search for: _hopefully_

Ady asked: > Have you read the "See also" section(s) of the wiki page(s)? Yes. > By reading the relevant wiki pages, a user should (_hopefully_) get to > the conclusion that the PATH directive is relevant for c32 modules, and > not a replacement for the CONFIG / INCLUDE directives nor for relative > paths based on the "Working Directory". There's nothing in Directives/path that says it applies only to c32. Rephrasi...

...d headers to filter on, as these are unlikely to change. 3. Better Spam blocking I have also installed a recent version of SpamAssassin and have trained its Bayesing filtering with spam I have been collecting for around eight years (>15,000 messages). This was switched on a few minutes ago, so _hopefully_ we should see less spam on the list from now on. There may be a few more minor changes in the near future, the most notable of which will be the blocking of HTML email. Please report any problems to me. Thanks, Damien Miller

With 6.03, I'm trying the "common directory distinct config" approach from http://www.syslinux.org/wiki/index.php?title=PXELINUX-Multi-Arch which essentially sets a different PATH (for BIOS vs EFI64). It seems PATH is correctly used to load .c32 modules, but not to load 'memdisk': PATH syslinux/bios UI vesamenu.c32 <-- WORKS (tries /vesamenu.c32, 404 error,

On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Dan Astoorian wrote: > Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:09:20 -0500 > From: Dan Astoorian <djast at cs.toronto.edu> > To: Ed Phillips <ed at UDel.Edu> > Subject: Re: X11 cookies and forwarding > > On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 15:46:22 EST, Ed Phillips writes: > > I'm guess I wasn't following the whole cookies discussion completely > >