Menu
▾
▴
eof-dev — Only join this if you want to code.
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2000 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(9) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 |
Jan
(46) |
Feb
(37) |
Mar
(8) |
Apr
(76) |
May
(63) |
Jun
(9) |
Jul
(18) |
Aug
(7) |
Sep
(8) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(7) |
| 2002 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Timm Murray<har...@ru...> - 2002-01-17 15:11:38
|
My article on Apt-get over Freenet appeared in the Linux Journal this month= (Febuary issue), page 86. I guess this means we have to start actually do= ing stuff with this . . .=20 ------ "you know, Linux needs a platform game=20 starring Tux . . . And you have to jump past=20 billgatus and hit the key to drop him into the=20 lava and then you see some guy that looks=20 like a RMS or someone say 'Thank you for=20 rescuing me Tux, but Linus Torvalds is in another castle!'"=20 --seen on irc.openprojects.org, #debian -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS d- s+:- a--- C++++ UL*+++ P+>+++ L++>++++ E! W- N+ o? K? w---=20 O! M! V! PS+ PE Y+(++) PGP++ t+(++) 5++(+++) X+@ R! tv+ b++ DI++++ D+=20 G e h! !r y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ |
|
From: toad <ma...@to...> - 2001-12-15 09:26:20
|
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 06:35:54PM +0000, Timm Murray wrote: > <> > > > Freenet would do away with the majority of the FTP servers as far as Debian is > > > concered, as well as reducing the hundreds of people needed to adminster the mirrors > > > and bring it down to a few dozen people (though they would need to be more active than > > > the people adminstering the mirrors now). Debian's FTP servers would basicly consit of > > There should be essentially no extra maintenance due to doing it in freenet > > for now, because Debian will not be inserting the packages (for now), just > > calculating the CHKs along with the MD5s, on ftp.debian.org. Why would the > > people involved need to be more active? > > I mean they have to be more active than the current mirror admins. If you're > administering a current FTP/HTTP mirror, all you need is a FTP/HTTP server (and if > you're thinking about putting up a Debian mirror, you probably already have one), and > a script in the cronttab to update the mirror every night or so. It's basically a fire-and- > forget operation, unless something goes horrificaly wrong with the server. I beileve > there is also a mailing list for all mirror admins to be on. > > The handful of people required for Apt-Freenet would all need working Freenet nodes > (and if you're thinking about doing this, you probably already have one), plus scripts for > downloading/inserting packages. Additionally, there should be a mailing list for them to > > be on. Hmmm, maybe. I'd do it almost-fully distributed, at least for now... debian central puts hashes in, custom apt-get checks freenet first then ftp, and inserts a given amount of ftp'd data into freenet itself. > > On second thought, that's really not that much more work (ignoring problems that will occur from having to be a part of a new, distributed network instead of a tried-and-true centralized FTP system). Forget I said anything :) > -- The road to Tycho is paved with good intentions |
|
From: Timm Murray<har...@ru...> - 2001-12-14 18:36:06
|
<> > > Freenet would do away with the majority of the FTP servers as far as De= bian is=20 > > concered, as well as reducing the hundreds of people needed to adminste= r the mirrors=20 > > and bring it down to a few dozen people (though they would need to be m= ore active than=20 > > the people adminstering the mirrors now). Debian's FTP servers would b= asicly consit of=20 > There should be essentially no extra maintenance due to doing it in freen= et > for now, because Debian will not be inserting the packages (for now), just > calculating the CHKs along with the MD5s, on ftp.debian.org. Why would the > people involved need to be more active? I mean they have to be more active than the current mirror admins. If you'= re=20 administering a current FTP/HTTP mirror, all you need is a FTP/HTTP server = (and if=20 you're thinking about putting up a Debian mirror, you probably already have= one), and=20 a script in the cronttab to update the mirror every night or so. It's basi= cally a fire-and- forget operation, unless something goes horrificaly wrong with the server. = I beileve=20 there is also a mailing list for all mirror admins to be on. The handful of people required for Apt-Freenet would all need working Freen= et nodes=20 (and if you're thinking about doing this, you probably already have one), p= lus scripts for=20 downloading/inserting packages. Additionally, there should be a mailing li= st for them to=20 be on. On second thought, that's really not that much more work (ignoring problems= that will occur from having to be a part of a new, distributed network ins= tead of a tried-and-true centralized FTP system). Forget I said anything :) |
|
From: Timm Murray<har...@ru...> - 2001-12-14 14:34:07
|
> Results of post to debian-devel (so far) attached. Serious concerns hinge > around the question 'why?' (from debian's POV - i.e. not the cover traffic > argument). Any good suggestions not already covered? They are right that the field should be "X-Freenet:" instead of adding a ne= w offical field.=20=20 There's no reason the whole Debian project should bend over backwards every= time=20 someone wants to add a new Apt meathod. If in the future Apt-Freenet becom= es=20 popular, then we can make it an offical "Freenet:" field (or not). They have a point that most mirrors in the UK (probably the US, too) are cr= amed full of=20 bandwidth and are not in any danger of being saturated. However, the fact = that there=20 are mirrors at all requires a lot of adminstration and coordination. Furth= er, FTP is a=20 absolute mess of a protocol; it's a big security risk all on it's own, plus= it takes some=20 major hacking to get it to work through firewalls. I for one would love to= see FTP go the=20 way of the Gopher (and to see Gopher make a comeback, but that's another is= sue).=20=20 Freenet would do away with the majority of the FTP servers as far as Debian= is=20 concered, as well as reducing the hundreds of people needed to adminster th= e mirrors=20 and bring it down to a few dozen people (though they would need to be more = active than=20 the people adminstering the mirrors now). Debian's FTP servers would basic= ly consit of=20 a primary distribution point, a scattering of fall-back mirrors (in case yo= u can't get a=20 package off Freenet), plus the developer's FTP servers that are already the= re. So there=20 is a net reduction in the ammount of adminstration needed. |
|
From: toad <ma...@to...> - 2001-12-13 20:15:09
|
Results of post to debian-devel (so far) attached. Serious concerns hinge around the question 'why?' (from debian's POV - i.e. not the cover traffic argument). Any good suggestions not already covered? -- The road to Tycho is paved with good intentions |
|
From: toad <ma...@to...> - 2001-12-12 02:04:34
|
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 10:46:29PM +0000, toad wrote: > Hi. Attached is a spec I would like some comment on. Apologies for the > cross-post; it could form a basis for numerous EOF protocols, and it is > certainly relevant to freenet-tech. > -- > The road to Tycho is paved with good intentions > > _______________________________________________ > Eof-dev mailing list > Eo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/eof-dev Gahhhhhh -- The road to Tycho is paved with good intentions |
|
From: toad <ma...@to...> - 2001-12-11 22:47:45
|
Hi. Attached is a spec I would like some comment on. Apologies for the cross-post; it could form a basis for numerous EOF protocols, and it is certainly relevant to freenet-tech. -- The road to Tycho is paved with good intentions |
|
From: Timm M. <har...@ru...> - 2001-12-04 04:01:28
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
This is a draft standard I'm working on for EOF messaging over Freenet.
Please note that I really don't like the terms "unicast" and "multicast", as
they mean something completely diffrent in the IP protocol. I use them here
until somebody suggests a better term.
EOF Unicast Messaging Architecture
EOF is developing several standards for various types of communication
through Freenet, such as e-mail, chat, and even gaming. Many of these are
implementing seperate meathods of sending the messages. This document
describes a unified way of sending messages which are intended to be
read by one other node (which I will call "unicast messaging"). Messages
intended for more than one other node ("multicast messaging") is not covered,
due to flooding problems in current proposals.
Definitions
Keys
Pa = Alice's public SVK key
Pb = Bob's public SVK key
Ka = Alice's private SVK key
Kb = Bob's private SVK key
n = A number incremented with each new message.
msg = A message Alice wants to send to Bob
Functions
insert(url, data)
Insert the given data under the given Freenet URL
request(url)
Requests the data at the given URL and returns it
encrypt(key, data)
Encrypt the data with the given key
decrypt(key, data)
Decrypt the data with the given key
Process
Alice does: insert(SSK@Ka/Pb/n, encrypt(Pb, msg))
Bob does: msg = decrypt(Kb, request(SSK@Pa/Pb/n))
Both of them then do ++# for the next message
Advantages and Problems
Malory cannot veiw Bob's mail because it is encrypted with Bob's public key.
Malory cannot spam or flood Bob's messages without Bob actually checking
Malory's dropbox. If Bob decides he doesn't want to listen to Malory
anymore,
he just has to stop checking Malory's dropbox. This is contrasted to the
current e-mail system on the Internet, where clients must activly filter the
messages if they want to stop view certain messages. Also, this system has a
sort of built-in signature system via the subspace, so Mallory cannot pretend
to be Alice without Alice's private SVK key. Though I promised not to talk
about it, multicasting will work by simply giving many people the same
SVK private key (a less than ideal solution, to be sure).
Problems arise if the number n gets out of sync between the two people. Bob
must keep checking Alice's dropbox until he finds one that fails, then stops.
However, this doesn't work so well when Alice inserted 10 messages, but by
random chance, Bob's request fails on number 3. The next day, Bob will still
likely fail on number 3, and the day after that, and the day after that. As
far as Bob knows, Alice hasn't sent any new messages to him.
- --
Timm Murray
- -----------
This message has been encoded ROT26. Decoding is punishable by death under
the DMCA.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iEYEARECAAYFAjwMSpIACgkQqpueKcacfLS2OQCgjoC2eaVCnfrurq8cE43U8nod
I/AAn1shq6fir8Ui3cGTFRllR0u+6w4I
=rn2c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
From: Timm Murray<har...@ru...> - 2001-09-27 17:55:12
|
I belive I could be part of such a board. How would the voting be setup? > I want to try and set up a board of three people who look at submissions = for=20 > standards, analyze them on their merits then give them an FFC number if= =20 > worthy. The drafts would then be looked at by the community then after a= =20 > month or two, then once a rough consensus on the final standard is reache= d,=20 > the board would vote on whether it should be fully accepted as standard.= =20 >=20 > Unfortunately i don't have the time to be part of the board, but can=20 > contribute to work on various standards from time to time. Anyone interes= ted? >=20 > David >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Eof-dev mailing list > Eo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/eof-dev >=20 ----------------------------------------------- Runbox Mail Manager - www.runbox.com Online email application |
|
From: David F. <dav...@ya...> - 2001-09-27 08:50:44
|
I want to try and set up a board of three people who look at submissions for standards, analyze them on their merits then give them an FFC number if worthy. The drafts would then be looked at by the community then after a month or two, then once a rough consensus on the final standard is reached, the board would vote on whether it should be fully accepted as standard. Unfortunately i don't have the time to be part of the board, but can contribute to work on various standards from time to time. Anyone interested? David |
|
From: David F. <dav...@ya...> - 2001-09-26 08:12:19
|
Could someone please draft a standard, tentalivly allocated the number FFC #2, for an equivilent of the W3C's PICS, for browsing freesites. I'm open to any method of working it, either through an addition to the mapfiles or as part of the meta tags in the head of the HTML page. Basically at this stage, I'm just trying to fasttrack a few standards to get us going, then later we will move to a more formal method of doing this. Thanks, Thanks, David |
|
From: David F. <dav...@ya...> - 2001-09-25 05:02:33
|
The first draft FFC has been posted to eof...@li.... Included are instructions on how to respond to it. Thanks, David |
|
From: David F. <dav...@ya...> - 2001-09-08 03:21:35
|
On Saturday 08 September 2001 09:58, em...@nu... hit his keyboard with his head and the result was this: > Sounds cool to me. So I'm going to start by proposing FreeStore as a > standard framework for efficiently storing and accessing dynamically > user-updatable information. It's in the planning/experimentation > state (i.e. I'm working on an implementation of my current ideas to > see how well it works). The design is such that there can be mutiple > implementations of the FreeStore framework in different languages. > > Another interesting framework to look at might be for slow RPC over > Freenet, which could form the basis for many protocols. > > It strikes me that these are two kinds of things that many > applications will need, so there may as well be a pre-canned way to do > it rather than people re-inventing the wheel each time. > > Check my freesite: > freenet:MSK@SSK@-BTphjKf4d9ZZ9ByqqgRhl82iTgQAgE/heatdeath// Okay, you're the guy with the freecam. That cam is so cool. Is that your desk at work? Your Freewiki could also be a standard. I'm just trying to get someone to give me admin on the project, so I can start doing the remaining work. There will be a few new mailling lists, and more information on the process of getting a standard ratified and such. Thanks, David |
|
From: Michael T. <ms...@st...> - 2001-09-07 14:41:10
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Sounds like a good idea to me -- an overdue one. Please keep us updated on what help you need. I'm willing to put in some effort. - - Mike Terry On Friday 07 September 2001 08:12 am, you wrote: > Since I'm now the lone coder working on EOF, and the psuedo-manager, I've > made some decisions about the future of the EOF project. I'd just like > people's thoughts on the matter. > > The Future of Everything Over Freenet > ================================ > > From this point in time forward, EOF will not be a software package, but > rather a standards organisation. The organisation will be run by consensus > on what is the right thing. EOF will be come a group for freenet like the > IETF is for the internet. I'm proposing we set up a freesite, which will > contain the EOF organisation information, and also a section call Free for > Comment. The FFC's will be numbered just like the IETF's RFCs, and will > describe a standard for a type of communication via Freenet. Applications > compliant with a certain FFC would be able to interoperate, and would keep > everyone working in a similiar direction, instead of having 15 millions > standards for mail, messaging and BBS's on Freenet. > > FFC's would have three status modes. Planning, would be when the FFC is > first proposed by any person. Once everyone is happy with the plan, it > would move to the Comment stage, where people would comment on what is > needed to be changed. Once consensus could be found, it would be ratified > by EOF, and would from then on be a standard. > > The Everything Over Freenet project would not be involved in any coding of > applications to use the standards developed, it would only set the > standards. Anyone would be free to implement software based on the > standard, because the standards would be public domain. > > If nobody has any problems with this, I will go ahead and start work on > setting EOF up as an organisation for standards. The only code as part of > EOF would be the code to run the freesite and sourceforge page easily. I > won't delete any of the existing EOF code already in CVS, it will just stay > there if anyone wants it. What do you guys think? Thanks, > > David > > _______________________________________________ > Eof-dev mailing list > Eo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/eof-dev -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7mNyIf5VQHwSBic4RAg2iAJ4gktwCPWRrRWSW1lkrtpb18wRQDQCfbOrA QnugIWfcpt7yQutBTq+9vcs= =g3AB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
From: Timm Murray<har...@ru...> - 2001-09-07 13:43:35
|
This sounds like a great idea. One thing, though, is that many standards b= odys create "referance implementations" for the standards they create. Som= etimes the referance implementation is good enough that few people use anyt= hing else (BIND), and sometimes everybody uses something else (the W3C has = a web browser for various standards they create, but I've never heard of an= yone actualy using it). In any case, I think it's very important that there is a referance implemen= tation. These can either be done under EOF itself or a seperate (sub?) pro= ject. > Since I'm now the lone coder working on EOF, and the psuedo-manager, I've= =20 > made some decisions about the future of the EOF project. I'd just like=20 > people's thoughts on the matter. >=20 > The Future of Everything Over Freenet > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >=20 > From this point in time forward, EOF will not be a software package, but= =20 > rather a standards organisation. The organisation will be run by consensu= s on=20 > what is the right thing. EOF will be come a group for freenet like the IE= TF=20 > is for the internet. I'm proposing we set up a freesite, which will conta= in=20 > the EOF organisation information, and also a section call Free for Commen= t.=20 > The FFC's will be numbered just like the IETF's RFCs, and will describe a= =20 > standard for a type of communication via Freenet. Applications compliant = with=20 > a certain FFC would be able to interoperate, and would keep everyone work= ing=20 > in a similiar direction, instead of having 15 millions standards for mail= ,=20 > messaging and BBS's on Freenet. >=20 > FFC's would have three status modes. Planning, would be when the FFC is f= irst=20 > proposed by any person. Once everyone is happy with the plan, it would mo= ve=20 > to the Comment stage, where people would comment on what is needed to be= =20 > changed. Once consensus could be found, it would be ratified by EOF, and= =20 > would from then on be a standard. >=20 > The Everything Over Freenet project would not be involved in any coding o= f=20 > applications to use the standards developed, it would only set the standa= rds.=20 > Anyone would be free to implement software based on the standard, because= the=20 > standards would be public domain. >=20 > If nobody has any problems with this, I will go ahead and start work on= =20 > setting EOF up as an organisation for standards. The only code as part of= EOF=20 > would be the code to run the freesite and sourceforge page easily. I won'= t=20 > delete any of the existing EOF code already in CVS, it will just stay the= re=20 > if anyone wants it. What do you guys think? Thanks, >=20 > David >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Eof-dev mailing list > Eo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/eof-dev >=20 ----------------------------------------------- Runbox Mail Manager - www.runbox.com Free online email application |
|
From: David F. <dav...@ya...> - 2001-09-07 12:13:57
|
Since I'm now the lone coder working on EOF, and the psuedo-manager, I've made some decisions about the future of the EOF project. I'd just like people's thoughts on the matter. The Future of Everything Over Freenet ================================ From this point in time forward, EOF will not be a software package, but rather a standards organisation. The organisation will be run by consensus on what is the right thing. EOF will be come a group for freenet like the IETF is for the internet. I'm proposing we set up a freesite, which will contain the EOF organisation information, and also a section call Free for Comment. The FFC's will be numbered just like the IETF's RFCs, and will describe a standard for a type of communication via Freenet. Applications compliant with a certain FFC would be able to interoperate, and would keep everyone working in a similiar direction, instead of having 15 millions standards for mail, messaging and BBS's on Freenet. FFC's would have three status modes. Planning, would be when the FFC is first proposed by any person. Once everyone is happy with the plan, it would move to the Comment stage, where people would comment on what is needed to be changed. Once consensus could be found, it would be ratified by EOF, and would from then on be a standard. The Everything Over Freenet project would not be involved in any coding of applications to use the standards developed, it would only set the standards. Anyone would be free to implement software based on the standard, because the standards would be public domain. If nobody has any problems with this, I will go ahead and start work on setting EOF up as an organisation for standards. The only code as part of EOF would be the code to run the freesite and sourceforge page easily. I won't delete any of the existing EOF code already in CVS, it will just stay there if anyone wants it. What do you guys think? Thanks, David |
|
From: David F. <dav...@ya...> - 2001-08-04 02:32:58
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 1. Make a directory somewhere called eof 2. Use CVS to download the EOF modules, mail, smtp, and pop. 3. You will also need the Java activation framework, and Javamail-1.2. You can get these from java.sun.com 4. export CLASSPATH=/usr/local/Freenet/freenet.jar:/directoryaboveyoureofdir:activation.jar:mail.jar Of course you will have to set those CLASSPATHs correctly. 5. Compile the three modules. 6. Add this to your .freenetrc: services.pop.class=eof.pop.PopHandlerServlet services.pop.port=1110 services.pop.config=/home/you/.eof-poprc services.smtp.class=eof.smtp.SmtpHandlerServlet services.smtp.port=2555 services.smtp.config=/home/you/.eof-smtprc 7. Set your home dir config files: .eof-smtprc: htl=50 .eof-poprc: maildir=/home/you/fmail mailbox=whateverYouWantYourMailNameToBe username=username password=password htl=50 Substitute your username and password in there - that is for the mail program to use. 8. Set up profile or something in your mail client, with whatever you want to call yourself in Freenet mail. 9. To send a mail to someone, just send it to say sna...@fr...ee Always append @freenet.free to your mailbox name - that is the address that should be in the From: field in you mail client. To send a mail to someone use their mailbox name/feedback list name with @freenet.free after it. To test it, send me a fmail at red...@fr...ee. To submit bug reports post here though. It isn't reliable enough yet to use for critical stuff. NOTE: THE MAIL RECIEVE FEATURES DON'T WORK PROPERLY, use indexclient to retrieve your mail. I am only testing the mail send at the moment. Don't send yourself an fmail - it stuffs something up in the POP code. This is only a test release, not the final, no where near it yet. I am now moving on to working on the POP code. Thanks, David -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7a17OF2H7v0XOYBIRAuroAJ47N8zeSGSaOnlIR4HNX0pxtgJicQCgouOr uVbgnOmiVyywNJTKVB35U2Y= =sYuu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
From: Warner O. <wa...@wa...> - 2001-08-04 02:23:46
|
Do I just send an e-mail using say Outlook Express? -warner ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Findlay" <dav...@ya...> To: <eo...@li...> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 7:09 PM Subject: [Eof-dev] Changes to EOF Mail SMTP > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > - - Well for one thing it works now. > - - Should work with all email clients - I fixed the MAIL command handler > - - It is compatible with all freesite feedback systems, > > i.e. sna...@fr...ee sends a mail to snarfoo's feedback list. > > I hope to get POP working properly over the next few days. > > David > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org > > iD8DBQE7a1lxF2H7v0XOYBIRAoIrAJ9ISqFJvZy6wVRyvKJYbwi67y/FkACfbcSC > z94Hm9AHNNqdpAPdiRhRmhY= > =nBP/ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > Eof-dev mailing list > Eo...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/eof-dev > |
|
From: Warner O. <wa...@wa...> - 2001-08-04 02:23:14
|
Well, I don't have time to develop so I guess it'll have to be just testing. -warner ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Findlay" <dav...@ya...> To: <eo...@li...> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 7:12 PM Subject: Re: [Eof-dev] Beta testers wanted > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Saturday 04 August 2001 12:07, Warner Onstine hit his keyboard with his > head and the result was this: > > What needs to be done? > > Do you mean to use the beta version? If you wait just a sec I will post > instructions. If you want to help developement, just post again to tell me. > Thanks, > > David > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org > > iD8DBQE7a1okF2H7v0XOYBIRAp4ZAJ90qebk8DHwvI3fsrXogGdzxCNw8gCgoJdD > rbfBB/K/EfkPK7gOO02RIis= > =zYha > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > Eof-dev mailing list > Eo...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/eof-dev > |
|
From: David F. <dav...@ya...> - 2001-08-04 02:13:06
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 04 August 2001 12:07, Warner Onstine hit his keyboard with his head and the result was this: > What needs to be done? Do you mean to use the beta version? If you wait just a sec I will post instructions. If you want to help developement, just post again to tell me. Thanks, David -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7a1okF2H7v0XOYBIRAp4ZAJ90qebk8DHwvI3fsrXogGdzxCNw8gCgoJdD rbfBB/K/EfkPK7gOO02RIis= =zYha -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
From: David F. <dav...@ya...> - 2001-08-04 02:10:07
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - - Well for one thing it works now. - - Should work with all email clients - I fixed the MAIL command handler - - It is compatible with all freesite feedback systems, i.e. sna...@fr...ee sends a mail to snarfoo's feedback list. I hope to get POP working properly over the next few days. David -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7a1lxF2H7v0XOYBIRAoIrAJ9ISqFJvZy6wVRyvKJYbwi67y/FkACfbcSC z94Hm9AHNNqdpAPdiRhRmhY= =nBP/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
From: Warner O. <wa...@wa...> - 2001-08-04 02:03:50
|
What needs to be done? -warner ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Findlay" <dav...@ya...> To: <eo...@li...> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 6:44 PM Subject: [Eof-dev] Beta testers wanted > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Anyone want to help beta test EOF mail? I need some people to try it with > different email clients, etc so I can make sure it works. I hope to make it > ready for release within a week or so. Thanks, > > David > > P.S. I still haven't managed to get my changes checked in yet, I'll post when > they are done. > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org > > iD8DBQE7a1NmF2H7v0XOYBIRAvtPAJ4hU0JVLUk0wgZ1lIJPQCqNUldheQCguO9q > lY/VQALmM+2ZxQPqJwkxF2c= > =5rbx > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > Eof-dev mailing list > Eo...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/eof-dev > |
|
From: David F. <dav...@ya...> - 2001-08-04 01:44:37
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Anyone want to help beta test EOF mail? I need some people to try it with different email clients, etc so I can make sure it works. I hope to make it ready for release within a week or so. Thanks, David P.S. I still haven't managed to get my changes checked in yet, I'll post when they are done. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7a1NmF2H7v0XOYBIRAvtPAJ4hU0JVLUk0wgZ1lIJPQCqNUldheQCguO9q lY/VQALmM+2ZxQPqJwkxF2c= =5rbx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
From: David F. <dav...@ya...> - 2001-07-26 08:06:44
|
Could we at leasst get all the eof packages to full working order before everyone abandons ship? There are several bugs with eof mail. David |
|
From: David F. <dav...@ya...> - 2001-07-26 03:25:12
|
Theres a bug in the POP handler. When you request the new mail, it starts a new indexclient to check the three addresses and doesn't return anything until it is finished. Can we just make it so that it just returns back what is already on the machine? David |
