Re: [libreoffice-users] Website security and encryption

[Paul Steyn]

Out of interest, what benefit do you think you will have from an https
connection to the LibreOffice site?

As all the information is being downloaded, and not uploaded, and is
publicly available, there is no security from the encryption; anybody
can get the same data you are accessing. The verification of the domain
is useful, but does still rely on trusting the DNS servers. The download
itself can be verified through other, better means to ensure it is good,
although this does again rely on the website not having been hacked,
which https does nothing to ensure. Although using encryption does
prevent your ISP throttling the download, I didn't think that was
common with http traffic, more with bittorrent traffic. The target IP
address is also available, so https doesn't prevent people from keeping
tabs on which sites you visit. Encrypted traffic does also prevent your
ISP inserting ads, but do any ISPs actually do this?

The added verification of the domain is useful (although not absolute),
and the general feeling that all internet traffic should be encrypted
to prevent tracking and throttling is also valid, but the post was
strongly worded, so I wondered if you had a particular need for
encrypted traffic instead of normal.


Paul

PS. I find the tone of the message to be a little strong,
especially given that you are mistaken in your belief, and a simple
test would have verified that. Given your sentiments about unencrypted
traffic, you are of course fully entitled to simply not use the
LibreOffice site or software. If you do wish to use it, politeness and
respect will get you much further in this community.

I may be completely wrong in this assumption, but from the tone of your
message, and the strong view that you will not use any unencrypted
sites, in addition to your not doing a simple check to see if an
encrypted version of the site was available, leads me to suspect that
you misunderstand how https connections work, and the benefits they
provide and the risks plain http present. Perhaps the situation is not
as dire as you suspect.




On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 18:57:13 -0500
Eric Scherer  wrote:

> I'm amazed and surprised none of your webpages -- including the
> downloads -- are via secure/encrypted connections ("https://; or
> otherwise).
> 
> There's absolutely no reason ANY website should be doing this.
> 
> I refuse any site, not to mention download anything from them, if
> connections aren't secure and encrypted.
> 
> BIG oversight on your behalf.
> 
> -- 
> To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
> Problems?
> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> Posting guidelines + more:
> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive:
> http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent
> to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] BitTorrent downloads: Tracker problem

[Paul Steyn]

Hi Henrik,

Given how the issue is specific to a particular torrent client and
version, and that the torrent works with various other clients, I don't
think that there is likely to be anything wrong with the torrent
itself. More likely the problem is some sort of misconfiguration on your
side with that particular torrent client.

The error message itself seems to indicate that it is something to do
with a key changing on your side. I'm no torrent protocol expert, but
could it be that the change in torrent client version is causing the
tracker to see you as having a new key? Perhaps reinstalling will fix
the issue, or try that same version from a new PC and see if the
problem persists.

In short, while I can't be certain, I suspect that there is no problem
with the torrent itself, but that something on your side is causing the
issue, though I don't know enough to hazard a reliable guess.


Paul


On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 20:36:05 -0400
Henrik Worrmann  wrote:

> Hello.
> 
> 
> I did not know where to send this to, that is why you are reading
> this email, hopefully. As a daily user of LibreOffice and the
> BitTorrent-protocol, I am happy to share a little bandwidth for this
> awesome project. Recently, I stumbled upon a weird failure of your
> BitTorrent-tracker
> (http://tracker.documentfoundation.org:6969/announce). Using the most
> recent version of BitTorrent/µTorrent, its status changes from
> "working" to "Your client's "key" parameter and the key we have for
> you in the in our database do not match." This does not happen when
> using BitTorrent-clients based on the libtorrent-library (such as
> Deluge or qBittorrent), Tixati or µTorrent 2.2.1.
> 
> To replicate the failure, I used µTorrent 3.4.7 (Build 42330). As
> written above, it works fine with µTorrent 2.2.1, although, besides
> some changes in the UI and probably in the core, nothing big should
> have changed.
> 
> Seen from the point of distribution, many people are affected by this
> bug, as they use the most current version of µTorrent/BitTorrent.
> This also may affect the working transfer between the seeders and
> peers, as the tracker cannot coordinate the seeder to the peer,
> prevented by the bug mentioned before.
> 
> Is there an explanation for this status occurring?
> To my knowledge (in short), it only affects µTorrent version 3+ or
> BitTorrent 7.5+.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Henrik Worrmann


-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: question about the best version of libreoffice - MY God is better!

[Paul Steyn]

Well said, Tom.

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:29:54 +
Tom Davies  wrote:

> Hi :)
> Phil, i know you think you probably think you are just an atheist and
> acting reasonably but this topic didn't arise in all the years that we
> have seen Christian messages in various people's signatures.  The
> discussion only arose after the only Islamic quote in all these years.
> 
> This has happened at a time when it's popular to attack Muslims for
> their faith, and for the stereotypes pushed out by mainstream media to
> demonise and vilify Muslims.
> 
> Ridiculing religions in general might seem reasonable but choosing to
> do so right now, only after the first Islamic quote in a signature and
> not in any of the previous several years of Christian quotes (and
> hundreds of them) is Islamaphobic.
> 
> It has been good to see people on this mailing-list increasingly make
> a stand against the increasing level of Islamaphobia in this thread -
> even people who don't understand or don't agree with Islam.  In my
> opinion standing with someone who seems to be being given a hard-time
> by 'the mainstream' is FAR more impressive than just taking cheap
> opportunistic pot-shots that are
> 
> LibreOffice and the OpenDocument Format are making a stand against the
> mainstream and although the tide may be beginning to turn for us i am
> sure we can all remember moments where mainstream-people have done or
> said things, without even realising it, that are extremely pro-MSO and
> their ever-changing, unreliable formats.
> 
> 
> Please can we drop this topic and get on with the questions at hand?
> Regards from
> Tom :)
> 
> 
> 
> On 26 January 2016 at 04:37, Philip Rhoades 
> wrote:
> > Virgil,
> >
> >
> > On 2016-01-26 07:24, Virgil Arrington wrote:  
> >>
> >> On 01/25/2016 01:40 PM, jomali wrote:  
> >>>
> >>> Please note that the original message by Nasrin was on a topic
> >>> germane to this list. One member with an excessively tender sore
> >>> spot objected to something in Nasrin's signature that expressed
> >>> his sincerely held faith. There was no intent on Nasrin's part to
> >>> proselytize or to demean another's
> >>> faith, as Phil's diatribe does.  
> >>
> >>
> >> I tend to agree about signature lines. They can contain all kinds
> >> of things having nothing to do with LO. Sometimes they're funny;  
> >
> >
> >
> > That would be fine . .
> >
> >  
> >> other
> >> times they are informative about the writer. Phil's signature line
> >> includes his address in Australia, which is informative, but has
> >> nothing to do with LO. Nasrin's signature line includes a a few
> >> lines about his Muslim faith,  
> >
> >
> >
> > Another person with low general knowledge . . again I am not
> > surprised . .
> >
> >  
> >> also informative but also having nothing to do
> >> with LO.
> >>
> >> I pretty much ignore signature lines, and I can't possibly imagine
> >> being offended by one, regardless of what it might say.
> >>
> >> a Christian who loves Muslims  
> >
> >
> >
> > And there we have it - another person who has an agenda - they can't
> > criticise someone else for proselytising their superstitious
> > nonsense because they have their own superstitious nonsense . . a
> > person who "loves" someone else but does not even know that the
> > person they "love" is a "she" and not a "he" . . clueless . .
> >
> > P.
> >
> > --
> > Philip Rhoades
> >
> > PO Box 896
> > Cowra  NSW  2794
> > Australia
> > E-mail:  p...@pricom.com.au
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
> > Problems?
> > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> > Posting guidelines + more:
> > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive:
> > http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent
> > to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
> >  
> 


-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LOBase Query - Left or Right Join?

[Paul Steyn]

Hi Don,

Your SELECT statement is indeed incorrect; it seems as though you don't
fully understand joins (I could be mistaken, but your syntax is off
by enough to suggest this).

Firstly, choose a format for your SELECT statement to make it easier to
read. I've reformatted it below using one such formatting standard that
I've used in the past, but you can of course choose your own. The
important thing is that it isn't simply one large blob of text.

Secondly, use table aliases. After the table name in the FROM clause,
you can include a table alias, which you can use elsewhere (including in
the SELECT clause) to refer to the table. These are often much shorter
than the table names, making the whole statement easier to read. Also,
if you are including a table more than once (for different join
conditions), I think you are required to have aliases to distinguish
between the two table uses. You are actually doing this in your
statement, and it gives rise to an ambiguity.

Thirdly, JOINs are complicated, as there are many options: INNER
JOINs, LEFT, RIGHT and FULL OUTER JOINs, CROSS JOINs, NATURAL JOINs,
etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Join_(SQL)

The most common (in my experience) are INNER and LEFT OUTER JOINs.
Don't worry about the rest for now.

Think of it this way:

For inner joins, with the condition in the FROM clause

(i.e. FROM tableA a INNER JOIN tableB b on a.id = b.id)

You are adding all rows from tableA to a result set, then, for each row
in tableB that matches the condition, you are adding all the fields
from tableB to that row of the result set (if more than one row matches
a row in the result set, the existing row is duplicated). If a row in
the result set doesn't match any rows in tableB, it is removed from the
result set.

For OUTER JOINS, of the form:

FROM tableA a LEFT OUTER JOIN tableB b on a.id = b.id

You are doing the same thing, except that should a row in the result
set not match any rows in tableB, it is not discarded from the result
set, and instead NULL values are used for all fields that would
otherwise have come from tableB.


Now your statement has a lot of AND parts in the JOINs, which don't
have proper conditions, and so they look like they may have come about
due to you not understanding the syntax properly, and aren't actually
needed, so I have removed them.

I've also re-ordered the FROM list, which shouldn't strictly speaking
be necessary (I think), but does make it easier to follow logically if
tables are listed in the FROM list before other tables reference them
in their JOIN conditions.

You're also missing the "tCntEntityPerson" table in the FROM list, as
it is used in the JOIN conditions of other tables, but as you've listed
"tCntEntity" twice, with the second one having "tCntEntityPerson" in
the join condition, I've assumed that this was a mistype (or
misunderstanding), and I've corrected that to be the missing
"tCntEntityPerson" in the FROM list.

The same with "tCntContactAddress".

And as you've included the "tCntPerson" table twice, joined to
different tables, there is an ambiguity in your SELECT clause as to
which table you are referring to. I've used aliases to clarify that,
but you'll have to correct those two lines in the SEELECT statement
yourself, as only you know which table you want data from.

So, your SELECT statement should be *something* like the following:


SELECT
core_cat."category",
ent."entity_name",
pers_from_[ent or addr?]."first_name",
pers_from_[ent or addr?]."last_name",
addr."location_name",
addr."address1"
FROM
"tCntEntityCategory" ent_cat
JOIN "tCntEntity" ent
ON ent_cat."entity_id" = ent."entity_id"
JOIN "tCoreCategory" core_cat
ON ent_cat."category_id" = core_cat."category_id"
AND core_cat."category" LIKE 'Internal -%';
JOIN "tCntEntityPerson" ent_pers
ON ent_pers."entity_id" = ent."entity_id"
JOIN "tCntPerson" pers_from_ent
ON ent_pers."person_id" = pers_from_ent."person_id"
LEFT OUTER JOIN "tCntContactAddress" ctct_addr
ON ctct_addr."entity_id" = ent."entity_id"
LEFT OUTER JOIN "tCntPerson" pers_from_addr
ON ctct_addr."person_id" = pers_from_addr."person_id"
LEFT OUTER JOIN "tCntAddress" addr
ON ctct_addr."address_id" = addr."address_id"



(Sorry, I haven't actually tested this, just eyeballed it, so this may
be syntactically or logically incorrect, but it should get you pretty
close to what you need.)

Hope this helps.


Paul


On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 12:06:56 -0500
Don Parris  wrote:

> Update:  I did try re-writing the query with LEFT/RIGHT JOINS, but
> all I get are syntax errors.  Maybe I have my SQL statement incorrect?
> 
> SELECT "tCoreCategory"."category", "tCntEntity"."entity_name",
> "tCntPerson"."first_name", "tCntPerson"."last_name",
> "tCntAddress"."location_name", "tCntAddress"."address1"
> FROM "tCntEntityCategory" JOIN "tCntEntity" ON
> "tCntEntityCategory"."entity_id" =