On 12/06/13 07:50, Andres Perera wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:58 AM, Jan Stary h...@stare.cz wrote:
On Dec 05 19:09:05, andre...@zoho.com wrote:
but then if the shell implementation uses tmpfiles for heredoc,
does it?
ksh does:
~ $ :!
$(sleep 100)
!
[1] 469
~ $ ls /tmp/sh*
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 5:22 AM, Alexander Hall alexan...@beard.se wrote:
On 12/06/13 07:50, Andres Perera wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:58 AM, Jan Stary h...@stare.cz wrote:
On Dec 05 19:09:05, andre...@zoho.com wrote:
but then if the shell implementation uses tmpfiles for heredoc,
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 06:59:02AM -0430, Andres Perera wrote:
| with C you can be very explicit about where you store and when you zero out
with shell you can be very explicit about where you store and when you
zero out
| with shell it's easy to be clumsy in this particular domain
with C it's
On 6 December 2013 12:29, Andres Perera andre...@zoho.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 5:22 AM, Alexander Hall alexan...@beard.se wrote:
On 12/06/13 07:50, Andres Perera wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:58 AM, Jan Stary h...@stare.cz wrote:
On Dec 05 19:09:05, andre...@zoho.com wrote:
but
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Paul de Weerd we...@weirdnet.nl wrote:
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 06:59:02AM -0430, Andres Perera wrote:
| with C you can be very explicit about where you store and when you zero out
with shell you can be very explicit about where you store and when you
zero out
mark the variable volatile or external. what you said also holds for
kernel drivers, is well known, and is much easier to understand than
shell indiosyncrasies
another silly person in conversation ~
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Marios Makassikis mmakassi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 December
Not quite what you are looking for, but this is cool:
https://telepathwords.research.microsoft.com/
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 07:41:17AM -0430, Andres Perera wrote:
| On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Paul de Weerd we...@weirdnet.nl wrote:
| On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 06:59:02AM -0430, Andres Perera wrote:
| | with C you can be very explicit about where you store and when you zero
out
|
| with
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Paul de Weerd we...@weirdnet.nl wrote:
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 07:41:17AM -0430, Andres Perera wrote:
| On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Paul de Weerd we...@weirdnet.nl wrote:
| On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 06:59:02AM -0430, Andres Perera wrote:
| | with C you can
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 08:15:19AM -0430, Andres Perera wrote:
| you use cat, muffin face:
| ...
| STTY=`stty -g`
| echo -n Password:
| stty -echo
| cat PASSWORD_FILE_DONT_READ_IF_YOU_ARE_OTHER_PROCESS_PLS
| stty $STTY
| ...
| openssl -d ... PASSWORD_FILE_DONT_READ_IF_YOU_ARE_OTHER_PROCESS_PLS
OpenSMTPD 5.4.1 has just been released.
OpenSMTPD is a FREE implementation of the SMTP protocol with some common
extensions. It allows ordinary machines to exchange e-mails with systems
speaking the SMTP protocol. It implements a fairly large part of RFC5321
and can already cover a large range of
With built-in redundancy! :)
Too much excitement! Sorry about that.
Eric.
This falls under the category When in doubt, ask the OpenBSD guys
(and as all of my firewalls are running OpenBSD I hope this isn't too
off topic).
Basically, four of my networks are not getting an answer for a
specific mx query from dyn.com's DNS server. Yet every other DNS cache
I've queried
Chris Smith obsd_m...@chrissmith.org writes:
Basically, four of my networks are not getting an answer for a
specific mx query from dyn.com's DNS server.
but, say
$ dig @216.146.35.35 bsdly.net mx
works?
Or do you get no answer for any queries?
- Peter
--
Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Peter N. M. Hansteen pe...@bsdly.net wrote:
but, say
$ dig @216.146.35.35 bsdly.net mx
works?
Or do you get no answer for any queries?
It's just that one particular query and the same domain's TXT record.
There may be others but this one was found because
Em 06-12-2013 14:31, Chris Smith escreveu:
This falls under the category When in doubt, ask the OpenBSD guys
(and as all of my firewalls are running OpenBSD I hope this isn't too
off topic).
Basically, four of my networks are not getting an answer for a
specific mx query from dyn.com's DNS
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Giancarlo Razzolini
grazzol...@gmail.com wrote:
I do not know if it is the case, but many isp's today use dns
transparent proxying.
You can try using the site www.dnsleaktest.com to see if it is your
case.
The lwtitle.com mx and lwtitle.com txt queries
Em 06-12-2013 15:42, Chris Smith escreveu:
The lwtitle.com mx and lwtitle.com txt queries both fail for me here
and I run unbound as a resolver on my firewall and I pass the DNS leak
test.
The dns leaktest only detects if the provider is actively redirecting
your queries to their caching
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 12:42:09PM -0500, Chris Smith wrote:
The lwtitle.com mx and lwtitle.com txt queries both fail for me here
and I run unbound as a resolver on my firewall and I pass the DNS leak
test.
Just out of curiosity: If you are running unbound on the firewall, why
are you
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Patrik Lundin
patrik.lundin@gmail.com wrote:
Just out of curiosity: If you are running unbound on the firewall, why
are you querying the troublesome resolver directly? Do you get the same
result when querying the local unbound?
Same results from Unbound.
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Paul de Weerd we...@weirdnet.nl wrote:
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 08:15:19AM -0430, Andres Perera wrote:
| you use cat, muffin face:
| ...
| STTY=`stty -g`
| echo -n Password:
| stty -echo
| cat PASSWORD_FILE_DONT_READ_IF_YOU_ARE_OTHER_PROCESS_PLS
| stty
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 01:50:33PM -0500, Chris Smith wrote:
Same results from Unbound. That's why I started digging.
Sorry if I'm missing something, but what lead you to suspect the
216.146.35.35 machine in the first place?
Given the +trace output you supplied that address is not part of
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 08:31:56PM +0100, Walter Haidinger wrote:
Am 2013-11-23 17:41, schrieb mxb:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-techm=138493672609487w=2
This one might help?
Thanks for the reference but no, unfortunately not.
Applied the patch the issue remains.
The above diff
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Patrik Lundin
patrik.lundin@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry if I'm missing something, but what lead you to suspect the
216.146.35.35 machine in the first place?
Some of my clients use that service and for them Unbound doesn't act
as a validator, just an iterator that
--On Thursday, December 05, 2013 08:20:07 AM +0100 obsd, cgi
obsd...@postafiok.hu wrote:
- Are there any best-practises to generate a password? - that are kept in
password manager, so ex.: 128 char long with special/random chars, etc.
Diceware: http://world.std.com/~reinhold/diceware.html
Thus said Chris Smith on Fri, 06 Dec 2013 11:31:23 -0500:
Basically, four of my networks are not getting an answer for a
specific mx query from dyn.com's DNS server. Yet every other DNS cache
I've queried works just fine (Google, Level3, Hurricane Electric,
Comcast, etc.) and
26 matches
Mail list logo
