Ok, a question about anti-spam software...
My new server will be a multi-domain MX gateway/anti-spam system running
postfix with postscreen enabled, and Amavisd-New+SpamAssassin (unless
someone has a better suggestion).
Since it has been a looong time - are there any better options for an
anti-sp
On 9/15/2021 6:45 AM, Brian wrote
> I was also rather hoping Tanstaafl would contribute a few words on how
> the unstable model contrasts with Gentoo's rolling release model.
Well, it's been many years, but basically, you could select what
'branch' you were on using keyw
On 9/13/2021 11:02 AM, Brian wrote
> On Mon 13 Sep 2021 at 10:18:54 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> So, I'm considering Debian for a new homebrew MX gateway I want to set
>> up, but it depends...
>>
>> I'm a former Gentoo user, and rea
Hello,
So, I'm considering Debian for a new homebrew MX gateway I want to set
up, but it depends...
I'm a former Gentoo user, and really appreciated the rolling release
aspect, since it meant no huge jumps between LTS releases with other
distros.
So... what is the current LTS version and when is
On 9/20/2019, 10:02:19 AM, Paul Sutton wrote:
> Donald trump promised to bring jobs back to the US, cut regulation. He
> has done that, if people judge him on his performance alone he has done
> pretty much what he said he would. Not many politicians can boast
> that,. The problem is it is HOW
On 9/20/2019, 9:48:28 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> Donald Trump will go down in history as the greatest President in the
>> last 100 years, maybe more.
>
> I guess I could live with that, but only if he goes down quickly.
Nice try, epic fail...
On 9/19/2019, 12:05:39 PM, Fred wrote:
> On 9/19/19 8:40 AM, Default User wrote:
>> We have descended into the new Dark Ages where intellectual discourse,
>> freedom of speech, and even freedom of thought will not be tolerated.
>>
>> The witch hunts are back.
> Do we have our lying idiot, bag of
On Wed Dec 27 2017 13:39:29 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time), Gokan
Atmaca wrote:
> Hello
>
> I want to use the "pastebinit" service on the local network. Just for
> my own team. Is there such an application?
Maybe not exactly what you are looking for, but DL-Ticket is excellent:
https://www.th
On 9/14/2016 10:14 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Well, I found out where all that load was coming from.
>
> Looks like a recent Thunderbird update reset its config to "keep all
> messages for this account on this computer" - for all accounts
The first time this fiasco happened - the update happen
On 6/16/2016 7:45 AM, < wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 07:26:37AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> On 6/15/2016 4:23 PM, Rodary Jacques wrote:
>>> Mozilla isn't free
>> What a ridiculous claim this has always been by debianites...
> This is an unnecessary slu
My last reply to the spammer aka 'Nicolas George'...
On 6/16/2016 5:28 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
> With that in mind, you realize that the reply-to-list feature is bad UI
> design:
No, but I did take a minute to test and discovered my MUA of choice
(Thunderbird) does have a bug with respect to i
On 6/15/2016 4:23 PM, Rodary Jacques wrote:
> Not using any MUA, just a browser (Opera, which is BTW in the official
> Debian list: https://wiki.debian.org/WebBrowsers, non-free but I don't
> know why as it is a Mozilla clone; Mozilla isn't free
What a ridiculous claim this has always been by deb
On 6/13/2016 12:36 PM, Nicolas George wrote:
> Let me try to re-state it one more time another way:
>
> A is annoyed by unwanted CCs and wants to make it stop.
>
> Solution 1: ask every people who reply to A, i.e. people who do not care
> about the unwanted CCs, to make a (moderate) effort witho
On 6/13/2016 11:42 AM, John Hasler wrote:
> "Reply to List" needs to be enabled in the mailing list software.
Not precisely right - mailing list software only needs to add the
appropriate list headers defined by the relevant RFCs.
This list does (and so Reply-To-List works as it should).
> Thus
On 6/13/2016 11:12 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
> Le sextidi 26 prairial, an CCXXIV, Tanstaafl a écrit :
>> This is why Reply-To-List is the way to reply when engaged in a mailing
>> list.
>>
>> If your client doesn't have this, then maybe it is time to consider
&g
On 6/13/2016 5:57 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
> Nobody can be expected to remember the personal preferences of each
> mailing-list member,
This is why Reply-To-List is the way to reply when engaged in a mailing
list.
If your client doesn't have this, then maybe it is time to consider
changing.
Honest question...
What exactly is libsystemd0?
Maybe a simple solution would be to just rename it to something less
'offensive' to some, like:
libinit - or libinit0
?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas.
On 11/23/2014 2:09 PM, Brian wrote:
> It would be nice if you regarded the word "functionally" as an essential
> qualification of "equivalent" or "identical" and not dismiss it.
What would be nice is if you (and others) would stop claiming that
'installing systemd, then installing sysvinit-core,
On 11/23/2014 12:43 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Sunday 23 November 2014 17:23:15 Tanstaafl wrote:
>> 'installing systemd, then removing
>> and installing sysvinit' - was absolutely not and never could be
>> considered the *equivalent*
>> of doing a *clean inst
On 11/22/2014 10:10 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Lu, 10 nov 14, 18:20:37, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> On 11/10/2014 6:18 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
>>> Am 11.11.2014 um 00:14 schrieb Miles Fidelman:
>>>
>>>> Ok, then explain to me the procedure for running the in
On 11/10/2014 6:18 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 11.11.2014 um 00:14 schrieb Miles Fidelman:
>
>> Ok, then explain to me the procedure for running the installer in such a
>> way that systemd is never installed, thus avoiding any potential
>> problems that might result from later uninstallation al
On 11/17/2014 6:10 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:
> Excuse me, but some people think anatomy jokes are distasteful.
Some people think sex should only be for procreation...
PC police get sooo tiring...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubsc
On 11/16/2014 6:40 AM, Klistvud wrote:
> As a further example, the former udev (prior to being merged into
> systemd) has already been forked and could/will serve us well for
> years to come. And so on.
Is eudev in the debian sources?
Or do you mean another fork?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to d
On 11/15/2014 7:20 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Vi, 14 nov 14, 08:55:47, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> On 11/14/2014 5:26 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>>> It was claimed that sysvinit was the default *and only* (emphasis not
>>> mine) init, and therefore no selection was
On 11/14/2014 5:26 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> It was claimed that sysvinit was the default *and only* (emphasis not
> mine) init, and therefore no selection was needed, but now that there
> are several a selection suddenly is needed.
I don't recall claiming that sysvinit was the *only* init, n
On 11/13/2014 3:42 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Jo, 13 nov 14, 11:28:57, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>
>> Yes, apparently because someone actively sabotaged any possibility of
>> OpenRC being considered by giving improper bad information on how to use
>> it...
>
>
On 11/13/2014 10:53 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Saturday 08 November 2014 15:31:02 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
>> Andrei Popescu:
>>> Quote from above, with added emphasis:
>> >> Upstart was the only *real* contender to systemd *at the time* of
>> >> the evaluation for the Technical Committ
On 11/12/2014 5:18 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 12 nov 14, 15:43:09, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>
>> Sounds good to me, but in reality, since the default *and only* init
>> system for the last very many years was Sysvinit (this extremely salient
>> point seems to be com
On 11/12/2014 3:10 PM, Brian wrote:
> On Wed 12 Nov 2014 at 06:27:56 -0500, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
>> On 11/11/2014 2:16 PM, Brian wrote:
>>> New users do not need to be be aware of all the background to the
>>> choosing of a default init. No advertisement is needed.
On 11/12/2014 10:40 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> I can't insist enough on this: the Debian procedures have been correctly
> followed; the TC took a decision which could be challenged by a simple
> majority GR [0]. This GR has never been called by anyone with voting
> rights, or hasn't gath
On 11/12/2014 10:13 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Le mercredi, 12 novembre 2014, 09.11:40 Tanstaafl a écrit :
>> Which is precisely *why* (people) should have been required to fix
>> that bug (…)
>
> This is simply not how Debian works.
If Debian works in suc
On 11/12/2014 9:02 AM, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> So like Michael said, Jessie will indeed be the first
> version that allows you to have an alternate init without modifying the
> kernel cmdline.
Which is precisely *why* the systemd proponents should have been
required to fix that bug and get th
On 11/11/2014 2:16 PM, Brian wrote:
> New users do not need to be be aware of all the background to the
> choosing of a default init. No advertisement is needed. By definition,
> they do not care. They want Debian. Please let them have it.
Wow... what arrogance...
That is tantamount to treating
On 11/11/2014 3:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Actually, there's a patch (thank you Kenshi). It has not been applied.
> Hence, to use it right now, one has to build a custom version of the
> installer. I hope, that post the initial Jessie release, the deboostrap
> and installer maintainers w
On 11/11/2014 12:07 PM, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> There are no functional differences between an installation with
> sysvinit-core out of the box or an install where sysvinit-core is
> installed later, this is a fact.
Irrelevant.
> Allowing the user to choose this at install time from the inte
On 11/11/2014 9:26 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Blaming the Debian project for letting the Debian distribution evolve in
> ways defined by its volunteers is unfair.
Eh? My understanding is that this systemd mess is due to a vote of the
technical committee, a vote that was in fact tied and t
On 11/11/2014 11:38 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
> Other people subscribe to a meaning of "default" which, e.g., assumes
> only that systemd will get installed as PID 1 unless some action is
> taken to prevent it from getting so installed. That seems like an
> entirely reasonable interpretation, at lea
On 11/10/2014 6:23 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> systemd-networkd is an entirely optional component, you don't have to
>> use it.
>> systemd-udevd is also an individual component, which btw is also used
>> under sysvinit (or upstart). You don't get really
On 11/10/2014 6:32 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 11.11.2014 um 00:23 schrieb Patrick Bartek:
>> Optional? Yes. A lot (most) of systemd is optional. (So, I've read.)
>> But isn't a lot of that optional stuff installed by default?
> It is, yes. We decided to not split up a 10M package into 20som
On 11/10/2014 6:18 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 11.11.2014 um 00:14 schrieb Miles Fidelman:
>> Ok, then explain to me the procedure for running the installer in such a
>> way that systemd is never installed, thus avoiding any potential
>> problems that might result from later uninstallation all t
On 11/10/2014 2:50 PM, Martin Read wrote:
> On 10/11/14 19:26, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> Exactly, it should remain in unstable unless/until it can be released
>> *perfectly* stable, so if that means it stays in unstable for 5 years,
>> so be it.
>
> If you want *perfectly* s
On 11/10/2014 2:44 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Michael Biebl wrote:
>> Am 10.11.2014 um 19:26 schrieb Patrick Bartek:
>>> Maybe, the release after Jessie will include an init choice.
>> Ironically, jessie is the first release where you can actually install
>> an alternative init.
>> Up until now y
On 11/10/2014 2:08 PM, Andrew McGlashan
wrote:
> On 11/11/2014 5:46 AM, Hans wrote:
>> Sorry for that, I hope he will not blame me for that. However, I
>> intended not to tark part on any side! Neither Lennarts nor the
>> systemd-haters.
> It's not about "haters" ... necessarily, what about those
On 11/10/2014 2:01 PM, st wrote:
> Hans wrote:
>
>> And at the beginning things never work perfect
>
> That's why they shouldn't make it into Stable as defaults,
> now should they?
Exactly, it should remain in unstable unless/until it can be released
*perfectly* stable, so if that means it stay
On 11/10/2014 8:47 AM, Joel Rees wrote:
> If systemd can stand on its own, it doesn't have to be defended
> against every "whinger" that comes along.
>
> (And I'll have you know that many, probably most of those you accuse
> of being whiners are very busy working out alternatives. And part of
> t
On 11/10/2014 2:01 AM, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Sorry, but requiring an up-to-date kernel (or any other infrastructure you
> rely on) instead of maintaining workarounds and compatibility code in
> perpetuity makes perfect sense.
It amazes me the depths that some systemd proponents obfuscate and
On 11/8/2014 10:03 AM, Mart van de Wege wrote:
> Quite frankly, I'm disgusted. A developer with a lot of contributions is
> chased away by the noise made by a bunch of whiners who can't even be
> bothered to set up a test server.
Obviously you didn't bother to read his posts.
His problem was not
On 11/5/2014 1:57 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2014, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> Not understanding this reference - so, you're saying you *can* perform
>> a clean install of Jessie using sysvinit for the init system, just
>> using a special command during the insta
On 11/5/2014 1:35 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> It's not an RC bug because it's easy to overcome with a late command.
Not understanding this reference - so, you're saying you *can* perform a
clean install of Jessie using sysvinit for the init system, just using a
special command during the install p
/2014 1:03 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Quoting myself from
> http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20141021184619.gq28...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
> with modifications.
>
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2014, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> Personally I think the biggest issue with Jessie at present is the
An opinion from a very new debian user...
On 11/4/2014 5:09 PM, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> http://debianfork.org/:
>
> "If systemd will be substituting sysvinit in Debian, we will fork the
> project and create a new distro. We hope this won't be necessary, but
> we are well prepared for it."
>
On 10/27/2014 10:20 PM, Martinx - ジェームズ
wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I would like to evaluate both `eudev` (or any other *udev), plus
> `uselessd`, on Debian sid/testing.
>
> Lets do it?!
>
> I' m planning to achieve, at least, "CGroups Process" with `uselessd`
> (no init scripts).
I would strong
On 10/28/2014 8:45 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> John Hasler wrote:
>> Martinx writes:
>>> I'm wondering here about this subject and what it means...
>>> So, what if `udev` becomes useless without `systemd` as PID1?
>> The someone will fork it. But it won't happen, partly for that reason.
> I bel
On 10/26/2014 3:17 PM, Jean-Marc wrote:
> Thank so much for your answers.
> After reading them in the list archives, I think I will go for:
> - no dedicated partition for /boot;
For my new debian groupware server (sogo, working great so far), I just
installed with the defaults, which apparently i
On 10/25/2014 11:35 AM, Sven Hartge wrote:
> Tanstaafl wrote:
>> So apparently I need to reboot to be on the new kernel image... but,
>> since I wasn't prompted, it apparently isn't important to do so right
>> away?
>
>> Just trying to get my head aro
On 10/25/2014 10:41 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Sb, 25 oct 14, 09:07:56, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>
>> I just updated my wheezy install from 7.5 to 7.7, but I'm surprised that
>> I wasn't prompted to reboot, as the kernel image was updated:
>
> As of Jessie the
Hello,
Googling didn't seem to reveal a definitive answer...
I'm still very new to the debian world, so... anyway...
I just updated my wheezy install from 7.5 to 7.7, but I'm surprised that
I wasn't prompted to reboot, as the kernel image was updated:
linux-headers-3.2.0-4-amd64 (3.2.57-3+de
On 10/24/2014 4:49 AM, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
wrote:
> Tanstaafl:
>> And why was OPenRC not a contender?
> Your question takes a falsehood as its premise. It actually was,
> contrary to what M. Popescu dismissively stated. Several members of the
> technical committee to
On 10/23/2014 4:10 PM, koanhead wrote:
> I propose OpenRC, having recently tried it. So far I'm liking how it
> works, and it solves most of the problems I had with sysvinit. It's not
> a replacement for PID1, and is supposed to be compatible with arbitrary
> PID1 programs (sysvinit, sytemd, runit
On 10/21/2014 4:21 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> Upstart was the only real contender to systemd at the time of the
> evaluation by the Technical Committee, but it has or is being replaced
> by systemd everywhere.
And why was OPenRC not a contender?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ.
On 10/21/2014 11:19 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
> A blog post explaining why it isn't mandatory, the utter futility of
> the fork and more besides, clearly and simply.
>
> http://www.vitavonni.de/blog/201410/2014102101-avoiding-systemd.html
Doesn't address - and nothing can satisfactorily address (im
On 10/21/2014 1:08 AM, Steve Litt wrote:
> Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, what's your impression of the relative boot
> time of nosh vs systemd?
The *only* real world scenario that I can see where the boot speed
difference is only really meaningful in the world of cloud based VM
server farms, and I r
On 10/20/2014 10:36 PM, Martinx - ジェームズ
wrote:
> 1- Fork udev (out from systemd's tree or before it got merged / engulfed);
Maybe Gentoo's eudev would be a good place to start with that.
I also don't see why OpenRC isn't on the list of obvious choices. It is
the default in Gentoo and has been fo
On 10/20/2014 3:45 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to systemd,
> I wonder... What is a better alternative? And it can't be sysvinit.
>
> Yes. Syvinit still works, but it is after all 20 years old. It's been
> patched and bolted onto and jur
On 10/20/2014 9:39 AM, Peter Buzanits wrote:
> Am 2014-10-20 um 15:17 schrieb Tanstaafl:
>> On 10/20/2014 6:58 AM, Peter Buzanits wrote:
>>> VMware ESX 4.0.0 Build 236512
>>
>> That is really old...
>
> You think that the hypervisor could cause problems
On 10/20/2014 6:58 AM, Peter Buzanits wrote:
> VMware ESX 4.0.0 Build 236512
That is really old...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54450b4f.5070...@
On 10/20/2014 7:18 AM, Joe wrote:
> I think it's generally an admonishment not to get involved in relaying.
No, it is generally an admonishment not to get involved with relaying if
you do not have *access* to validate recipients.
There are multiple ways this can be achieved.
Easiest is what pos
On 10/17/2014 3:42 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
> The fun part will be to see who actually steps up to the plate to do all
> of the extra work. Especially amongst all of those pledged seconds. I
> hope someone is keeping a list. :) Ric
>From what I read, it will be one all debian devs (package maintain
On 10/17/2014 9:24 PM, lee wrote:
> You do not accept messages you can not deliver unless you are relaying
> them.
Absolutely wrong, this rule fully applies to relays just as it does
final destination servers.
Postfix allows you to do this even if you are unable to get/maintain a
local list of v
On 10/17/2014 1:29 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> I finished the thread right before I posted, and there were only 4 seconds.
Guess I missed some sub threads or something...
Oh well, glad to see it will get a vote...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
On 10/17/2014 1:01 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 10/17/2014 at 12:38 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
>> On 10/17/2014 12:21 PM, Steve Litt
>> wrote:
>
>>> Thank you Ian, and the seconders, and everyone who is speaking up
>>> for (what I call) sanity.
>>
>
On 10/17/2014 12:03 PM, Joe wrote:
> My point is that a mail server which is accepting mail for a domain
> needs to know the valid recipient list, and to *reject*, not bounce,
> mail for non-existent users during the SMTP transaction. Not
> controversial at all.
Ok, then no, you weren't clear at
On 10/17/2014 12:21 PM, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 07:54:06 -0700 (PDT)
> Rusi Mody wrote:
>
>> On Friday, October 17, 2014 8:00:02 PM UTC+5:30, Rob Owens wrote:
>>> - Original Message -
>>
Now let's see what happens with this!
https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/
On 10/13/2014 4:21 AM, Joe wrote:
> The intention is that the spam emails be accepted by a catch-all
> domain-wide mail server, then later bounced by the one that holds the
> mailboxes and knows the addresses are invalid.
And that, by definition, is backscatter, which will quickly (and
deservedly
On 10/16/2014 7:40 AM, Joel Rees wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> > On 10/15/2014 8:37 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> >> Tanstaafl couldn't answer it, and you can't either, because it's not
>>> >> violating any
On 10/16/2014 7:31 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 06:50:01AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> Anyone who runs a mail server and doesn't monitor the postmaster address
>> shouldn't be running a mail server.
> Tell that to yahoo, they *don't seem*
On 10/15/2014 8:37 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Tanstaafl couldn't answer it, and you can't either, because it's not
> violating any.
I did answer it, you just ignored it or don't understand it.
Quote:
"You do not have to violate an RFC to break SMTP."
Here
On 10/15/2014 5:12 PM, Brad Rogers wrote:
> Send an email with a large attachment(1) and there are quite a few
> servers that will silently drop it.
Anyone who does that is breaking SMTP. If you don't want messages over a
certain size, REJECT them, but absolutely do not EVER accept then
silently
On 10/15/2014 4:58 PM, Joe wrote:
> It's worth some effort, at the moment it is the single most effective
> anti-spam measure. If you outsource your mail, it's worth going to some
> trouble to find a hosting company who will hold and accept updates for
> a list of valid recipients.
Or even easier
On 10/15/2014 4:44 PM, Joe wrote:
> However, if the Reply-To: is forged, i.e. if it is spam, the
> alternative is considerably less OK. Bouncing a spam message simply
> delivers *the* *entire* *message* to an innocent third party, having
> been laundered through your (presumably legitimate and res
Please do not send to me directly, I am on the list.
On 10/15/2014 3:15 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/15/2014 12:40 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> Easy enough to prove. By all means, quote the actual text of me saying
>> this was 'OK'...
> You said:
>
> "Ho
On 10/15/2014 3:13 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Tanstaafl wrote:
>> 1. email to invalid recipients should be rejected at the RCPT-TO stage,
> Easier said then done - at least when a server does relaying, but
> clearly ideal when possible.
No, it is 100% easily done.
For ser
On 10/15/2014 12:50 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> I'll close by noting that this branch of discussion started with a focus
> on silently dropping spam, and whether that's a violation of standards.
Actually, no, this branch started with a focus on whether or not it is a
good idea to break SMTP by a
On 10/15/2014 12:06 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/15/2014 8:14 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> On 10/14/2014 3:28 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> But you just said it was OK to delete emails.
>> Please don't misquote me. I said it was the *worst case*, meaning, only
>&g
On 10/15/2014 12:25 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 10/15/2014 at 12:11 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> You're limiting it too much. From Dictionary.com:
>>
>> obscurity
>> noun, plural obscurities.
>> 1. the state or quality of being obscure.
>> 2. the condition of being unknown:
>> ...
> That's a def
On 10/14/2014 3:20 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/14/2014 11:24 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> However, once a message has been accepted - ie, *after* the DATA phase
>> is complete, it should never be bounced, it should be delivered - or,
>> worse, quarantined, or worst case, d
On 10/14/2014 3:28 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/14/2014 12:03 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> On 10/14/2014 11:17 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2014 8:05 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>>> If you think I'm kidding, please by all means go make these silly
>>&
On 10/14/2014 12:03 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> The 'silly statements' reference was about your suggestion
> that it is in any way shape or form 'ok' to *accept* mail to invalid
> recipients then send it to dev/null.
Incidentally, yes there may be some circumstances wher
On 10/14/2014 1:58 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Well, this really is OT for debian-users, but Turns out that SMTP
> WAS/IS intended to be reliable.
Reliable, absolutely. 100% reliable? That simply isn't possible when
people are involved in the equation (people mis-configure servers -
whether
On 10/14/2014 1:31 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
> You're talking past each other.
No, we're not, Jerry is arguing arguing against recipient validation on
mail servers, and I'm correcting some of the bad/mis-information he is
relying on when trying to support his argument.
> Still, the current "standard"
On 10/14/2014 11:17 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/14/2014 8:05 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> If you think I'm kidding, please by all means go make these silly
>> statements on the postfix list and I'll just sit and watch the fun.
> You don't read very well. This h
On 10/14/2014 11:09 AM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> In a quest to ensure your personal happiness the systemd maintainers
> took your problem and changed udev to assign predictable names to
> network interfaces.
And which resulted in much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On 10/14/2014 10:52 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:48:38AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> Rejecting will actually *reduce* traffic, because it doesn't accept the
>> entire messages, it slams the door at the RCPT-TO stage.
> Rejection can happen after
On 10/14/2014 10:15 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 08:05:00AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> To bounce all of those invalid addresses not only would further
>>> increase the amount of junk on the internet,
>> That is pure and absolute nonsense. The
On 10/13/2014 9:53 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Not a grey area at all. "...dropping mail > without notification of the
> sender is permitted...". As for the "...long tradition and community
> expectations..." - that's nice, but according to some estimates,
> spammers now account for over 90% of t
On 10/13/2014 7:47 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
> There is a header for requesting automatic confirmation of delivery,
> but it tends to be abused by malicious junkmailers (spammers). MUAs
> are supposed to be able to disable it, but I haven't seen that option
> in an MUA settings dialog for a long time.
On 10/8/2014 10:36 PM, Steve Litt wrote:
> If what you did works for everybody when Jessie goes stable, you've
> just singlehandedly ended this whole argument.
Not really.
Just because it can be done easily now, doesn't mean it will be as easy
- or even possible - a year or more from now - and I
On 10/7/2014 7:09 PM, John Holland wrote:
> The license of ZFS makes it impossible to be part of
> the kernel per se.
I have read multiple threads that explain why this is not true.
don't understand them, wish I did...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a s
On 10/4/2014 9:33 AM, Jeff Bauer wrote:
> Either could be accurately used. To wit:
Maybe in general/non computer terminology, but not in with respect to
computer software...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprecation
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/45295/why-is-there-confusion-between-
On 10/4/2014 6:44 AM, Tom Collins wrote:
> and "depreciating" (as if they have the right to do that) many
> programs that rely on gtk2 and non-syst__d.
It is 'deprecating', not 'depreciating' (an accounting term).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subj
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
