Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.os.linux > #56901 > unrolled thread

Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug

Started by"anonymous" <anonymous@rip.ax.lt>
First post2019-06-16 07:53 -0500
Last post2019-06-25 15:11 +0200
Articles 20 on this page of 244 — 42 participants

Back to article view | Back to alt.os.linux

Contents

  Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "anonymous" <anonymous@rip.ax.lt> - 2019-06-16 07:53 -0500
    Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Anonymous" <nobody@mixmin.net> - 2019-06-16 07:56 -0500
    Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Fenris <fenris@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-16 15:53 +0200
      Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-16 15:35 +0100
        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2019-06-16 15:30 +0000
        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-16 16:53 -0400
      Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "School of Agriculture" <ag@hick.edu> - 2019-06-17 14:35 -0500
        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-17 20:42 +0100
          Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-17 17:31 -0400
        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2019-06-17 20:30 +0000
          Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 10:12 +0200
        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-06-17 20:30 +0000
        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Anonymous" <nobody@mixmin.net> - 2019-06-18 07:04 -0500
          Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Fenris <fenris@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-18 14:18 +0200
            Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-18 14:17 +0100
              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-06-18 08:52 -0500
                Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-06-20 05:57 +0000
                  Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-06-20 07:05 -0500
                    Using 'sed' to delete a line from a file (Was: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-06-20 12:32 +0000
                      Re: Using 'sed' to delete a line from a file (Was: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug) Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-20 12:17 -0600
                    Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Anonymous" <anon@anon.com> - 2019-06-20 08:31 -0500
                    Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Anonymous" <anon@anon.com> - 2019-06-20 08:33 -0500
                    Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Anonymous" <anon@anon.com> - 2019-06-20 08:42 -0500
    Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2019-06-16 11:57 -0500
      Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2019-06-16 21:28 +0200
        How come we're not talking about (Was: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-06-16 20:12 +0000
          Re: How come we're not talking about (Was: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug) "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2019-06-17 06:52 +0200
        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2019-06-21 13:24 -0500
    Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-16 11:12 -0600
    Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2019-06-16 13:26 -0700
      Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-06-16 13:34 -0700
        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 10:20 +0200
          Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-19 10:55 +0200
            Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 12:37 +0200
              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-19 13:13 +0200
                Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 14:31 +0200
                  Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2019-07-20 19:43 -0400
              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-19 09:36 -0600
                Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 14:36 +0200
              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2019-07-20 19:37 -0400
            Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2019-06-19 21:32 +0300
              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-19 20:47 +0200
                Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 21:01 +0200
                  Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-19 20:23 +0100
                    Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 22:53 +0200
                      Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-19 23:09 +0000
                        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-20 05:21 +0200
                          Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-20 04:16 +0000
                            Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-20 06:21 +0200
                        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 14:38 +0200
                          Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-20 13:30 +0000
                            Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 19:21 +0200
                              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-20 18:39 +0000
                                Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 22:52 +0200
                                  Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-20 23:48 +0000
                                    Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 13:01 +0200
                                      Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-21 12:30 +0000
                                        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 14:51 +0200
                                          Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-21 13:43 +0000
                                            Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-23 12:56 +0200
                                          Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-21 08:55 -0500
                                            Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 19:01 +0200
                                        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "F. Russell" <frussell@random.info> - 2019-06-21 13:33 +0000
                                          Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-21 13:39 +0000
                                            Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-21 10:14 -0500
                                              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 19:09 +0200
                                              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2019-06-21 13:39 -0400
                                          Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 19:07 +0200
                                            Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "F. Russell" <frussell@random.info> - 2019-06-21 17:19 +0000
                                              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 19:57 +0200
                                                Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2019-06-21 23:14 +0000
                                                  Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Lucifer <LuciferMorningstar@bigpond.com> - 2019-06-23 19:00 +1000
                                            Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-06-22 00:17 +0000
                                              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2019-06-22 02:08 -0400
                                                Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-23 12:59 +0200
                                      Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2019-06-21 11:18 -0400
                                        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 19:10 +0200
                                          Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-21 19:57 +0000
                                            Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 23:09 +0200
                      Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-21 08:17 +0100
                        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 13:03 +0200
                  Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-19 19:51 +0000
                    Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 22:45 +0200
                  Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2019-07-20 19:46 -0400
              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 21:00 +0200
                Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-19 20:20 +0100
                  Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 14:43 +0200
              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-19 16:44 -0400
                Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 22:57 +0200
                  Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> - 2019-06-19 16:17 -0500
                    Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-19 17:43 -0400
                      Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 00:58 +0200
                  Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-19 17:40 -0400
                  Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-19 23:53 +0200
          Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2019-07-20 19:31 -0400
    Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Freenet" <pieer@free.fr> - 2019-06-16 20:44 -0500
      Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-06-17 12:41 +0000
        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-17 17:30 -0400
          Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-18 11:29 +0200
            Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-18 16:15 -0400
              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-18 20:28 +0000
                Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-18 17:27 -0400
                  Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-19 00:04 +0000
                    Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-18 22:36 -0400
                      Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 10:06 +0200
                        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-19 16:15 -0400
                          Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 14:51 +0200
                            Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> - 2019-06-20 15:13 +0200
                              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 19:14 +0200
                                Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-20 12:21 -0600
                                  Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2019-06-21 00:56 +0000
                            Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-20 16:07 -0400
                              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-20 14:24 -0600
                                Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-20 16:51 -0400
                                Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 23:02 +0200
                                  Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-20 15:14 -0600
                                    Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 13:41 +0200
                                      Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2019-06-21 09:30 -0500
                                        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 19:14 +0200
                                      Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-21 12:34 -0600
                                        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 23:53 +0200
                              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 22:55 +0200
                                Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-20 15:17 -0600
                                  Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 14:03 +0200
                                    Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-21 22:59 -0600
                                      Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-22 07:51 -0500
                                        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-22 16:53 -0600
                                          Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-22 18:56 -0500
                                            Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-22 20:09 -0600
                                              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-22 22:48 -0500
                                                Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-22 22:51 -0600
                                                  Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-23 13:19 +0200
                                                    Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-23 07:33 -0500
                                                      Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-23 15:07 +0100
                                                      Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 02:09 +0200
                                                        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-23 22:22 -0500
                                                          Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 11:41 +0200
                                                            Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-24 07:24 -0500
                                      Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-23 13:14 +0200
                                        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-23 11:50 -0600
                                          Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 02:41 +0200
                                            Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-30 15:08 -0600
                                              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-06-30 21:14 +0000
                                                Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-30 15:22 -0600
                                                  Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-06-30 21:47 +0000
                                                  Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-07-01 08:10 +0000
                                                    Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-01 10:05 +0100
                                                    Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-01 12:54 +0200
                                                      Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-01 12:08 +0100
                                                        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-07-01 11:54 +0000
                                                          Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2019-07-01 12:30 -0400
                                                            Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-07-01 17:11 -0600
                                                      Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-07-01 17:06 -0600
                                                        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-07-02 09:35 +0000
                                                          Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-07-02 09:20 -0600
                                                        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-02 14:28 +0200
                                              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-07-01 07:51 +0000
                                              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-01 12:46 +0200
                                                Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-07-01 09:50 -0500
                                                  Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-01 17:31 +0200
                                                    Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-07-01 12:10 -0500
                                                      Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-02 14:17 +0200
                                                        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-07-02 10:22 -0500
                                                          Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-02 19:10 +0200
                                                            Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-02 19:16 +0200
                                                              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-07-02 12:27 -0600
                                                              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-07-02 14:33 -0500
                                                                Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-03 13:34 +0200
                                                                  Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-07-03 09:06 -0500
                                                                    Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-04 03:14 +0100
                                                                    Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug - spam on mail "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-04 15:26 +0200
                                                Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-07-01 17:16 -0600
                                                  Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-02 14:20 +0200
                                        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-23 16:36 -0400
                                          Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 03:37 +0200
                                            Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-24 13:50 -0400
                                              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 23:14 +0200
                                  Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-21 16:01 -0400
                                    Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 23:57 +0200
                                      Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-21 17:35 -0500
                                        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2019-06-21 22:04 -0500
                                          Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-22 12:57 -0400
                                      Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2019-06-21 21:58 -0500
                                        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-22 07:32 -0500
                                      Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-21 23:10 -0600
                                        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-22 08:21 +0100
                                        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-22 13:01 -0400
                                          Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-22 16:55 -0600
                                            Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-22 18:47 -0500
                                              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-22 20:15 -0600
                                        Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-23 13:52 +0200
                                          Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-23 10:02 -0500
                                            Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 02:17 +0200
                                              Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-23 22:30 -0500
                                          Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-23 11:56 -0600
                                            Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] Sidney_Kotic <kant@have.it> - 2019-06-23 10:11 -0800
                                            Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 03:23 +0200
                                              Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-06-24 09:07 +0000
                                                Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 11:52 +0200
                                                  Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-24 14:14 -0400
                                                    Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 23:21 +0200
                                              Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-30 15:38 -0600
                                          Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-30 15:31 -0600
                                        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2019-06-30 09:17 -0400
                                          Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-30 15:41 -0600
                                    Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-21 23:02 -0600
                                      Fidonet [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-23 14:02 +0200
                                        Re: Fidonet [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-06-24 09:11 +0000
                                          Re: Fidonet [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 11:53 +0200
                                        Re: Fidonet [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2019-06-25 07:37 +0200
                                          Re: Fidonet [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-25 16:49 +0200
                                            Re: Fidonet [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-25 19:34 +0100
                                          Re: Fidonet [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2019-06-30 09:36 -0400
                                    Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2019-06-30 08:52 -0400
                            Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2019-06-30 08:25 -0400
                              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-30 20:01 +0200
                                Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-30 20:57 +0100
                                Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-30 15:47 -0600
                              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> - 2019-06-30 16:13 -0400
              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 00:43 +0200
          Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 10:28 +0200
            Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-06-19 10:30 +0000
              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 12:51 +0200
                Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-06-19 11:30 +0000
                  Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 21:03 +0200
                Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-19 12:30 +0000
                  Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 21:11 +0200
                    Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-19 20:10 +0000
                      Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-19 22:18 +0200
                        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-19 20:33 +0000
                      Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 23:05 +0200
                        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-19 23:30 +0000
                          Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-19 21:43 -0600
                            Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-20 05:50 +0200
                          Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 23:20 +0200
                      Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2019-06-19 21:45 -0400
                        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-20 03:23 +0000
                        Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-19 21:45 -0600
                  Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 23:15 +0200
                Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2019-06-30 09:54 -0400
                  Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-30 20:06 +0200
              Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2019-06-19 11:55 +0000
                Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2019-06-22 13:20 +0000
    Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2019-06-25 15:11 +0200

Page 9 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 13  Next page →

#57372

FromJohn Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com>
Date2019-07-01 12:10 -0500
Message-ID<87d0itlly8.fsf@dhh.gt.org>
In reply to#57366
I wrote:
> More tha
> More than 99% of the mail addressed to the Debian mailing lists is spam.

Carlos writes:
> They don't do spam filtering?

Yes, of course they do, but filtering happens after the mail is
accepted.  The problem would be unmanageable without refusing some mail. 

> Perhaps non subscribers can post?

Yes.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57383

From"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2019-07-02 14:17 +0200
Message-ID<tjuruf-erg.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to#57372
On 01/07/2019 19.10, John Hasler wrote:
> I wrote:
>> More tha
>> More than 99% of the mail addressed to the Debian mailing lists is spam.
> 
> Carlos writes:
>> They don't do spam filtering?
> 
> Yes, of course they do, but filtering happens after the mail is
> accepted.  The problem would be unmanageable without refusing some mail. 
> 
>> Perhaps non subscribers can post?
> 
> Yes.

Well, that's a problem. A lot of spam can be blocked by requiring
subscription to post. Of course, bots can manage to subscribe, or post
using some existing name.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57390

FromJohn Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com>
Date2019-07-02 10:22 -0500
Message-ID<874l44laut.fsf@dhh.gt.org>
In reply to#57383
Carlos writes:
> Well, [non subscribers can post] is a problem.

Yes, it is.

> A lot of spam can be blocked by requiring subscription to post. Of
> course, bots can manage to subscribe, or post using some existing
> name.

Thus refusing correctly addressed mail, which you said should never be
done.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57391

From"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2019-07-02 19:10 +0200
Message-ID<lpfsuf-vkl.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to#57390
On 02/07/2019 17.22, John Hasler wrote:
> Carlos writes:
>> Well, [non subscribers can post] is a problem.
> 
> Yes, it is.
> 
>> A lot of spam can be blocked by requiring subscription to post. Of
>> course, bots can manage to subscribe, or post using some existing
>> name.
> 
> Thus refusing correctly addressed mail, which you said should never be
> done.

Sorry, I don't understand that part.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57392

From"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2019-07-02 19:16 +0200
Message-ID<m4gsuf-r0m.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to#57391
On 02/07/2019 19.10, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 02/07/2019 17.22, John Hasler wrote:
>> Carlos writes:
>>> Well, [non subscribers can post] is a problem.
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>>
>>> A lot of spam can be blocked by requiring subscription to post. Of
>>> course, bots can manage to subscribe, or post using some existing
>>> name.
>>
>> Thus refusing correctly addressed mail, which you said should never be
>> done.
> 
> Sorry, I don't understand that part.

If you refer to "correctly addressed mail to the mail list being
rejected", maybe you have a little misunderstanding.

The mail server accepts all mail to the list. This is the part of the
"server".

But the "client", ie, the mail list server, can reject non subscribers.
This is perfectly correct. But it has to generate a rejection message
for those posts it rejects, giving the reason and instructions.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57394

FromGrant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>
Date2019-07-02 12:27 -0600
Message-ID<qfg7nr$h3m$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>
In reply to#57392
On 7/2/19 11:16 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> The mail server accepts all mail to the list. This is the part of the 
> "server".

I think it's worth more clearly differentiating between the "mail 
server", as in MTA, and the "mail list server", as in the MLM.

IMHO "mail server" and "mail list server" are not sufficiently 
different, especially considering that both can be (mis)used to describe 
the other.

IMHO "Mail Transport Agent" is sufficiently different from "Mailing List 
Manager".

> But the "client", ie, the mail list server, can reject non subscribers. 
> This is perfectly correct.

Agreed.

> But it has to generate a rejection message for those posts it rejects, 
> giving the reason and instructions.

The MLM /should/ generate rejection messages (DSNs).  But it does so at 
the risk of sending a DSN to a spoofed address.

Hopefully the MTA is employing sufficient filtering to make it less 
likely that spoofed messages make it into the MLM to subsequently be 
rejected.

IMHO, in an ideal world, the MTA would interact with the MLM to identify 
if the MTA should reject the incoming message and never accept 
responsibility for it in the first place.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57395

FromJohn Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com>
Date2019-07-02 14:33 -0500
Message-ID<87zhlwjkoc.fsf@dhh.gt.org>
In reply to#57392
Carlos writes:
> If you refer to "correctly addressed mail to the mail list being
> rejected", maybe you have a little misunderstanding.

> The mail server accepts all mail to the list. This is the part of the
> "server".

> But the "client", ie, the mail list server, can reject non
> subscribers.  This is perfectly correct. But it has to generate a
> rejection message for those posts it rejects, giving the reason and
> instructions.

Then the message has been accepted, processed, and delivered to the
addressee, which has processed it and responded with a rejection
message.  This chews up huge amounts of resources since most incoming
mail is spam.  In order for the mail volume to be manageable some mail
that is addressed to one of the lists must be refused by the mail server
because it fails to meet other criteria.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57397

From"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2019-07-03 13:34 +0200
Message-ID<mfguuf-fmr.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to#57395
On 02/07/2019 21.33, John Hasler wrote:
> Carlos writes:
>> If you refer to "correctly addressed mail to the mail list being
>> rejected", maybe you have a little misunderstanding.
> 
>> The mail server accepts all mail to the list. This is the part of the
>> "server".
> 
>> But the "client", ie, the mail list server, can reject non
>> subscribers.  This is perfectly correct. But it has to generate a
>> rejection message for those posts it rejects, giving the reason and
>> instructions.
> 
> Then the message has been accepted, processed, and delivered to the
> addressee, which has processed it and responded with a rejection
> message.  This chews up huge amounts of resources since most incoming
> mail is spam.

If most email is spam, something else is going on. It doesn't happen to
other mail lists I use, from what the admins tell me.

>  In order for the mail volume to be manageable some mail
> that is addressed to one of the lists must be refused by the mail server
> because it fails to meet other criteria.

Certainly. I did not say otherwise.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57401

FromJohn Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com>
Date2019-07-03 09:06 -0500
Message-ID<87muhvjjpr.fsf@dhh.gt.org>
In reply to#57397
Carlos writes:
> If most email is spam, something else is going on.

In addition to being open the lists are publically archived and have
been for twenty years.

> It doesn't happen to other mail lists I use, from what the admins tell
> me.

Do they know what anti-spam measures the mail server admins are taking?
In the case of Debian I'm talking about the stuff that hits the mail
server, not the stuff that makes it all the way to the list server.

About half of my personal email is spam (dealt with effectively by
Spamassassin and Mailagent) despite Newsguy doing the usual greylisting,
etc (I have their spam filters turned off).
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57404

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2019-07-04 03:14 +0100
Message-ID<qfjneg$96o$5@dont-email.me>
In reply to#57401
On 03/07/2019 15:06, John Hasler wrote:
> Carlos writes:
>> If most email is spam, something else is going on.
> 
> In addition to being open the lists are publically archived and have
> been for twenty years.
> 
>> It doesn't happen to other mail lists I use, from what the admins tell
>> me.
> 
> Do they know what anti-spam measures the mail server admins are taking?
> In the case of Debian I'm talking about the stuff that hits the mail
> server, not the stuff that makes it all the way to the list server.
> 
> About half of my personal email is spam (dealt with effectively by
> Spamassassin and Mailagent) despite Newsguy doing the usual greylisting,
> etc (I have their spam filters turned off).
> 
I think at one point 95% of mine was. I now have filters on te mail 
server that reject nearly all of it and what gets through is below 50% now
Thats the trouble with being on te internet from its inception.

Every SOB knows my email address.



-- 
The New Left are the people they warned you about.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57406 — Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug - spam on mail

From"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2019-07-04 15:26 +0200
SubjectRe: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug - spam on mail
Message-ID<0db1vf-947.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to#57401
On 03/07/2019 16.06, John Hasler wrote:
> Carlos writes:
>> If most email is spam, something else is going on.
> 
> In addition to being open the lists are publically archived and have
> been for twenty years.
> 
>> It doesn't happen to other mail lists I use, from what the admins tell
>> me.
> 
> Do they know what anti-spam measures the mail server admins are taking?
> In the case of Debian I'm talking about the stuff that hits the mail
> server, not the stuff that makes it all the way to the list server.

Not in detail, because it is not the same person. I know that the mail
server antispam filters are not very strict, because then there would be
many false positives which would anger people more. So they have
amavisd-new (without bayes) and some dynamic block lists, but I don't
know which specifically. Probably dkim or similar.

> 
> About half of my personal email is spam (dealt with effectively by
> Spamassassin and Mailagent) despite Newsguy doing the usual greylisting,
> etc (I have their spam filters turned off).

I may get about two or five unfiltered spam posts per week, on several
mail accounts :-)

And that's before I filter with SpamAssassin myself. It is looking at
the Imap folders at my providers.


For example, Gmail spam folder has 13 posts (it deletes automatically
posts older than a month). It had two false positives. I get on that
account maybe a thousand posts per month (500 since 17/06). That is, I
got 13 spam posts since 17/06, of a total of 500 posts.

Some of those spams are interesting. Some in German (a language I don't
understand). I go some demanding me to pay because I had been caught in
my computer camera masturbating while watching porno web pages, LOL.
Well, it has been known (the crypto coin accounts can be read) that many
have paid. Sigh.


That's looking at an account that is used on mail lists, so that it can
be easily found by googling the list archives. On my personal mail
account, I get basically nothing. On the account I use to register on
commercial sites, of course I get posts from those commercial places,
but that is expected and not (legally) spam. I use a different mail
address there for a reason.

If half your personal post is spam, something is going on.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57378

FromGrant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net>
Date2019-07-01 17:16 -0600
Message-ID<qfe48g$ds8$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>
In reply to#57361
On 7/1/19 4:46 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> now they would first have to open submission, then tell all their 
> clients to change the sending configuration, wait a year, then block 
> 25, and then bear all the complaints from people that suddenly can 
> not send.

They can open submission and leave SMTP open.  Then tell the traveling 
users to use submission from that point forward.  MANY fewer people 
would need to be reconfigured and much lower support burden.

> I meant port filtering.

Ah.

> If I want to send anything to a friend, I can. I can send via SMTP 
> directly to friends, without using external servers. The ISP does 
> not put firewalls in the middle.

Good.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57384

From"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2019-07-02 14:20 +0200
Message-ID<uouruf-erg.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to#57378
On 02/07/2019 01.16, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 7/1/19 4:46 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> now they would first have to open submission, then tell all their
>> clients to change the sending configuration, wait a year, then block
>> 25, and then bear all the complaints from people that suddenly can not
>> send.
> 
> They can open submission and leave SMTP open.  Then tell the traveling
> users to use submission from that point forward.  MANY fewer people
> would need to be reconfigured and much lower support burden.

Well, I requested they open submission, got no answer.

Guessing, the service is contracted to someone, and they would charge
for the change. Or it is a contract change or something of the sort.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57193

FromAndreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net>
Date2019-06-23 16:36 -0400
Message-ID<878sts11k6.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>
In reply to#57166
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 13:14:56 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
> On 22/06/2019 06.59, Grant Taylor wrote:
>> 
>> I suspect that FidoNet technology has fared better than some other old
>> networking technologies.  Seeing as how there is a TCP/IP interface for it.
>
> Las time I looked, traffic was very low, many Spanish groups had no
> messages for days, some none for months. International groups in English
> fared better. I don't know about the Russians.

That might depend on the topic. How do Spanish Linux group do these days?

Although also died down from a peak in the early 2000s some German groups
still have a fair number of articles these days.

Dunno about any Russian either. ;-)

> Then postfix added a feature that allows automatic selection of the
> relayhost for each mail based on the "from" header, coupled with auth
> (login/pass) for each account. That was the final solution that I'm
> using till now.

Does this also work if you have the same FQDN (part after the "@")? Like
when somebody has two or more Gmail accounts. Because you'll have
different IDs and possibly different passwords.
-- 
Andreas

My random thoughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57201

From"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2019-06-24 03:37 +0200
Message-ID<j3m5ufxu5p.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>
In reply to#57193
On 23/06/2019 22.36, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 13:14:56 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>
>> On 22/06/2019 06.59, Grant Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>> I suspect that FidoNet technology has fared better than some other old
>>> networking technologies.  Seeing as how there is a TCP/IP interface for it.
>>
>> Las time I looked, traffic was very low, many Spanish groups had no
>> messages for days, some none for months. International groups in English
>> fared better. I don't know about the Russians.
> 
> That might depend on the topic. How do Spanish Linux group do these days?

I don't know, I lost contact. A node offered taking some of us, but his
setup included an nntp to fido gateway, that was done in a manner that
neither Thunderbird nor Leafnode could connect :-(


> Although also died down from a peak in the early 2000s some German groups
> still have a fair number of articles these days.
> 
> Dunno about any Russian either. ;-)
> 
>> Then postfix added a feature that allows automatic selection of the
>> relayhost for each mail based on the "from" header, coupled with auth
>> (login/pass) for each account. That was the final solution that I'm
>> using till now.
> 
> Does this also work if you have the same FQDN (part after the "@")? Like
> when somebody has two or more Gmail accounts. Because you'll have
> different IDs and possibly different passwords.

Different login for each account with a provider. 3 mail accounts with
gmail, say, means 3 logins. A file contains all the
mails-logins-password triplets. Like this, plus some settings:

sender_relayhost:

from@host    [smarthost]:submission
from2@host   [smarthost]:submission
from3@host2  [smarthost2]


sasl_passwd:

from@host    login1:pass
from2@host   login2:pass2
from3@host2  login3:pass3



Essentially, it replicates what a mail client such as Thunderbird would
do. In fact, I have Thunderbird send to postfix locally, and this will
send to the ISP when it can. Thunderbird is less busy, and I get a nice log.


-- 
Cheers,
       Carlos E.R.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57231

FromAndreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net>
Date2019-06-24 13:50 -0400
Message-ID<878stqan5g.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>
In reply to#57201
On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 03:37:23 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
> On 23/06/2019 22.36, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 13:14:56 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>
>>> Then postfix added a feature that allows automatic selection of the
>>> relayhost for each mail based on the "from" header, coupled with auth
>>> (login/pass) for each account. That was the final solution that I'm
>>> using till now.
>> 
>> Does this also work if you have the same FQDN (part after the "@")? Like
>> when somebody has two or more Gmail accounts. Because you'll have
>> different IDs and possibly different passwords.
>
> Different login for each account with a provider. 3 mail accounts with
> gmail, say, means 3 logins. A file contains all the
> mails-logins-password triplets. Like this, plus some settings:
>
> sender_relayhost:

I have to create that file.

> from@host    [smarthost]:submission
> from2@host   [smarthost]:submission
> from3@host2  [smarthost2]
>
> sasl_passwd:
>
> from@host    login1:pass
> from2@host   login2:pass2
> from3@host2  login3:pass3

Interesting. My current syntax is

host    login:pass

Suppose after editing the files a

postmap hash:/etc/postfix/sasl_passwd

must be executed.
-- 
Andreas

My random thoughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57235

From"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2019-06-24 23:14 +0200
Message-ID<u2r7uf-36m.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to#57231
On 24/06/2019 19.50, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 03:37:23 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>
>> On 23/06/2019 22.36, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>> On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 13:14:56 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Then postfix added a feature that allows automatic selection of the
>>>> relayhost for each mail based on the "from" header, coupled with auth
>>>> (login/pass) for each account. That was the final solution that I'm
>>>> using till now.
>>>
>>> Does this also work if you have the same FQDN (part after the "@")? Like
>>> when somebody has two or more Gmail accounts. Because you'll have
>>> different IDs and possibly different passwords.
>>
>> Different login for each account with a provider. 3 mail accounts with
>> gmail, say, means 3 logins. A file contains all the
>> mails-logins-password triplets. Like this, plus some settings:
>>
>> sender_relayhost:
> 
> I have to create that file.

Then read <https://de.postfix.org/httpmirror/SASL_README.html>

> 
>> from@host    [smarthost]:submission
>> from2@host   [smarthost]:submission
>> from3@host2  [smarthost2]
>>
>> sasl_passwd:
>>
>> from@host    login1:pass
>> from2@host   login2:pass2
>> from3@host2  login3:pass3
> 
> Interesting. My current syntax is
> 
> host    login:pass
> 
> Suppose after editing the files a
> 
> postmap hash:/etc/postfix/sasl_passwd
> 
> must be executed.

Yes. I have a Makefile to facilitate things - I just run "make" on
/etc/postfix:



all:    access.db       relay_ccerts.db         sasl_passwd.db  \
        transport.db    \
        canonical.db    relocated.db            sender_canonical.db \
        virtual.db      \
        sender_relayhost.db     relay.db        generic.db      \
        ehlo_discard_words.db


transport.db:   transport
        postmap transport

sender_relayhost.db:    sender_relayhost
        postmap sender_relayhost

virtual.db:     virtual
        postmap virtual

generic.db:     generic
        postmap generic

canonical.db:   canonical
        postmap canonical

sender_canonical.db:    sender_canonical
        postmap sender_canonical

sasl_passwd.db: sasl_passwd
        postmap sasl_passwd

/etc/aliases.db:        /etc/aliases
        postalias /etc/aliases

access.db:      access
        postmap access

relocated.db:   relocated
        postmap relocated

ehlo_discard_words.db:  ehlo_discard_words
        postmap ehlo_discard_words


relay.db:       relay
        postmap relay




-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57088

FromAndreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net>
Date2019-06-21 16:01 -0400
Message-ID<87ef3myafn.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>
In reply to#57051
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 15:17:51 -0600, Grant Taylor wrote:
>
> On 6/20/19 2:55 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> I had that scripted. As soon as the connection went up (wvdial, too),
>
> I want to look into wvdial.

IIRC did wvdial just made it easy to dial via ppp. I am bold and say if
you wanted you could even establish a DSL connection with it.

<https://linux.die.net/man/1/wvdial>

>> a script would trigger automatically, doing mail send/collection,
>> news, and fidonet.
>
> Can I ask what protocols were used?  mail and news can run through
> UUCP. It's also possible to use SMTP & NNTP with prodding.  But it
> seems like FidoNet would be it's own modem connection (to a BBS) or
> via FidoNet-over-TCP/IP.  #curiosity

I never used FIDO for news. The leafnode news server uses NNTP.

>> When all was finished, it sounded a bell to tell me that I could
>> disconnect.
>
> Were you not able to automatically disconnect?  Or did you want to
> remain connected in case you wanted to use the connection for
> something else, e.g. web browsing or ftp file transfer?

[Am not Carlos but reply anyway ;-)]

I disconnected manually. Might have or not have checked for mail or check
something on Altavista. *g* 
-- 
Andreas

My random thoughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57092

From"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2019-06-21 23:57 +0200
Message-ID<5g00uf-qin.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to#57088
On 21/06/2019 22.01, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 15:17:51 -0600, Grant Taylor wrote:
>>
>> On 6/20/19 2:55 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> I had that scripted. As soon as the connection went up (wvdial, too),
>>
>> I want to look into wvdial.
> 
> IIRC did wvdial just made it easy to dial via ppp. 

Certainly. It was possible to not use it, but quite more complicated. It
arrived at the scene just as I was studying how to connect my Linux
machine to Internet, just in time.

> I am bold and say if
> you wanted you could even establish a DSL connection with it.
> 
> <https://linux.die.net/man/1/wvdial>
> 
>>> a script would trigger automatically, doing mail send/collection,
>>> news, and fidonet.
>>
>> Can I ask what protocols were used?  mail and news can run through
>> UUCP. It's also possible to use SMTP & NNTP with prodding.  But it
>> seems like FidoNet would be it's own modem connection (to a BBS) or
>> via FidoNet-over-TCP/IP.  #curiosity
> 
> I never used FIDO for news. The leafnode news server uses NNTP.

Of course, me too. FIDO was for "netmail" and their own groups. I don't
recall the name now. Isolated from nntp, different system. Although I
believe some sysops had a gateway to connect to some nntp news groups.


>>> When all was finished, it sounded a bell to tell me that I could
>>> disconnect.
>>
>> Were you not able to automatically disconnect?  Or did you want to
>> remain connected in case you wanted to use the connection for
>> something else, e.g. web browsing or ftp file transfer?
> 
> [Am not Carlos but reply anyway ;-)]
> 
> I disconnected manually. Might have or not have checked for mail or check
> something on Altavista. *g* 
> 


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57096

FromJohn Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com>
Date2019-06-21 17:35 -0500
Message-ID<87y31ur2h6.fsf@dhh.gt.org>
In reply to#57092
Carlos writes:
> Certainly. It was possible to not use it, but quite more
> complicated. It arrived at the scene just as I was studying how to
> connect my Linux machine to Internet, just in time.

Debian had Pppconfig before Wvdial arrived.  Pppconfig was better (I'm
biased).
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 9 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 13  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.os.linux

csiph-web