On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 02:48:52PM +, Always Learning wrote:
>
Noise removed.
Is it too much to ask for that this thread, if not the list as a whole,
return to being CentOS specific?
John
--
IRC - Where men are men, women are men and litt
On Mon, 2014-11-17 at 08:55 +0800, Christopher Chan wrote:
> On Sunday, November 16, 2014 12:21 AM, Always Learning wrote:
> > Writing as a humble programmer, why don't you and Les write your own
> > database application (using HTML, CSS, PHP and MariaDB (MySQL)) and
> > store the important parts
On Sunday, November 16, 2014 12:21 AM, Always Learning wrote:
On Fri, 2014-11-14 at 11:50 -1000, Miranda Hawarden-Ogata wrote:
I could do that I suppose, but I haven't and probably wouldn't have the
time necessary to separate out the emails between the two accounts. I
already have 6+ email acco
On 11/16/2014 02:45 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> the other important feature the new mailman has is to munge the From:
> field if the user's DNS has the DMARC records indicating a draconian
> policy.
Grrr, yes, of course, DMARC likes to check the From: header now (utterly
stupid). Anyways, it shoul
On 11/15/2014 5:17 PM, Peter wrote:
I think it's important to note that this actually isn't a bug. This is
failure to strip DKIM headers when forwarding a message. Note that when
RHEL6 was released DKIM was still new and DMARC was pretty much unheard
of. It's not surprising that the version of
On 11/16/2014 12:09 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> The point is that mailman has the fix. I suppose you can look at the
> question of whether you solve the problem only for yourself or for all
> centos users as two different things but the solution is pretty much
> the same as any other bug that has be
On 15/11/14 23:09, Les Mikesell wrote:
> The point is that mailman has the fix. I suppose you can look at the
> question of whether you solve the problem only for yourself or for all
> centos users as two different things but the solution is pretty much
> the same as any other bug that has been f
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 14/11/14 18:09, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 4:07 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>>>
So in practice I think this really boils down to the common problem of
ancient software shipped by RHEL and the bug-for-bug compa
On 11/16/2014 11:11 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> 2) what is the
> lists.centos.org machine doing with DKIM and what is the larger fix for
> each of those things.
Did you get the off-list email I sent a couple days ago irt this?
Peter
___
CentOS mailing
On 14/11/14 18:09, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 4:07 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>>
>>> So in practice I think this really boils down to the common problem of
>>> ancient software shipped by RHEL and the bug-for-bug compatibility in
>>> CentOS with the list system eating its own dog
On 2014/11/15 08:28, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Always Learning wrote:
Why keep masses and masses of irrelevant data in an unstructured format
presided over by Google? Its not logical sense. Essentially, why store
a lot of "rubbish" that will never ever be needed ?
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Always Learning wrote:
>
> Why keep masses and masses of irrelevant data in an unstructured format
> presided over by Google? Its not logical sense. Essentially, why store
> a lot of "rubbish" that will never ever be needed ?
>
Email is inherently unstructured
On Fri, 2014-11-14 at 11:50 -1000, Miranda Hawarden-Ogata wrote:
> I could do that I suppose, but I haven't and probably wouldn't have the
> time necessary to separate out the emails between the two accounts. I
> already have 6+ email accounts that I have to monitor so I'd rather not
> fork of
On 2014/11/14 11:32, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Miranda Hawarden-Ogata
wrote:
If you auto-mark as read, how do you ever know when it really is read?
I don't use the gmail interface for day-to-day email processing, for
precisely that reason. It is why I resort to TB.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Miranda Hawarden-Ogata
wrote:
>>>
>> If you auto-mark as read, how do you ever know when it really is read?
>>
> I don't use the gmail interface for day-to-day email processing, for
> precisely that reason. It is why I resort to TB.
I don't get it. Why auto-mark
On 2014/11/14 10:38, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Miranda Hawarden-Ogata
wrote:
Matches: to:(centos@centos.org)
Do this: Skip Inbox, Mark as read, Apply label "Lists/centos", Never send it
to Spam
If you auto-mark as read, how do you ever know when it really is read?
I
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Miranda Hawarden-Ogata
wrote:
>>
> Matches: to:(centos@centos.org)
> Do this: Skip Inbox, Mark as read, Apply label "Lists/centos", Never send it
> to Spam
If you auto-mark as read, how do you ever know when it really is read?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...
On 2014/11/14 05:32, Darr247 wrote:
On 14 November 2014 @05:34 zulu, Les Mikesell wrote:
Just guessing, but it may be that you are using POP to retrieve the
mail and getting an "uncategorized" view of new messages in the inbox,
where if you use IMAP (with the possibility of syncing to multiple
s
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Darr247 wrote:
>
> Ah, but I also use it on CentOS... I just don't post as much from that copy.
> The point of that is to have at least 2 offline sources to my list
> subscriptions, since if the problem is with the network, having them all
> available only online i
On 14 November 2014 @17:52 zulu, Les Mikesell wrote:
Given that you can use thunderbird on windows
Ah, but I also use it on CentOS... I just don't post as much from that
copy. The point of that is to have at least 2 offline sources to my list
subscriptions, since if the problem is with the ne
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 4:07 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>
>> So in practice I think this really boils down to the common problem of
>> ancient software shipped by RHEL and the bug-for-bug compatibility in
>> CentOS with the list system eating its own dog food. That is, there
>> is a fix for mailma
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Darr247 wrote:
>
> You may be onto something, because I *am* using IMAP (TB's default during
> account setup) instead of POP3.
>
> I'll be looking around in gmail next to see if there's some way to pre-sort
> mail from centos.org (as Miranda implied) before whateve
On 14 November 2014 @05:34 zulu, Les Mikesell wrote:
Just guessing, but it may be that you are using POP to retrieve the
mail and getting an "uncategorized" view of new messages in the inbox,
where if you use IMAP (with the possibility of syncing to multiple
systems), gmail's labels are mapped to
On 11/12/2014 07:19 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>> Once upon a time, Kai Schaetzl said:
>>> Well, *yes*. It's not business to be carried out on the list nor does the
>>> guy who moans about it seem to know why. And if you are the second from
>>>
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> That's ridiculous, you don't even know what's wrong or if it's wrong at
> all or what you want him to do but you have to cry it out loud to the list
> to put social pressure on him.
No, actually it's more like you have to get out of a bus -
A
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Miranda Hawarden-Ogata
wrote:
>>
> 3) I do not have any mailing list messages deposited in my spam boxes and do
> not have any "/dev/null" redirects either in gmail or in TB (and never will.
> I'm a sysad, therefore the word paranoid cannot be applied >:D). I can s
On 2014/11/13 12:43, Darr247 wrote:
On 13 November 2014 @21:51 zulu, Miranda Hawarden-Ogata wrote:
Have you tried setting up the TB filter to mark as not-junk when it
runs? Mine are set to "apply before junk classification" matching on
"to/from/cc/bcc contains centos@centos.org" and then the ac
On 13 November 2014 @21:51 zulu, Miranda Hawarden-Ogata wrote:
Have you tried setting up the TB filter to mark as not-junk when it
runs? Mine are set to "apply before junk classification" matching on
"to/from/cc/bcc contains centos@centos.org" and then the actions are
"move to folder", "set jun
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Darr247 wrote:
> On 13 November 2014 @14:53 zulu, Elias Persson wrote:
>>
>> Presumably you've already got a filter set up for applying a label to list
>> mails.
>
>
> Actually, on those 'dmarc=fail (p=REJECT/p=QUARANTINE' emails, Thunderbird
> ignores the filter
On 13 November 2014 @14:53 zulu, Elias Persson wrote:
Presumably you've already got a filter set up for applying a label to
list mails.
Actually, on those 'dmarc=fail (p=REJECT/p=QUARANTINE' emails,
Thunderbird ignores the filter that moves this list's emails into the
local folder I have setu
Once upon a time, Valeri Galtsev said:
> I would second that. In general, it is rather discouraging to hear: "hey,
> fix that thing on your side. Of course, I can make your mail not go into
> my spambox on my side, but I don't care to change anything on my side".
The problem with that is, in some
On Wed, November 12, 2014 15:50, g wrote:
>
>
> On 11/12/2014 10:13 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, no. Per the headers:
>>
>> Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com:
>> centos-boun...@centos.org does not designate permitted sender hosts)
>> smtp.mail=centos-boun...
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Valeri Galtsev
wrote:
>
>
> I would second that. In general, it is rather discouraging to hear: "hey,
> fix that thing on your side. Of course, I can make your mail not go into
> my spambox on my side, but I don't care to change anything on my side".
> Well if you
On Thu, November 13, 2014 8:53 am, Elias Persson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2014-11-12 22:11, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> It's not my problem, it is what his domain says should be done
>> with mail claiming to be from there but isn't.. Your mail system
>> may sim
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Elias Persson wrote:
>>
> Presumably you've already got a filter set up for applying a label to
> list mails. Simply check the "Never mark as spam" box and those mails
> will no longer be misplaced.
>
I don't bother defining filters for gmail. It is capable of se
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2014-11-12 22:11, Les Mikesell wrote:
> It's not my problem, it is what his domain says should be done
> with mail claiming to be from there but isn't.. Your mail system
> may simply ignore the request, but that doesn't mean it always will
> or th
On 12 November 2014 @22:47 zulu, Darr247 wrote:
On 12 November 2014 @20:50 zulu, g wrote:
i believe problems are on your end, and not with server for James. i
do not see "dmarc=fail" or "p=QUARANTINE" in *any* of his email headers.
I think you're not seeing the full headers, then.
e.g. most o
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Darr247 wrote:
> On 12 November 2014 @20:50 zulu, g wrote:
>>
>> i believe problems are on your end, and not with server for James. i do
>> not see "dmarc=fail" or "p=QUARANTINE" in *any* of his email headers.
>
>
> I think you're not seeing the full headers, then.
On 12 November 2014 @20:50 zulu, g wrote:
i believe problems are on your end, and not with server for James. i
do not see "dmarc=fail" or "p=QUARANTINE" in *any* of his email headers.
I think you're not seeing the full headers, then.
e.g. most of the headers of a recent message in here from Ja
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:50 PM, g wrote:
>
>> Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com:
>> centos-boun...@centos.org does not designate permitted sender hosts)
>> smtp.mail=centos-boun...@centos.org; dkim=neutral (body hash did not
>> verify) header.i=@; dmarc=fail (p=QUARAN
On 11/12/2014 10:13 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Kai Schaetzl
> wrote:
>> That's ridiculous, you don't even know what's wrong or if it's
>> wrong at all or what you want him to do but you have to cry it out
>> loud to the list to put social pressure on him.
very go
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Kai Schaetzl said:
>> Well, *yes*. It's not business to be carried out on the list nor does the
>> guy who moans about it seem to know why. And if you are the second from
>> Gmail then please move it off-list as well. It's r
Once upon a time, Kai Schaetzl said:
> Well, *yes*. It's not business to be carried out on the list nor does the
> guy who moans about it seem to know why. And if you are the second from
> Gmail then please move it off-list as well. It's really not anyone's
> problem on this list what Gmail doe
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote on Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:13:07 -0600:
>
>> Well, no.
>
> Well, *yes*. It's not business to be carried out on the list nor does the
> guy who moans about it seem to know why. And if you are the second from
> Gmail then please
Les Mikesell wrote on Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:13:07 -0600:
> Well, no.
Well, *yes*. It's not business to be carried out on the list nor does the
guy who moans about it seem to know why. And if you are the second from
Gmail then please move it off-list as well. It's really not anyone's
problem on t
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
>> That's ridiculous, you don't even know what's wrong or if it's wrong at
>> all or what you want him to do but you have to cry it out loud to the list
>> to put social pressure on him.
>
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> That's ridiculous, you don't even know what's wrong or if it's wrong at
> all or what you want him to do but you have to cry it out loud to the list
> to put social pressure on him.
Well, no. Per the headers:
Authentication-Results: mx.goog
On Wed, November 12, 2014 9:46 am, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> That's ridiculous, you don't even know what's wrong or if it's wrong at
> all or what you want him to do but you have to cry it out loud to the list
> to put social pressure on him. Please move this to private mail and
> understand that Gmai
That's ridiculous, you don't even know what's wrong or if it's wrong at
all or what you want him to do but you have to cry it out loud to the list
to put social pressure on him. Please move this to private mail and
understand that Gmail is *not* what rules email best practice and also try
to un
49 matches
Mail list logo
