crimes at a higher rate than other racial groups, never mind that in spite of the higher rate, the percentage of blacks who are criminals is small. IOW, your policy

Wrong analogy. The dynablock doesn't discriminate between ISP's, countries, etnics groups etc., it just says that dialup users should use another way to deliver the mail then directly.

We can't. I have a few different mail accounts, from different ISPs. The smtp host of any of them rejects mail with the "from" of another provider - correctly, of course -. The only way left for us is to use our local sendmail or postfix to handle the delivery. If you are going to say that I could set up different relay host depending on the "from", it wouldn't work the moment the provider notices the IP is from the "other" provider. Instead, you could check whether the "from" domain is real, or use white lists. Or spamassasin, that seems to catch most of the spam. -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson

The 03.03.23 at 14:46, Theo v. Werkhoven wrote:

...

I have a few different mail accounts, from different ISPs. The smtp host of any of them rejects mail with the "from" of another provider - correctly, of course -. The only way left for us is to use our local sendmail or postfix to handle the delivery.

If you are going to say that I could set up different relay host depending on the "from", it wouldn't work the moment the provider notices the IP is from the "other" provider.

There is such a thing as pop-before-smtp, which normally allows you to use an ISPs mail server as long as you supply your authentication by popping first.

Yes... suppossing that my ISPs use it, and that it would be possible to coordinate fetchmail and postfix, which I think it's not possible. At least one of my provider requires password; and I would have to configure postfix to somehow send each mail to a different relay depending on the from. One more reason not use the ISPs' relay: often they fail to send, and don't inform me. Ie, they fail silently. Mass ISP are not... let's say, very "helpfull". For example, they do not respond to email enquiries, I have to phone a 906 number (something less than 1 eur per minute) if I have a problem.

...

Instead, you could check whether the "from" domain is real, or use white lists.

Or spamassasin, that seems to catch most of the spam.

I'm already using just about every measure you can think of, dynablocking is/was (I disabled it to test) just one link in the chain.

I can very well understand that... -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson

Carlos E. R. [2003-03-21 19:29]:

The 03.03.21 at 11:13, rex wrote:

...

Anyone been able to get a good sig report on Mitch's sigs? (yes, Mitch's public key is on my keyring).

Yes, I do with pine (and pgp4pine). I don't have his key on my keyring, so what get is the id.

With mozilla, I get the broken pen icon, and I can see the PGP full text signature on the mail (ie, not filtered out).

Thanks for the report, but you need his public key on your keyring to be sure that the sig would verify the message. -rex

On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 09:47:42PM -0600, mitchthompson@satx.rr.com wrote:

Anyway, when all is said and done, I believe it is a Good Thing (TM), and I have no intention on stopping.

Your signature does, however, seem to be much longer than most people's (which are generally around 4-ish lines). Have you used a different type of key or algorithm? -- David Smith Work Email: Dave.Smith@st.com STMicroelectronics Home Email: David.Smith@ds-electronics.co.uk Bristol, England GPG Key: 0xF13192F2

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [actually, I'm replying to John's post next in this thread, but needed to show it from this point] Shown below are the first & last few lines of Mitch's message as it appears to me when I use Kmail's "reply-to-list" function: On Thursday 20 March 2003 7:47 pm, Mitch Thompson wrote:

On Thursday 20 March 2003 13:19, Tom Emerson wrote:

...

note: some may consider this a shade "off-topic", so if it degenerates [snip] -- Mitch Thompson, San Antonio TX // WB5UZG Red Hat Certified Engineer (RHCE) http://home.satx.rr.com/mlthompson Independent Amsoil Dealer http://amsdealer.webhop.biz GPG: BBDA 3A2A 4483 BD0D 7CED B8A9 D183 C8F6 B0AF 66AE wget -O - http://home.satx.rr.com/mlthompson/pubkey.gpg | gpg --import -- "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't."

I don't claim to know everything that is going on, and I certainly expect this to be what I called a "closed system" in a private message -- both Mitch and I are using kmail, so *perhaps* kmail does some things that aren't 100% standard, but "to me" I see that: * I don't see the "---BEGIN PGP MESSAGE---" type headers & footers as text, but rather kmail uses these to color-code the message [and in this case it is yellow, indicating that while the signature is valid for the message contained within, I've never directly or indirectly verified his key] * the "reply" action strips these from the reply itself * replying FURTHER strips the final-most "signature" applied by the list software [I once had someone send a message that began with the signature indicator -- many clients pre-load the signature block when you start a new message, so he must have just started typing at the end of that -- in any case, my "reply" to him quoted nothing; instant "TOFU" stopper... ;) ] So, as I said, I think this is a "closed" system in that Kmail understands fully how a kmail-composed message is organized, so it doesn't show anything as "wrong". I see from John's headers he is using "messenger-pro/2.61", edited by Zap/ZapEmail, so there is some "difference of opinion" between these two programs [and I would expect my message to appear to have the same problem(s) from John's point of view] This is worse than browser compatability, and I'm afraid human nature is such that everyone will claim that their client is "absolutely correct" and haughtily sneer at any other e-mail client "that doesn't work right" and claim it "must" be the other client that is "wrong" [in fact, you might almost think that is my attitude, but trust me, it isn't] I *have* seen messages appearing on the kmail developer/bug e-mail list about "incompatabilities" between clients, along with samples of messages "as seen by" these other clients in an attempt to figure out where things broke down. [see bug #55450 -- a sylpheed user noted a problem w/detached signatures; turns out an extra cr/lf pair was needed that wasn't immediately obvious] Unfortunately this requires cooperation of people who aren't using kmail to tell the developers of kmail where things aren't correct -- not always an easy task :( Tom -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://osnut.homelinux.net/TomEmerson.asc iD8DBQE+evF3V/YHUqq2SwsRAt4aAJ93GIBSZR6jgvCkOfm3ZFR4DepSagCfS0xx drQFSvPAzdO2sc/uadiMEO4= =rx/S -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In a previous message, John Pettigrew wrote:

In a previous message, Tom Emerson wrote:

...

I'm afraid human nature is such that everyone will claim that their client is "absolutely correct" and haughtily sneer at any other e-mail client "that doesn't work right"

In this case, I'm sure that kmail is actually getting it right [snip] It's obviously a MessPro failing

Actually, I've just checked and Mozilla (with enigmail) doesn't get it "right" either. Perhaps only kmail does? John -- John Pettigrew Headstrong Games john@headstrong-games.co.uk Fun : Strategy : Price http://www.headstrong-games.co.uk/ Board games that won't break the bank Valley of the Kings: ransack an ancient Egyptian tomb but beware of mummies!

* Tom Emerson [03-21-03 06:06]: [big snip]

Unfortunately this requires cooperation of people who aren't using kmail to tell the developers of kmail where things aren't correct -- not always an easy task :(

Tom -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://osnut.homelinux.net/TomEmerson.asc

iD8DBQE+evF3V/YHUqq2SwsRAt4aAJ93GIBSZR6jgvCkOfm3ZFR4DepSagCfS0xx drQFSvPAzdO2sc/uadiMEO4= =rx/S -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

[note] siq quoted as seen for example/discussion.... But, your sig is minimal in comparison to the objection. It also does not show a ..sig-indicator.. here, mutt v1.5.4i which has had gpg/pgp support built in for many versions. Appears that kmail has developed its own agenda with respect to gpg/pgp (and I hate to say it) similar to lookout and lookout express. They (lookout, etal) cough up gpg/pgp/mime. You noted in a private post that quoted_printable handling by mutt could be the problem, but that is not the case. This discorse *should* *probably* be moved to suse-kde ?? -- Patrick Shanahan Please avoid TOFU and trim >quotes< http://wahoo.no-ip.org Registered Linux User #207535 icq#173753138 @ http://counter.li.org Linux, a continuous *learning* experience

Patrick Shanahan [2003-03-21 08:37]:

This discorse *should* *probably* be moved to suse-kde ??

It's not a SuSE or KDE issue, it's about PGP/GPG and various MUAs. I suggest either leaving the thread here (with [OT] in the subject) or moving it to: http://www.cryptorights.org/lists/pgp-users/ -rex -- Why did the mathematician name his dog Cauchy? Because he left residue at every pole.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 20 March 2003 15:11, Terence McCarthy wrote:

On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 08:11:35 -0600

Mitch Thompson wrote:

...

PGP signed means *I* sent it. Deal with it.

Yep, spam filter altered and on.

Terence

Good for you! - -- Mitch Thompson, San Antonio TX // WB5UZG Red Hat Certified Engineer (RHCE) http://home.satx.rr.com/mlthompson Independent Amsoil Dealer http://amsdealer.webhop.biz GPG: BBDA 3A2A 4483 BD0D 7CED B8A9 D183 C8F6 B0AF 66AE wget -O - http://home.satx.rr.com/mlthompson/pubkey.gpg | gpg --import - -- "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iQIXAwUBPnqML9GDyPawr2auFAIsOQf/cTOGTw/C8uWHE4mLoPOZlXLqr7R29xOI ziUZCN7KFZd8E2z8YV/Sd9Ui1hh6OI6jF4FLczS5oao5K1BzgZPxm4ajw1ez8i0S oeEyGn6vz3O6Um7lv/bX7emzrMjVFlCpF/bNnueZzbCky6C73O0dR3AQxDfUGnn4 Kk+Rf9J2Tt2vi9ta/qVNwK1Vj86DWeU9lPQc/BitNGGuNISCqko+Eby9nE9MM6EJ gTboOC/OAFlPNXJi2JI2aUIgqyZDVKGfV80l83JrPbylHNLGpf7V0YW5RMXBPkrK On6U8gssHIgd/xsjBwPdtaTKe7YKLFw/1nVqDgBkngFv6ZsnMVSZkwf/VAVqe0iF woH/sGTjjsRvmSD48tZqTBaex+8pF5qD5tsfy07WEPfuNWT77lkMmbJgEHzWVxAn f4ZOVwaY+gttveufaWfdMha/hNaux2Wtbe1Z9rHnqNaHl49EcJwAjVISiL/En9Cw iz+2lNvB+BVguU9pMNUBumfBJuna2YHwIByOIkNUKEHXUtImdingjOKskJ0bcTB8 zMIPZ3af7IX60oRd+I8VizgVQ1eI2O+ZB0+YVKp2K0MEg1Q7sOfLAM1fgZ3OoII6 wBYj2+Yl9f9fTOxSXwae4QFSTVVWca25NkgZMyUc2pGREw8ms/ebxALYxMypikAL 4mEwFG6k1RJFWA== =kaYn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:54:00 -0500, Marshall Heartley wrote:

...

On Thu, Mar 13, Schulz Georges wrote:

...

Then why is there only 5 CD's?

Because the sources are only on the second DVD.

This is a VERY POOR judgement call on your part SuSE!!! I like a few others on this list do not own a DVD drive but now you insist on putting the sources on a DVD??? What good is that going to do me??? Especially if I need to recompile something.

You could always get the source off the Internet. SuSE maintains an FTP site I've found helpful on numerous occasions. So let's just stop this rant here. -- David Benfell, LCP benfell@parts-unknown.org --- Resume available at http://www.parts-unknown.org/resume.html

Sorry to reply to my own post, I was catching up on the last 3 days of mail, had I known how stupid and inflamed this thread was to become before I replied I would have never sent my previous post. That is all, now, back to your regularly scheduled flame fest :-) -- dh Don't shop at GoogleGear.com!