Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 20:31:28 +1100 terryc wrote: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:00:16 +0100 > wrote: > > > > To put that on stronger terms -- we'd end up with two and a half > > gatekeepers for mail: Google, Hotmail (aka Microsoft) and... who > > did I forget?

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

Well, I think Greg Wooledge is right here Let's rewind the discussion. The original context was "why do I need to have a dot in my HELO string". The reason you need a dot in your HELO string is because SMTP receivers may reject you as a spammer (or incompetent, same end result) if you do not

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

On 23/03/18 12:20, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 04:04:17PM +1300, Richard Hector wrote: >> Another reference, thanks. Still not specific. > > Let's rewind the discussion. > > The original context was "why do I need to have a dot in my HELO string". > > The reason you need a

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 04:04:17PM +1300, Richard Hector wrote: > Another reference, thanks. Still not specific. Let's rewind the discussion. The original context was "why do I need to have a dot in my HELO string". The reason you need a dot in your HELO string is because SMTP receivers may

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

On 23/03/18 14:44, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Christ, Richard :-) > why are we still discussing this.  (And what does it have to do > with the original question about "Federated, decentralised communication > on the internet?"  ... which was originally a question about ho

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

On 23/03/18 13:55, Dan Purgert wrote: > Richard Hector wrote: >> >> On 23/03/18 11:31, Dan Purgert wrote: >>> Richard Hector wrote: On 23/03/18 01:17, Greg Wooledge wrote: > [...] > RFC 1594 : A Fully Qualified > Domain Name (FQDN) is a domain

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

hrist, why are we still discussing this.  (And what does it have to do with the original question about "Federated, decentralised communication on the internet?"  ... which was originally a question about how "hostname" is used by Debian)  But... An FQDN defines the location of a

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

ch...@walnut.gen.nz> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Message-ID: <70d1e443-073a-16d7-f14c-89d5d2be1...@walnut.gen.nz> > Subject: Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet > References: <20180219162356.GA4712@alum> > <19022018180243

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

On 3/22/18 7:06 PM, dekks herton wrote: On 03/21, Miles Fidelman wrote: On 3/21/18 11:48 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: On 21/03/18 01:00 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: My problem with "social networks" is that they're monopolies. Imagine popping down to the local pub for a pint and a bit of

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

On 23/03/18 11:31, Dan Purgert wrote: > Richard Hector wrote: >> On 23/03/18 01:17, Greg Wooledge wrote: >>> [...] >>> RFC 1594 : A Fully Qualified >>> Domain Name (FQDN) is a domain name that includes all higher level >>> domains relevant to the entity named.

Re: Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

On 03/21, Miles Fidelman wrote: On 3/21/18 11:48 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: On 21/03/18 01:00 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: My problem with "social networks" is that they're monopolies. Imagine popping down to the local pub for a pint and a bit of conversation, only to find that it's part of a

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

Richard Hector wrote: > On 23/03/18 01:17, Greg Wooledge wrote: >> [...] >> RFC 1594 : A Fully Qualified >> Domain Name (FQDN) is a domain name that includes all higher level >> domains relevant to the entity named. If you think of the DNS as a >>

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

On 23/03/18 01:17, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:04:07AM -, Dan Purgert wrote: >> Richard Hector wrote: >>> I often see this alluded to, but struggle to find evidence - why >>> shouldn't there be a postmaster@com, for example? Or perhaps cic@mil? >> >> It is my

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

Forest wrote: > Does this work better? Evolution rather than web-based email. definitely

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

On 3/22/18 3:56 AM, deloptes wrote: Miles Fidelman wrote: the problem with DMARC is simple - it breaks any kind of retransmission - in particular mailing lists that's why I don't get the mails delivered to the mailbox or get numerous non deliverable mails from the mail server. nevertheless

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 06:59:04PM -0500, David Wright wrote: > Sure, so in my case, I'd be forced to find out what my router's > hostname is so that I can quote a hostname that will resolve to the > address that I woud be posting on. Currently this appears to be > ip70-179-161-106.fv.ks.cox.net >

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:04:07AM -, Dan Purgert wrote: > Richard Hector wrote: > > I often see this alluded to, but struggle to find evidence - why > > shouldn't there be a postmaster@com, for example? Or perhaps cic@mil? > > It is my understanding that the TLDs are not themselves valid

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 08:59:11 +0100 deloptes wrote: > David Wright wrote: > > > Sure, so in my case, I'd be forced to find out what my router's > > hostname is so that I can quote a hostname that will resolve to the > > address that I woud be posting on. Currently this

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 10:47:24PM +, Brian wrote: On Wed 21 Mar 2018 at 16:41:25 -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: On 03/21/2018 03:47 PM, Brian wrote: > On Wed 21 Mar 2018 at 12:05:53 -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote: > > > On 3/21/18 11:48 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > > > > > On 21/03/18 01:00 AM,

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

David Wright wrote: > Sure, so in my case, I'd be forced to find out what my router's > hostname is so that I can quote a hostname that will resolve to the > address that I woud be posting on. Currently this appears to be > ip70-179-161-106.fv.ks.cox.net these are not valid SMTP domain names. It

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

Miles Fidelman wrote: > the problem with DMARC is simple - it breaks any kind of retransmission > - in particular mailing lists that's why I don't get the mails delivered to the mailbox or get numerous non deliverable mails from the mail server. nevertheless you will not be able to resent mails

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

Am 2018-03-21 hackte terryc in die Tasten: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:00:16 +0100 > wrote: >> To put that on stronger terms -- we'd end up with two and a half >> gatekeepers for mail: Google, Hotmail (aka Microsoft) and... who >> did I forget? > > yahoo for a starter, then there

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

On Wed, 2018-03-21 at 21:59 +0100, deloptes wrote: > Forest Dean Feighner wrote: > > > Right on! I used to have an email server in the 90's and even hand > > wrote > > the sendmail config file, lol. > > > > Shell account, of course, at the local ISP. > > and that's why you first topposted and

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

ch...@walnut.gen.nz> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Message-ID: <3d20dce8-38ee-dbac-e8a5-c13b79f84...@walnut.gen.nz> > Subject: Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet > References: <20180215143806.vii235crrmr4t...@eeg.ccf.org> > <slrnp

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

On 3/21/18 7:57 PM, Dan Purgert wrote: Miles Fidelman wrote: On 3/21/18 5:25 PM, Richard Owlett wrote: [...] I'm a consumer not a provider, but I understood that "control membership" was part of structure for a "moderated group". Education cheerfully accepted ;} Not really.  Moderated

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

Miles Fidelman wrote: > On 3/21/18 5:25 PM, Richard Owlett wrote: >> [...] >> >> I'm a consumer not a provider, but I understood that "control >> membership" was part of structure for a "moderated group". >> Education cheerfully accepted ;} >> >> > Not really.  Moderated meant that posts were

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

On Wed 21 Mar 2018 at 16:21:44 (-0400), Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 02:53:47PM -0500, David Wright wrote: > > HELO dotlessdomainname > > HELO dotcontaining.home > > > > I want someone to explain to me why having a dot is better then not > > having a dot in deciding

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

On 3/21/18 5:15 PM, deloptes wrote: But back to DMARC, it indeed works for the big players as smaller one can not easily implement and get the ratings the bigger get, however I have seen also smaller companies use their own mail servers and keep them up to date and score pretty well. the

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

On Wed 21 Mar 2018 at 16:41:25 -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 03/21/2018 03:47 PM, Brian wrote: > > On Wed 21 Mar 2018 at 12:05:53 -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote: > > > > > On 3/21/18 11:48 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > > > > > > > On 21/03/18 01:00 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > > > > > >

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

On 03/21/2018 04:51 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: On 3/21/18 5:25 PM, Richard Owlett wrote: On 03/21/2018 03:38 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: On 3/21/18 12:32 PM, Richard Owlett wrote: On 03/21/2018 11:05 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: On 3/21/18 11:48 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: On 21/03/18 01:00 AM,

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

On 22/03/18 09:21, Greg Wooledge wrote: > One heuristic that is commonly used is to reject all messages where > the HELO doesn't even syntactically qualify as a valid FQDN -- in other > words, has no dot in it. I often see this alluded to, but struggle to find evidence - why shouldn't there be a

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

On 3/21/18 5:25 PM, Richard Owlett wrote: On 03/21/2018 03:38 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: On 3/21/18 12:32 PM, Richard Owlett wrote: On 03/21/2018 11:05 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: On 3/21/18 11:48 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: On 21/03/18 01:00 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: My problem with

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

On 03/21/2018 03:47 PM, Brian wrote: On Wed 21 Mar 2018 at 12:05:53 -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote: On 3/21/18 11:48 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: On 21/03/18 01:00 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: My problem with "social networks" is that they're monopolies. Imagine popping down to the local pub for a

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

Joe wrote: > Indeed. Exim4 is fairly easy to configure either way. yes indeed, it took me only one month to write all the rules required (with irony)

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

Greg Wooledge wrote: > My understanding: the SMTP receiver will use whatever heuristics it > finds appropriate to avoid receiving spam. > > One heuristic that is commonly used is to reject all messages where > the HELO doesn't even syntactically qualify as a valid FQDN -- in other > words, has

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

Forest Dean Feighner wrote: > gmail... > > I have little to add. next time try the "..." on the bottom of the reply message before writing anything. it does wonder ;-) regards

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

On 03/21/2018 03:38 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: On 3/21/18 12:32 PM, Richard Owlett wrote: On 03/21/2018 11:05 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: On 3/21/18 11:48 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: On 21/03/18 01:00 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: My problem with "social networks" is that they're monopolies.

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

Charlie Gibbs wrote: > Now that Trump wants to execute drug dealers, why doesn't he go after > the operators of these sites?  They're just as addictive as opioids - or > alcohol, or tobacco... wait, he should be going after them too! there is first amendment - you can't do it and you can't

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > +100 > > To put that on stronger terms -- we'd end up with two and a half > gatekeepers for mail: Google, Hotmail (aka Microsoft) and... who > did I forget? > > The same nightmare we have at the moment with the so-called "social" > networks. > > They are already

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

gmail... I have little to add. On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 4:59 PM, deloptes wrote: > Forest Dean Feighner wrote: > > > Right on! I used to have an email server in the 90's and even hand wrote > > the sendmail config file, lol. > > > > Shell account, of course, at the local

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

Forest Dean Feighner wrote: > Right on! I used to have an email server in the 90's and even hand wrote > the sendmail config file, lol. > > Shell account, of course, at the local ISP. and that's why you first topposted and secondly contributed with very meaningful content. :D

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 16:21:44 -0400 Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 02:53:47PM -0500, David Wright wrote: > > HELO dotlessdomainname > > HELO dotcontaining.home > > > > I want someone to explain to me why having a dot is better then not > > having

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

On Wed 21 Mar 2018 at 12:05:53 -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote: > On 3/21/18 11:48 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > > > On 21/03/18 01:00 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > > > My problem with "social networks" is that they're monopolies. Imagine > > popping down to the local pub for a pint and a bit

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

On 3/21/18 12:32 PM, Richard Owlett wrote: On 03/21/2018 11:05 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: On 3/21/18 11:48 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: On 21/03/18 01:00 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: My problem with "social networks" is that they're monopolies. Imagine popping down to the local pub for a pint

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 02:53:47PM -0500, David Wright wrote: > HELO dotlessdomainname > HELO dotcontaining.home > > I want someone to explain to me why having a dot is better then not > having a dot in deciding whether a submitter is genuine. And > without the politics. My

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

On Wed 21 Mar 2018 at 09:50:15 (+1100), Ben Finney wrote: > David Wright writes: > > > I don't understand why a home user would not be using a smarthost. > > Perhaps we're talking about a different group of people. Why would a > > home user want to relay mail rather

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

On Wednesday 21 March 2018 12:32:56 Richard Owlett wrote: > On 03/21/2018 11:05 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > > On 3/21/18 11:48 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> On 21/03/18 01:00 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > >> > >> > >> My problem with "social networks" is that they're monopolies. > >> Imagine

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

On 03/21/2018 11:05 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: On 3/21/18 11:48 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: On 21/03/18 01:00 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: My problem with "social networks" is that they're monopolies. Imagine popping down to the local pub for a pint and a bit of conversation, only to find that

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

On 3/21/18 11:48 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: On 21/03/18 01:00 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: My problem with "social networks" is that they're monopolies. Imagine popping down to the local pub for a pint and a bit of conversation, only to find that it's part of a huge chain run by a

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet

On 21/03/18 01:00 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 09:50:15AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: David Wright writes: I don't understand why a home user would not be using a smarthost. [...] First, note that even if you don't know the reason why

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:00:16 +0100 wrote: > To put that on stronger terms -- we'd end up with two and a half > gatekeepers for mail: Google, Hotmail (aka Microsoft) and... who > did I forget? yahoo for a starter, then there is that French mob OVH and the NL mob > > The

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 09:50:15AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > David Wright writes: > > > I don't understand why a home user would not be using a smarthost. [...] > First, note that even if you don't know the reason why

Re: Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

Right on! I used to have an email server in the 90's and even hand wrote the sendmail config file, lol. Shell account, of course, at the local ISP. On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 7:13 PM, Forest Dean Feighner < forest.feigh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Right on! I used to have an email server in the 90's

Federated, decentralised communication on the internet (was: domain names, was: hostname)

David Wright writes: > I don't understand why a home user would not be using a smarthost. > Perhaps we're talking about a different group of people. Why would a > home user want to relay mail rather than submit it to a smarthost? First, note that even if you don't know