Re: nagios postfix
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Phil Dobbin schrieb: >setting up mutt on OS X & intend to do the same. Can I substitute msmtp >for postfix when using nagios does anybody know? msmtp is a far easier >beast to deal with than postfix & I'd rather avoid postfix unless it's >necessary. I did not know msmtp in detail, but nagios did not need a full MTA or MDA - it just requires any MUA for sending mail like "mail", ssmtp, "mutt", pine or whatever too is able for sending mail from command line. Not shure why so many users are installing a large and complex MTA suite when they only need a little, small MUA - this mainly leads to many crap and problems within internet email networks. But you can configure notification commands completely byself in another way too within nagios' commands config. hth good luck! cheers, Niels. - -- Niels Dettenbach Syndicat IT&Internet http://www.syndicat.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: APG v1.0.8 iIEEAREIAEEFAk91OcM6HE5pZWxzIERldHRlbmJhY2ggKFN5bmRpY2F0IElUJklu dGVybmV0KSA8bmRAc3luZGljYXQuY29tPgAKCRBU3ERlZRyiDeq8AJ9MqiMG1SSa bNhOOGYhRFfGBMQ7mQCfWHiQg07MPJUR9mVzGY/qxds4Jv8= =bd+S -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
Re: Potential disruption to MacPorts domain registration
Sam, On Mar 29, 2012, at 8:24 PM, Sam Kuper wrote: > On 29 March 2012 20:11, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> On Mar 29, 2012, at 14:04, Jan Stary wrote: >>> What exactly is the >>> relation of macports to Apple as a corporation? >> >> http://trac.macports.org/wiki/MacPortsHistory > > This is helpful but not very detailed. It doesn't clearly explain how > much involvement, if any, Apple has had since this email was sent[1], > in which is was written that, 'James Berry, a member of the > DarwinPorts steering committee says: "We are pleased that by offering > us hosting and administrative support services, Apple continues to > demonstrate its strong commitment to the open source community. That > support is vital to our project." Apple continues to be a big help with many of MacPorts costs through providing hosting, internet access, machine administration, etc, through MacOSForge. A number of Apple employees maintain ports and contribute to the project. We have spoken to some folks at Apple about this issue, they are aware of the potential infrastructure needs this might bring up, and I'm sure they will help help out there as needed. I don't think I'll go into potential legal avenues at this time... James > > If Apple is still providing hosting and administrative support > services, perhaps they could intervene > (legally/financially/technologically) to ensure that there is no > disruption to the Macports project because of gkg.net's shameful > intransigence. If so, who would be the right person to contact at > Apple, to bring this to Apple's attention? Is there still a > DarwinPorts/MacPorts steering committee? > > Does anyone here have time to look over > http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/registrant-rights-responsibilities > and/or related documents for any applicable clauses that might > disallow registrars from acting as gkg.net has done? Might be > worthwhile. > > Sam > > [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.opendarwin.darwinports/18725 > ___ > macports-users mailing list > macports-users@lists.macosforge.org > http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users ___ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
Re: Potential disruption to MacPorts domain registration
On Mar 29, 2012, at 22:24, Sam Kuper wrote: > On 29 March 2012 20:11, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> On Mar 29, 2012, at 14:04, Jan Stary wrote: >>> What exactly is the >>> relation of macports to Apple as a corporation? >> >> http://trac.macports.org/wiki/MacPortsHistory > > This is helpful but not very detailed. It doesn't clearly explain how > much involvement, if any, Apple has had since this email was sent[1], > in which is was written that, 'James Berry, a member of the > DarwinPorts steering committee says: "We are pleased that by offering > us hosting and administrative support services, Apple continues to > demonstrate its strong commitment to the open source community. That > support is vital to our project." > > If Apple is still providing hosting and administrative support > services, perhaps they could intervene > (legally/financially/technologically) to ensure that there is no > disruption to the Macports project because of gkg.net's shameful > intransigence. If so, who would be the right person to contact at > Apple, to bring this to Apple's attention? Is there still a > DarwinPorts/MacPorts steering committee? Apple still runs Mac OS Forge. Mac OS Forge still provides our hosting and infrastructure. People with apple.com email addresses still contribute to ports and base. MacPorts is an independent open-source project and is not under Apple's supervision or jurisdiction. We have not attempted to contact Apple Legal and do not believe they would want to get involved in this matter. We have funds available from prior years of Google Summers of Code. The steering committee is now called the MacPorts management (or "portmgr"), and consists of jmr, raimue, and myself. The former management is called the elder council and consists of jberry, jmpp and mww. Today James attempted to pay the required fees to restore our account with gkg to good standing. I have not heard whether he was successful in doing so. > Does anyone here have time to look over > http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/registrant-rights-responsibilities > and/or related documents for any applicable clauses that might > disallow registrars from acting as gkg.net has done? Might be > worthwhile. > > Sam > > [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.opendarwin.darwinports/18725 ___ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
Re: Potential disruption to MacPorts domain registration
On Mar 29, 2012, at 8:56 PM, Jeremy Lavergne wrote: >> My take on this is that GKG.NET has at least one example on record of their >> behaving in a less than exemplary manner, namely using the BBB logo without >> permission: >> >> http://www.bbb.org/bryan/business-reviews/internet-services/gkgnet-in-bryan-tx-7007745 > > Sounds like there should be a new complaint filed very soon ... Let's please consider complaints about this issue only after we are able to transition to another registrar… James ___ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
Re: Potential disruption to MacPorts domain registration
> My take on this is that GKG.NET has at least one example on record of their > behaving in a less than exemplary manner, namely using the BBB logo without > permission: > > http://www.bbb.org/bryan/business-reviews/internet-services/gkgnet-in-bryan-tx-7007745 Sounds like there should be a new complaint filed very soon ... smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
Re: Potential disruption to MacPorts domain registration
My take on this is that GKG.NET has at least one example on record of their behaving in a less than exemplary manner, namely using the BBB logo without permission: http://www.bbb.org/bryan/business-reviews/internet-services/gkgnet-in-bryan-tx-7007745 ___ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
Re: Potential disruption to MacPorts domain registration
On 29 March 2012 20:11, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > On Mar 29, 2012, at 14:04, Jan Stary wrote: > > What exactly is the > > relation of macports to Apple as a corporation? > > http://trac.macports.org/wiki/MacPortsHistory This is helpful but not very detailed. It doesn't clearly explain how much involvement, if any, Apple has had since this email was sent[1], in which is was written that, 'James Berry, a member of the DarwinPorts steering committee says: "We are pleased that by offering us hosting and administrative support services, Apple continues to demonstrate its strong commitment to the open source community. That support is vital to our project." If Apple is still providing hosting and administrative support services, perhaps they could intervene (legally/financially/technologically) to ensure that there is no disruption to the Macports project because of gkg.net's shameful intransigence. If so, who would be the right person to contact at Apple, to bring this to Apple's attention? Is there still a DarwinPorts/MacPorts steering committee? Does anyone here have time to look over http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/registrant-rights-responsibilities and/or related documents for any applicable clauses that might disallow registrars from acting as gkg.net has done? Might be worthwhile. Sam [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.opendarwin.darwinports/18725 ___ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
nagios postfix
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, all. I've just installed nagios & after reading the docs from Nagio's website, I'm going to set it up (thanks, btw, for the excellent, clear & concise instructions on the port install). On Linux I use msmtp as my SMTP server for mutt & am in the process of setting up mutt on OS X & intend to do the same. Can I substitute msmtp for postfix when using nagios does anybody know? msmtp is a far easier beast to deal with than postfix & I'd rather avoid postfix unless it's necessary. Thanks for any answers, Cheers, Phil... - -- But masters, remember that I am an ass. Though it be not written down, yet forget not that I am an ass. Wm. Shakespeare - Much Ado About Nothing -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) Comment: §auto-key-locate cert pka ldap hkp://keys.gnupg.net Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPdQFJAAoJEKpMeDHWT5ADcuAIAJjS3qIySz3vmBR3MYo6WGti QA7AjUoI4APV+p1wOMZXpn+n0CqWwgK6KwzAKcjgKIV2vHEMuE6HGS6Is7q6MW9F 6BV1yfFeTc6FWXL4aRkFsmnmAL2ix5gSNbUWJ8PE0cKpyU595VuxcZIqtAEIXxj1 orSNNTmkW38NxYImF/tCAYrMreE04QQZKZZPPuRs+hR414eOWcK4QzkwF2aWHsa9 JLAKqL2Hgr2CSeLgShM71bmoBBDu6LhGHlvCa/zfrT3yR2upkreCydPmwHCA53Lq 6zQa1kVq6xswbqO1Q6WVUxWKv+H3hxIFEZP2SATGCo89inpuFQ6iWg7k9va3bQ8= =7rnv -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
Re: Trouble distributing application that links to MacPort libraries
I replied in that ticket also, but I suggest you look into using dylibbundler or similar process instead of messing with DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH. http://www.macports.org/ports.php?by=name&substr=dylibbundler ___ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
Trouble distributing application that links to MacPort libraries
Hi macports-users! I installed some ports on a build machine. I then build my application and `otool -L myApp.binary` shows dependencies on some MacPorts libraries installed at /opt/local/lib. myApp.binary runs fine on this build machine. In order to deploy my application to other machines, I copy the corresponding libraries to "myApplication/darwin-libs" and write a wrapper script at "myApplication/launchMyApp.sh" which looks something like this: > > #!/bin/env sh > # this is "launchMyApp.sh". > export DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH=/path/to/myApplication/darwin-libs > /path/to/myApplication/myApp.binary. > Now when I run launchMyApp.sh on either the build or the user machine, I get an error: > dyld: Symbol not found: _iconv >Referenced from: /usr/lib/libcups.2.dylib >Expected in: /path/to/myApplication/darwin-libs/libiconv.2.dylib > in /usr/lib/libcups.2.dylib The confusing thing is that libcups.2.dylib isn't used anywhere in my application: `otool -L myApp.binary` and all the libraries in /opt/local/lib/* do not resolve any reference to /usr/lib/libcups.2.dylib! I can "fix" the problem by either > > cp /usr/lib/libcups.2.dylib /path/to/myApplication/darwin-libs > or appending > >DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH+=/usr/lib > to launchMyApp.sh. I only get this behavior when running launchMyApp.sh on OSX 10.7 (Lion) machines. The whole procedure seems to work fine on Leopard and Snow Leopard machines. Any idea of what's going on here? I found a ticket describing simliar behavior (ticket #32348 [https://trac.macports.org/ticket/32348]). I added my findings and figured someone on macports-users might have an idea of what I'm doing wrong. Has anyone else ran into this problem? Thanks, Pete ___ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
Re: Creating a Private Mirror of MacPorts...
On Mar 29, 2012, at 16:22, Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
>> I have mac users who cannot connect to the Internet.
>>
>> I need to create a private mirror for MacPorts for them... But, so far, I
>> haven't been able to find any documentation on how to do that.
>>
>> Does anybody know where I can find documentation for that? Has anybody done
>> it?
People who wanted to host mirrors have typically emailed us at the portmgr
address, so the discussions and the instructions we send haven't appeared on a
public list. Not that it's a secret particularly. We could probably put
something in the wiki.
>> Whee!!!
>>
>> -RZ
>>
>> p.s. the only server I have available for a MacPorts mirror is running
>> Linux.
>
> You might check out `port -p mirror` to grab dist files (this might be a case
> where port can run natively on Linux). You can then point a web server at the
> folder where everything is saved.
Right. Alternately, you can rsync from any of our distfiles servers, listed on
the Mirrors wiki page. (Pick one close to you.) This will get you lots of
obsolete files you probably don't need, since the mirrors keep files forever.
On the other hand, it means you don't have to have MacPorts installed. (Many
(most?) of our mirrors aren't running OS X either.)
> I think you can then just have the internet-less citizens point
> distfiles.macports.org to your server, or add it to the list of
> macports_distfiles fetch mirrors:
> ${prefix}/var/macports/sources/rsync.macports.org/release/ports/_resources/port1.0/fetch/mirror_sites.tcl
If you sync your ports with rsync, as the above path suggests, your changes
will be wiped out next time you sync, which isn't so great. But if you switch
to using a Subversion working copy for your ports, your change is kept. This is
what I do; I have several local machines, and on each one, the others'
addresses are listed in mirror_sites.tcl.
MacPorts does not subsist on distfiles alone, of course; you need the actual
portfiles too. You can rsync those too. To specify an alternate location to get
portfiles from, you'll want to edit sources.conf.
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
Re: Creating a Private Mirror of MacPorts...
> I have mac users who cannot connect to the Internet.
>
> I need to create a private mirror for MacPorts for them... But, so far, I
> haven't been able to find any documentation on how to do that.
>
> Does anybody know where I can find documentation for that? Has anybody done
> it?
>
> Whee!!!
>
> -RZ
>
> p.s. the only server I have available for a MacPorts mirror is running Linux.
You might check out `port -p mirror` to grab dist files (this might be a case
where port can run natively on Linux). You can then point a web server at the
folder where everything is saved.
I think you can then just have the internet-less citizens point
distfiles.macports.org to your server, or add it to the list of
macports_distfiles fetch mirrors:
${prefix}/var/macports/sources/rsync.macports.org/release/ports/_resources/port1.0/fetch/mirror_sites.tcl
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
Creating a Private Mirror of MacPorts...
I have mac users who cannot connect to the Internet. I need to create a private mirror for MacPorts for them... But, so far, I haven't been able to find any documentation on how to do that. Does anybody know where I can find documentation for that? Has anybody done it? Whee!!! -RZ p.s. the only server I have available for a MacPorts mirror is running Linux. -- Randy Zagar Sr. Unix Systems Administrator E-mail: za...@arlut.utexas.eduApplied Research Laboratories Phone: 512 835-3131 Univ. of Texas at Austin smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
Re: Potential disruption to MacPorts domain registration
On Mar 29, 2012, at 14:04, Jan Stary wrote: > What exactly is the > relation of macports to Apple as a corporation? http://trac.macports.org/wiki/MacPortsHistory ___ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
Re: Potential disruption to MacPorts domain registration
On Mar 30 03:09:32, Joshua Root wrote: > Short version: Our domain registrar, gkg.net, is threatening to cancel > the registration of macports.org and other domains that redirect to it. > We do not know whether they will follow through on this threat. > > If they do, we will have no choice but to move our services to another > domain, at least temporarily. Tentatively, that would be > macports.macosforge.org for www.macports.org, and > trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports for trac.macports.org. We also > have macportz.org and macportz.com registered through another registrar > in case we need them. > > If this does happen, the mailing lists will keep working, though > @macports.org email aliases will not. Our IRC channel, #macports on > Freenode, will also continue to be available. Further information will > be posted in these two places if necessary. > > Background on the issue: > > James Berry, who handles the domain registrations for the project, > recently renewed them. While doing so, he accidentally checked a box > requesting another service along with the registrations. He immediately > informed GKG of the error, and for the next several weeks corresponded > with them, asking them to cancel the unwanted service and provide a > refund. They refused to do so. > > He then sought and obtained a chargeback from his credit card company. > After that, GKG contacted him and stated that to avoid closure of his > account, he had to pay a "chargeback fee" (which was greater than the > amount refunded), and provide "a notarized letter from the Registrant > and the person who paid for the services (if the person is different > from the Registrant) stating that they understand the charges they > incurred, they agreed to the charges, and they will not charge the > services back. The letter will also agree to the domains remaining on > Registrar Lock until GKG decides that there is no longer a threat of a > chargeback from the Registrant and/or the person who paid for the > services originally." > > James will not be providing the requested letter since some of the > statements in it would be false. > > - Josh (for PortMgr) > ___ > macports-users mailing list > macports-users@lists.macosforge.org > http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users On Mar 29 09:53:02, James Berry wrote: > It would be best to transfer to another registrar asap, but we are unable to > do so because: > > (1) Our domain is currently under registrar lock because, according to GKG > policies, it is within a 60-day period following renewal. > > (2) Pending resolution of our current dispute, they may decide unilaterally > to further extend this registrar lock, effectively holding our domains > hostage. They sure sound like a very shitty registrar. If I read their pricing right, the amount in question is not that much, ad the dispute is more a matter of principle (as in "not to be fucked with"); I sympathize with that. If the above really canot be worked around, I suggest you pay for the unwanted services, move to another registrar once the domain is unlocked, and taking inspiration from http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=orbitz_blows use the powers of teh interwebz to make this the most expensive dollars they have ever made. (For example, those of us users of macports.org who work in the webhosting bussiness could let gkg.net know about the thousands of domains they will never have in their portfolio, and the hundreds of domains we are moving to other registrars right now.) BTW, reading the whois for the domain, I see that Apple is the technical contact for the domain and runs the nameservers for it. What exactly is the relation of macports to Apple as a corporation? Jan ___ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
Re: Potential disruption to MacPorts domain registration
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 29/03/2012 17:53, James Berry wrote: > It would be best to transfer to another registrar asap, but we are > unable to do so because: > > (1) Our domain is currently under registrar lock because, according to > GKG policies, it is within a 60-day period following renewal. > > (2) Pending resolution of our current dispute, they may decide > unilaterally to further extend this registrar lock, effectively holding > our domains hostage. Well, if they succeed in their intentions to squeeze monies from you on a simple human error which was immediately spotted & was attempted to rectify, I do hope they get enough negative feedback from across the Web to make them think twice next time about publicising their "Experience GKG Customer Satisfaction" claim. Good luck, Phil... - -- But masters, remember that I am an ass. Though it be not written down, yet forget not that I am an ass. Wm. Shakespeare - Much Ado About Nothing -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) Comment: §auto-key-locate cert pka ldap hkp://keys.gnupg.net Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPdJYhAAoJEKpMeDHWT5ADVbEH/2gs4++Ht6y/cUht0S3tFjji fRmrxS7ZbjAo+jhx3urlXS6kdx4j1c7w4A7uWQltbj9GPC/hUwzUQenE577W3VxW wA5+5+1JtKKHtFWoxFP+KJN92quB5FH+gstDzNRgdJnusEtQ3RTwRzWCh7T8dRfS Slh+FkhO5tnBpumOidpj0ekFCVd9hdCllwl7nQo0W+hU/3WFpp3YCMl0TEDLmVFv pQjX+QBQ+ny+vypPrJfzkexT8mziNTCQsLjqaYWwa105IV4JYKQghWkVGgPgWgeG onIIaWXcwUDJz5vuQCltyQAk6kRBGKFCTXaaET84oOtMFyXrc7YYwyssAnDF8+M= =iBAw -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
Re: Potential disruption to MacPorts domain registration
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:45, Sam Kuper wrote: > gkg.net sounds awful. Hope I never have any dealings with them! > > Wouldn't it be best to simply transfer the domain to another registrar > asap? I've found Dreamhost, Moniker and 123-reg to all be reasonably > helpful and reasonably priced for domain registration. You may have missed the part where they slapped a freeze on the domain... services back. The letter will also agree to the domains remaining on >> Registrar Lock until GKG decides that there is no longer a threat of a >> chargeback from the Registrant and/or the person who paid for the >> services originally." >> > This, BTW, I strongly suspect is legally extortion. Unfortunately I suspect MacPorts has no recourse -- brandon s allbery allber...@gmail.com wandering unix systems administrator (available) (412) 475-9364 vm/sms ___ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
Re: Potential disruption to MacPorts domain registration
It would be best to transfer to another registrar asap, but we are unable to do so because: (1) Our domain is currently under registrar lock because, according to GKG policies, it is within a 60-day period following renewal. (2) Pending resolution of our current dispute, they may decide unilaterally to further extend this registrar lock, effectively holding our domains hostage. James On Mar 29, 2012, at 9:45 AM, Sam Kuper wrote: > gkg.net sounds awful. Hope I never have any dealings with them! > > Wouldn't it be best to simply transfer the domain to another registrar asap? > I've found Dreamhost, Moniker and 123-reg to all be reasonably helpful and > reasonably priced for domain registration. > > Sam > > > On 29 March 2012 17:09, Joshua Root wrote: > Short version: Our domain registrar, gkg.net, is threatening to cancel > the registration of macports.org and other domains that redirect to it. > We do not know whether they will follow through on this threat. > > If they do, we will have no choice but to move our services to another > domain, at least temporarily. Tentatively, that would be > macports.macosforge.org for www.macports.org, and > trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports for trac.macports.org. We also > have macportz.org and macportz.com registered through another registrar > in case we need them. > > If this does happen, the mailing lists will keep working, though > @macports.org email aliases will not. Our IRC channel, #macports on > Freenode, will also continue to be available. Further information will > be posted in these two places if necessary. > > Background on the issue: > > James Berry, who handles the domain registrations for the project, > recently renewed them. While doing so, he accidentally checked a box > requesting another service along with the registrations. He immediately > informed GKG of the error, and for the next several weeks corresponded > with them, asking them to cancel the unwanted service and provide a > refund. They refused to do so. > > He then sought and obtained a chargeback from his credit card company. > After that, GKG contacted him and stated that to avoid closure of his > account, he had to pay a "chargeback fee" (which was greater than the > amount refunded), and provide "a notarized letter from the Registrant > and the person who paid for the services (if the person is different > from the Registrant) stating that they understand the charges they > incurred, they agreed to the charges, and they will not charge the > services back. The letter will also agree to the domains remaining on > Registrar Lock until GKG decides that there is no longer a threat of a > chargeback from the Registrant and/or the person who paid for the > services originally." > > James will not be providing the requested letter since some of the > statements in it would be false. > > - Josh (for PortMgr) > ___ > macports-users mailing list > macports-users@lists.macosforge.org > http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users > > ___ > macports-users mailing list > macports-users@lists.macosforge.org > http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users ___ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
Re: Potential disruption to MacPorts domain registration
and namecheap, who are fairly progressive, anti-SOPA and all that. On Mar 29, 2012, at 11:45 AM, Sam Kuper wrote: > gkg.net sounds awful. Hope I never have any dealings with them! > > Wouldn't it be best to simply transfer the domain to another registrar > asap? I've found Dreamhost, Moniker and 123-reg to all be reasonably > helpful and reasonably priced for domain registration. > > Sam > > > On 29 March 2012 17:09, Joshua Root wrote: > >> Short version: Our domain registrar, gkg.net, is threatening to cancel >> the registration of macports.org and other domains that redirect to it. >> We do not know whether they will follow through on this threat. >> >> If they do, we will have no choice but to move our services to another >> domain, at least temporarily. Tentatively, that would be >> macports.macosforge.org for www.macports.org, and >> trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports for trac.macports.org. We also >> have macportz.org and macportz.com registered through another registrar >> in case we need them. >> >> If this does happen, the mailing lists will keep working, though >> @macports.org email aliases will not. Our IRC channel, #macports on >> Freenode, will also continue to be available. Further information will >> be posted in these two places if necessary. >> >> Background on the issue: >> >> James Berry, who handles the domain registrations for the project, >> recently renewed them. While doing so, he accidentally checked a box >> requesting another service along with the registrations. He immediately >> informed GKG of the error, and for the next several weeks corresponded >> with them, asking them to cancel the unwanted service and provide a >> refund. They refused to do so. >> >> He then sought and obtained a chargeback from his credit card company. >> After that, GKG contacted him and stated that to avoid closure of his >> account, he had to pay a "chargeback fee" (which was greater than the >> amount refunded), and provide "a notarized letter from the Registrant >> and the person who paid for the services (if the person is different >> from the Registrant) stating that they understand the charges they >> incurred, they agreed to the charges, and they will not charge the >> services back. The letter will also agree to the domains remaining on >> Registrar Lock until GKG decides that there is no longer a threat of a >> chargeback from the Registrant and/or the person who paid for the >> services originally." >> >> James will not be providing the requested letter since some of the >> statements in it would be false. >> >> - Josh (for PortMgr) >> ___ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
Re: Potential disruption to MacPorts domain registration
gkg.net sounds awful. Hope I never have any dealings with them! Wouldn't it be best to simply transfer the domain to another registrar asap? I've found Dreamhost, Moniker and 123-reg to all be reasonably helpful and reasonably priced for domain registration. Sam On 29 March 2012 17:09, Joshua Root wrote: > Short version: Our domain registrar, gkg.net, is threatening to cancel > the registration of macports.org and other domains that redirect to it. > We do not know whether they will follow through on this threat. > > If they do, we will have no choice but to move our services to another > domain, at least temporarily. Tentatively, that would be > macports.macosforge.org for www.macports.org, and > trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports for trac.macports.org. We also > have macportz.org and macportz.com registered through another registrar > in case we need them. > > If this does happen, the mailing lists will keep working, though > @macports.org email aliases will not. Our IRC channel, #macports on > Freenode, will also continue to be available. Further information will > be posted in these two places if necessary. > > Background on the issue: > > James Berry, who handles the domain registrations for the project, > recently renewed them. While doing so, he accidentally checked a box > requesting another service along with the registrations. He immediately > informed GKG of the error, and for the next several weeks corresponded > with them, asking them to cancel the unwanted service and provide a > refund. They refused to do so. > > He then sought and obtained a chargeback from his credit card company. > After that, GKG contacted him and stated that to avoid closure of his > account, he had to pay a "chargeback fee" (which was greater than the > amount refunded), and provide "a notarized letter from the Registrant > and the person who paid for the services (if the person is different > from the Registrant) stating that they understand the charges they > incurred, they agreed to the charges, and they will not charge the > services back. The letter will also agree to the domains remaining on > Registrar Lock until GKG decides that there is no longer a threat of a > chargeback from the Registrant and/or the person who paid for the > services originally." > > James will not be providing the requested letter since some of the > statements in it would be false. > > - Josh (for PortMgr) > ___ > macports-users mailing list > macports-users@lists.macosforge.org > http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users > ___ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
Potential disruption to MacPorts domain registration
Short version: Our domain registrar, gkg.net, is threatening to cancel the registration of macports.org and other domains that redirect to it. We do not know whether they will follow through on this threat. If they do, we will have no choice but to move our services to another domain, at least temporarily. Tentatively, that would be macports.macosforge.org for www.macports.org, and trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports for trac.macports.org. We also have macportz.org and macportz.com registered through another registrar in case we need them. If this does happen, the mailing lists will keep working, though @macports.org email aliases will not. Our IRC channel, #macports on Freenode, will also continue to be available. Further information will be posted in these two places if necessary. Background on the issue: James Berry, who handles the domain registrations for the project, recently renewed them. While doing so, he accidentally checked a box requesting another service along with the registrations. He immediately informed GKG of the error, and for the next several weeks corresponded with them, asking them to cancel the unwanted service and provide a refund. They refused to do so. He then sought and obtained a chargeback from his credit card company. After that, GKG contacted him and stated that to avoid closure of his account, he had to pay a "chargeback fee" (which was greater than the amount refunded), and provide "a notarized letter from the Registrant and the person who paid for the services (if the person is different from the Registrant) stating that they understand the charges they incurred, they agreed to the charges, and they will not charge the services back. The letter will also agree to the domains remaining on Registrar Lock until GKG decides that there is no longer a threat of a chargeback from the Registrant and/or the person who paid for the services originally." James will not be providing the requested letter since some of the statements in it would be false. - Josh (for PortMgr) ___ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
