From deraadt@cvs.openbsd.org Sat Apr 30 21:57:59 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: jeff@cepheid.org Delivered-To: jeff@cepheid.org Received: from cvs.openbsd.org (cvs.openbsd.org [199.185.137.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.cepheid.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EFB717080 for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:57:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cvs.openbsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cvs.openbsd.org (8.13.4/8.12.1) with ESMTP id j412v68a014500 for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:57:06 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <200505010257.j412v68a014500@cvs.openbsd.org> To: Jeff Bachtel Subject: Re: Hackathon 2005 In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:56:18 CDT." <20050501025618.GV66514@cepheid.org> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:57:06 -0600 From: Theo de Raadt X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on idoru.cepheid.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, UPPERCASE_75_100 autolearn=no version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 248 Lines: 17 YOU WERE WRONG YOU WERE WRONG YOU WERE WRONG YOU WERE WRONG YOU WERE WRONG YOU WERE WRONG YOU WERE WRONG YOU WERE WRONG YOU WERE WRONG YOU WERE WRONG YOU WERE WRONG YOU WERE WRONG YOU WERE WRONG YOU WERE WRONG YOU WERE WRONG ININFORMED, and WRONG From jeff@cepheid.org Sat Apr 30 21:56:18 2005 Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:56:18 -0500 From: Jeff Bachtel To: Theo de Raadt Subject: Re: Hackathon 2005 Message-ID: <20050501025618.GV66514@cepheid.org> References: <20050501002248.GT66514@cepheid.org> <200505010203.j41231N2006137@cvs.openbsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200505010203.j41231N2006137@cvs.openbsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: jeff@cepheid.org Status: RO Content-Length: 781 Lines: 20 On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 08:03:01PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > I don't have any point to make on the value of these > > projects, however "does this scale?" > > How does it scale that we have to listen to your ininformed > gibberish day in day out? Uh, Theo, you do realize I've posted a grand total of twice to misc@ in April. Before that the last time I'd posted to misc@ was in December 2004. I really try to keep my uninformed gibberish off-list (and I still feel bad about my tech@ httpd message) because I know that you don't care, and to the small extent I register it IS only as an annoyance. How about, really, you just ignore me? And if you can't ignore me, how about avoiding ad hominem attacks? I think you'd waste less time by just ignoring me, however. jeff From owner-misc+M7551@openbsd.org Sat Apr 30 08:51:53 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: jeff@cepheid.org Delivered-To: jeff@cepheid.org Received: from shear.ucar.edu (shear.ucar.edu [192.43.244.163]) by mail.cepheid.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A95311707D for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 08:51:53 -0500 (CDT) Received: from openbsd.org (localhost.ucar.edu [127.0.0.1]) by shear.ucar.edu (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j3UDiHT4002206; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 07:44:17 -0600 (MDT) Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.193]) by shear.ucar.edu (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j3UDeJii024350 for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 07:40:19 -0600 (MDT) Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 57so893172wri for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 06:40:18 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=LHgYp4YU3ZbrSZyhzU2pv68BQPAORETCORzRZ5Koan6SCL2j2wscb6ZCm0sm0axdTcgptTPSSjOMS6IfeQnoWuwVjO0N4WYVi5vYACA0s3hE+PYnm+PiMpr9pMJwrUFwOifAMOtduuwnXAHA3lxLuC9ffsOmctxZ43NhwaKgWxE= Received: by 10.54.26.2 with SMTP id 2mr2179659wrz; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 06:40:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.70.11 with HTTP; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 06:40:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <730f3bf1050430064025255a85@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 15:40:18 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johan_P=2E_Lindstr=F6m?= Reply-To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johan_P=2E_Lindstr=F6m?= To: OpenBSD MISC Subject: Hackathon 2005 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by shear.ucar.edu id j3UDeKii014547 X-Loop: misc@openbsd.org Precedence: list Sender: owner-misc@openbsd.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on idoru.cepheid.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_BY_IP autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 302 Lines: 9 May one ask what interesting challenges are lurking beneath the surface for the team of developers? The traditional human-beer-filter (not too unrelated to pf in some ways i hear) aside, what new/improvements to functionality have you conjured, or is that a parallel process while filtering? -- JPL From owner-misc+M7568@openbsd.org Sat Apr 30 14:32:51 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: jeff@cepheid.org Delivered-To: jeff@cepheid.org Received: from shear.ucar.edu (shear.ucar.edu [192.43.244.163]) by mail.cepheid.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14F8917080 for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:32:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: from openbsd.org (localhost.ucar.edu [127.0.0.1]) by shear.ucar.edu (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j3UJVDvG021870; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 13:31:13 -0600 (MDT) Received: from hotmail.com (bay106-f26.bay106.hotmail.com [65.54.161.36]) by shear.ucar.edu (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j3UIbCfc022447 for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 12:37:12 -0600 (MDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 09:50:09 -0700 Message-ID: Received: from 65.54.161.207 by by106fd.bay106.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:50:09 GMT X-Originating-IP: [65.54.161.207] X-Originating-Email: [janizary@hotmail.com] X-Sender: janizary@hotmail.com From: "Jan Izary" To: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: Hackathon 2005 Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 12:50:09 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Apr 2005 16:50:09.0320 (UTC) FILETIME=[AB430A80:01C54DA4] X-Loop: misc@openbsd.org Precedence: list Sender: owner-misc@openbsd.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on idoru.cepheid.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 679 Lines: 16 I think it is a fairly good bet that we'll see improved zaurus and laptop support, they're easy enough to take to an event so it makes me think they will be brought. Probably more improvements to the ports system too, but those are just guesses based on what I figure to be common sense. Beyond that we can hope that someone has a moment of clarity and comes up with another sweet addition like spamd. If I wasn't sure developers had already said they're not going to; I'd have thought httpd or cc replacements. Maybe Dale Rahn'll be able to get zaurus good enough to move onto some macppc g5/smp work. http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From owner-misc+M7574@openbsd.org Sat Apr 30 16:40:39 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: jeff@cepheid.org Delivered-To: jeff@cepheid.org Received: from shear.ucar.edu (shear.ucar.edu [192.43.244.163]) by mail.cepheid.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5551E1707D for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:40:39 -0500 (CDT) Received: from openbsd.org (localhost.ucar.edu [127.0.0.1]) by shear.ucar.edu (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j3ULY20g010714; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 15:34:03 -0600 (MDT) Received: from reiche.trumpetpower.com (root@reiche.trumpetpower.com [65.39.81.115]) by shear.ucar.edu (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j3ULUeSJ001574 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 15:30:41 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [65.39.81.114] (doc.trumpetpower.com [65.39.81.114]) (authenticated bits=0) by reiche.trumpetpower.com (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j3ULUY4l028991 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-DSS-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:30:34 -0700 (MST) In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v622) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <568454960a899b60c981cb2b759cab2a@trumpetpower.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: misc@openbsd.org From: Ben Goren Subject: Re: Hackathon 2005 Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:30:28 -0700 To: "Jan Izary" X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 1.0.1 (v33, 10.3) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.622) X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: from multipart/signed by demime 1.01d X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: Alternative section used was text/plain X-Loop: misc@openbsd.org Precedence: list Sender: owner-misc@openbsd.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on idoru.cepheid.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO X-Status: A Content-Length: 2012 Lines: 42 On 2005 Apr 30, at 9:50 AM, Jan Izary wrote: > I'd have thought httpd or cc replacements. Henning has made it pretty clear that there's no reason for a replacement httpd. The in-tree Apache is effectively a fork and in pretty good shape. The license is okay. Not enough would be gained from starting from scratch. This, of course, doesn't preclude major work on the code or somebody with an opinion different from Henning's going ahead and write one anyway. Heck, I'd almost expect it to happen someday. Just not for a long time. As much as I'm sure Theo would love to get rid of gcc and friends...damn, that's a big undertaking. I don't think it's the sort of thing that would happen at a hackathon. If I had to guess, it'd be made the main point of some future release, with little other development. You know, the sort of thing that takes up lots of long winter nights. It's not likely to be fun, and I get the impression that hackathons are supposed to be fun. This is pure WAG speculation, but I'd guess that the next Open****D would be OpenSMTPD. Look through /usr/src/gnu and, aside from the toolchain and Perl, it's the most glaring inclusion (especially with the advent of OpenCVS). Consider what hell Sendmail is to configure (m4 notwithstanding) and imagine a mail daemon as easy to set up and maintain as pf, OpenNTPD, OpenSSH, and the like and it's easy to get excited just thinking about it. When you consider that all the spamd stuff would certainly be very well integrated...it makes one wish one could shut up and hack. But would this come out of the coming hackathon? Beats the hell out of me. Considering all the neat things that need work, I'd tend to be against any one particular thing (unless we hear otherwise from On High). The only thing I'm sure of is that the results will be at least as exciting as what we've gotten from them in the past. Cheers, b& [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of PGP.sig] From owner-misc+M7588@openbsd.org Sat Apr 30 19:40:03 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: jeff@cepheid.org Delivered-To: jeff@cepheid.org Received: from shear.ucar.edu (shear.ucar.edu [192.43.244.163]) by mail.cepheid.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27D431707D for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:40:03 -0500 (CDT) Received: from openbsd.org (localhost.ucar.edu [127.0.0.1]) by shear.ucar.edu (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j410PurV005106; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:25:56 -0600 (MDT) Received: from mail.cepheid.org (postfix@wintermute.cepheid.org [64.92.165.98]) by shear.ucar.edu (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j410MaVi026678 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:22:36 -0600 (MDT) Received: by mail.cepheid.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7168F17080; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:22:48 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:22:48 -0500 From: Jeff Bachtel To: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: Hackathon 2005 Message-ID: <20050501002248.GT66514@cepheid.org> References: <568454960a899b60c981cb2b759cab2a@trumpetpower.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <568454960a899b60c981cb2b759cab2a@trumpetpower.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Loop: misc@openbsd.org Precedence: list Sender: owner-misc@openbsd.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on idoru.cepheid.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 2273 Lines: 42 On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 02:30:28PM -0700, Ben Goren wrote: > As much as I'm sure Theo would love to get rid of gcc and > friends...damn, that's a big undertaking. I don't think it's the sort > of thing that would happen at a hackathon. If I had to guess, it'd be > made the main point of some future release, with little other > development. You know, the sort of thing that takes up lots of long > winter nights. It's not likely to be fun, and I get the impression that > hackathons are supposed to be fun. *blink* tech@ bitching aside, the GNU gcc project puts a HUGE amount of effort into improving their compiler. Forking it would have every chance of leading to stagnation in the OpenBSD project as processors and optimizations evolve. > This is pure WAG speculation, but I'd guess that the next Open****D > would be OpenSMTPD. Look through /usr/src/gnu and, aside from the > toolchain and Perl, it's the most glaring inclusion (especially with > the advent of OpenCVS). Consider what hell Sendmail is to configure (m4 > notwithstanding) and imagine a mail daemon as easy to set up and > maintain as pf, OpenNTPD, OpenSSH, and the like and it's easy to get > excited just thinking about it. When you consider that all the spamd > stuff would certainly be very well integrated...it makes one wish one > could shut up and hack. Replacing Sendmail outright seems iffy at best. Search archives for when this has been mentioned in the past, and you will get "no way in hell" replies from Theo. Auditing and partitioning it, maybe. BTW, I just checked out the OpenCVS page. You know, it used to be that people would join a project and commit fixes or enhancements, rather than fork first and ask questions later. Is this really the best use of developer resources? There are now OpenBSD developers responsible for OpenSSH (which was needed, due to licensing issues), pf (some licensing issues, perceived lack of acceptance of patches by upstream), OpenBGPd (perceived inability to patch another project into useability with less effort than new codebase took) and OpenNTPd (lack of desire to send ntp4 patches upstream? Easier to write a whole new project?). I don't have any point to make on the value of these projects, however "does this scale?" jeff From hylaride@capybara.org Sat Apr 30 19:58:59 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: jeff@cepheid.org Delivered-To: jeff@cepheid.org Received: from miso.capybara.org (miso.capybara.org [216.123.188.164]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.cepheid.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C13821707D for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:58:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: from www.capybara.org (IDENT:nobody@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by miso.capybara.org (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j410who03612; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:58:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 206.235.255.7 (SquirrelMail authenticated user hylaride); by www.capybara.org with HTTP; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:58:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37259.206.235.255.7.1114909123.squirrel@206.235.255.7> In-Reply-To: <20050501002248.GT66514@cepheid.org> References: <568454960a899b60c981cb2b759cab2a@trumpetpower.com> <20050501002248.GT66514@cepheid.org> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:58:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Hackathon 2005 From: "Christopher Hylarides" To: "Jeff Bachtel" Cc: misc@openbsd.org Reply-To: hylaride@capybara.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a X-Mailer: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on idoru.cepheid.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 2096 Lines: 35 > On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 02:30:28PM -0700, Ben Goren wrote: > BTW, I just checked out the OpenCVS page. You know, it used to be that > people would join a project and commit fixes or enhancements, rather > than fork first and ask questions later. Is this really the best use > of developer resources? There are now OpenBSD developers responsible > for OpenSSH (which was needed, due to licensing issues), pf (some > licensing issues, perceived lack of acceptance of patches by > upstream), OpenBGPd (perceived inability to patch another project into > useability with less effort than new codebase took) and OpenNTPd (lack > of desire to send ntp4 patches upstream? Easier to write a whole new > project?). I don't have any point to make on the value of these > projects, however "does this scale?" The developers (almost) all volunteer their time to write good software. They all want a complete system that runs well out of the box. Keeping track of patches from openbsd that some organizations add to their base and others don't has probably become more burdensome than writing their own implementations that they know exactly how they run. As well, there are licensing issues that you mention. They COULD have improved zebra, but it's GPL, and wouldn't meet the freedom reqs for being in the base. An OpenSMTPd would surprise me, but it doesn't mean that as we write, some OpenBSD developer isn't just about to say "that does it!" with having to track and keep up to date another openbsd patch that sendmail won't integrate into their tree. We already know that Postfix and qmail don't meet the reqs for replacement. While I'm not a developer, I do beleive it scales reasonably well writing their own implementations. They have to test and maintain everything in the base, anyways. Many peices of software need to be well designed to take advantage of the more recent new security features of OpenBSD. Most of the work is probably initially getting everything up to speed and after about a year, the software is stable enough that serious updates are fewer and farer in between. From owner-misc+M7593@openbsd.org Sat Apr 30 21:24:42 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: jeff@cepheid.org Delivered-To: jeff@cepheid.org Received: from shear.ucar.edu (shear.ucar.edu [192.43.244.163]) by mail.cepheid.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98E341707D for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:24:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: from openbsd.org (localhost.ucar.edu [127.0.0.1]) by shear.ucar.edu (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j411r7d6004841; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:53:07 -0600 (MDT) Received: from zardoc.esmtp.org (adsl-63-195-85-27.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.195.85.27]) by shear.ucar.edu (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j411o1P9011499 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:50:02 -0600 (MDT) Received: from zardoc.esmtp.org (localhost.endmail.org. [127.0.0.1]) by zardoc.esmtp.org (sendmail X.0.0.Alpha0.0) with ESMTPS (TLS=TLSv1/SSLv3, cipher=AES256-SHA, bits=256, verify=NO) id S000000000003C1F500; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:50:13 -0700 Received: (from ca@localhost) by zardoc.esmtp.org (8.13.0/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id j411oD3k009979; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:50:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:50:13 -0700 From: Claus Assmann To: misc@openbsd.org Cc: Christopher Hylarides Subject: Re: Hackathon 2005 Message-ID: <20050501015013.GA24911@zardoc.esmtp.org> Mail-Followup-To: misc@openbsd.org, Christopher Hylarides References: <568454960a899b60c981cb2b759cab2a@trumpetpower.com> <20050501002248.GT66514@cepheid.org> <37259.206.235.255.7.1114909123.squirrel@206.235.255.7> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <37259.206.235.255.7.1114909123.squirrel@206.235.255.7> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Loop: misc@openbsd.org Precedence: list Sender: owner-misc@openbsd.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on idoru.cepheid.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 502 Lines: 11 On Sat, Apr 30, 2005, Christopher Hylarides wrote: > An OpenSMTPd would surprise me, but it doesn't mean that as we write, some > OpenBSD developer isn't just about to say "that does it!" with having to > track and keep up to date another openbsd patch that sendmail won't > integrate into their tree. We already know that Postfix and qmail don't > meet the reqs for replacement. Please tell us which patch from OpenBSD was not integrated by sendmail. It seems you know more about that than I do. From owner-misc+M7594@openbsd.org Sat Apr 30 21:29:21 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: jeff@cepheid.org Delivered-To: jeff@cepheid.org Received: from shear.ucar.edu (shear.ucar.edu [192.43.244.163]) by mail.cepheid.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32EAE1707D for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:29:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: from openbsd.org (localhost.ucar.edu [127.0.0.1]) by shear.ucar.edu (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j411xfUk018305; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:59:41 -0600 (MDT) Received: from miso.capybara.org (IDENT:root@miso.capybara.org [216.123.188.164]) by shear.ucar.edu (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j411uL2p012364 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-DSS-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:56:22 -0600 (MDT) Received: from www.capybara.org (IDENT:nobody@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by miso.capybara.org (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j411uLo06552; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:56:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 206.235.255.7 (SquirrelMail authenticated user hylaride); by www.capybara.org with HTTP; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:56:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37965.206.235.255.7.1114912581.squirrel@206.235.255.7> In-Reply-To: <20050501015013.GA24911@zardoc.esmtp.org> References: <568454960a899b60c981cb2b759cab2a@trumpetpower.com> <20050501002248.GT66514@cepheid.org> <37259.206.235.255.7.1114909123.squirrel@206.235.255.7> <20050501015013.GA24911@zardoc.esmtp.org> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:56:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Hackathon 2005 From: "Christopher Hylarides" To: misc@openbsd.org Cc: "Claus Assmann" Reply-To: hylaride@capybara.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a X-Mailer: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Loop: misc@openbsd.org Precedence: list Sender: owner-misc@openbsd.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on idoru.cepheid.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 767 Lines: 16 > On Sat, Apr 30, 2005, Christopher Hylarides wrote: >> An OpenSMTPd would surprise me, but it doesn't mean that as we write, >> some >> OpenBSD developer isn't just about to say "that does it!" with having to >> track and keep up to date another openbsd patch that sendmail won't >> integrate into their tree. We already know that Postfix and qmail don't >> meet the reqs for replacement. > > Please tell us which patch from OpenBSD was not integrated by > sendmail. It seems you know more about that than I do. Sorry for not being clear, but I was using it as an example. There are many cases of organizations not accepting patches from the openbsd team, apache being one of the more famous examples. There are plenty of complaints for these in the archives. From owner-misc+M7595@openbsd.org Sat Apr 30 21:28:01 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: jeff@cepheid.org Delivered-To: jeff@cepheid.org Received: from shear.ucar.edu (shear.ucar.edu [192.43.244.163]) by mail.cepheid.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAA6B1707D for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:28:01 -0500 (CDT) Received: from openbsd.org (localhost.ucar.edu [127.0.0.1]) by shear.ucar.edu (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j4124qcA020369; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:04:52 -0600 (MDT) Received: from zardoc.esmtp.org (adsl-63-195-85-27.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.195.85.27]) by shear.ucar.edu (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j4121Vuc002940 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:01:32 -0600 (MDT) Received: from zardoc.esmtp.org (localhost.endmail.org. [127.0.0.1]) by zardoc.esmtp.org (sendmail X.0.0.Alpha0.0) with ESMTPS (TLS=TLSv1/SSLv3, cipher=AES256-SHA, bits=256, verify=NO) id S000000000003C20700; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:01:43 -0700 Received: (from ca@localhost) by zardoc.esmtp.org (8.13.0/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id j4121h9K024136; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:01:42 -0700 From: Claus Assmann To: misc@openbsd.org Cc: Christopher Hylarides Subject: Re: Hackathon 2005 Message-ID: <20050501020142.GA22233@zardoc.esmtp.org> Mail-Followup-To: misc@openbsd.org, Christopher Hylarides References: <568454960a899b60c981cb2b759cab2a@trumpetpower.com> <20050501002248.GT66514@cepheid.org> <37259.206.235.255.7.1114909123.squirrel@206.235.255.7> <20050501015013.GA24911@zardoc.esmtp.org> <37965.206.235.255.7.1114912581.squirrel@206.235.255.7> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <37965.206.235.255.7.1114912581.squirrel@206.235.255.7> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Loop: misc@openbsd.org Precedence: list Sender: owner-misc@openbsd.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on idoru.cepheid.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 662 Lines: 14 On Sat, Apr 30, 2005, Christopher Hylarides wrote: > >> track and keep up to date another openbsd patch that sendmail won't > >> integrate into their tree. We already know that Postfix and qmail don't > Sorry for not being clear, but I was using it as an example. There are > many cases of organizations not accepting patches from the openbsd team, > apache being one of the more famous examples. There are plenty of > complaints for these in the archives. Then please choose more appropriate examples or make clear that your "example" was completely fictious. sendmail.org is NOT one of those "organizations not accepting patches from the openbsd team". From owner-misc+M7599@openbsd.org Sat Apr 30 21:55:28 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: jeff@cepheid.org Delivered-To: jeff@cepheid.org Received: from shear.ucar.edu (shear.ucar.edu [192.43.244.163]) by mail.cepheid.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E41EF1707D for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:55:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: from openbsd.org (localhost.ucar.edu [127.0.0.1]) by shear.ucar.edu (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j412VLmW023946; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:31:21 -0600 (MDT) Received: from cvs.openbsd.org (cvs.openbsd.org [199.185.137.3]) by shear.ucar.edu (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j412S3VU009796 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:28:03 -0600 (MDT) Received: from cvs.openbsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cvs.openbsd.org (8.13.4/8.12.1) with ESMTP id j412ROsZ004641; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:27:24 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <200505010227.j412ROsZ004641@cvs.openbsd.org> To: Claus Assmann Cc: misc@openbsd.org, Christopher Hylarides Subject: Re: Hackathon 2005 In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:01:42 PDT." <20050501020142.GA22233@zardoc.esmtp.org> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:27:24 -0600 From: Theo de Raadt X-Loop: misc@openbsd.org Precedence: list Sender: owner-misc@openbsd.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on idoru.cepheid.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 750 Lines: 16 > > >> track and keep up to date another openbsd patch that sendmail won't > > >> integrate into their tree. We already know that Postfix and qmail don't > > > Sorry for not being clear, but I was using it as an example. There are > > many cases of organizations not accepting patches from the openbsd team, > > apache being one of the more famous examples. There are plenty of > > complaints for these in the archives. > > Then please choose more appropriate examples or make clear that > your "example" was completely fictious. sendmail.org is NOT one of > those "organizations not accepting patches from the openbsd team". Don't waste your time with this guy, Claus. It's just the regular kook who acts like he is informed when he is not. From deraadt@cvs.openbsd.org Sat Apr 30 21:03:01 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: jeff@cepheid.org Delivered-To: jeff@cepheid.org Received: from cvs.openbsd.org (cvs.openbsd.org [199.185.137.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.cepheid.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60E0F1707D for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:03:01 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cvs.openbsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cvs.openbsd.org (8.13.4/8.12.1) with ESMTP id j412233h028424; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:02:03 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <200505010202.j412233h028424@cvs.openbsd.org> To: hylaride@capybara.org Cc: "Jeff Bachtel" , misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: Hackathon 2005 In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:58:43 EDT." <37259.206.235.255.7.1114909123.squirrel@206.235.255.7> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:02:03 -0600 From: Theo de Raadt X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on idoru.cepheid.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 264 Lines: 9 > While I'm not a developer, I do beleive it scales reasonably well writing > their own implementations. Scaling isn't really our concern; I barely know what the word means. There is one group of people who we do know scales. Whiners. They scale really well. From suck@my-balls.com Sat Apr 30 20:22:21 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: jeff@cepheid.org Delivered-To: jeff@cepheid.org Received: from aries.siriushosting.com (aries.siriushosting.com [69.90.216.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.cepheid.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 071E91707D for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:22:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gargamel.my-balls.com (CPE00105a1ca6aa-CM00111a59be16.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [69.197.92.181]) (authenticated bits=0) by aries.siriushosting.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j411LwAK009658 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:21:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:21:00 -0400 From: Adam To: Jeff Bachtel Cc: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: Hackathon 2005 Message-ID: <20050430212100.767405c9@gargamel.my-balls.com> In-Reply-To: <20050501002248.GT66514@cepheid.org> References: <568454960a899b60c981cb2b759cab2a@trumpetpower.com> <20050501002248.GT66514@cepheid.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 1.9.6 (GTK+ 2.4.14; i386-unknown-openbsd3.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on idoru.cepheid.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 1099 Lines: 21 On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:22:48 -0500 Jeff Bachtel wrote: > BTW, I just checked out the OpenCVS page. You know, it used to be that > people would join a project and commit fixes or enhancements, rather > than fork first and ask questions later. Is this really the best use > of developer resources? There are now OpenBSD developers responsible > for OpenSSH (which was needed, due to licensing issues), pf (some > licensing issues, perceived lack of acceptance of patches by > upstream), OpenBGPd (perceived inability to patch another project into > useability with less effort than new codebase took) and OpenNTPd (lack > of desire to send ntp4 patches upstream? Easier to write a whole new > project?). I don't have any point to make on the value of these > projects, however "does this scale?" How much work has gone into openntpd since it was "finished"? Most of the things you mentioned don't really need tons of ongoing development. I'm amazed that you think replacing shitty software with good software is a bad idea, and that trying to polish turds would be better. Adam From deraadt@cvs.openbsd.org Sat Apr 30 21:03:52 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: jeff@cepheid.org Delivered-To: jeff@cepheid.org Received: from cvs.openbsd.org (cvs.openbsd.org [199.185.137.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.cepheid.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F0DC1707D for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:03:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cvs.openbsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cvs.openbsd.org (8.13.4/8.12.1) with ESMTP id j41231N2006137; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:03:01 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <200505010203.j41231N2006137@cvs.openbsd.org> To: Jeff Bachtel Cc: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: Hackathon 2005 In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:22:48 CDT." <20050501002248.GT66514@cepheid.org> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:03:01 -0600 From: Theo de Raadt X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on idoru.cepheid.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO X-Status: A Content-Length: 182 Lines: 6 > I don't have any point to make on the value of these > projects, however "does this scale?" How does it scale that we have to listen to your ininformed gibberish day in day out? From owner-misc+M7558@openbsd.org Sat Apr 30 11:56:13 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: jeff@cepheid.org Delivered-To: jeff@cepheid.org Received: from shear.ucar.edu (shear.ucar.edu [192.43.244.163]) by mail.cepheid.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2F6417080 for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 11:56:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: from openbsd.org (localhost.ucar.edu [127.0.0.1]) by shear.ucar.edu (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j3UGrxpg026686; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 10:53:59 -0600 (MDT) Received: from lekcyjonarz.openbsd.pl (IDENT:_postfix@chello084010069233.chello.pl [84.10.69.233]) by shear.ucar.edu (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j3UGnwE5006860 for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 10:49:58 -0600 (MDT) Received: by lekcyjonarz.openbsd.pl (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8D74B5C809; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:50:18 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:50:18 +0200 From: Aleksander Piotrowski To: Johan =?iso-8859-2?Q?P=2E_Lindstr=F6m?= Cc: OpenBSD MISC Subject: Re: Hackathon 2005 Message-ID: <20050430165017.GN19843@lekcyjonarz.lan> References: <730f3bf1050430064025255a85@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <730f3bf1050430064025255a85@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Loop: misc@openbsd.org Precedence: list Sender: owner-misc@openbsd.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on idoru.cepheid.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,TW_AZ,TW_QS, TW_RV,TW_TR,TW_ZJ autolearn=no version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 548 Lines: 15 Johan P. Lindstrvm wrote: > May one ask what interesting challenges are lurking beneath the > surface for the team of developers? OpenOffice port, of course! Alek -- To, co zrobi3 Liu jest pokazaniem 6wiatu "chiqskiej szybko6ci". Liu Xiang nie tylko b3yskawicznie pokona3 p3otki na bie?ni. On pokona3 przede wszystkim 108 lat upokorzeq azjatyckich sportowcsw na igrzyskach olimpijskich. [...] To by cud sportowy dorswnuj1cy chiqskiemu cudowi gospodarczemu -- Yangcheng Evening News [w Gazet Wyborcza, 29-08-2004 From auto275911@hushmail.com Sat Apr 30 21:45:16 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: jeff@cepheid.org Delivered-To: jeff@cepheid.org Received: from smtp3.hushmail.com (smtp3.hushmail.com [65.39.178.135]) by mail.cepheid.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34A851707D for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:45:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smtp3.hushmail.com (localhost.hushmail.com [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.hushmail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6843EA3422 for ; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:44:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailserver3.hushmail.com (mailserver3.hushmail.com [65.39.178.20]) by smtp3.hushmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:44:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from nobody@localhost) by mailserver3.hushmail.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id j412iqCm074985; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:44:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from auto275911@hushmail.com) Message-Id: <200505010244.j412iqCm074985@mailserver3.hushmail.com> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:44:48 -0700 To: , Cc: Subject: Re: Hackathon 2005 From: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on idoru.cepheid.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 1099 Lines: 37 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Theo, Perhaps your a bit "ininformed" yourself.. unless there is some weird canadian/US translation going on here, I am pretty sure that the word you were looking for was infact, "uninformed". :) On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:03:01 -0700 Theo de Raadt wrote: >> I don't have any point to make on the value of these >> projects, however "does this scale?" > >How does it scale that we have to listen to your ininformed >gibberish day in day out? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify Version: Hush 2.4 wkYEARECAAYFAkJ0QpMACgkQSNwPY+UhpH8VCQCgtEFtFT8CsixwkyM+TVyMjjwAB2MA oK4YgmqtA19bSPgqn9bjYSsZeauM =EYkF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get secure FREE email: http://www.hushmail.com/?l=2 Free, ultra-private instant messaging with Hush Messenger http://www.hushmail.com/services-messenger?l=434 Promote security and make money with the Hushmail Affiliate Program: http://www.hushmail.com/about-affiliate?l=427