[ceph-users] Re: Slow recovery on Quincy

en Hu > Thank you for this, that parameter indeed seems completely wrong (assuming it means what it says on the tin). After changing that my Quincy cluster is no recovering at a much more reasonable speed. - Hector ___ ceph-users mailing list -- c

Re: [Koha] Fwd: Dead Koha Resuscitation

On 5/18/23 20:46, Bruce A. Metcalf wrote: On 5/18/23 21:35, Hector Gonzalez Jaime wrote: What does sudo koha-plack --start instancename Do? root@store:/usr/sbin# koha-plack --start library bash: koha-plack: command not found Which seems even more weird. Are the permissions wrong? You

Re: [Koha] Fwd: Dead Koha Resuscitation

n Library ___ Koha mailing list  http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz Unsubscribe: https://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha -- Hector Gonzalez ca...@genac.org ___ Koha mailing list http://koha-community

Re: [Koha] Fwd: Dead Koha Resuscitation

sts.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha -- Hector Gonzalez ca...@genac.org ___ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz Unsubscribe: https://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha

[Touch-packages] [Bug 2020123] [NEW] package keyboard-configuration 1.194ubuntu3 failed to install/upgrade: el subproceso instalado paquete keyboard-configuration script post-installation devolvió el

Public bug reported: Choices: 1: Launch a browser now C: Cancel Please choose (1/C): 1 sudo: xdg-open: command not found No se han podido instalar las actualizaciones La actualización se ha cancelado. Su sistema podría haber quedado en un estado no utilizable. Ahora se llevará a cabo una

Re: [Koha] Fwd: Dead Koha Resuscitation

an The Augustan Library ___ Koha mailing list  http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz Unsubscribe: https://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha -- Hector Gonzalez ca...@genac.org ___ Koha mailing list ht

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Third party signatures

to filter out failures with zero to low false positive. Diffusion by Osmosis! We don't have it today. It has been made more complex than it really is. I recommend to study the past work. Thank you. -- Hector Santos, CEO/CTO Santronics Software, Inc. On 5/15/2023 5:02 AM, Wei Chuang wrote

dosfstools for EFI partition?

Hi, Hopefully this is the right, or close enough, place ... Given that EFI is common, should dosfstools now be a standard package, so that we can fsck the partition when required? Happy to file as a bug, if I know what to file it against. Cheers, Richard

[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1816497] Re: [snap] vaapi chromium no video hardware decoding

With the beta testing release, the hardware decoding is working for several recent Intel GPU architectures (Tigerlake, Aderlake, Raptorlake), so far, we only experienced a problem on Roadwell (Gen8) GPU, the oldest GPU generation we aim to support for this release, we will work to make it working

[Desktop-packages] [Bug 1816497] Re: [snap] vaapi chromium no video hardware decoding

GPU . Intel® HD Graphics 5500 / Gen8 / Broadwell Chromium : 113.0.5672.24 hwacc/candidate Hardware decoding is not working ! Log: [46128:46128:0511/183800.564351:WARNING:chrome_main_delegate.cc(589)] This is Chrome version 113.0.5672.24 (not a warning)

Re: [VOTE] KIP-864: Add End-To-End Latency Metrics to Connectors

This will help us greatly. +1 (non-binding) From: dev@kafka.apache.org At: 05/10/23 17:32:35 UTC-4:00To: dev@kafka.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-864: Add End-To-End Latency Metrics to Connectors Hi everyone, Bumping this vote thread. 2 +1 binding and 1 +1 non-binding so far. Cheers,

Re: The role of FOSS in preventing a recurrence of vehicle emissions scandals

Very good initiative Lars. It is possible (but very difficult in practice) to create a device, as "simple" as a open source open hardware counter, as "simple" as that, embedded in every sensor or controller, that counts how many times it was re-configured. Again, proprietary

Re: [Sursound] [Proposal] for HOA web-streaming-format

✔ WebM with Opus support Yes ✔ On Tue, May 9, 2023, 8:42 a.m. Hector Centeno wrote: > Hello, > > I use Edge on Android and Windows machines. This is what I get on my > Android device (latest Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra): > > Audio codecs > PCM audio support > Yes ✔ >

Re: [Sursound] [Proposal] for HOA web-streaming-format

support Yes ✔ WebM with Vorbis support Yes ✔ WebM with Opus support Yes ✔ Best, Hector Centeno On Mon, May 8, 2023, 12:38 p.m. Stefan Schreiber wrote: > Ammendment: > > “EAC-3 (DD+) is natively supported by Edge and all Safari browsers.” > > I did a fast html5test (.com) on

Bug#1035515: [pre-approval] unblock: gdb/13.1-2.1

Hello, While I agree we should get this fixed on bookworm, I believe to be able to unblock a package, the package should exist in the archive. Since you have not uploaded the package yet, are you fine if I do a regular upload with the patch, then use this unblock request to add the package

Bug#1035515: [pre-approval] unblock: gdb/13.1-2.1

Hello, While I agree we should get this fixed on bookworm, I believe to be able to unblock a package, the package should exist in the archive. Since you have not uploaded the package yet, are you fine if I do a regular upload with the patch, then use this unblock request to add the package

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Add MLS/MLM subscription/submissions controls to DMARCbis

t to me. (yes, I see Ale's draft below) And IMO, I don't think we should hold up DMARCbis for that work. -- Alex Brotman Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast -Original Message- From: dmarc On Behalf Of Hector Santos Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 9:26 AM To: dmarc@ietf.org

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Add MLS/MLM subscription/submissions controls to DMARCbis

can continue as the 3rd party signer and also keep the From as is, unchanged, or 3.2) it can also consider to rewrite. If rewrite is performed, the signing domain should have a security that does not allow any Display Attack Replays with the now altered 5322.From identity. -- Hector Santos

[dmarc-ietf] Add MLS/MLM subscription/submissions controls to DMARCbis

> On Apr 29, 2023, at 4:42 PM, Douglas Foster > wrote: > > ... > > But I need to clarify whether I understand your point. What I am hearing is: > For the short term, mailing lists should refuse postings from DMARC-enforcing > domains. That position can be relaxed only if all

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Messages from the dmarc list for the week ending Sun Apr 30 06:00:04 2023

> On Apr 30, 2023, at 8:53 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > >  > > >> On 30.04.23 13:49, Hector Santos wrote: >> What is the count based on? Is the count the amount of mail created since >> the last date of this report which was 1 week ago? >> >&g

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Messages from the dmarc list for the week ending Sun Apr 30 06:00:04 2023

++--- 94 ( 100%) | 946980 ( 100%) | Total 25 (26.6%) | 200417 (21.2%) | Scott Kitterman 14 (14.9%) | 190300 (20.1%) | Hector Santos 12 (12.8%) | 81505 ( 8.6%) | Alessandro Vesely 9 ( 9.6%) | 102937 (10.9%) | Jesse Thompson 7 ( 7.4%) | 123062 (13.0

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Summary: Search for some consensus, was: Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

> Given that lists are expected to (A) continue making content changes, and (B) > continue accepting all comers, I think we need to embrace From Rewrite as a > necessary consequence of A and B. Unlike Hector, I don't have a problem > with From Rewrite because the act of altering

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-09.txt

Douglas, In general, you can’t impose or mandate TLS under PORT 25 unsolicited, unauthenticated sessions. You can do this with ESMTP AUTH a.k.a SUBMISSION Protocol (RFC6409) which is Port 587. Under this port, you can mandate more Authentication/Authorization and mail format correctness than

[dmarc-ietf] Proposed Updates for DMARCbis - Section 4.4.3 and New Appendix A.8

as the original submission to avoid potential Replay and Display Name Attacks. Please let me know your thoughts on these proposed updates and whether they can be integrated into the DMARCbis documentation. Best regards, Hector Santos ___ dmarc mailing

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

via ESP email. Therefore, rewrite can be described as BAD when used intentionally to break down DMARC security or GOOD when used to create DMARC secured distribution. Thanks -- Hector Santos, https://santronics.com https://winserver.com ___ dmar

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-10.txt

if they wanted to ensure senders who honor those will use TLS. -- Alex Brotman Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast *From:* dmarc *On Behalf Of * Hector Santos *Sent:* Wednesday, April 26, 2023 4:29 PM *To:* Scott Kitterman *Cc:* IETF DMARC WG *Subject:* Re: [dmarc-ietf]

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

ail system with 3rd party signer support as it was originally envisioned. Thanks -- Hector Santos, https://santronics.com https://winserver.com ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-10.txt

> On Apr 26, 2023, at 3:50 PM, Scott Kitterman > wrote: > > I think it would be crazy in 2023 not to use STARTTLS is offered. +1 > Personally I interpreted it more as employ a secure transport and think > through if you really want to be sending the report if

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

On 4/26/2023 7:21 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: On April 26, 2023 8:08:39 AM UTC, Alessandro Vesely wrote: On Tue 25/Apr/2023 20:27:18 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote: My recollection is that a general formulation that I proposed had at least some traction out of both groups: [some appropriate

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

On 4/25/2023 10:06 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: On April 26, 2023 1:47:14 AM UTC, Hector Santos wrote: On 4/25/2023 9:06 PM, John Levine wrote: PS: If anyone was going to suggest we just tell people how to change their mailing lists to work around DMARC, don't go there. I don't follow

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Search for some consensus, was: Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

ctice on a different internet has shown when following #2, for an existing list with members with restrictive domains, they will essentially become Read-Only List members because any submission/reply by them will be blocked. -- Hector Santos, https://santronics.com h

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Definitely no Delegated authentication for Gmail

etf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc -- Hector Santos, https://santronics.com https://winserver.com ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Two basic Issues to address to help complete DMARCbis

On 4/24/2023 7:22 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: On Sun 23/Apr/2023 19:20:06 +0200 Hector Santos wrote: On 4/23/2023 6:10 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: Meanwhile, digressions about ATPS and similar schemes can help casting some light on future evolution. From: rewriting cannot be the final

[Ubuntu-x-swat] [Bug 2004237] Re: Intel Raptor Lake-P support for intel-media-driver in jammy

It also works for the free version of intel media driver ubuntu@ubuntu-Latitude-7440:~$ sudo apt policy intel-media-va-driver intel-media-va-driver: Installed: 22.3.1+dfsg1-1ubuntu2 Candidate: 22.3.1+dfsg1-1ubuntu2 Version table: *** 22.3.1+dfsg1-1ubuntu2 500 500

[Ubuntu-x-swat] [Bug 2004237] Re: Intel Raptor Lake-P support for intel-media-driver in jammy

bug fixed on Jammy with intel-media-va-driver-non-free package in proposed, ubuntu@ubuntu-Latitude-7440:~$ sudo apt policy intel-media-va-driver-non-free intel-media-va-driver-non-free: Installed: 22.3.1+ds1-1ubuntu0.1 Candidate: 22.3.1+ds1-1ubuntu0.1 Version table: ***

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Two basic Issues to address to help complete DMARCbis

> On Apr 23, 2023, at 4:17 PM, Dotzero wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 1:20 PM Hector Santos > mailto:40isdg@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: >> >> With each year, that "temporary hack" becomes the new normal and it >> will be harder to clea

[dmarc-ietf] Two basic Issues to address to help complete DMARCbis

h a p=reject policy. I don't think the above will take long to do and I believe will help resolve the conflict. -- Hector Santos, https://santronics.com https://winserver.com ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

[Bug rtl-optimization/109585] Carla/sord miscompiled with -O2 on ARM64 with flexible array member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109585 --- Comment #15 from Hector Martin --- The prior repro was too complex and depended on other environmental stuff (some other people couldn't repro it on arm64 either), so please ignore it. If the reduced repro triggers the issue, it's the same

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Definitely no Delegated authentication for Gmail

a long time ago that the Internet that > Hector uses is very unlike the one the rest of us use, and it's not > worth arguing with him. > > That said, I really wish the chairs would shut down the trolls. They may > not think they're trolls, but they are having the classing trolling effect > o

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Definitely no Delegated authentication for Gmail

> On Apr 22, 2023, at 12:58 PM, John Levine wrote: > > It appears that Jesse Thompson said: >> -=-=-=-=-=- >> >> A DNS-based lookup, perhaps in the style of ATSP as this thread is >> describing, to query for not just domain-level authorization, but also >> potentially user-level

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Delegated authentication for Gmail

Here is an scenario I long envisioned with high-valued services implementing a DKIM Policy model. Example: bank and a new online banking customer: Bank: "For online banking we need an email address for secured private email communications." User: "hmm, user.n...@esp1-domain.com

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Delegated authentication for Gmail

> On Apr 21, 2023, at 10:19 PM, Douglas Foster > > wrote: > > I mean something different. > > By "user-to-domain" I mean a DNS function which asserts: > When the message is signed by IETF, and the From address is my account, the > message is

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Delegated authentication for Gmail

> On Apr 21, 2023, at 2:14 PM, Douglas Foster > wrote: > > Can it provide a user-to-domain authentication solution? Unless I am not following you, DKIM inherently provides "user-to-domain" authentication by hash binding the 5322 From: and To: headers. > That is what mailing lists need

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Delegated authentication for Gmail

Doug, You might want review Doug Otis’s TPA (Third Party Authorization). It has a higher scale method. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-otis-dkim-tpa-ssp/ Abstract TPA-label is a DNS-based prefix mechanism for DKIM policy records as a means to authorize Third-Party domains. This

[Bug middle-end/109585] Carla/sord miscompiled with -O2 on ARM64 (inlining issue)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109585 --- Comment #11 from Hector Martin --- Giving a nonzero size to the `ZixBTreeIterFrame stack[]` member also avoids the segfault, so this might be a flexible array member thing.

[Bug middle-end/109585] Carla/sord miscompiled with -O2 on ARM64 (inlining issue)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109585 --- Comment #9 from Hector Martin --- Yes, a strict aliasing violation could explain the behavior of the optimizer here... but given all the types are identical and there is no casting going on, clearly there is no strict aliasing violation.

[Bug target/109585] Carla/sord miscompiled with -O2 on ARM64 (inlining issue)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109585 --- Comment #6 from Hector Martin --- Cleaned it up into a self-contained repro. Simply compiling with `gcc -O2 -o test test.c && test` gives a segfault. -O1 or -fno-schedule-insns -fno-schedule-insns2 avoids the issue. Looking at

[Bug target/109585] Carla/sord miscompiled with -O2 on ARM64 (inlining issue)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109585 --- Comment #5 from Hector Martin --- Created attachment 54904 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54904=edit self-contained reproducer

[Bug target/109585] Carla/sord miscompiled with -O2 on ARM64 (inlining issue)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109585 --- Comment #4 from Hector Martin --- This whole codebase is complex, and the problem is in btree code which is hard to simplify down. Best I can do right now is this. First grab the lv2.tar.gz attachment and extract it into /tmp. Then: $ git

[Bug target/109585] Carla/sord miscompiled with -O2 on ARM64 (inlining issue)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109585 --- Comment #3 from Hector Martin --- Created attachment 54903 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54903=edit lv2 plugin bundle for testing

[Bug c/109585] Carla/sord miscompiled with -O2 on ARM64 (inlining issue)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109585 --- Comment #1 from Hector Martin --- Created attachment 54901 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54901=edit Preprocessed input

[Bug c/109585] New: Carla/sord miscompiled with -O2 on ARM64 (inlining issue)

Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: hector at marcansoft dot com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 54900 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54900=edit Manually annotated disassembly identify

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Is From spoofing an interoperability issue or not?

> On Apr 19, 2023, at 10:29 PM, Jesse Thompson wrote: > > The choice for both the mailing list and mail-service company is to: > > 1) ignore DMARC and continue to emit mail as the original author intended > (the author might be ignorant of DMARC too) and assume the mailbox providers > are

[dmarc-ietf] About UAID User Agent Identity.

outbound message? Those are big scaling optimization considerations. For the most exclusive policy, via DMARC: p=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s everything must match. for: p=reject; adkim=r; aspf=r A little more relaxed for subdomains. I think what is there is enough for this limited p

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Is From spoofing an interoperability issue or not?

On Apr 18, 2023, at 1:11 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > > Perhaps when DMARC will work smoothly, someone will find out how to tell > legitimate rewriting from plain spoof. > Lookup DMARC record and begin to piggy back off this lookup: - Check for rewrite=1 tag indicating allowance to

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling MLMs

> On Apr 18, 2023, at 12:24 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > > What's the point of wearing an atps record if it's not called out in a DKIM > signature? (I wouldn't have tested it anyway). Alessandro, you are already doing the DNS call for DMARC. Hitch a ride!! You can check for atps=y or

[Ubuntu-x-swat] [Bug 2004237] Re: Intel Raptor Lake-P support for intel-media-driver in jammy

@tjaalton : i did not need it to make things work, i might miss anything ? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu-X, which is subscribed to intel-media-driver in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2004237 Title: Intel Raptor Lake-P support for

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling MLMs

On 4/17/2023 6:48 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: Hector Santos skrev den 2023-04-17 20:55: One solution is for the junc.eu domain to add an ATPS authorization record for ietf.org [1] to the junc.eu [2] zone: pq6xadozsi47rluiq5yohg2hy3mvjyoo._atps TXT ("v=atps01; d=ietf.org;") retest

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling MLMs

> On Apr 16, 2023, at 11:31 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: > > Hector Santos skrev den 2023-04-17 05:06: > >> Anyway, there are far too much waste in electronic mail, ADSP/DMARC >> and this quest to resolve its issues, creating more junk, ARC, is not >> getting anywhe

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Is From spoofing an interoperability issue or not?

tive with perfect alignment. We had more flexibility with SSP and a few with ADSP "must be signed by me" and "must be signed by someone." More flexible. -- Hector Santos, https://santronics.com https://winserver.com ___ dm

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling MLMs

On 4/16/2023 8:43 PM, Neil Anuskiewicz wrote: Hector, respecfully, I disagree with several of your points. * You seemes to be saying that when spf fails then usually dkim fails, too. I’ve seen first hand that’s nit true. Yes, most of the times. The exceptions are the true forwards. It's

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling MLMs

) is the easiest first step. Imto, this is the correct technical way but it comes with disruption. This disruption MAY be acceptable to the domain but not the user. -- Hector Santos, https://santronics.com https://winserver.com -- Hector Santos, https://santronics.com https://winserver.com

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Give up on SPF alone

On 4/15/2023 11:27 AM, Douglas Foster wrote: Sorry Hector, but you are wrong on the theory and off topic. DMARC and SPF authenticate different things. DMARC is designed to override SPF Fail to handle the case of forwarding without SRS, which would be optimal if all messages were signed

Re: [dmarc-ietf] list history, Signaling MLMs

DMARC discovery issues at SMTP? ARC is junk. Why is it IETF perpetuated is beyond me. Soon we will I-D proposals to clean up this massive overhead. -- HLS -- Hector Santos, https://santronics.com https://winserver.com ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling MLMs

> On Apr 14, 2023, at 7:31 PM, Dotzero wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 5:55 PM Hector Santos <mailto:40isdg@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: >> Yes, it is simple DeMorgan’s Theorem where you use short-circuiting logic. >> >> DMARC says that any FAIL calc

[dmarc-ietf] Author vs Signer Domains

On 4/14/2023 7:31 PM, Dotzero wrote: On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 5:55 PM Hector Santos <mailto:40isdg@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Yes, it is simple DeMorgan’s Theorem where you use short-circuiting logic. DMARC says that any FAIL calculated via SPF or DKIM is an over

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling MLMs

implementation detail. — HLS > On Apr 14, 2023, at 5:44 PM, Douglas Foster > wrote: > > Hector, it sounds like you are saying that SPF is all we need, so scrap > DMARC. If it is something else please clarify. > > Doug > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2023, 4:44 PM Hec

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling MLMs

> On Apr 14, 2023, at 3:20 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 10:20 AM Alessandro Vesely > wrote: >> On Fri 14/Apr/2023 15:47:12 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote: >> > On April 14, 2023 1:29:58 PM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy" >> >

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling MLMs

The solution to move forward is: - Recommend MUST NOT publish if domain wants to allow users to use domain in public list systems, - Warn MLS/MLS to avoid From Rewrite and recommend to honor p=reject by rejecting subscription, submissions. This is already in practice since 2011. - Update

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling forwarders, not just MLMs

horizing the always signed. DMARC needs this Always Signed by someone idea too with ATPS to finish the authorization missing piece. -- Hector Santos, https://santronics.com https://winserver.com ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling MLMs

> On Apr 13, 2023, at 4:33 PM, John Levine wrote: > >> (2) An author domain can decide to affix this at its discretion, ... > > The basic problem is that author domains lie about their policy, i.e., > p=none but they expect mailing lists to work, and their users are > stuck. It’s not a lie.

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling forwarders, not just MLMs

> On Apr 13, 2023, at 3:13 PM, Hector Santos > wrote: > > On 4/13/2023 11:21 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: >>> Anyone who does forwarding is damaged by DMARC because there are a lot of >>> people who do DMARC on the cheap with SPF only. >> This brings up another is

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling forwarders, not just MLMs

I didn’t we need to mention the type of people, organization, etc. “This is particularly important because SPF will always fail in situations where mail is forwarded.” The issue applies to all. > On Apr 13, 2023, at 12:04 PM, Todd Herr > wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 11:21 AM Barry

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling forwarders, not just MLMs

, and using SPF only, without DKIM, is strongly NOT RECOMMENDED. Keep in mind, there are implementers of SPF that act at SMTP before DATA and reject hard failures with 55z errors. In other words, no payload is transferred. -- Hector Santos, https://santronics.com https://winserver.com

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling MLMs

y to override at its own risk especially when DMARCBis offers nothing to resolve this problem. But it can easily fit in too and see where it goes. -- Hector Santos, https://santronics.com https://winserver.com ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling MLMs

t;.policy-adsp") CopyFile(msgfn,msgfn+".dmarc") sfSetGlobalResult(SF_DISCARD,SF_ENDRULES,554) // create response fv = open msgfn+".response" for output if fv > 0 then print #fv,"554

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Signaling MLMs

> On Apr 12, 2023, at 2:15 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > I've been thinking about the point a few people have made now that DMARC has > two actors that cause the problem: Those who "blindly" apply "p=reject", and > those who advertise "p=reject". You do, indeed, need two to tango; >

[dmarc-ietf] Introducing DSAP/ATPS for Improved Email Authentication

and collaborate on the development of DSAP/ATPS as a more robust and adaptable email authentication protocol that serves the interests of all parties involved. I look forward to your thoughts and feedback on this proposal. Best regards, Hector Santos, CEO/CTO Santronics.com > On Apr 12, 2023, a

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC is designed to break mail, Example of Indirect Mail Flow Breakage with p=reject?

> On Apr 12, 2023, at 9:41 AM, John R Levine wrote: > > When we say that mail systems that don't fit the DMARC threat profile > shouldn't publish DMARC policies, we have good reasons to say so, and that's > what our standards need to say if we're serious about interoperating. > With

Re: how to change default nameserver?

On 11/04/23 15:17, gene heskett wrote: On 4/10/23 18:04, zithro wrote: So, I got curious about his claim : "that change to resolv.conf adding the search line [search hosts, nameserver] has been required since red hat 5.0 in 1998". (The bracket addition is mine) I'm not using RHEl-based

Re: how to change default nameserver?

On 11/04/23 15:17, gene heskett wrote: In a man page from a good 20 years ago. I still have a copy of that original redhat 5.0 on a shelf above me, but not a floppy drive to read those disks with. Downloading an iso ... :-) Richard

Re: [dmarc-ietf] not really such a thing as AOL-compatible mailing lists

> On Apr 10, 2023, at 12:55 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > I think the one thing we haven't discussed is: Could the 80-20 rule apply > here? That is, if we start off with something like what > draft-kucherawy-dkim-transform proposed (or even a trivial subset of it), > might it make

Re: [dmarc-ietf] not really such a thing as AOL-compatible mailing lists

> On Apr 10, 2023, at 12:55 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> > I think the one thing we haven't discussed is: Could the 80-20 rule apply > here? That is, if we start off with something like what > draft-kucherawy-dkim-transform proposed (or even a trivial subset of it), > might it make

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

> On Apr 9, 2023, at 2:33 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > > > As Todd previously stated, my preference is for language that > > acknowledges the primacy of the domain owner over interoperability > > The problem is that IETF standards are about interoperability, not about > anyone’s primacy. > >

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed text for p=reject and indirect mail flows

> On Apr 9, 2023, at 2:15 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 9, 2023 at 6:33 AM Jesse Thompson > wrote: >> As Todd previously stated, my preference is for language that acknowledges >> the primacy of the domain owner over interoperability. CISOs have

[dmarc-ietf] DSAP "DKIM Sender Authorization Protocol" for DMARC

. The -target will allow a forwarder to resign as a 3rd party without -asl or -atps requirements. — Hector Santos, CEO/CTO Santronics Software, Inc,___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Re: questions about cron.daily

On 7/04/23 10:54, Greg Wooledge wrote: On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 05:45:08PM -0500, David Wright wrote: Users (including root) write their crontabs anywhere they like, typically in a directory like ~/.cron/. Is that... normal? I can't say I've ever seen anyone keep a private copy of their

[Ubuntu-x-swat] [Bug 2004237] Re: Intel Raptor Lake-P support for intel-media-driver in jammy

I did the test on a Raptorlake laptop ubuntu@ubuntu-Latitude-7440:~$ inxi -G -display Graphics: Device-1: Intel vendor: Dell driver: i915 v: kernel ports: active: eDP-1 empty: DP-1,DP-2,HDMI-A-1 bus-ID: :00:02.0 chip-ID: 8086:a7a0 class-ID: 0300 Display: server: X.org v: 1.21.1.3

Re: [systemd-devel] creating device nodes

-nodes --format=tmpfiles On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 11:13 AM Richard Hector <mailto:rich...@walnut.gen.nz>> wrote: Hi all, I want to create a device (/dev/fuse) in an LXC container. The kernel bit works; I can mknod manually, but I'd rather use a systemd unit, and make it a d

[systemd-devel] creating device nodes

Hi all, I want to create a device (/dev/fuse) in an LXC container. The kernel bit works; I can mknod manually, but I'd rather use a systemd unit, and make it a dependency of mounting filesystems from /etc/fstab. It looks like .device units are supposed to be created automatically if there's

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Example of Indirect Mail Flow Breakage with p=reject?

> On Apr 1, 2023, at 6:29 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > I think that's not quite it. > > There is clearly a valid reason. There are domains that value the security > properties of p=reject more highly than the negative effects to > interoperability. For many years we knew this would

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Example of Indirect Mail Flow Breakage with p=reject?

> On Apr 1, 2023, at 11:33 AM, Dotzero wrote: > > > > On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 3:02 AM Barry Leiba > wrote: >> > If we use SHOULD NOT, as you suggest, there's an implication that there >> > might be a valid reason for >> > non-transactional mail to use

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Example of Indirect Mail Flow Breakage with p=reject?

> On Apr 1, 2023, at 11:25 AM, Dotzero wrote: > Nobody forces a Sender to publish a DMARC record. Nobody forces a receiver to > validate DMARC. Nobody forces mailing lists to accept mail from domains which > publish a DMARC record let alone one which publishes p=reject policy. But it >

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Example of Indirect Mail Flow Breakage with p=reject?

> On Apr 1, 2023, at 7:17 AM, Jim Fenton wrote: > > Not picking on Murray here, but his message was the most recent that talked > about p=reject with respect to non-transactional email: > > On 1 Apr 2023, at 15:53, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >> If we use SHOULD NOT, as you suggest,

[dmarc-ietf] 5322.From Header Rewrite specification

Is there a specification for rewriting the 5322.From to help resolve DMARC p=reject redistribution problems? What is the logic the IETF.ORG list using? Thanks in advance — HLS___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Example of Indirect Mail Flow Breakage with p=reject?

> On Mar 29, 2023, at 5:40 PM, Todd Herr > wrote: > > Colleagues, > > Can someone please point me to a mailing list server or other indirect mail > flow that I might somehow engage with so that I can experience the pain of > not having a message reach its destination when sent with a

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Example of Indirect Mail Flow Breakage with p=reject?

> On Mar 30, 2023, at 10:16 AM, Todd Herr > wrote: > > My fear is that adding further text to DMARCbis that says "MUST NOT use > p=reject" along with the new language in Policy Enforcement Considerations > results in a spec that says: > As a domain owner, you can request treatment for

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Example of Indirect Mail Flow Breakage with p=reject?

does not have -atps, then the receiver MUST honor the domain reject policy for failures. -- Hector Santos, https://secure.santronics.com https://twitter.com/hectorsantos ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Example of Indirect Mail Flow Breakage with p=reject?

a proposed experiment. -- Hector Santos, https://secure.santronics.com https://twitter.com/hectorsantos ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Re: [Ietf-dkim] On the current state of DKIM and the replay problem

> On Mar 28, 2023, at 1:36 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > > Since the chair is threatening to ban me, I decided to write up my view of > things in a longer form. > > https://rip-van-webble.blogspot.com/2023/03/on-dmarc-arc-and-dkim-replays.html > > This has some technical aspects and meta

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >