zzapper | 4 Mar 12:54 2009
Picon

Re: '65 Mustang detailed (Was: Re: /usr/lib/xeleven replaced)

Cesar Strauss wrote in news:343a3ad40811181253ved22ceg8a93f940f44be286
 <at> mail.gmail.com:

> Warren Young wrote:
>> John Gogolin wrote:
>>>
>>> Would someone help me diagnose my son's tricycle? I can't seem to get it
>>> disengaged from the porch railing.
>>
>> Have you tried umount -f?
>>
> Try: git pull --force --no-squash
> 
> 
Sorry for late reply as you must be getting hungry by now, but this sounds 
like a job for awk-3d!

--

-- 
zzapper

Dave Korn | 4 Mar 13:07 2009

Re: Your setting Return-Path to YOU in your cygwin <at> cygwin postings

[ This is completely off-topic, so moved to the proper list. ]
Paul McFerrin wrote:
> Dave:
> 
> I examined your email headers and discovered that in your postings to 
> cygwin ARGH DO NOT POST EMAIL ADDRESSES TO THE LIST cygwin.com, you are
> setting "Return-Path: <dave.korn.cygwin PCYMTNQREAIYR googlemail.com>" in
> your email header so naturally everyone who is "replying" to sender will be
> sending YOU their reply, not cygwin ARGH cygwin.com.  This could explain why you
> are getting so much direct replies.

  That's not actually what's happening.  Here is the raw text of my most
recent list posting at sourceware:

http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/get-raw-msg?listname=cygwin&date=2009-03&msgid=49ADFA41.4050308%40gmail.com

  As you can see there is no such header.  Here are a few others; likewise.

http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/get-raw-msg?listname=cygwin&date=2009-03&msgid=49ADE7FF.80005%40gmail.com
http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/get-raw-msg?listname=cygwin&date=2009-03&msgid=49ADE7DC.6030205%40gmail.com
http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/get-raw-msg?listname=cygwin&date=2009-03&msgid=49ADBA0D.6040405%40gmail.com
http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/get-raw-msg?listname=cygwin&date=2009-03&msgid=49AD9861.7050601%40gmail.com

  Notice how the Return-Path in all of these posts is a munged version of the
list subscriber name, as should be the case in all posts sent out by the
sourceware mailing lists; that way, if mail bounces, it is returned to the
list daemon, which can find out which list subscriber is bouncing and stop
sending messages if they carry on bouncing them for too long.

  Note also how all those paths have a Mail-Followup-To header pointing at the
(Continue reading)

Mike Marchywka | 4 Mar 13:15 2009
Picon

RE: '65 Mustang detailed (Was: Re: /usr/lib/xeleven replaced)


----------------------------------------
> To: cygwin-talk <at> cygwin.com
> From: david <at> tvis.co.uk
> Subject: Re: '65 Mustang detailed (Was: Re: /usr/lib/xeleven replaced)
> Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 11:54:54 +0000
>
> Cesar Strauss wrote in news:343a3ad40811181253ved22ceg8a93f940f44be286
>  <at> mail.gmail.com:
>
>> Warren Young wrote:
>>> John Gogolin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Would someone help me diagnose my son's tricycle? I can't seem to get it
>>>> disengaged from the porch railing.
>>>
>>> Have you tried umount -f?
>>>
>> Try: git pull --force --no-squash
>>
>>
> Sorry for late reply as you must be getting hungry by now, but this sounds
> like a job for awk-3d!
Wait for  Dr. Watson to do a core dump and popup
a tricycle wizard. Then, answer "are you sure you want
to remove the tricycle?" prompt each time it comes up
with "yes" If the GUI menu can't find a suitable tricycle removal
tool, it is not within your ability to do by yourself.
ROFL.

(Continue reading)

Owen Rees | 4 Mar 13:30 2009
Picon

Re: Your setting Return-Path to YOU in your cygwin <at> cygwin postings

--On Wednesday, March 04, 2009 12:07:31 +0000 Dave Korn wrote:

>   Note also how all those paths have a Mail-Followup-To header pointing
> at the list.  Any mailer that does not respect that when you hit Reply is
> broken and does not comply with internet standards.  The Return-Path is
> for automated error messages *only*, not replies of any sort.

Can you give a link to the relevant internet standard please. I could not 
find it in RFC5322 (nor in RFC2822 which it obsoletes (nor in RFC0822 which 
it obsoletes)). RFC2369 which defines mailing list command specification 
header fields also says nothing about that field.

As far as I can tell, the standards define Reply-To and Return-Path but not 
Mail-Followup-To.

--

-- 
Owen Rees
========================================================
Hewlett-Packard Limited.   Registered No: 690597 England
Registered Office:  Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN

Dave Korn | 4 Mar 17:20 2009

Re: '65 Mustang detailed (Was: Re: /usr/lib/xeleven replaced)

Mike Marchywka wrote:

> ----------------------------------------
>> To: cygwin-talk LIST cygwin.com
>> From: david KERPLUNK tvis.co.uk
>> Subject: Re: '65 Mustang detailed (Was: Re: /usr/lib/xeleven replaced)
>> Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 11:54:54 +0000
>>
>> Cesar Strauss wrote in news:343a3ad40811181253ved22ceg8a93f940f44be286
>>  <at> mail.gmail.com:
>>
>>> Warren Young wrote:
>>>> John Gogolin wrote:
>>>>> Would someone help me diagnose my son's tricycle? I can't seem to get it
>>>>> disengaged from the porch railing.
>>>> Have you tried umount -f?
>>>>
>>> Try: git pull --force --no-squash
>>>
>>>
>> Sorry for late reply as you must be getting hungry by now, but this sounds
>> like a job for awk-3d!
> Wait for  Dr. Watson to do a core dump and popup
> a tricycle wizard. Then, answer "are you sure you want
> to remove the tricycle?" prompt each time it comes up
> with "yes" If the GUI menu can't find a suitable tricycle removal
> tool, it is not within your ability to do by yourself.
> ROFL.

  This is a job for Bicycle Repair-Man!
(Continue reading)

Dave Korn | 4 Mar 17:39 2009

Re: Your setting Return-Path to YOU in your cygwin <at> cygwin postings

Owen Rees wrote:
> --On Wednesday, March 04, 2009 12:07:31 +0000 Dave Korn wrote:
> 
>>   Note also how all those paths have a Mail-Followup-To header pointing
>> at the list.  Any mailer that does not respect that when you hit Reply is
>> broken and does not comply with internet standards.  The Return-Path is
>> for automated error messages *only*, not replies of any sort.
> 
> Can you give a link to the relevant internet standard please. I could
> not find it in RFC5322 (nor in RFC2822 which it obsoletes (nor in
> RFC0822 which it obsoletes)). RFC2369 which defines mailing list command
> specification header fields also says nothing about that field.
> 
> As far as I can tell, the standards define Reply-To and Return-Path but
> not Mail-Followup-To.

  Yes, you're right.  Looking at the history, it's never made it to the status
of an STD, but there was an IETF draft proposal (which is actually one stage
more advanced than an RFC):

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt

and there are some more details at:

http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html

  So it's only a de-facto standard.  Any mailer which doesn't want to
implement it is free to do so, but it is still incorrect if it uses
Return-Path for replies.

(Continue reading)

Christopher Faylor | 4 Mar 17:45 2009

Re: Your setting Return-Path to YOU in your cygwin <at> cygwin postings

On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 04:39:41PM +0000, Dave Korn wrote:
>Any mailer ...  is still incorrect if it uses Return-Path for replies.

FWIW, I think I'd notice if mail clients were using Return-Path.  I'd
see it in the sourceware log and, if it is occurring, it is not
occurring with enough regularity for me to notice it.

People misuing the "Sender:" field, OTOH, happens almost daily.  It
results in people sending email to gcc and gcc-owner.  The end result of
that is a little self-contained discussion amongst all of the people
cc'ed since I don't allow email cc'ed to *-owner to make it to a mailing
list.  At one point that was a sign of spam.  Nowadays it just is a sign
of a misconfigured mail client intent on spamming postmaster.

cgf

Mike Marchywka | 4 Mar 17:46 2009
Picon

RE: '65 Mustang detailed (Was: Re: /usr/lib/xeleven replaced)


>
> This is a job for Bicycle Repair-Man!
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01xasUtlvw&feature=PlayList&p=CDFEA6D52E5CC0EC&index=1

Is there a cygwin Flash counterpart so I can download the media
and manipulate it without wrecking firefox?
LOL.

>
> cheers,
> DaveK
>

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Liveā„¢ Groups: Create an online spot for your favorite groups to meet.
http://windowslive.com/online/groups?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_groups_032009

Dave Korn | 4 Mar 18:06 2009

Re: '65 Mustang detailed (Was: Re: /usr/lib/xeleven replaced)

Mike Marchywka wrote:
>> This is a job for Bicycle Repair-Man!
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01xasUtlvw&feature=PlayList&p=CDFEA6D52E5CC0EC&index=1
> 
> 
> Is there a cygwin Flash counterpart so I can download the media
> and manipulate it without wrecking firefox?
> LOL.

  Well, you can build VLC under Cygwin, which plays .flv IIRC.  As to getting
the vid without "wrecking firefox" (!?), I like to use flashblock, noscript
and tamperdata.

  Goto URL.
  Enable script temporarily for youtube.com and ytimg.com, hit F5.
  See flashblock symbol.  Start tamperdata.
  Click on flashblock symbol.  Allow first request (gets player swf) with
submit button.  Abort subsequent requests.
  Right-click second request on tamperdata list, choose "Open in browser".
Allow all subsequent requests through.

  The result, for me, is a download "Open from/Save as" dialog, receiving the
file under the generic name "video.flv".

    yo-ho-ho!,
      DaveK

Owen Rees | 4 Mar 18:04 2009
Picon

Re: Your setting Return-Path to YOU in your cygwin <at> cygwin postings

--On Wednesday, March 04, 2009 16:39:41 +0000 Dave Korn wrote:

>   Yes, you're right.  Looking at the history, it's never made it to the
> status of an STD, but there was an IETF draft proposal (which is actually
> one stage more advanced than an RFC):
>
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-
> to-00.txt
>

To quote RFC2026:

2.2  Internet-Drafts

   During the development of a specification, draft versions of the
   document are made available for informal review and comment by
   placing them in the IETF's "Internet-Drafts" directory, which is
   replicated on a number of Internet hosts.  This makes an evolving
   working document readily available to a wide audience, facilitating
   the process of review and revision.

   An Internet-Draft that is published as an RFC, or that has remained
   unchanged in the Internet-Drafts directory for more than six months
   without being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC, is
   simply removed from the Internet-Drafts directory.  At any time, an
   Internet-Draft may be replaced by a more recent version of the same
   specification, restarting the six-month timeout period.

   An Internet-Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a specification;
   specifications are published through the RFC mechanism described in
(Continue reading)


Gmane