Re: Exim permissions
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 02:11:59PM +0000, Clive Standbridge wrote:
> On Wed 11 Dec 2002 02:54:02 +0000(+1100), Rob Weir wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 06:31:56AM +0000, Pigeon wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 09:49:52PM +0000, Clive Standbridge wrote:
> > > > I have not heard that sudo is inherently insecure in any specific way
> > > > (but I'm not a long time sudo user).
> I don't remember writing that. Pigeon attributed that sentence to Shyamal Prasad, but his attribution was lost from the last reply.
> Yours pedantically,
'Twas indeed Shyamal who said that. Both you and he replied to the
thread, and I replied to both of you in the same reply. So both quoted
responses were at the same level of quoting, but with a new
attribution part way down the message. So when the middle got snipped,
the attribution got confused.
I'm not sure here; what is the correct list etiquette when a thread
"forks" like this, due not to drift of subject but simply to the
asynchronous nature of replies: to attempt to bring the fork together
again and risk confusing attributions, or to reply separately to each
forked reply, which leads to both forks intermingling in the MUA's
index and can make it harder to follow?
The automatic exim run upon pon still isn't working, but everything
else is, so I'm not too bothered anymore.