Mark Rousell wrote:
>> But once you accept a
>> message with a success status after the DATA stage, you are obliged to
>> either really deliver it or else bounce it back. It is not acceptable to
>> send messages down a "black hole".
> This *should* not be acceptable (and it's very annoying if yo
Marjorie Roome via Dng wrote:
> I also end up rejecting a lot of spam because it lacks a reverse hostname
> (it's easily the largest category).
> So it's not just a few such as ntlworld and gmx that check this.
IIRC the specific complaint wasn't that they checked for rDNS, but that they
matche
Alessandro Vesely via Dng wrote:
>> IIRC the specific complaint wasn't that they checked for rDNS, but that they
>> matched it against the domain of the sender. That makes no sense at all, it
>> prevents running more than one domain on one mail server.
> Why would it? A configurable mail serv
Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>> You mean, like in the web hosting days before hostname headers where
>> you needed a different IP address for each hosted domain name ? That's
>> very 20th century and not a luxury most of us have.
>
> FWIW, Linode (where my sole server is hosted) gives me a /64 IPv6 bloc
terryc wrote:
>> You can also publish DKIM and SPF records so as to produce
>> DMARC-aligned authentication for any hosted domain. Users won't
>> notice any difference.
>
> Does anyone have any figures on how effective these methods are?
> It seems we get a new idea every few years and none mak
Alessandro Vesely via Dng wrote:
>> I have no choice over the neighbours !
> Don't buy overly cheap connections...
Doesn't matter how much you pay - unless you get an entire net-block to
yourself then you have no control over the neighbours. Only the ISP has control
over the neighbours.
> An
Rick Moen wrote:
> My response inevitably is that I really couldn't
> care less whether they like SPF or not. ...
May I respectfully pick you up on that one.
Regardless of the arguments for and against which have been done to death for
long enough, SPF did predictably break email in many ways
Rick Moen wrote:
>> Regardless of the arguments for and against which have been done to
>> death for long enough, SPF did predictably break email in many ways -
>> some of which I used to use, and some which my clients used to use.
>
> Sounds like a problem local to you.
No, not in the least b
Simon Walter wrote:
> Other than a manual install, are there any alternatives? I am interested to
> hear how others are doing this.
I never got round to switching from using SSLMate - only $16/yr (equates to
around £10/yr for me) for a basic (domain.tld + www.domain.tld) cert, but
quickly get
Hendrik Boom wrote:
> Know any domain registrars that don't mess with the user?
You could take a look at mythic-beasts.com or portfast.net
When I left my last place, I decided to move my domains away from them (as an
employee I got "cost price" domains and free hosting) - knowing that the peop
Hendrik Boom wrote:
> I had to solve it by assigning new names to the interfaces (thus not eth0 or
> eth1) and modifying all the config files mentioning those interface names (I
> found them with grep) to use the new names instead.
Not for the OPs reason, but a long time ago I started to use "
Didier Kryn wrote:
> Therefore I suspect the authors managed to launch several threads in order to
> save 0.01s of the boot time. Or to loose more because thread scheduling might
> well consume more than what parallelism saves.
In the general case, parallelism only saves wall clock time IFF yo
Didier Kryn wrote:
> I remember these Apollos. They were shining and ran some brand of
> Unix if I remember well. We had a few in my lab but I never got a chance
> to touch one.
I knew "just about zero" about Unix back then so can't comment on how they
compared with anything else. The OS wa
Hendrik Boom wrote:
It didn't have to be this way. In 2020, better alternatives could
have been made. If I were the project manager, the first thing I'd
do is uncouple keyboard, mouse and video from each other. Why X has
anything to do with keyboard or mouse is beyond me.
>>
Stephane Ascoet via Dng wrote:
>> Of course, the 80's were better, and the 90's were even better than
>> that, but the 70's were no slouch when it comes to music. If you skip
>> disco.
>
> Hi, it's a joke? 70s are considered by lot of people to be the best decade in
> music, just some examples
Gabe Stanton via Dng wrote:
> Is it as simple as inviting anyone that wants to, to send their public
> key to this list? I'm not experienced in web of trust common/accepted
> practices but have been interested for some time.
No, it's not that simple !
Try this for starters : https://en.wikipedi
Florian Zieboll via Dng wrote:
> For the sake of completeness and y'all's convenience, here a link to the
> related info in the Debianwiki:
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/NetworkInterfaceNames
Did anyone else read that and think it could be summarised along the lines of :
"We thought X was badly b
tito via Dng wrote:
> I wonder why instead of predictable names they didn't choose
> prefix+mac_address at least for initial setup of names and leave it
> to user to name the interfaces they way he likes. This would have
> guaranteed (almost) unique persistent names and by using standard
> prefix
Steve Litt wrote:
> The vast majority of documents I've read tell me that once you make the
> bridge, the hardware NIC must be robbed of its IP addresses. So that's
> what I did.
That is the correct way to do it - though from memory it does seem to still
work for host-LAN communications if you
Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
>> I doubt this could be ever implemented correctly as you have to check
>> every code path of every app you will armorize or as soon as your usage
>> diverges from what the distro gurus have envisioned your program
>> will stop working without even a warning.
>> Next th
Gabe Stanton via Dng wrote:
> Of course using a local (or controlled by you) caching dns resolver
> ENHANCES privacy. That's not even a question and doesn't represent a
> real argument against the likelihood that, in the case of everyone
> running their own caching resolver, that second level nam
Gabe Stanton via Dng wrote:
> You're right that I didn't address the fact that queries to root
> servers don't all go to one server. My understanding of that wasn't
> firm when I was writing so I said 'upstream server'. But that would be
> a small hurdle to overcome if everyone started protecting
terryc wrote:
> I need to sketch a plan of a land plot for an erection by a
> contractor. the 'erection' can be described as three to five rectangles
> with ramps between them. Ancillary data to be plotted/drawn is building
> sides, pathway and drive way. placement of shrubbery is optional. I'm
>
> On 8 Mar 2021, at 14:08, Steve Litt wrote:
>
> Rick Moen said:
>
>> The above is a vexing problem for travelers w/laptops who prefer to
>> specify their own choice of nameserver and still use hotel/motel WiFi
>> (and wired ethernet, actually). Best case, you have to disable your
>> nameserve
g4sra via Dng wrote:
>>> The meeting being hosted on the server needs to be simultaneously
>>> accessible as two different domains, internal.com and external.com.
>>> Anyone achieved this yet or know a better way ?
> Decided to use the external FQDN and implement BIND's response-policy' lying
>
g4sra wrote:
>> It is as simple as needing to connect to the server at different IPs (i.e.
>> the internal IP from inside, the external IP from outside), but using the
>> same URL ?
>
> In a nutshell, yes.
OK, then I'd use split horizon DNS - problem solved (but noting the comment
made abou
Rick Moen wrote:
>> That latter point means that you go to https://myfavouritewebsite.com
>> and no you don't get the portal page - you get a certificate warning.
>> Given that most people these days will have https URLs cached in their
>> browser, you have to manually and explicitly try and conn
> On 27 Mar 2021, at 03:55, John Morris wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2021-03-26 at 15:46 -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
>>
>> I'd suggest nobody sign anything, and nobody respond to this email.
>>
>> If you believe that Stallman was removed, shunned and criticized
>> because of guilt by association, then it's
401 - 428 of 428 matches
Mail list logo
