Per User Anti-spam Quarantine Reporting/Management

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

Re: LTS versions - confusion

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 keywords (stable, testin

Re: LTS versions - confusion

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 really apprec

LTS versions - confusion

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

Re: I support the founder of FreeSoftware

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

Re: I support the founder of FreeSoftware

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...

Re: I support the founder of FreeSoftware

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

Re: pastebinit

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

Re: odd load patterns - SOLVED

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

Re: Mailing-list configuration

On 6/16/2016 7:45 AM, <<to...@tuxteam.de> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 07:26:37AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: >> On 6/15/2016 4:23 PM, Rodary Jacques <roda...@free.fr> wrote: >>> Mozilla isn't free >> What a ridiculous claim this has always been by debia

Re: Mailing-list configuration

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

Re: Mailing-list configuration

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

Re: Mailing-list configuration

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

Re: Mailing-list configuration

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

Re: Mailing-list configuration

On 6/13/2016 11:12 AM, Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> 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

Re: Mailing-list configuration

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

Re: how to remove libsystemd0 from a live-running debian desktop system

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

Re: Installing an Alternative Init?

On 11/22/2014 10:10 AM, Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote: On Lu, 10 nov 14, 18:20:37, Tanstaafl wrote: On 11/10/2014 6:18 PM, Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org wrote: Am 11.11.2014 um 00:14 schrieb Miles Fidelman: Ok, then explain to me the procedure for running the installer

Re: Installing an Alternative Init?

On 11/23/2014 12:43 PM, Lisi Reisz lisi.re...@gmail.com 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 install with sysvinit

Re: Installing an Alternative Init?

On 11/23/2014 2:09 PM, Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk 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

Re: Installing an Alternative Init?

On 11/10/2014 6:18 PM, Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org 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

Re: Valuing non-code contributions -- was Re: systemd - so much energy wasted in quarreling

On 11/17/2014 6:10 AM, Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz 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

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

On 11/16/2014 6:40 AM, Klistvud klist...@gmail.com 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

Re: engineering management practices and systemd (Re: Installing an Alternative Init?)

On 11/15/2014 7:20 AM, Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote: On Vi, 14 nov 14, 08:55:47, Tanstaafl wrote: On 11/14/2014 5:26 AM, Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote: It was claimed that sysvinit was the default *and only* (emphasis not mine) init, and therefore no selection

Re: engineering management practices and systemd (Re: Installing an Alternative Init?)

On 11/14/2014 5:26 AM, Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com 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

Re: Installing an Alternative Init?

On 11/12/2014 5:18 PM, Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com 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 completely

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

On 11/13/2014 10:53 AM, Lisi Reisz lisi.re...@gmail.com 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

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

On 11/13/2014 3:42 PM, Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com 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... OpenRC was represented

Re: Installing an Alternative Init?

On 11/11/2014 3:33 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net 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

Re: Installing an Alternative Init?

On 11/11/2014 2:16 PM, Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk 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

Re: Installing an Alternative Init?

On 11/12/2014 9:02 AM, Laurent Bigonville bi...@debian.org 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

Re: Installing an Alternative Init?

On 11/12/2014 10:13 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org 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 such a way that the Tech

Re: Installing an Alternative Init?

On 11/12/2014 10:40 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org 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

Re: Installing an Alternative Init?

On 11/12/2014 3:10 PM, Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk wrote: On Wed 12 Nov 2014 at 06:27:56 -0500, Tanstaafl wrote: On 11/11/2014 2:16 PM, Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk 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

Re: Installing an Alternative Init?

On 11/10/2014 6:18 PM, Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org 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

Re: Installing an Alternative Init?

On 11/10/2014 6:32 PM, Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org 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

Re: Installing an Alternative Init?

On 11/10/2014 6:23 PM, Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com 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

Re: Installing an Alternative Init?

On 11/11/2014 11:38 AM, The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm 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

Re: systemd - so much energy wasted in quarreling

On 11/11/2014 9:26 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud o...@debian.org 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

Re: Installing an Alternative Init?

On 11/11/2014 12:07 PM, Laurent Bigonville bi...@debian.org 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

Re: Joey Hess is out?

On 11/8/2014 10:03 AM, Mart van de Wege mvdw...@gmail.com 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

Re: Lennart Poettering Linux -- some real eye openers here ... don't be blindsided!

On 11/10/2014 2:01 AM, Matthias Urlichs matth...@urlichs.de 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

Re: Joey Hess is out?

On 11/10/2014 8:47 AM, Joel Rees joel.r...@gmail.com 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.

Re: systemd - so much energy wasted in quarreling

On 11/10/2014 2:01 PM, st s...@kem.ru 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

Re: systemd - so much energy wasted in quarreling

On 11/10/2014 2:08 PM, Andrew McGlashan andrew.mcglas...@affinityvision.com.au 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 ...

Re: Installing an Alternative Init?

On 11/10/2014 2:44 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net 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.

Re: systemd - so much energy wasted in quarreling

On 11/10/2014 2:50 PM, Martin Read zen75...@zen.co.uk 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* stable software

Re: Perfect Jessie is something like this...

An opinion from a very new debian user... On 11/4/2014 5:09 PM, Laurent Bigonville bi...@debian.org 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

Re: Perfect Jessie is something like this...

1:03 PM, Don Armstrong d...@debian.org 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 inability to do

Re: Perfect Jessie is something like this...

On 11/5/2014 1:35 PM, Don Armstrong d...@debian.org 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

Re: Perfect Jessie is something like this...

On 11/5/2014 1:57 PM, Don Armstrong d...@debian.org 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 install process? Yes

Re: Thinking about preserving freedom of choice of init systems and future of udev...

On 10/28/2014 8:45 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net 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

Re: Lets make `eudev + uselessd` Debian packages?

On 10/27/2014 10:20 PM, Martinx - ジェームズ thiagocmarti...@gmail.com 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).

Re: reInstalling my laptop

On 10/26/2014 3:17 PM, Jean-Marc jean-m...@6jf.be 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,

Question re: updating debain stable kernels...

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

Re: Question re: updating debain stable kernels...

On 10/25/2014 10:41 AM, Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com 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 there is 'needrestart

Re: Question re: updating debain stable kernels...

On 10/25/2014 11:35 AM, Sven Hartge s...@svenhartge.de wrote: Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org 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 around

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

On 10/23/2014 4:10 PM, koanhead koanh...@riseup.net 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

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

On 10/24/2014 4:49 AM, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard j.deboynepollard-newsgro...@ntlworld.com 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

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

On 10/21/2014 4:21 PM, Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com 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,

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

On 10/20/2014 3:45 PM, Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com 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

Re: If Not Systemd, then What?

On 10/20/2014 10:36 PM, Martinx - ジェームズ thiagocmarti...@gmail.com 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

Re: Refracta systemd-free progress

On 10/21/2014 1:08 AM, Steve Litt sl...@troubleshooters.com 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

Re: Avoiding SystemD isn't hard

On 10/21/2014 11:19 AM, Liam Proven lpro...@gmail.com 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

Re: Moderated posts?

On 10/20/2014 7:18 AM, Joe j...@jretrading.com 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.

Re: Problem with quotatool

On 10/20/2014 6:58 AM, Peter Buzanits buzan...@gmail.com 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:

Re: Problem with quotatool

On 10/20/2014 9:39 AM, Peter Buzanits buzan...@gmail.com wrote: Am 2014-10-20 um 15:17 schrieb Tanstaafl: On 10/20/2014 6:58 AM, Peter Buzanits buzan...@gmail.com wrote: VMware ESX 4.0.0 Build 236512 That is really old... You think that the hypervisor could cause problems in the kernel

Re: Moderated posts?

On 10/17/2014 9:24 PM, lee l...@yagibdah.de 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

Re: GR proposed re: choice of init systems

On 10/17/2014 3:42 PM, Ric Moore wayward4...@gmail.com 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

Re: MTAs denying messages

On 10/13/2014 4:21 AM, Joe j...@jretrading.com 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

Re: GR proposed re: choice of init systems

On 10/17/2014 12:21 PM, Steve Litt sl...@troubleshooters.com wrote: On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 07:54:06 -0700 (PDT) Rusi Mody rustompm...@gmail.com 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!

Re: MTAs denying messages

On 10/17/2014 12:03 PM, Joe j...@jretrading.com 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

Re: GR proposed re: choice of init systems

On 10/17/2014 1:01 PM, The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm wrote: On 10/17/2014 at 12:38 PM, Tanstaafl wrote: On 10/17/2014 12:21 PM, Steve Litt sl...@troubleshooters.com wrote: Thank you Ian, and the seconders, and everyone who is speaking up for (what I call) sanity. Still only 4

Re: GR proposed re: choice of init systems

On 10/17/2014 1:29 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org 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

Re: OT: Re: Recipient validation - WAS: Re: Moderated posts?

On 10/15/2014 3:13 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net 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

Re: Recipient validation - WAS: Re: Moderated posts?

Please do not send to me directly, I am on the list. On 10/15/2014 3:15 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net 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: However, once a message has

Re: Recipient validation - WAS: Re: Moderated posts?

On 10/15/2014 4:44 PM, Joe j...@jretrading.com 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

Re: OT: Re: Recipient validation - WAS: Re: Moderated posts?

On 10/15/2014 4:58 PM, Joe j...@jretrading.com 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.

Re: Recipient validation - WAS: Re: Moderated posts?

On 10/15/2014 5:12 PM, Brad Rogers b...@fineby.me.uk 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

Re: Recipient validation - WAS: Re: Moderated posts?

On 10/15/2014 8:37 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net 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 is a real world

Re: OT: Re: Recipient validation - WAS: Re: Moderated posts?

On 10/16/2014 7:31 AM, Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz 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* to have

Re: Recipient validation - WAS: Re: Moderated posts?

On 10/16/2014 7:40 AM, Joel Rees joel.r...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 10/15/2014 8:37 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote: Tanstaafl couldn't answer it, and you can't either, because it's not violating any

Re: OT: Re: Recipient validation - WAS: Re: Moderated posts?

On 10/14/2014 1:58 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net 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

Re: Recipient validation - WAS: Re: Moderated posts?

On 10/14/2014 12:03 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org 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 where

Re: Recipient validation - WAS: Re: Moderated posts?

On 10/14/2014 3:28 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote: On 10/14/2014 12:03 PM, Tanstaafl wrote: On 10/14/2014 11:17 AM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net 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

Re: Recipient validation - WAS: Re: Moderated posts?

On 10/14/2014 3:20 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net 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, deleted

Re: Recipient validation - WAS: Re: Moderated posts?

On 10/15/2014 12:25 PM, The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm 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

Re: Recipient validation - WAS: Re: Moderated posts?

On 10/15/2014 12:06 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net wrote: On 10/15/2014 8:14 AM, Tanstaafl wrote: On 10/14/2014 3:28 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net 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

Re: OT: Re: Recipient validation - WAS: Re: Moderated posts?

On 10/15/2014 12:50 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net 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

Re: Moderated posts?

On 10/13/2014 7:47 PM, Joel Rees joel.r...@gmail.com 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

Recipient validation - WAS: Re: Moderated posts?

On 10/13/2014 9:53 PM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net 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

Re: Recipient validation - WAS: Re: Moderated posts?

On 10/14/2014 10:15 AM, Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz 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 vast

Re: Recipient validation - WAS: Re: Moderated posts?

On 10/14/2014 10:52 AM, Jonathan Dowland j...@debian.org 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 the DATA phase

Re: piece of mind (Re: Moderated posts?)

On 10/14/2014 11:09 AM, Ansgar Burchardt ans...@43-1.org 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

Re: Recipient validation - WAS: Re: Moderated posts?

On 10/14/2014 11:17 AM, Jerry Stuckle jstuc...@attglobal.net 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 has nothing to do

Re: Recipient validation - WAS: Re: Moderated posts?

On 10/14/2014 1:31 PM, Joel Rees joel.r...@gmail.com 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

Re: question about systemd

On 10/8/2014 10:36 PM, Steve Litt sl...@troubleshooters.com 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

Re: lvm: creating a snapshot

On 10/7/2014 7:09 PM, John Holland jholl...@vin-dit.org 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

Re: Debian nolonger claims to be the Universal Operating System

On 10/4/2014 6:44 AM, Tom Collins tomcollins...@mail.com wrote: and depreciating (as if they have the right to do that) many programs that rely on gtk2 and non-syst__d. peeve It is 'deprecating', not 'depreciating' (an accounting term). /peeve -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Re: Debian nolonger claims to be the Universal Operating System

On 10/4/2014 9:33 AM, Jeff Bauer jwba...@charter.net 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

  1   2   >