headers
Eugen Leitl | 2 Dec 2010 18:52

[zfs-discuss] ZFS imported into GRUB

----- Forwarded message from Robert Millan <rmh <at> gnu.org> -----

From: Robert Millan <rmh <at> gnu.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 12:24:48 +0100
To: The development of GNU GRUB <grub-devel <at> gnu.org>
Cc: zfs-discuss <at> opensolaris.org, developer <at> lists.illumos.org
Subject: [zfs-discuss] ZFS imported into GRUB

Hi,

Following our new strategy with regard to Oracle code, we (GRUB
maintainers) have decided to grant an exception to our usual policy and
import ZFS code from grub-extras into official GRUB.

Our usual policy is to require copyright assignment for all new code, so
that FSF can use it to defend users' freedom in court.  If that's not
possible, at least a disclaimer asserting authorship (i.e. that no
copyright infringement has been committed).  The purpose of this, as
always, is ensuring that GRUB is a legally safe codebase.

The ZFS code that has been imported into GRUB derives from the
OpenSolaris version of GRUB Legacy.  On one hand, this code was released
to the public under the terms of the GNU GPL.  On the other, binary
releases of Solaris included this modified GRUB, and as a result
Oracle/Sun is bound by the GPL.

We believe that these two factors give us very strong reassurance that:

a) Oracle owns the copyright to this code
and
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Karsten M. Self | 10 Dec 2010 01:25
Favicon

RFC 5965 spam report requirements? (Fwd: abuse <at> yahoo.com: RE: Spam (98.139.91.62, 93.43.47.160) [jessieradison <at> rocketmail.com: ] (KMM120317895V33282L0KM)])

Yahoo have been a pain point for spam reporting for quite some time.

Until recently, the biggest issue was that they would (repeatedly) fail
to recognize mail demonstrably transiting their system as theirs.

Oh, and forget forwarding original mails as attachments.

Now I find that I'm being directed to a web-based reporting tool unless
I can generate a MIME format based on a five-month old RFC, RFC 5965.

I think this probably qualifies for rfc-ignorant inclusion.  Hrm.  Need
to do that...  Oh, why bother, they've been listed since 2005:
http://rfc-ignorant.org/tools/detail.php?domain=yahoo.com&submitted=1123294881&table=abuse

Otherwise, any elitists out there familiar with a tool which will
readily generate (an preferably address and deliver) RFC 5965 spam
reports based on an input RFC 2822 format mail message?

There are a couple of Perl modules out there.  I'm very non-perl-fu.

I've already replied to Yahoo's CTO (Raymie Stata) suggesting that
mandating a 5-month-old RFC is a little over the top.

Peace.

----- Forwarded message from Yahoo! Mail <abuse <at> yahoo.com> -----

Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 14:22:00 -0800
From: Yahoo! Mail <abuse <at> yahoo.com>
To: "Karsten M. Self" <karsten <at> linuxmafia.com>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Tony Finch | 10 Dec 2010 11:46
Picon
Favicon

Re: RFC 5965 spam report requirements? (Fwd: abuse <at> yahoo.com: RE: Spam (98.139.91.62, 93.43.47.160) [jessieradison <at> rocketmail.com: ] (KMM120317895V33282L0KM)])

On Thu, 9 Dec 2010, Karsten M. Self wrote:
>
> Now I find that I'm being directed to a web-based reporting tool unless
> I can generate a MIME format based on a five-month old RFC, RFC 5965.

ARF is good. Took a long time to be published, so it has been in
widespread use for a lot longer than the age of the RFC suggests.
http://www.shaftek.org/publications/drafts/abuse-report/

Yaho are unusual in using it for ad-hoc abuse reports. Its biggest use is
in pre-arranged abuse feedback loops from large recipient sites to senders.

Tony.
--

-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot <at> dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
HUMBER THAMES DOVER WIGHT PORTLAND: NORTH BACKING WEST OR NORTHWEST, 5 TO 7,
DECREASING 4 OR 5, OCCASIONALLY 6 LATER IN HUMBER AND THAMES. MODERATE OR
ROUGH. RAIN THEN FAIR. GOOD.
_______________________________________________
Do not Cc: anyone else on mail sent to this list.  The list server is set for maximum one recipient.
linux-elitists mailing list
linux-elitists <at> zgp.org
http://zgp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-elitists
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Eugen Leitl | 12 Dec 2010 00:14

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

----- Forwarded message from Miles Nordin <carton <at> Ivy.NET> -----

From: Miles Nordin <carton <at> Ivy.NET>
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 13:22:28 -0500
To: zfs-discuss <at> opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
User-Agent: T-gnus/6.17.2 (based on No Gnus v0.2) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka)
	FLIM/1.14.7 (Sanjō) APEL/10.6 Emacs/21.4
	(alpha--netbsd) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)

>>>>> "et" == Erik Trimble <erik.trimble <at> oracle.com> writes:

    et> In that case, can I be the first to say "PANIC!  RUN FOR THE
    et> HILLS!"

Erik I thought most people already understood pushing to the public hg
gate had stopped at b147, hence Illumos and OpenIndiana.  it's not
that you're wrong, just that you should be in the hills by now if you
started out running.

the S11 Express release without source and with its new, more-onerous
license than SXCE is new dismal news, and the problems on other
projects and the waves of smart people leaving might be even more
dismal for opensolaris since in the past there was a lot of
integration and a lot of forward progress, but what you were
specifically asking about dates in hg was already included in the old
bad news AFAIK.  And anyway there was never complete source code, nor
source for all new work (drivers), nor source for the stable branch,
which has always been a serious problem.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane