[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: serious problems with Mr. Troup

Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:23:09 +0100, Andreas Metzler <ametzler@downhill.at.eu.org> said: 

>> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 03:04:39PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
>>> ...a mail that appeared via debian-devel-announce.

>>> How odd. That's a developers only list and Ingo's no developer. Who
>>> was it signed by?

>>> [-- PGP output follows (current time: Sun Feb 22 00:49:39 2004) --]
>>> gpg: Signature made Sun Feb 22 00:04:39 2004 EST using DSA key ID
>>> 7F4E0E11 gpg: Good signature from "Bastian Blank <bastianb@gmx.de>"
>>> gpg: aka "Bastian Blank <waldi_@gmx.de>" ...

>>> Ahh. From the DMUP:

>>> ] Examples of what we consider net abuse: ] * Forged headers and /
>>> or Addresses
>>> ]
>>> ] Forging headers or messages means sending mail such that its origin
>>> ] appears to be another user or machine, or a non-existent machine.
>> [...]

>> I assume Bastian received the mail from Ingo with the pledge to sign
>> it and bounce it to d-d-a, which is completely different.

>        Different, how?

Nobody is "forging". It _is_ a mail by Ingo, Bastian just approved it.

> Why was the email not clearly marked as coming
> from Bastian, with the contents: I got this from Ingo with a request
> to bounce to devel? (That is overlooking the fact that this was a
> gross abuse of a genral announce list, which, as a DD, bastion should
> have known better).

>> Bouncing/forwarding e-mail from non-DDs to d-d-a is ok.

>        Not unless the contents are fit to be on d-d-a,

I never claimed this to be case and I quite clearly said that in my

>> The paragraph you quoted would match if _Bastian_ wrote the mail and
>> made it appear to be sent by Ingo.

>        Looking at the headers of the message, sounds more like he
> colluded with ingo to bypass the restrictions of d-d-a. Which does
> not seem to be better.

Does not seem to be consensus. For violating the DMUP one's account
will be suspended, approving an o-t-posting (or sending one) does not
have this price-tag.
  cu andreas, "forging e-mail" by sending with @debian.org from a
              non-debian machine
Hey, da ist ein Ballonautomat auf der Toilette!
Unofficial _Debian-packages_ of latest unstable _tin_

Reply to: