Re: Bridged vether interfaces can't talk to each other (multiple routing tables)

On 04/21/17 20:49, Anders Andersson wrote: === BACKGROUND === I'm trying to set up an OpenBSD 6.1 server having two externally visible IP numbers through one physical network port, each IP mapping to a unique MAC address[1]. I have it mostly working, but my interfaces can't talk to each

Bridged vether interfaces can't talk to each other (multiple routing tables)

=== BACKGROUND === I'm trying to set up an OpenBSD 6.1 server having two externally visible IP numbers through one physical network port, each IP mapping to a unique MAC address[1]. I have it mostly working, but my interfaces can't talk to each other. All traffic should use the primary IP, and

Re: spamd and outlook.com

On 2017-04-21, Kurt H Maier wrote: > What I don't do it set an outgoing voicemail greeting informing > correspondents that my time is more valuable than theirs, and if they > want to contact me I have a list of hoops through which they must jump. > > That would make me an

Re: spamd and outlook.com

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:40:42PM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote: > On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:21:48 -0700 > Kurt H Maier wrote: > > > Greylisting is a hack, an abuse of a side-effect. Most such > > approaches have deleterious side effects. This particular side > > effect is why I

Re: spamd and outlook.com

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 09:21:48 -0700 Kurt H Maier wrote: > Greylisting is a hack, an abuse of a side-effect. Most such > approaches have deleterious side effects. This particular side > effect is why I don't like greylisting in general, even though it's > fairly effective. Do

Re: iked/IKEv2 issue with 6.1

Thanks again. The connections are all working. On 4/20/17 8:54 PM, Igor V. Gubenko wrote: > Thank you, the patch appears to work. I haven't fully tested > connecting/establishing connections, so I'll send another update. > > Prior to the patch, iked also complained about lack of public keys for

Re: OpenBSD 6.1, spamd strange behavior

On 04/21/17 10:44, Alex Shupikov wrote: > spamd is working in the greylisting mode with "-v -G 2:4:864" options. > For every trying of the delivery mail a remote host become TRAPPED for 24 > hours, and I don't understand why. is there a very restrictive spamd.alloweddomains you're not showing

Re: WARNING: symbol(icudt58_dat) size mismatch, relink your program

On 2017-04-21 19:09, bian wrote: I did not try slappasswd but the message is triggered from other places as well. From my ~/.xsession-errors (using 6.1 , xfce4): firefox-esr:/usr/local/lib/libicuuc.so.12.0: /usr/local/lib/libicudata.so.12.0 : WARNING: symbol(icudt58_dat) size mismatch, relink

Re: spamd and outlook.com

Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2017-04-21, Craig Skinner wrote: > > Email is not instant messaging. > > > > Customers need educated to that fact. > > How do you educate them to that when they send to their gmail account > and it shows up on their phone within seconds?

understanding ldapd log error messages

Hi misc, ldapd on one of my two ldap servers stop working overnight # uname -a OpenBSD atlas.int.autonlab.org 6.1 GENERIC.MP#20 amd64 I manually restarted it and it appears to work OK. I started digging little bit through the log

Re: spamd and outlook.com

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 04:02:20PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2017-04-21, Craig Skinner wrote: > > Hi Markus, > > > > On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 11:25:14 +0200 Markus Rosjat wrote: > >> so if you have spamd in place in greylisting mode and you have > >> customers that

Re: spamd and outlook.com

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:02:20 + (UTC) Stuart Henderson wrote: > > > > Email is not instant messaging. > > > > Customers need educated to that fact. > > How do you educate them to that when they send to their gmail account > and it shows up on their phone within

Re: Is randomizing UID/GUID would make sense?

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 22:39:39 +1000 wrote: > Thanks for the start points, Christian and Philip. > I would have never thought about those use cases. > I'll definitely look into this further. I rewrote some code for key generation for particular memory

Re: spamd and outlook.com

Like I said I had one case where I had the same message send from 20 different outlook.com servers that's just stupid Regards Markus Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: Edgar Pettijohn Datum: 21.04.17 15:20 (GMT+01:00) An: misc@openbsd.org Betreff: Re:

Re: spamd and outlook.com

On 2017-04-21, Craig Skinner wrote: > Hi Markus, > > On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 11:25:14 +0200 Markus Rosjat wrote: >> so if you have spamd in place in greylisting mode and you have >> customers that work with people who use Office365 as a service you >> will get calls that

Re: spamd and outlook.com

On 2017-04-21, Markus Rosjat wrote: > so if you have spamd in place in greylisting mode and you have customers > that work with people who use Office365 as a service you will get calls > that emails are delayed for a freaking long time and if you check the ip > range that

Re: spamd and outlook.com

Op Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:12:56 +0200 schreef Reyk Floeter : On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:52:05PM +0200, Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote: Op Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:16:31 +0200 schreef Reyk Floeter : > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:59:20AM +0200, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote: >

Re: spamd and outlook.com

Op Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:16:31 +0200 schreef Reyk Floeter : On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:59:20AM +0200, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:25:14AM +0200, Markus Rosjat wrote: > I use the attached script to fetch the SPF entries recursively, in a plain text

no network in bsd.rd when wifi card is present

My main OpenBSD system is a Shuttle SH81R4 with a 4th Gen i5. I run the latest snapshot on it and once or twice a week I will boot into bsd.rd and run update. A week or two ago I put a mini-pcie wifi card in it (athn0) and after getting some help from this mailing list, I got this system

Re: spamd and outlook.com

On 04/21/17 07:12, Reyk Floeter wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:52:05PM +0200, Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote: Op Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:16:31 +0200 schreef Reyk Floeter : On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:59:20AM +0200, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:25:14AM

Re: Bad kernel for OpenBSD 6.1 sparc64 ?

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 06:13:47PM -0600, Jeff wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have a Sunfire V120 (Sparc) with mirrored disks running OpenBSD 6.0. > > I attempted to update to OpenBSD 6.1 using the files first from: > > > >

Re: Is randomizing UID/GUID would make sense?

Thanks for the start points, Christian and Philip. I would have never thought about those use cases. I'll definitely look into this further. On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:31:08 + (UTC) Christian Weisgerber wrote: > On 2017-04-19, Philip Guenther wrote: > >

acme-client(1) and http_proxy

Hi, I'm trying to use the new acme-client on a server behind a corporate proxy (i.e. I have to set a http_proxy to get out). It seems (from reading the code) that acme-client(1) does not honor http_proxy. Is this on purpose? If so, can someone point me to another acme client that does this? --

Re: spamd and outlook.com

And apropos of the subject, quite on-topic: https://home.nuug.no/~peter/dmarc-reject_openbsd-misc_spadm_and_spf.txt - P (pats robot on virtual head) -- Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.bsdly.net/ http://www.nuug.no/

Re: spamd and outlook.com

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:52:05PM +0200, Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote: > Op Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:16:31 +0200 schreef Reyk Floeter : > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:59:20AM +0200, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:25:14AM +0200, Markus Rosjat wrote: > > > > >

Re: Strange PF behaviour after 6.0 -> 6.1 pgrade

> On 21 Apr 2017, at 10:34, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > On 2017-04-20, Sjöholm Per-Olov wrote: >> Could it be any buffers that is causing this in 6.1 but not in 6.0 ? > > There were changes that would allow larger TCP buffers in 6.1. This > would not

Re: Strange PF behaviour after 6.0 -> 6.1 pgrade

> On 21 Apr 2017, at 10:34, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > On 2017-04-20, Sjöholm Per-Olov wrote: >> Could it be any buffers that is causing this in 6.1 but not in 6.0 ? > > There were changes that would allow larger TCP buffers in 6.1. This > would not

Re: spamd and outlook.com

Hello Peter/all, On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 11:59:20 +0200 "Peter N. M. Hansteen" wrote: > > start with > > $ host -ttxt outlook.com > > and follow the includes to the very end. Then weep. > In February 2015 Paul de Weerd calculated Google published 217,088 IPv4 addresses, and

Re: spamd and outlook.com

Hi Markus, On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 11:25:14 +0200 Markus Rosjat wrote: > so if you have spamd in place in greylisting mode and you have > customers that work with people who use Office365 as a service you > will get calls that emails are delayed for a freaking long time Email is not instant

Re: Van Jacobson network channels

On 03/04/17(Mon) 10:41, Hrvoje Popovski wrote: > Hi all, > > i'm reading some networking stuff and I saw Van Jacobson presentation > about net channels concept. > For me, as user that doesn't know net internals, this presentation seems > quite reasonable. > > Beside that it's about linux network

Re: spamd and outlook.com

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:59:20AM +0200, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:25:14AM +0200, Markus Rosjat wrote: > > > > so if you have spamd in place in greylisting mode and you have customers > > that work with people who use Office365 as a service you will get calls that

Re: spamd and outlook.com

hey peter, like your pf book very much helped me a lot to grasp some stuff :) fot the host solution I already did this but skiped the part with following the includes. MS is providing a list of there possible ip ranges here

Re: spamd and outlook.com

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:25:14AM +0200, Markus Rosjat wrote: > > so if you have spamd in place in greylisting mode and you have customers > that work with people who use Office365 as a service you will get calls that > emails are delayed for a freaking long time and if you check the ip range >

Re: Bad kernel for OpenBSD 6.1 sparc64 ?

On 2017-04-21 10:50, Stefan Sperling wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 09:04:07AM +0200, Mickael Torres wrote: On 2017-04-21 02:13, Jeff wrote: > I have a Sunfire V120 (Sparc) with mirrored disks running OpenBSD 6.0. > ... > First I tried to copy bsd.rd to / and boot from it. When I boot > using

spamd and outlook.com

Hi there, so if you have spamd in place in greylisting mode and you have customers that work with people who use Office365 as a service you will get calls that emails are delayed for a freaking long time and if you check the ip range that outlook.com could send from you get scared. So what

Re: Bad kernel for OpenBSD 6.1 sparc64 ?

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 09:04:07AM +0200, Mickael Torres wrote: > On 2017-04-21 02:13, Jeff wrote: > > I have a Sunfire V120 (Sparc) with mirrored disks running OpenBSD 6.0. > > ... > > First I tried to copy bsd.rd to / and boot from it. When I boot > > using 6.1 bsd.rd (boot /bsd.rd), the boot

OpenBSD 6.1, spamd strange behavior

Hello misc I'm setting the small mail system and I don't investigate with the working of spamd. spamd is working in the greylisting mode with "-v -G 2:4:864" options. For every trying of the delivery mail a remote host become TRAPPED for 24 hours, and I don't understand why. Please help me

Re: Bad kernel for OpenBSD 6.1 sparc64 ?

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 06:13:47PM -0600, Jeff wrote: > Hi, > > I have a Sunfire V120 (Sparc) with mirrored disks running OpenBSD 6.0. > I attempted to update to OpenBSD 6.1 using the files first from: > > http://mirrors.sonic.net/pub/OpenBSD/6.1/sparc64 > > Then from: > >

Re: Strange PF behaviour after 6.0 -> 6.1 pgrade

On 2017-04-20, Sjöholm Per-Olov wrote: > Could it be any buffers that is causing this in 6.1 but not in 6.0 ? There were changes that would allow larger TCP buffers in 6.1. This would not have made a difference to normal or natted connections from non-OpenBSD going through PF to

new groups

0 C Iran P Tehran T Tehran F irregular O Iranian meetBSD Group I abdorrahman homaei M d.orien...@gmail.com U http://meetbsd.ir N *BSD

Re: Bad kernel for OpenBSD 6.1 sparc64 ?

On 2017-04-21 02:13, Jeff wrote: I have a Sunfire V120 (Sparc) with mirrored disks running OpenBSD 6.0. ... First I tried to copy bsd.rd to / and boot from it. When I boot using 6.1 bsd.rd (boot /bsd.rd), the boot messages still show OpenBSD 6.0. Hi Jeff, If you use softraid on sparc64, you

Re: Performance Clang

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 07:31:47PM +, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > On 2017-04-19, Heiko wrote: > > > I'm using current on amd64 (Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz, > > 3411.91 MHz) > > > > I noticed that with clang it needs 109 minutes for "make build"

Re: Adding default IPv6 route fails on 6.1

On 2017-04-19, Harald Dunkel wrote: > > On 04/18/17 17:05, Stuart Henderson wrote: >> >> Mine is in the pkg-readme. >> >> > > A pkg-readme? Is this included in the binary package? Yes - pkg_add should have drawn your attention to it: # pkg_add dhcpcd dhcpcd-6.11.5: ok The