On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 3:43 PM Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> wrote:

# Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> (2023-07-17)
# Obsolete acct-* packages which became leaf packages.
# Removal on 2023-08-17.
acct-user/artifactory
acct-group/artifactory
acct-user/cinder
acct-group/cinder
acct-user/glance
acct-group/glance
acct-user/heat
acct-group/heat
acct-user/keystone
acct-group/keystone
acct-user/litecoin
acct-group/litecoin
acct-user/logcheck
acct-group/logcheck
acct-user/minbif
acct-group/minbif
acct-user/minio
acct-group/minio
acct-user/netbox
acct-group/netbox
acct-user/neutron
acct-group/neutron
acct-user/nova
acct-group/nova
acct-user/placement
acct-group/placement
acct-user/quagga
acct-group/quagga
acct-user/rplayd
acct-group/rplayd
acct-user/rstudio-server
acct-group/rstudio-server
acct-user/rundeck
acct-group/rundeck
acct-user/sguil
acct-group/sguil
acct-user/sigh
acct-group/sigh
acct-user/smokeping
acct-group/smokeping
acct-user/sobby
acct-group/sobby
acct-user/spread
acct-group/spread
acct-user/stg
acct-group/stg
acct-user/swift
acct-group/swift
acct-user/thttpd
acct-group/thttpd
acct-group/gpio
acct-group/simplevirt
acct-group/spi

Haven't we been keeping these because we still need to decide on a
policy about what to do with dead acct-*/* packages?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org> writes:

On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 3:43 PM Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> wrote:

# Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> (2023-07-17)
# Obsolete acct-* packages which became leaf packages.
# Removal on 2023-08-17.
acct-user/artifactory
acct-group/artifactory
acct-user/cinder
acct-group/cinder
acct-user/glance
acct-group/glance
acct-user/heat
acct-group/heat
acct-user/keystone
acct-group/keystone
acct-user/litecoin
acct-group/litecoin
acct-user/logcheck
acct-group/logcheck
acct-user/minbif
acct-group/minbif
acct-user/minio
acct-group/minio
acct-user/netbox
acct-group/netbox
acct-user/neutron
acct-group/neutron
acct-user/nova
acct-group/nova
acct-user/placement
acct-group/placement
acct-user/quagga
acct-group/quagga
acct-user/rplayd
acct-group/rplayd
acct-user/rstudio-server
acct-group/rstudio-server
acct-user/rundeck
acct-group/rundeck
acct-user/sguil
acct-group/sguil
acct-user/sigh
acct-group/sigh
acct-user/smokeping
acct-group/smokeping
acct-user/sobby
acct-group/sobby
acct-user/spread
acct-group/spread
acct-user/stg
acct-group/stg
acct-user/swift
acct-group/swift
acct-user/thttpd
acct-group/thttpd
acct-group/gpio
acct-group/simplevirt
acct-group/spi

Haven't we been keeping these because we still need to decide on a
policy about what to do with dead acct-*/* packages?

Right. https://bugs.gentoo.org/781881 is still open. Flow could ping
the QA team and ask if it should be closed, given the opinion there
seems to be that there's no need to keep them, but I think it's wrong
to do this pre-empting a policy decision, given it essentially forces
the "don't keep them" path.



--=-=-Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iOUEARYKAI0WIQQlpruI3Zt2TGtVQcJzhAn1IN+RkAUCZLWkgl8UgAAAAAAuAChp c3N1ZXItZnByQG5vdGF0aW9ucy5vcGVucGdwLmZpZnRoaG9yc2VtYW4ubmV0MjVB NkJCODhERDlCNzY0QzZCNTU0MUMyNzM4NDA5RjUyMERGOTE5MA8cc2FtQGdlbnRv by5vcmcACgkQc4QJ9SDfkZDhowD+P1xvGaja/r+sN+o5WKYIk0HTmqHMon4ymB8w 9bPh+cEA/j1/XxdKs47TNN4NIxSRrkZCwyDxfh5Jiqe/cWUfgpwH
=khHO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 4:27 PM Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:

Haven't we been keeping these because we still need to decide on a
policy about what to do with dead acct-*/* packages?

Right. https://bugs.gentoo.org/781881 is still open. Flow could ping
the QA team and ask if it should be closed, given the opinion there
seems to be that there's no need to keep them, but I think it's wrong
to do this pre-empting a policy decision, given it essentially forces
the "don't keep them" path.

The bug has been open for several months without comment. If a policy
were going to materialize, I think it would have happened by now.

Forcing the issue by sending this last rites notice seems acceptable to me.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 17 Jul 2023, Mike Gilbert wrote:

On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 4:27 PM Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:

Haven't we been keeping these because we still need to decide on a
policy about what to do with dead acct-*/* packages?

Right. https://bugs.gentoo.org/781881 is still open. Flow could ping
the QA team and ask if it should be closed, given the opinion there
seems to be that there's no need to keep them, but I think it's wrong
to do this pre-empting a policy decision, given it essentially forces
the "don't keep them" path.

The bug has been open for several months without comment. If a policy
were going to materialize, I think it would have happened by now.

Forcing the issue by sending this last rites notice seems acceptable
to me.

I'd say we remove the packages, because system user and group ids are
a somewhat scarce resource.

The ids in uid-gid.txt (in data/api.git) need to be updated as well,
i.e. they should be kept for now but changed to historical.

Ulrich

--=-=-Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQFDBAEBCAAtFiEEtDnZ1O9xIP68rzDbUYgzUIhBXi4FAmS2M5gPHHVsbUBnZW50 b28ub3JnAAoJEFGIM1CIQV4uwXEIAJueJ/4ZatyPKC/h1UaggfBGtUPulXJKVXe0 yTXxDLntEFHjAlhpUpGek8WQwbvhMxrt/QhJ/CYY0erPE2uIn5TzJzdrB7e2gPJM 3m9nlC8yzy1TcnQcYuqqDp6vzbBPWrA8WrYuzg6YuOc7jYbj/kghcyl9chdOU8Fm lQs3zhaMIASxazeBa867OgoKcBcwZ/ghyiugKaQH7Gu/vHGfxmYHlTA/Mtf0jDOM gu2mqXiAHQDSM/yiQCr5EXt0IwHhqKNP7GE4v5pvX7sfAc+aouD6sSaujqbAoDI9 ZGlZ+d6anIv71PEzzO5qC6Fr3k2dhqE0Ts6U0m6sTtqrSO1onKs=MFef
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

El jue, 01-01-1970 a las 00:00 +0000, Ulrich Mueller escribió:

On Mon, 17 Jul 2023, Mike Gilbert wrote:

On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 4:27 PM Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:

Haven't we been keeping these because we still need to decide
on a
policy about what to do with dead acct-*/* packages?

Right. https://bugs.gentoo.org/781881 is still open. Flow could
ping
the QA team and ask if it should be closed, given the opinion
there
seems to be that there's no need to keep them, but I think it's
wrong
to do this pre-empting a policy decision, given it essentially
forces
the "don't keep them" path.

The bug has been open for several months without comment. If a
policy
were going to materialize, I think it would have happened by now.

Forcing the issue by sending this last rites notice seems
acceptable
to me.

I'd say we remove the packages, because system user and group ids are
a somewhat scarce resource.

I agree because of the same reasons


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCAAdFiEE808Ng0g83FMNupoifLEMIH/AfbwFAmS2S8kACgkQfLEMIH/A fbx41wgAm5S6SpDn4hoJer5vV7i0bpX9pZ//NRTCI1g9hM/ZKg5l/64GvNRA4Itm bYZS3QrpQotz4Q8DubtHuPNWOeDe15Qrd3MBt3wwQyqSc5L/HRf4vrQZ1F1LGNI4 XV2l62UGlzkknskpE6aUeIqEHpRvxQ2E6k0D+lOMS6iH3Z0mNrg4SLi28DEr65/f VGy78nYqflRSDCl5JhqVmQiji/x5NvZomzpNph9wTt/pIwDIi5NN/3YBJtRVdv3+ VIScmHoDevxq/Fd8YG7piwf9tG/+VGGB4uZVeowjGe2AotksOQKmyuPPpFgpQC5q Nbee4fwDRml1FWdqcl1uBQQVt/unyw==
=6N+a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Well, this configuration is reasonable, I am for the change

On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 at 11:55 Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> wrote:

On 18/07/2023 10.42, Зураб Квачадзе wrote:

How do we handle this case, then.
Imagine we have a leaf package acct-user/foo, which has a reserved UID
of 123. It gets last rited and its entry is removed from uid-gid.txt.

Nobody is proposing that the uid-gid.txt entry is removed. Ideally, it
would be marked as 'historical', together with the date it went historical.

After a while appears a new package acct-user/bar, which takes the 123
UID. Then a user, say Bob, updates their system, which haven't been
updated for some time. What if they still have acct-user/foo, when >

acct-user/bar with the same UID is installed?

If a UID/GID is in use, then acct-*.eclass will find the next suitable
ID (unless, e.g. ACCT_USER_ENFORCE_ID is set, we is usually not the case).

- Flow

<div dir="auto">Well, this configuration is reasonable, I am for the change</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 at 11:55 Florian Schmaus &lt;<a href="mailto:flow@gentoo.org">flow@gentoo.org</a>&gt;
wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">On 18/07/2023 10.42, Зураб Квачадзе wrote:<br>
&gt; How do we handle this case, then.<br>
&gt; Imagine we have a leaf package acct-user/foo, which has a reserved UID <br>
&gt; of 123. It gets last rited and its entry is removed from uid-gid.txt.<br>

Nobody is proposing that the uid-gid.txt entry is removed. Ideally, it <br> would be marked as &#39;historical&#39;, together with the date it went historical.<br>


&gt; After a while appears a new package acct-user/bar, which takes the 123 <br>
&gt; UID. Then a user, say Bob, updates their system, which haven&#39;t been <br>
&gt; updated for some time. What if they still have acct-user/foo, when &gt; acct-user/bar with the same UID is installed?<br>

If a UID/GID is in use, then acct-*.eclass will find the next suitable <br>
ID (unless, e.g. ACCT_USER_ENFORCE_ID is set, we is usually not the case).<br>

- Flow<br>
</blockquote></div></div>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

How do we handle this case, then.
Imagine we have a leaf package acct-user/foo, which has a reserved UID of
123. It gets last rited and its entry is removed from uid-gid.txt. After a while appears a new package acct-user/bar, which takes the 123 UID. Then a user, say Bob, updates their system, which haven't been updated for some
time. What if they still have acct-user/foo, when acct-user/bar with the
same UID is installed? Should we even care about such cases?

On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 at 11:22 Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:

El jue, 01-01-1970 a las 00:00 +0000, Ulrich Mueller escribió:

On Mon, 17 Jul 2023, Mike Gilbert wrote:

On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 4:27 PM Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:

Haven't we been keeping these because we still need to decide
on a
policy about what to do with dead acct-*/* packages?

Right. https://bugs.gentoo.org/781881 is still open. Flow could
ping
the QA team and ask if it should be closed, given the opinion
there
seems to be that there's no need to keep them, but I think it's
wrong
to do this pre-empting a policy decision, given it essentially
forces
the "don't keep them" path.

The bug has been open for several months without comment. If a
policy
were going to materialize, I think it would have happened by now.

Forcing the issue by sending this last rites notice seems
acceptable
to me.

I'd say we remove the packages, because system user and group ids are
a somewhat scarce resource.

I agree because of the same reasons

<div dir="auto">How do we handle this case, then.</div><div dir="auto">Imagine we have a leaf package acct-user/foo, which has a reserved UID of 123. It gets last rited and its entry is removed from uid-gid.txt. After a while appears a new package acct-
user/bar, which takes the 123 UID. Then a user, say Bob, updates their system, which haven&#39;t been updated for some time. What if they still have acct-user/foo, when acct-user/bar with the same UID is installed? Should we even care about such cases?</

<div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 at 11:22 Pacho Ramos &lt;<a href="mailto:pacho@gentoo.org">pacho@gentoo.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.

8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">El jue, 01-01-1970 a las 00:00 +0000, Ulrich Mueller escribió:<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; On Mon, 17 Jul 2023, Mike Gilbert wrote:<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; &gt; On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 4:27 PM Sam James &lt;<a href="mailto:sam@gentoo.org" target="_blank">sam@gentoo.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Haven&#39;t we been keeping these because we still need to decide<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; on a<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; policy about what to do with dead acct-*/* packages?<br> &gt; &gt; &gt; <br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; Right. <a href="https://bugs.gentoo.org/781881" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://bugs.gentoo.org/781881</a> is still open. Flow could<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; ping<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; the QA team and ask if it should be closed, given the opinion<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; there<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; seems to be that there&#39;s no need to keep them, but I think it&#39;s<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; wrong<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; to do this pre-empting a policy decision, given it essentially<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; forces<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; the &quot;don&#39;t keep them&quot; path.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; &gt; The bug has been open for several months without comment. If a<br> &gt; &gt; policy<br>
&gt; &gt; were going to materialize, I think it would have happened by now.<br> &gt; <br>
&gt; &gt; Forcing the issue by sending this last rites notice seems<br>
&gt; &gt; acceptable<br>
&gt; &gt; to me.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; I&#39;d say we remove the packages, because system user and group ids are<br>
&gt; a somewhat scarce resource.<br>

I agree because of the same reasons <br>

</blockquote></div></div>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 18-07-2023 11:42:39 +0300, Зураб Квачадзе wrote:

How do we handle this case, then.
Imagine we have a leaf package acct-user/foo, which has a reserved UID of 123.
It gets last rited and its entry is removed from uid-gid.txt. After a while appears a new package acct-user/bar, which takes the 123 UID. Then a user, say
Bob, updates their system, which haven't been updated for some time. What if they still have acct-user/foo, when acct-user/bar with the same UID is installed? Should we even care about such cases?

IMO we should, thus 123 should not be removed from uid-gid.txt, and instead
be marked as reserved or something with a date.

Thanks,
Fabian

--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEELUvHd/Gtp7LaU1vuzpXahU5EQpMFAmS2VcgACgkQzpXahU5E QpNiWgf/d3qLrtVKBivRlwNZ1EhUYHREhx5mWHLFZMszZNkZrBToT1e2D2CMWmUl sDvIDfdwXudbaoxyDZv3oK3ODg763e2XpYAU51CtrxBVjeA+69UgPifz6/G2mN8/ HPJ7HsKWqxcBhRqGoMyRxJFo9V9c9bkwJGS7pLATOEUH5VPQ717Qm07gxGYqbCML s1TM/eBpDKatJFiO3YS54MuVS44WhonTzDIIEanQF0FLanhOekCJVVHeVv48xDXn Z44jbqmbmVj4yuVLyCNRt/3lwZxEIEYkIksy+gcaI/MKe1eECOQ5t9mGd8kmPWeg R2BdojWX8ms2Sc58tTqKuq5j6oSr4A==
=M7YY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> writes:

On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 4:27 PM Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:

Haven't we been keeping these because we still need to decide on a
policy about what to do with dead acct-*/* packages?

Right. https://bugs.gentoo.org/781881 is still open. Flow could ping
the QA team and ask if it should be closed, given the opinion there
seems to be that there's no need to keep them, but I think it's wrong
to do this pre-empting a policy decision, given it essentially forces
the "don't keep them" path.

The bug has been open for several months without comment. If a policy
were going to materialize, I think it would have happened by now.

Forcing the issue by sending this last rites notice seems acceptable to me.

Pinging someone rather than "forcing the issue" as a first-step is customary.

--=-=-Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iOUEARYKAI0WIQQlpruI3Zt2TGtVQcJzhAn1IN+RkAUCZLZh618UgAAAAAAuAChp c3N1ZXItZnByQG5vdGF0aW9ucy5vcGVucGdwLmZpZnRoaG9yc2VtYW4ubmV0MjVB NkJCODhERDlCNzY0QzZCNTU0MUMyNzM4NDA5RjUyMERGOTE5MA8cc2FtQGdlbnRv by5vcmcACgkQc4QJ9SDfkZCa7AEAkksOqEfRQCLuwccjbUZeFNSnO8QiDOIPqf6m TbWbHEkA/2efAEDYi2vjwZie+LPZExBJhzlfQwcoB4tqHlXzi8sO
=xvFw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> writes:

[[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]

Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> writes:

[[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
On 18/07/2023 11.56, Sam James wrote:

Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> writes:

On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 4:27 PM Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:

Haven't we been keeping these because we still need to decide on a >>>>>> policy about what to do with dead acct-*/* packages?

Right. https://bugs.gentoo.org/781881 is still open. Flow could ping >>>>> the QA team and ask if it should be closed, given the opinion there
seems to be that there's no need to keep them, but I think it's wrong >>>>> to do this pre-empting a policy decision, given it essentially forces >>>>> the "don't keep them" path.

The bug has been open for several months without comment. If a policy
were going to materialize, I think it would have happened by now.

Forcing the issue by sending this last rites notice seems acceptable to me.

Pinging someone rather than "forcing the issue" as a first-step is
customary.

I am sorry, but it seems that I have to clarify something.

First, I have "pinged someone."

Ping on IRC (in #gentoo-qa, or could PM me), or again on the bug?

Someone asked the QA team to make a decision. We haven't yet, as I'd
forgot about it. It seems wrong to then just pretend that didn't happen.

At least try to get it resolved on that end by pinging again / asking us?

Just to be super duper clear: it's fine with me if we just move on and
don't keep the packages, but I think a quick /msg #gentoo-qa "hey guys,
nothing seems to be happening with the bug, do you mind if we just close
it?" wouldn't have gone amiss.

That is _all_ I'm asking for here.

And then when we get onto talk of "incentives" and "illegitimate shadow policies", I become very confused indeed.

--=-=-Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iOUEARYKAI0WIQQlpruI3Zt2TGtVQcJzhAn1IN+RkAUCZLaQyl8UgAAAAAAuAChp c3N1ZXItZnByQG5vdGF0aW9ucy5vcGVucGdwLmZpZnRoaG9yc2VtYW4ubmV0MjVB NkJCODhERDlCNzY0QzZCNTU0MUMyNzM4NDA5RjUyMERGOTE5MA8cc2FtQGdlbnRv by5vcmcACgkQc4QJ9SDfkZA9KAEAiJL04Gad9uxKgPoQaDuWPgqSD1H7UuDAdvJ8 fiYZXZsBAO8UosycboExxl+yWUzFdRHvSJ5AssPsVXW6Mff+dzAF
=PDUU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> writes:

[[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
On 18/07/2023 11.56, Sam James wrote:

Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> writes:

On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 4:27 PM Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:

Haven't we been keeping these because we still need to decide on a
policy about what to do with dead acct-*/* packages?

Right. https://bugs.gentoo.org/781881 is still open. Flow could ping
the QA team and ask if it should be closed, given the opinion there
seems to be that there's no need to keep them, but I think it's wrong
to do this pre-empting a policy decision, given it essentially forces
the "don't keep them" path.

The bug has been open for several months without comment. If a policy
were going to materialize, I think it would have happened by now.

Forcing the issue by sending this last rites notice seems acceptable to me. >> Pinging someone rather than "forcing the issue" as a first-step is

customary.

I am sorry, but it seems that I have to clarify something.

First, I have "pinged someone."

Ping on IRC (in #gentoo-qa, or could PM me), or again on the bug?

Someone asked the QA team to make a decision. We haven't yet, as I'd
forgot about it. It seems wrong to then just pretend that didn't happen.

At least try to get it resolved on that end by pinging again / asking us?

As of writing this, I was the last to comment on the QA bug about five
months ago, asking why we would want to keep unused acct-* packages
[1]. Since then, this has not been answered, and there have been zero
other replies. That signaled me that there was no interest in pursuing
the matter further. In addition, we have already removed acct-*
packages in the past.

I'm sorry that somebody missed a ping in a FOSS project. But this is
probably not the first time it's happened to you.

Secondly, nobody immediately forces anything.

I'm saying that speaking to someone works better than committing
something and then asking for discussion.

Sam, I am afraid, but I believe that the situation is different from
how you frame it.

The proponents of keeping obsolete acct-* packages have the inventive
to establish their preferred policy.

It's a bit aggressive to take action, without pinging before doing so
(you did several months ago, that's not really the same thing), to "incentivise" someone.

Accusing me of not facilitating a QA bug that deals with establishing
a policy I do not favor seems unfair.

I'm not sure I'm doing that. I'm saying that doing this preempts a
decision and that a ping would've been polite.

Do you think that a QA bug that has not seen progress in nearly five
months should be able to establish an illegitimate shadow policy?

Come on.

--=-=-Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iOUEARYKAI0WIQQlpruI3Zt2TGtVQcJzhAn1IN+RkAUCZLaPRV8UgAAAAAAuAChp c3N1ZXItZnByQG5vdGF0aW9ucy5vcGVucGdwLmZpZnRoaG9yc2VtYW4ubmV0MjVB NkJCODhERDlCNzY0QzZCNTU0MUMyNzM4NDA5RjUyMERGOTE5MA8cc2FtQGdlbnRv by5vcmcACgkQc4QJ9SDfkZCg6QEA0JFvk3qbtNkcsaYdGuBqeuAXInV86ZAJasTn BjkU76wA/1DVMzXuu5qLer0M036xEqA/bsa/GnYo3zqhudw+K/QI
=2/n8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)