~tuxpup

~tuxpup/wishlist

Last active 2 months ago
View more

Recent activity

Re: sourcehut on mobile: lists width needs improvement a month ago

From Geoff Beier to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

On Thu Dec 10, 2020 at 8:42 AM EST, Drew DeVault wrote:
>
> Yes. Please file a ticket with ~sircmpwn/lists.sr.ht, or send a patch.
> Let's just reject mail with this header outright and send a bounce.

Ticket filed. I'd like to take a swing at a patch over the next day or
two.

Re: sourcehut on mobile: lists width needs improvement a month ago

From Geoff Beier to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

On Thu Dec 10, 2020 at 4:33 AM EST, Allen Sobot wrote:
> I'm terribly sorry about this, and this message will probably have that
> same header in it...
> I in fact had no clue about this header's existence, or in any case that
> my client puts it in.
> If you could therefore point me to a way to get rid of it I would be
> thankful (I use K-9 Mail on my phone and Neomutt on my computer)
>
It sure did. On the bright side, the fact that you didn't know about it
until I mentioned it suggests that very few mailers are sending such
receipts by default anymore. If they were, you'd have a bunch of read
receipts.

For K-9, it looks like details on that feature are here:

Re: sourcehut on mobile: lists width needs improvement a month ago

From Geoff Beier to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

On Wed Dec 9, 2020 at 9:47 PM EST, Allen Sobot wrote:
> Return-Receipt-To: Allen Sobot <chilledfrogs@disroot.org>

That's a really obnoxious thing to include in a message to a public
mailing list.

Seeing it made me remember a feature I'd like in the sourcehut list
management software. Can we have it filter that header?

In the context of a public mailing list it is at best silly/rude and
at worst provides a mechanism to flood someone else's mailbox with
receipts by forging such a message from them if you know they subscribe
to the list and are permitted to post.

Re: Message export 2 months ago

From Geoff Beier to ~sircmpwn/aerc

On Fri Nov 27, 2020 at 3:07 PM EST, Bor Grošelj Simić wrote:
> I received an email recently that I need to forward as an attachment (to
> keep the headers and everything intact). Exporting to file and then
> manually attaching would also work. I couldn't find anything about
> export functionality in the aerc documentation so I wonder if anything
> like this is possible at the moment?
>

:forward -A
seems to work for me. I'm on 0.5.2. I don't think it's bound to any keys by default; I use it so infrequently that I just type the whole command when I want it.


Geoff

Re: What are some of your favorite projects on sr.ht? 2 months ago

From Geoff Beier to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

On Sat Nov 14, 2020 at 9:58 AM EST, Drew DeVault wrote:
> Compiling a list for tomorrow's blog post. What are some cool projects
> on sr.ht?
>

Kronos is pretty cool:
https://kronoslang.io/get-kronos/source-code

Re: Improper display of license warning 4 months ago

From Geoff Beier to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

On Thursday, September 24, 2020 5:39:39 AM EDT Robin Krahl wrote:
> Another option is to put the license files in a LICENSES directory.
> This is accepted by the git.sr.ht checker and it is required by the
> FSFE’s REUSE specification [0] for unambigous human- and
> machine-readable copyright information.
> 
> [0] https://reuse.software/spec/
> 

I had never heard of that before. Thank you very much for sharing it.

That takes care of something I have to spend mental cycles on practically 
every time I create a new project. I don't think it's worth the cycles I spend 
on it but I hadn't yet settled on a standard practice I could use to avoid

Re: Federation 4 months ago

From Geoff Beier to ~sircmpwn/public-inbox

Thanks for the kind words!

> 
> I forgot to mention that there was an aura of seriousness associated
> with Usenet and mailing lists, so no they are not similar to todays
> social media applications. however they can serve the same role as
> modern social media does.
> 

I don't personally recall this aura of seriousness. That might be because I 
was in high school and college for most of the 1990s and people my age in 
those years were adept at stripping the seriousness from any social endeavor.

> 

Re: Federation 4 months ago

From Geoff Beier to ~sircmpwn/public-inbox

On Sunday, September 20, 2020 8:03:18 PM EDT es1969@firemail.cc wrote:
> I usually find that most people advocating for a decentralized social
> media network ignore that two big ones already exist: Usenet and
> email/mailing lists.
>

While they are certainly decentralized, I do not find that usenet and email 
lists are very much like the web-based social networking applications that are 
currently prevalent. I did not use Usenet or email lists very frequently prior 
to 1990 or so; perhaps they were more similar to today's social networking 
applications earlier in their existence? I've never seen any evidence that 
they were, though.
 
> Usenet is good for more general discussions where more people are

Re: Discuss: proposed changes to the SourceHut terms of service 8 months ago

From Geoff Beier to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

I started by reading the diff linked at the top of your email, then the rest 
of your email.

This:
> The short of it is that all public projects would be required to use
> licenses approved by the Free Software Foundation, Open Source
> Initiative, or Creative Commons, within 90 days of appearing on sr.ht.
> These changes, if we moved forward with them, would be announced 90 days
> in advance to give you ample time to deal with the changes as necessary
> for your projects.

was alarming to me initially. Mentally, I consider unlisted repositories 
"public" but I most frequently use them when I haven't done the legwork to 
make sure licensing is in order and I'm seeking limited feedback from a small

Re: sr.ht wikis aren't 8 months ago

From Geoff Beier to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

On Wednesday, May 6, 2020 11:14:06 AM EDT Noah Pederson wrote:
> This is my understanding too. I believe part of the point of a 'wiki', back
> when the idea was first created was to allow for quick, direct edits to the
> page. By that definition, man.sr.ht doesn't meet the definition, but
> GitHub's wiki pages do.

Interesting! I just understood it as edited by the community, not so much as 
specifying how the editing should occur.

Thanks for clarifying. (And if OP is still reading... why did you link us to 
an amazon book instead of adding a sentence like this, if this is what you had 
in mind?)