Re: swapfile is not automatically enabled

[Dawid Gajownik]

Dnia 03/14/06 20:36, Użytkownik Daniel J Walsh napisał:
>  Ok I put a new version out on people, see if that works and I will 
>  update Fedora.
>  
>  ftp://people.redhat.com/dwalsh/SELinux/FC4/selinux-policy-targeted-1.27.1...
>  
Thanks! It works now :D

BTW maybe mailman should be configured to always send replies to 
fedora-selinux-list (like on other fedora-*-lists)? I quite often forget 
to hit "Reply All" button ;)

Regards,
	Dawid

-- 

   ^_*

swapfile is not automatically enabled

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 07:58:41 +0100,
  Dawid Gajownik <gajownik(a)fedora.pl&gt; wrote:
>  
>  BTW maybe mailman should be configured to always send replies to 
>  fedora-selinux-list (like on other fedora-*-lists)? I quite often forget 
>  to hit "Reply All" button ;) 
The normal way to respond to lists is using reply all.

The other lists are the ones that are broken. (Fortunately it isn't
too hard to strip off the reply-to headers, but the lists still break
the normal use of the reply-to headers.)

swapfile is not automatically enabled

[Paul Howarth]

On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 02:11 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>  On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 07:58:41 +0100,
>    Dawid Gajownik <gajownik(a)fedora.pl&gt; wrote:
>  > 
>  > BTW maybe mailman should be configured to always send replies to 
>  > fedora-selinux-list (like on other fedora-*-lists)? I quite often forget 
>  > to hit "Reply All" button ;)
>  
>  The normal way to respond to lists is using reply all.
>  
>  The other lists are the ones that are broken. (Fortunately it isn't
>  too hard to strip off the reply-to headers, but the lists still break
>  the normal use of the reply-to headers.) 
The other fedora lists appear to munge the Reply-To: header such that
the list address is added to any existing Reply-To: header if present,
thus honouring the intent of the poster's Reply-To: header.

Requiring the use of Reply-All usually results in posters getting two
copies of each reply, one privately and one from the list, which I'd
find really annoying if I wasn't deleting duplicate messages using
procmail. I still have to go to the trouble of removing the OP's address
and moving the list address from the Cc: field to the To: field whenever
I reply to anything on this list. I certainly prefer the fedora-list
method personally.

Paul.

swapfile is not automatically enabled

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 3/15/06, Paul Howarth <paul(a)city-fan.org&gt; wrote:
>  On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 02:11 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>  > On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 07:58:41 +0100,
>  >   Dawid Gajownik <gajownik(a)fedora.pl&gt; wrote:
>  > >
>  > > BTW maybe mailman should be configured to always send replies to
>  > > fedora-selinux-list (like on other fedora-*-lists)? I quite often forget
>  > > to hit "Reply All" button ;)
>  >
>  > The normal way to respond to lists is using reply all.
>  >
>  > The other lists are the ones that are broken. (Fortunately it isn't
>  > too hard to strip off the reply-to headers, but the lists still break
>  > the normal use of the reply-to headers.)
>
>  The other fedora lists appear to munge the Reply-To: header such that
>  the list address is added to any existing Reply-To: header if present,
>  thus honouring the intent of the poster's Reply-To: header.
>  
I think it all comes down to different societal etiquettes. I have
seen this a lot in mergers of organizations and companies. Both sides
claim that the proper way to run mailling lists is either to
"Reply-To-All" by mailling list or manually. They each come up with
straw men arguments since there doesnt seem to be a IETF RFC on
mailing list management.

I personally find it all to be at the level of religous arguments
about how many times to genuflect and at what. Misses the whole
purpose and just causes people to figure out who their "clan" is.



--
Stephen J Smoogen.
CSIRT/Linux System Administrator

swapfile is not automatically enabled

[Stephen Smalley]

On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 10:30 -0700, Stephen J. Smoogen wrote:
>  I think it all comes down to different societal etiquettes. I have
>  seen this a lot in mergers of organizations and companies. Both sides
>  claim that the proper way to run mailling lists is either to
>  "Reply-To-All" by mailling list or manually. They each come up with
>  straw men arguments since there doesnt seem to be a IETF RFC on
>  mailing list management.
>  
>  I personally find it all to be at the level of religous arguments
>  about how many times to genuflect and at what. Misses the whole
>  purpose and just causes people to figure out who their "clan" is. 
Summarized nicely by:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
versus
http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml

Of course, the first opinion is the correct one ;)

-- 
Stephen Smalley
National Security Agency

swapfile is not automatically enabled

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 08:50:50 +0000,
  Paul Howarth <paul(a)city-fan.org&gt; wrote:
>  On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 02:11 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>  > 
>  > The other lists are the ones that are broken. (Fortunately it isn't
>  > too hard to strip off the reply-to headers, but the lists still break
>  > the normal use of the reply-to headers.)
>  
>  The other fedora lists appear to munge the Reply-To: header such that
>  the list address is added to any existing Reply-To: header if present,
>  thus honouring the intent of the poster's Reply-To: header. 
That's what I meant by broken. I strip the bogus reply-to headers. Replying
to the list when you mean to reply to an indivual in private is usually
a worse mistake than the converse.

>  Requiring the use of Reply-All usually results in posters getting
> two
>  copies of each reply, one privately and one from the list, which I'd
>  find really annoying if I wasn't deleting duplicate messages using
>  procmail. I still have to go to the trouble of removing the OP's address
>  and moving the list address from the Cc: field to the To: field whenever 
You can use mail-followup-to to specify that followups shouldn't to you
directly. Some list processing software can also detect that you are cc'd
and not send you a copy from the list in that case.

A second copy of a message directly to you can have benefits in some cases.
Particular examples are when the lists are slow and when you want to filter
messages sent to you separately for special attention.