hello,
I am having problems in using TTF fonts in KDE 3 on Mandrake 9. I copied the fonts from my Windows FONTS directory to /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/TTF and ran ttmkfdir and restarted XFS. The fonts were then listed, but not usable for some reason. After searching via google I disabled XFS, and put all directories manually in XF86Config. I also deleted XftCache from there.
After that, I could use the font selector in XMMS to select and use the fonts without problems. Howver, using KDE Control Center caused all the visible fonts to be garbled, like small squares for TTF fonts. After some hacking around, the fonts for the "general" category displayed properly but for anything eles [eg. Menus, Taskbar, etc] the fonts look garbled yet. This behaviour is sometime intermittent--after restarting X, the general fonts also are garbled.
Can anyone help me out? I suspect that KDE is not using correct codepage in the TTF fonts (XMMS has that option). Could it be due to other reasons altogether eg. Xft?
Thanks.
Hi
I dont know about the rest of you, but I am facing a sudden increase in the number of spam messages on the account I use for getting ilug mail.
I noted that it is possible for anyone to search through the archives of the mails. There are software that are designed to gleam through such treasures and pick up email ids (our personal ids are also being displayed in the archives) and harvesting them for mailing lists. If that is the case, it is perhaps time to immediately restrict the access to the archives only to those on the list.
Regards Saswata
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Saswata Banerjee & Associates wrote:
displayed in the archives) and harvesting them for mailing lists. If that is the case, it is perhaps time to immediately restrict the access to the archives only to those on the list.
or we could just tell mailman to munge/hide email addresses in the archives. Like for example on: http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/pipermail/linuxers/Week-of-Mon-20021028/006740.htm...
Philip
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 10:15:13AM +0530, Philip S Tellis wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Saswata Banerjee & Associates wrote:
displayed in the archives) and harvesting them for mailing lists. If that is the case, it is perhaps time to immediately restrict the access to the archives only to those on the list.
or we could just tell mailman to munge/hide email addresses in the archives. Like for example on: http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/pipermail/linuxers/Week-of-Mon-20021028/006740.htm...
we need to find a solution of this kind. Is their an option? I didnt see?
Nagarjuna
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Nagarjuna G. wrote:
http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/pipermail/linuxers/Week-of-Mon-20021028/006740.htm...
we need to find a solution of this kind. Is their an option? I didnt see?
It is there in privacy options - Show member addrs so they're not directly recognizable as email addrs?
we have it turned on for all our lists.
Philip
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 11:07:53 +0530 (IST) Philip S Tellis philip@konark.ncst.ernet.in wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Nagarjuna G. wrote:
http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/pipermail/linuxers/Week-of-Mon-20021028/006740.htm...
we need to find a solution of this kind. Is their an option? I didnt see?
It is there in privacy options - Show member addrs so they're not directly recognizable as email addrs?
we have it turned on for all our lists.
The problem is with mail clients. Look at the second line of my post. The email address is there and will be there in the archives as part of my message's body.
Each of us will have to tell our MUAs not to do that - rather impractical. Or there'll have to be a pattern recog that's run on all messages and systematically obscures all email-address-like patterns. Somewhat practical, but who'll supply the computing power?
We gotta strengthen our filtering rules now.
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Tahir Hashmi wrote:
The problem is with mail clients. Look at the second line of my post. The email address is there and will be there in the archives as part
Just use a smart client. Look at the first line of my post.
The filtering can be done on the server. It's not a problem of implementing it. That's the easy part. The hard part is figuring out which addresses should *not* be munged.
Philip
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 12:02:56 +0530 (IST) Philip S Tellis wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Tahir Hashmi wrote:
The problem is with mail clients. Look at the second line of my post. The email address is there and will be there in the archives as part
Just use a smart client. Look at the first line of my post.
Well, accept this tiny sacrifice of convenience from my side for the greater cause of community benefit ;-) How many others will follow suit?
At 01:04 even 11/1/02 +0530, TM wrote:
Just use a smart client. Look at the first line of my post.
Well, accept this tiny sacrifice of convenience from my side for the greater cause of community benefit ;-) How many others will follow suit?
I have seen very few emails where the email address is quoted rather than a more general name. Look at my first line. I replace the default "you" by whatever I choose.
quasi
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 11:56:09AM +0530, Tahir Hashmi wrote:
Each of us will have to tell our MUAs not to do that - rather impractical. Or there'll have to be a pattern recog that's run on all messages and systematically obscures all email-address-like patterns. Somewhat practical, but who'll supply the computing power?
Do you mean to say that we extend mailman to obfuscate the email addresses in the archives as well as messages that are sent out to the list??
Sameer.
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe wrote:
Do you mean to say that we extend mailman to obfuscate the email
why to extend when it already does it?
addresses in the archives as well as messages that are sent out to the list??
it doesn't obfuscate addresses sent on the list.
I think he wanted to obfuscate addresses in the body of the message. That's a bad idea because it causes information loss.
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 16:44:46 +0530 Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe wrote:
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 11:56:09AM +0530, Tahir Hashmi wrote:
Each of us will have to tell our MUAs not to do that - rather impractical. Or there'll have to be a pattern recog that's run on all messages and systematically obscures all email-address-like patterns. Somewhat practical, but who'll supply the computing power?
Do you mean to say that we extend mailman to obfuscate the email addresses in the archives as well as messages that are sent out to the list??
Archives, yes. Outgoing messages, no. This needs to be done on the message bodies only. And what I meant by "obscures ... patterns" is to have them written like "foo[at]bar[dot]com" etc. and not necessarily obscured beyond recognition. Also, most harvesters don't even bother to check patterns. They just look for mailto: hyperlinks. Disabling the hyperlinking of email addresses itself can go a long way and will actually reduce some of the complexity of the archiving program :-)
-
Ashish Kulkarni -
Nagarjuna G. -
Philip S Tellis -
q u a s i -
Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe -
Saswata Banerjee & Associates -
Tahir Hashmi