Re: Knock Knock

I'm rather too busy at the moment to comment in detail on the suggestions
which have been floated during this discussion, but :-

On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 03:09:19PM -0400, Gregory A Lundberg wrote:
...
> When I was talking to Kent a few days ago, I mentioned that I wanted to go 
> over the mail list archives for the past five years.  The idea was to take 
> a look at the need for another series of updates similar to the VR series I 
> did once-upon-a-time.  It doesn't currently look like there are any 
> archives from the past several years, so I'm not hopeful.

I have archives of virtually everything I have ever received via the questions,
developers, and members mailing lists (and the documentation list too, I think).
You and/or Kent are welcome to them if they are of any help.  (670 emails in
dev, dating from 1999, plus any recent ones I've yet to file; 7576 emails in
questions, also dating from 1999, 4650 emails in the members list, again from
1999 - which is when I think you started it.)  Got archives of the old wustl
mailing list too, although they may not be as relevant.

Now it is possible that I've accidentally filed a personal or business email
somewhere along the way, so I'd probably have to go through them and filter
such stuff out first.  (It's also possible that some messages sent to multiple
lists have only been filed in one of my archives, but presumably that's not
a problem if you take everything.)

The lists have been pretty quiet for a while now.  The last email I saw from
the members list was in Sep 2004 when Koos asked if we wanted to renew
wu-ftpd.net which was due to expire in 45 days.  Ted Keller said he thought
we should, and asked if we needed to donate anything.  And that's where it
finishes.  (Dunno if it was renewed or not.)


You say you spoke to Kent recently ?  I've still not been able to browse
http://www.landfield.com/wu-ftpd/; I seem to be getting a gateway timeout
response.  I was beginning to wonder if he was OK...  Is it the TI gateway,
or are other folks seeing problems with this ?

Cheers, Bob

> Regardless, any patches added at this point should probably be only the 
> most important ones.  Too much and we would get bogged down on the v2 code 
> base and not have enough time to get going on v3.
> 
> > Now, I'm not a C++ programmer, so my contribution will probably end right
> >here ...
> 
> Non-programmers generally underestimate their importance in programming 
> projects.
> 
> I was going to say a bit here before I lost power a few hours ago.  Now, 
> I'm going to just skip it and say only all that needs to be worked out 
> until we have a consensus.
> 
> If there does not appear to be enough interest, you'll probably end up 
> getting like it was years ago which means whatever I feel up to doing (my 
> mental state still being an very open question).
> 
> > In regards to the RFC process, I am a semi-regular participant in the
> >IETF so I may be able to help....but what's needed in that department
> >these days?
> 
> I just found I actually have my original nroffs for my expired IDs.  They 
> still need a shepherd.  And, IIRC, there is a minor change which one of 
> them needed .. if I can recall which and what that was.
> 
> The best thing would be a WG to replace 959 with something which 
> understands the developments of the past few decades.  Second best would be 
> a ID which at least tries to point out the errors, misconceptions, 
> inconsistencies and incompatibilities in the various RFCs, especially since 
> MLST is (finally) in the Editor's Queue and therefore the problem is about 
> to get a lot worse. At the time I was last active, I remember I had a lot 
> of problems with MLST but was in no state to point them out clearly.  Now, 
> frankly, I'm avoiding reading it because it is somehow associated with all 
> my problems.

-- 
Bob Luckin      [email protected]      "Coder, adapt; FTP Ada, redo C"