Displaying 20 results from an estimated 21 matches for "thoughtless".
2019 Feb 09
0
offtopic: rant about thoughtless enabling DMARC checks [was: Re: Bounces?]
On 2/9/19 10:48 AM, Juri Haberland via dovecot wrote:
> On 09/02/2019 10:44, Aki Tuomi via dovecot wrote:
>> For some reason mailman failed to "munge from" for senders with dmarc policy ;(
>>
>> It's now configured to always munge to avoid this again.
>
> I'd say, let Mailman throw all people off the list that have enabled DMARC
> checking without
2019 Feb 09
0
offtopic: rant about thoughtless enabling DMARC checks
* Juri Haberland via dovecot:
> Blindly enabling DMARC checks without thinking about the consequences
> for themselves should not be the problem of other well behaving
> participants.
Can you judge if DMARC is enabled "blindly"? No, I thought not. Also,
the issue was not on the receiving end, but the reject policy for the
originating domain.
Personally, I choose to treat
2019 Feb 10
0
offtopic: rant about thoughtless enabling DMARC checks
Noel Butler via dovecot skrev den 2019-02-10 01:51:
> ... and surely he does not expect those with a million plus users sit
> here and whitelist the million plus mailing lists that exist around
> the world, heh, like thats going to happen :)
fixing mailman will be the fail, solve it by letting opendkim and
opendmarc not reject detected maillist will be solution, even if openarc
comes
2019 Feb 10
0
offtopic: rant about thoughtless enabling DMARC checks
On 2/10/19 3:42 PM, Noel Butler via dovecot wrote:
> On 10/02/2019 12:49, Benny Pedersen via dovecot wrote:
>
>>
>> fixing mailman will be the fail, solve it by letting opendkim and
>> opendmarc not reject detected maillist will be solution,
>
>
> A general broad mailing list whitelist will be problematic, do work it
> needs to look for specific list type
2019 Feb 09
2
offtopic: rant about thoughtless enabling DMARC checks [was: Re: Bounces?]
Am 09.02.19 um 19:56 schrieb Aki Tuomi via dovecot:
> I'll review the settings when we manage to upgrade to mailman3
Hello Aki,
before updating to mailman3 consider an simpler update to latest mailman2.
you're using 2.1.15, current mailman2 is 2.1.29
Your missing an /significant amount/ of DMARC fixes!
and: more off-topic:
while my messages *to* the dovecot list are sent using
2019 Feb 09
0
offtopic: rant about thoughtless enabling DMARC checks [was: Re: Bounces?]
<!doctype html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
On 09 February 2019 at 20:48 Juri Haberland via dovecot <
<a href="mailto:dovecot@dovecot.org">dovecot@dovecot.org</a>> wrote:
</div>
2019 Feb 10
1
offtopic: rant about thoughtless enabling DMARC checks
On 2/10/19 3:46 PM, Michael A. Peters via dovecot wrote:
> On 2/10/19 3:42 PM, Noel Butler via dovecot wrote:
>> On 10/02/2019 12:49, Benny Pedersen via dovecot wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> fixing mailman will be the fail, solve it by letting opendkim and
>>> opendmarc not reject detected maillist will be solution,
>>
>>
>> A general broad mailing
2019 Feb 10
2
offtopic: rant about thoughtless enabling DMARC checks
On 10/02/2019 07:38, Ralph Seichter via dovecot wrote:
> * Juri Haberland via dovecot:
>
>> Blindly enabling DMARC checks without thinking about the consequences
>> for themselves should not be the problem of other well behaving
>> participants.
>
> Can you judge if DMARC is enabled "blindly"? No, I thought not. Also,
> the issue was not on the
2019 Feb 10
3
offtopic: rant about thoughtless enabling DMARC checks
On 10/02/2019 12:49, Benny Pedersen via dovecot wrote:
> fixing mailman will be the fail, solve it by letting opendkim and opendmarc not reject detected maillist will be solution,
A general broad mailing list whitelist will be problematic, do work it
needs to look for specific list type hidden headers, spammers and
nasties will incorporate those headers into their trash that
impersonates
2011 Apr 10
4
A round of applause!
...ound of applause to the
CentOS team for their untiring efforts in getting releases out the door.
I've just upgraded several servers to 5.6 and it all "just works".
None of the team's work is easy to accomplish, especially when
less-than-useful complaints keep popping up from thoughtless users who
don't appreciate the effort, and who waste the team's time trying to
respond. RedHat's move to defend their support business against the
freeloading distro vendors (we all know who those sharks are!) wasn't
aimed at CentOS, but it has significantly increased the workl...
2019 Feb 09
8
offtopic: rant about thoughtless enabling DMARC checks [was: Re: Bounces?]
On 09/02/2019 10:44, Aki Tuomi via dovecot wrote:
> For some reason mailman failed to "munge from" for senders with dmarc policy ;(
>
> It's now configured to always munge to avoid this again.
I'd say, let Mailman throw all people off the list that have enabled DMARC
checking without using exceptions for the lists they are on. It's a known
fact that DMARC does not
2008 Oct 03
5
Proposed New Mailing List
Karanbir Singh wrote:
> And yea, working on setting up a sort of list to handle
> much of this semi OT traffic. More news on that around
> Wed next week, dint ask about it now.
Off course people are going to ask. In my opinion as long
as a topic is marked OT, it is preferable to one not marked
but one in which the OP has not even done basic research
on his problem.
One distro had a
2008 Dec 25
0
Class and object problem
...)
exp(-0.5*Delta)/sum(exp(-0.5*Delta))
m1 m2 m3 m4
0.63529363 0.25829111 0.07779579 0.02861947
In general the dRedging package at
http://www.zbs.bialowieza.pl/users/kamil/r/ can do these
problems (I hate to recommend this package because it
offers the danger of thoughtless convenience,
but if you really know that you want to enumerate
models and do IC-based model averaging it can save a
lot of time). At the moment, though, it doesn't work
with glmmML-based objects (you could ask the author
to extend it).
When I tried stepAIC it didn't really enumerate
all...
2007 May 26
0
New worker not being created
...y)
> worker.other_method
> worker.delete
> end
>
> When I point the browser to test_backgroundrb, I get:
>
> NoMethodError (undefined method `object'' for nil:NilClass):
> (drbunix:///tmp/backgroundrbunix_localhost_2000)
> /home/wil/proj/3cgworkspace/thoughtless/vendor/plugins/backgroundrb/server/lib/backgroundrb/middleman.rb:396:in
> `worker''
> etc. etc. etc.
>
> When I try to use the version from the trunk, it looks like worker returns
> nil if it doesn''t find anything, as discussed per April 2007''s post.
>
&g...
2012 Aug 03
1
Cleaned up contributing guidelines
In an effort to streamline and consolidate how code gets submitted to
puppet, we''ve updated the contributing guidelines. The changes were
along three fronts:
1. Clarify what to target when submitting patches.
2. Reflect the reality that we take code submissions as github pull requests.
3. Simplify the explanation for how to get up and running as a contributor.
We are also in discussions
2010 Jul 22
3
Strange crashing behavior
Hi,
I'm trying to run a game called Star Sonata (http://www.starsonata.com/download.html) on my iMac (Mac OS 10.5.8) using Wine 1.2-rc7. If I run the installer first, I can choose to launch the game directly and it runs without crashing (at least, without crashing systematically). However, if I quit and relaunch the game, it crashes as soon as I get to the log-in screen. Below I have
2006 Oct 31
4
'make check' fails on d-p-q-r-tests (PR#9326)
'make check' fails on d-p-q-r-tests:
> ##-- non central Chi^2 :
> xB <- c(2000,1e6,1e50,Inf)
> for(df in c(0.1, 1, 10))
+ for(ncp in c(0, 1, 10, 100)) stopifnot(pchisq(xB, df=df, ncp=ncp) == 1)
Error: pchisq(xB, df = df, ncp = ncp) == 1 is not all TRUE
Execution halted
Here is some more testing:
xB <- c(2000,1e6,1e50,Inf)
for(df in c(0.1, 1, 10)) for(ncp in c(0, 1,
2011 Apr 12
3
[Thank you!] IMHO only RHEL is better than CentOS...
...based on my experience, for use in all non-certified enterprise
operations (large and small) on general-purpose computers.
RHEL is, of course, the better alternative when you require the upstream
vendor's certified platform, certified and tested integrated solutions,
industry-leading support, or customized solutions. Their offerings are a
bargain when you consider the benefits they provide
2016 Jun 21
0
https and self signed
...rue but I admit readily
that I may be wrong. Indeed I most certainly must be wrong in some of
them. My difficulty begin determining which ones.
However, I have formed my opinions on the basis of a long term
exposure to security matters both pre and post Internet. And I have
seen before the same thoughtless enthusiasms for things shiny and
different in the security community. Things adopted and put into
practice without even the most cursory of trials and evaluations for
effectiveness and efficacy -- not to mention lawfulness on some
occasions --. Sometimes I have had to deal with the consequences of...
2013 Feb 20
20
Feature Request for zfs pool/filesystem protection?
Hi!
My name is Markus and I living in germany. I''m new to this list and I
have a simple question
related to zfs. My favorite operating system is FreeBSD and I''m very
happy to use zfs on them.
It''s possible to enhance the properties in the current source tree with
an entry like "protected"?
I find it seems not to be difficult but I''m not an