Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #74027 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Farley Flud <fflud@gnu.rocks> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-09-13 12:57 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-09-14 13:18 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 128 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
What Thinks Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Farley Flud <fflud@gnu.rocks> - 2025-09-13 12:57 +0000
Re: What Thinks Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Farley Flud <fflud@gnu.rocks> - 2025-09-13 13:23 +0000
Re: What Thinks Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Jacek Marcin Jaworski <jaworski1978@adres.pl> - 2025-09-13 15:28 +0200
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-13 22:00 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-09-14 08:26 +1000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-13 23:04 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-14 09:01 +0100
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-14 21:17 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-15 02:13 +0200
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-09-15 00:50 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-15 12:38 +0200
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-15 09:52 +0200
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-15 08:19 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-15 10:49 +0200
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-15 09:03 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-15 12:04 +0200
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-15 22:29 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-16 08:23 +0200
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-16 08:53 +0100
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-16 12:54 +0200
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-16 20:07 +0100
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-16 21:42 +0200
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-16 22:12 +0100
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-17 06:52 +0200
E-mail server-side attachment deduplication (was: Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner?) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-17 12:02 +0100
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-17 06:52 +0200
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-15 12:44 +0200
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-15 22:35 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-16 02:09 +0200
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-16 01:12 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jaworski1978@adres.pl> - 2025-09-16 05:47 +0200
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-16 05:48 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-16 12:57 +0200
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-17 05:56 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-17 11:15 +0200
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-17 09:31 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-15 10:01 +0100
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-09-15 12:06 +0200
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-15 13:13 +0200
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2025-11-11 23:38 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-11-12 02:59 +0100
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-11-12 03:23 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-11-14 14:18 +0100
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-11-14 19:43 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-11-14 22:20 +0100
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2025-11-12 05:11 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 06:29 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-11-12 06:46 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 14:14 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2025-11-13 02:06 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 02:14 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-11-13 11:01 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 13:39 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-11-14 14:20 +0100
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2025-11-15 20:50 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-11-15 22:08 +0100
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2025-11-16 05:40 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-11-16 11:05 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-11-17 01:33 +0100
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2025-11-20 22:23 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 14:59 -0800
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-11-20 23:54 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 00:44 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 14:33 -0800
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-11-22 00:16 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-11-22 00:20 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-11-22 03:20 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2025-11-22 14:17 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-11-22 14:39 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-11-22 20:08 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? tom nossen <news@nossen.org> - 2025-11-26 22:07 +0100
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-11-26 21:50 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-11-22 18:56 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 09:06 -0800
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 12:10 -0500
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 09:29 -0800
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-11-24 23:15 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 15:35 -0800
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-11-25 00:21 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2025-11-23 03:19 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-11-23 05:20 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 09:26 -0800
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 18:27 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-11-24 23:23 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-11-20 23:01 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-11-21 09:58 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2025-11-23 03:19 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-11-23 05:21 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 19:01 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2025-11-23 23:23 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-11-23 23:41 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 00:39 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-11-23 23:46 -0500
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 15:45 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-11-24 20:59 +0100
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? ALB <alb@lupinedb.org> - 2025-11-25 19:38 -0500
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-11-26 13:35 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 15:12 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 15:10 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-11-16 15:14 +0100
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 02:56 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2025-11-16 05:40 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-11-16 15:13 +0100
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2025-11-20 22:23 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-11-21 13:05 +0100
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 15:35 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2025-11-23 03:19 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 05:16 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2025-11-23 23:23 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 00:33 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2025-11-23 03:19 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-11-23 22:05 +0100
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 02:24 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-14 00:04 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jaworski1978@adres.pl> - 2025-09-14 06:34 +0200
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jaworski1978@adres.pl> - 2025-09-14 06:48 +0200
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-14 06:37 +0000
Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-09-14 08:00 -0500
Re: What Thinks Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-09-13 22:24 +0000
Re: What Thinks Thou Of LO Donate Banner? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-14 13:38 +0200
Re: What Thinks Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-14 12:53 +0000
Re: What Thinks Thou Of LO Donate Banner? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-09-13 11:02 -0400
Re: What Thinks Thou Of LO Donate Banner? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-09-13 17:02 +0000
Re: What Thinks Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-13 18:23 +0000
Re: What Thinks Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-09-14 00:12 +0000
Re: What Thinks Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-09-14 08:45 +0000
Re: What Thinks Thou Of LO Donate Banner? "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-09-14 05:01 -0400
Re: What Thinks Thou Of LO Donate Banner? Farley Flud <fflud@gnu.rocks> - 2025-09-14 13:18 +0000
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-16 20:07 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? |
| Message-ID | <wwv8qieb4ir.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #74311 |
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes: > On 2025-09-16 09:53, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >> Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes: >>> Lawrence D´Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 12:04:21 +0200, Marc Haber wrote: >> [large email services de-duplicating attachments internally] >>>> You don’t see any of them offering such a dedupe service, do you? >>> >>> I'd expect that to happen transparently and invisible for the user. >>> Again, server side. >> Experimentally, I put a message with a 15MB attachment through Gmail >> twice, the second time with the base64 encoding tampered with by >> introducing some extra newlines. It preserved the tampered form >> exactly. If it was extracting attachments for de-duplicated storage then >> you’d expect to see the encoding canonicalized. >> That doesn’t rule out that it de-duplicates the _encoded_ form of >> attachments (or that there’s a threshold and it’s over 15MB...), but if >> so then it seems like they’re leaving a lot of space savings unexploited >> - you get a 25% saving just by storing the binary form instead of >> base64. > > They can't do that. It nullifies signing, if it is employed. Fair point, although they could skip decode/re-encode compression in signed messages only. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-16 21:42 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? |
| Message-ID | <n6roplx3a.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #74335 |
On 2025-09-16 21:07, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes: >> On 2025-09-16 09:53, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >>> Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes: >>>> Lawrence D´Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 12:04:21 +0200, Marc Haber wrote: >>> [large email services de-duplicating attachments internally] >>>>> You don’t see any of them offering such a dedupe service, do you? >>>> >>>> I'd expect that to happen transparently and invisible for the user. >>>> Again, server side. >>> Experimentally, I put a message with a 15MB attachment through Gmail >>> twice, the second time with the base64 encoding tampered with by >>> introducing some extra newlines. It preserved the tampered form >>> exactly. If it was extracting attachments for de-duplicated storage then >>> you’d expect to see the encoding canonicalized. >>> That doesn’t rule out that it de-duplicates the _encoded_ form of >>> attachments (or that there’s a threshold and it’s over 15MB...), but if >>> so then it seems like they’re leaving a lot of space savings unexploited >>> - you get a 25% saving just by storing the binary form instead of >>> base64. >> >> They can't do that. It nullifies signing, if it is employed. > > Fair point, although they could skip decode/re-encode compression in > signed messages only. Instead, they could just use compressed filesystems. In Linux, that means btrfs, it is the only one I know that supports transparent read-write compression. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-16 22:12 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? |
| Message-ID | <wwvv7lit846.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #74343 |
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes: > On 2025-09-16 21:07, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes: >>> On 2025-09-16 09:53, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >>>> Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes: >>>>> Lawrence D´Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 12:04:21 +0200, Marc Haber wrote: >>>> [large email services de-duplicating attachments internally] >>>>>> You don’t see any of them offering such a dedupe service, do you? >>>>> >>>>> I'd expect that to happen transparently and invisible for the user. >>>>> Again, server side. >>>> Experimentally, I put a message with a 15MB attachment through Gmail >>>> twice, the second time with the base64 encoding tampered with by >>>> introducing some extra newlines. It preserved the tampered form >>>> exactly. If it was extracting attachments for de-duplicated storage then >>>> you’d expect to see the encoding canonicalized. >>>> That doesn’t rule out that it de-duplicates the _encoded_ form of >>>> attachments (or that there’s a threshold and it’s over 15MB...), but if >>>> so then it seems like they’re leaving a lot of space savings unexploited >>>> - you get a 25% saving just by storing the binary form instead of >>>> base64. >>> >>> They can't do that. It nullifies signing, if it is employed. >> Fair point, although they could skip decode/re-encode compression in >> signed messages only. > > Instead, they could just use compressed filesystems. In Linux, that > means btrfs, it is the only one I know that supports transparent > read-write compression. Sure, but not really the same thing. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-17 06:52 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? |
| Message-ID | <10adeps$jdsa$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #74343 |
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >On 2025-09-16 21:07, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes: >>> On 2025-09-16 09:53, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >>>> Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes: >>>>> Lawrence D´Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 12:04:21 +0200, Marc Haber wrote: >>>> [large email services de-duplicating attachments internally] >>>>>> You don’t see any of them offering such a dedupe service, do you? >>>>> >>>>> I'd expect that to happen transparently and invisible for the user. >>>>> Again, server side. >>>> Experimentally, I put a message with a 15MB attachment through Gmail >>>> twice, the second time with the base64 encoding tampered with by >>>> introducing some extra newlines. It preserved the tampered form >>>> exactly. If it was extracting attachments for de-duplicated storage then >>>> you’d expect to see the encoding canonicalized. >>>> That doesn’t rule out that it de-duplicates the _encoded_ form of >>>> attachments (or that there’s a threshold and it’s over 15MB...), but if >>>> so then it seems like they’re leaving a lot of space savings unexploited >>>> - you get a 25% saving just by storing the binary form instead of >>>> base64. >>> >>> They can't do that. It nullifies signing, if it is employed. >> >> Fair point, although they could skip decode/re-encode compression in >> signed messages only. > >Instead, they could just use compressed filesystems. In Linux, that >means btrfs, it is the only one I know that supports transparent >read-write compression. Exchange used a database back then. I think it was JET. Greetings Marc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-17 12:02 +0100 |
| Subject | E-mail server-side attachment deduplication (was: Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner?) |
| Message-ID | <10ae4fc$35e35$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #74374 |
On 2025-09-17, Marc Haber wrote: > "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: [thread about MS Exchange *internally* deduplicating attachments] >> >>Instead, they could just use compressed filesystems. In Linux, that >>means btrfs, it is the only one I know that supports transparent >>read-write compression. > > Exchange used a database back then. I think it was JET. > > Greetings > Marc Ah, the format also used by MS Access? (At least IIRC that was "jetdb".) -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-17 06:52 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? |
| Message-ID | <10adeqp$jf0r$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #74311 |
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >On 2025-09-16 09:53, Richard Kettlewell wrote: >> Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes: >>> Lawrence D´Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 12:04:21 +0200, Marc Haber wrote: >> >> [large email services de-duplicating attachments internally] >>>> You don’t see any of them offering such a dedupe service, do you? >>> >>> I'd expect that to happen transparently and invisible for the user. >>> Again, server side. >> >> Experimentally, I put a message with a 15MB attachment through Gmail >> twice, the second time with the base64 encoding tampered with by >> introducing some extra newlines. It preserved the tampered form >> exactly. If it was extracting attachments for de-duplicated storage then >> you’d expect to see the encoding canonicalized. >> >> That doesn’t rule out that it de-duplicates the _encoded_ form of >> attachments (or that there’s a threshold and it’s over 15MB...), but if >> so then it seems like they’re leaving a lot of space savings unexploited >> - you get a 25% saving just by storing the binary form instead of >> base64. > >They can't do that. It nullifies signing, if it is employed. You could deduplicate with a Delta Algorithm. I don't know much about Exchange's innards. Greetings Marc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-15 12:44 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? |
| Message-ID | <q97lplxtpp.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #74215 |
On 2025-09-15 09:52, Marc Haber wrote: > "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >> In the 2000 we were sharing .doc files at Lucent, via exchange email. >> The IT people did not like it, because the size of mail folders exploded >> and the servers could barely cope. >> >> The docs were sent to multiple recipients. And each reply saying "got >> it" resent the same documents back and forth multiplied many times. It >> was crazy. > > Exchange always had the reputation of being quite smart with > attachments, storing them separated from the original message, and > doing with the attachments what we today call deduplication. Are you sure they did that on yr 2000? The IT department was angry at all of us and constantly bitching to please put the doc files instead on shared folders, not on the email, because the servers could barely cope with all that traffic. So that was not automatic. What they did was split us on different servers. And provide a default network folder for each person and groups. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-15 22:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? |
| Message-ID | <10aa4bg$27nkf$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #74240 |
On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 12:44:42 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> The IT department was angry at all of us and constantly bitching to
> please put the doc files instead on shared folders, not on the
> email, because the servers could barely cope with all that traffic.
Meanwhile, the open-source folks are sending each other diffs and
patches. E.g. (from a recent fix to the Blender manual):
diff --git a/manual/modeling/geometry_nodes/geometry/operations/sort_elements.rst b/manual/modeling/geometry_nodes/geometry/operations/sort_elements.rst
index 680e785f9..a52d2b92a 100644
--- a/manual/modeling/geometry_nodes/geometry/operations/sort_elements.rst
+++ b/manual/modeling/geometry_nodes/geometry/operations/sort_elements.rst
@@ -20,15 +20,15 @@ Geometry
Selection
The selection of elements to sort, if left blank, all elements are sorted.
- Non selected elements will be keep their current indices.
+ Non-selected elements will keep their current indices.
Group ID
Elements with the same group ID are sorted together.
- If this is not a field, the node has no affect.
+ If this is not a field, the node has no effect.
Sort Weight
The sorted values used to do the reordering.
- If this is not a field, the node has no affect.
+ If this is not a field, the node has no effect.
No need to re-send the entire thing (over 4000 pages’ worth!) for such
small changes, is there?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-16 02:09 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? |
| Message-ID | <7emmplxb2f.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #74286 |
On 2025-09-16 00:35, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 12:44:42 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> The IT department was angry at all of us and constantly bitching to >> please put the doc files instead on shared folders, not on the >> email, because the servers could barely cope with all that traffic. > > Meanwhile, the open-source folks are sending each other diffs and > patches. E.g. (from a recent fix to the Blender manual): There are many ways to do that, binary or text, closed source or open. ... patches or diffs are not a very human readable format, anyway. > > No need to re-send the entire thing (over 4000 pages’ worth!) for such > small changes, is there? -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-16 01:12 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? |
| Message-ID | <10aadh9$29rhl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #74290 |
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 02:09:11 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: > patches or diffs are not a very human readable format, anyway. What’s a better alternative?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jaworski1978@adres.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-16 05:47 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? |
| Message-ID | <mis4uiF3e7U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #74292 |
W dniu 16.09.2025 o 03:12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro pisze: > On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 02:09:11 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> patches or diffs are not a very human readable format, anyway. > > What’s a better alternative? git? -- Jacek Marcin Jaworski, Pruszcz Gd., woj. Pomorskie, PL🇵🇱, EU🇪🇺; tel.: +48-609-170-742, najlepiej w godz.: 5:00-5:55 lub 16:00-16:55; <jaworski1978@adres.pl>, gpg: EBFD1A464130993FBBC230FE221740E87CE10580; Domowa s. WWW (WYSZUKIWARKI JĄ POMIJAJĄ!!!): <https://energokod.pl>; Mini Netykieta: <https://energokod.pl/MiniNetykieta.html>; Mailowa Samoobrona: <https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/pl>.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-16 05:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? |
| Message-ID | <10aato1$2d1ui$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #74295 |
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 05:47:30 +0200, 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 wrote: > W dniu 16.09.2025 o 03:12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro pisze: >> >> On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 02:09:11 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> >>> patches or diffs are not a very human readable format, anyway. >> >> What’s a better alternative? > > git? In case you didn’t notice, the patch I posted *was* from Git.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-16 12:57 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? |
| Message-ID | <4esnplx5uk.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #74292 |
On 2025-09-16 03:12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 02:09:11 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> patches or diffs are not a very human readable format, anyway. > > What’s a better alternative? I don't know. When I want a diff for reading I play with the switches. Like having two columns. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-17 05:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? |
| Message-ID | <10adij1$3175q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #74312 |
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 12:57:40 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-09-16 03:12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> >> On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 02:09:11 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> >>> patches or diffs are not a very human readable format, anyway. >> >> What’s a better alternative? > > I don't know. When I want a diff for reading I play with the switches. > Like having two columns. Do you find that makes it easier to merge patches from different contributors?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-17 11:15 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? |
| Message-ID | <fraqplxauf.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #74378 |
On 2025-09-17 07:56, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 12:57:40 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> On 2025-09-16 03:12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 02:09:11 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> >>>> patches or diffs are not a very human readable format, anyway. >>> >>> What’s a better alternative? >> >> I don't know. When I want a diff for reading I play with the switches. >> Like having two columns. > > Do you find that makes it easier to merge patches from different > contributors? No. It makes easier reading. Emails are for reading. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-17 09:31 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? |
| Message-ID | <10adv6a$34as1$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #74387 |
On Wed, 17 Sep 2025 11:15:59 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-09-17 07:56, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> >> On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 12:57:40 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> >>> On 2025-09-16 03:12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 02:09:11 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> >>>>> patches or diffs are not a very human readable format, anyway. >>>> >>>> What’s a better alternative? >>> >>> I don't know. When I want a diff for reading I play with the switches. >>> Like having two columns. >> >> Do you find that makes it easier to merge patches from different >> contributors? > > No. It makes easier reading. Emails are for reading. We use them a lot for collaborative projects, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-15 10:01 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? |
| Message-ID | <10a8kkl$1q6g1$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #74180 |
On 15/09/2025 01:13, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-09-14 10:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 13/09/2025 23:26, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> Look at the last table which is supposed to indicate the companies >>> contributing to maintenance - which is effectively control over the >>> code others contribute. It's still mainly "huge corps" >> >> Who else is interested in an alternative and free standard to >> Microsoft Office? >> If you want to disseminate a finished document, you do it as a PDF. >> Only documents that require much evolution and editing are circulated >> as 'source'. >> Only big companies do that. >> In terms of formatted documents anyway. Let's not introduce plain text >> source code. > > In the 2000 we were sharing .doc files at Lucent, via exchange email. > The IT people did not like it, because the size of mail folders exploded > and the servers could barely cope. > > The docs were sent to multiple recipients. And each reply saying "got > it" resent the same documents back and forth multiplied many times. It > was crazy. > > IT wanted we sent links to shared folders instead. Preaching to the walls. > I got a support call back in the days when a 64k link was a very expensive thing...the customer wanted to know why all his emails had ceased. A look in the log files revealed a 25Mbyte email entitled 'My New Baby' with an attached video file still in the process of being transferred., The customer didn't even need to be told who had sent it. -- Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. Groucho Marx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-15 12:06 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? |
| Message-ID | <10a8og3$2g422$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #74221 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>I got a support call back in the days when a 64k link was a very
>expensive thing...the customer wanted to know why all his emails had ceased.
>
>A look in the log files revealed a 25Mbyte email entitled 'My New Baby'
>with an attached video file still in the process of being transferred.,
>
>The customer didn't even need to be told who had sent it.
I remember a breakdown in an ISP mail server because some customer has
sent themselve the backup of their workstation.
In the early days of e-mail malware scanners, checking for things like
"no space left on device" was considered luxury ("we need to be on the
market, ship it!"), so the e-mail scanner crashed, the incoming e-mail
got a 4xx error, and the sending server retried.
I was still green behind my ears back then, so it took me a while to
diagnose the repeated crashes.
Greetings
Marc
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " |
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-15 13:13 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? |
| Message-ID | <1v8lplx6ut.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #74235 |
On 2025-09-15 12:06, Marc Haber wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> I got a support call back in the days when a 64k link was a very
>> expensive thing...the customer wanted to know why all his emails had ceased.
>>
>> A look in the log files revealed a 25Mbyte email entitled 'My New Baby'
>> with an attached video file still in the process of being transferred.,
>>
>> The customer didn't even need to be told who had sent it.
>
> I remember a breakdown in an ISP mail server because some customer has
> sent themselve the backup of their workstation.
>
> In the early days of e-mail malware scanners, checking for things like
> "no space left on device" was considered luxury ("we need to be on the
> market, ship it!"), so the e-mail scanner crashed, the incoming e-mail
> got a 4xx error, and the sending server retried.
>
> I was still green behind my ears back then, so it took me a while to
> diagnose the repeated crashes.
We had problems with the input folder growing to 2 GiB, I think it was
the limit, could be 4, long ago. Exchange. Yr 2000.
IT told us to move parts of the folder to local storage in advance,
because if it reached the limit it locked.
We easily reached that limit with all the attachments going all the ways.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-11 23:38 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: What Thinkest Thou Of LO Donate Banner? |
| Message-ID | <XnsB394BD9A83325HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5> |
| In reply to | #74180 |
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> news:ia2kplxk9h.ln2@Telcontar.valinor Mon, 15 Sep 2025 00:13:38 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote: > On 2025-09-14 10:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 13/09/2025 23:26, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> Look at the last table which is supposed to indicate the companies >>> contributing to maintenance - which is effectively control over the >>> code others contribute. It's still mainly "huge corps" >> >> Who else is interested in an alternative and free standard to Microsoft >> Office? >> If you want to disseminate a finished document, you do it as a PDF. >> Only documents that require much evolution and editing are circulated as >> 'source'. >> Only big companies do that. >> In terms of formatted documents anyway. Let's not introduce plain text >> source code. > > In the 2000 we were sharing .doc files at Lucent, via exchange email. > The IT people did not like it, because the size of mail folders exploded > and the servers could barely cope. The IT people probably didn't appreciate the easy malware entry vector you supplied either. .doc files with macros enabled was a a very good thing for the VXers who specialized in word macro viruses. Or would use the wm aspect to get a binary onto your workstation and with no additional effort by you, hopefully, gain access to more interesting targets. The binaries had more capabilities most of the time. > The docs were sent to multiple recipients. And each reply saying "got > it" resent the same documents back and forth multiplied many times. It > was crazy. It was that general attitude with the .doc files that allowed Melissa to do as well as it did. > IT wanted we sent links to shared folders instead. Preaching to the walls. It was safer from the POV of trying to keep actual viruses off your workstations and eventually into the network itself. The easiest way into a larger target has always been the workstations and the users in control of them. -- Liar, lawyer; mirror show me, what's the difference? Kangaroo done hung the guilty with the innocent Liar, lawyer; mirror for ya', what's the difference? Kangaroo be stoned. He's guilty as the government
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web