Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #27185 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "anonymous" <anonymous@rip.ax.lt> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-06-16 07:53 -0500 |
| Last post | 2019-06-25 15:11 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 275 — 44 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
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 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-18 14:13 +0100
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 Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-17 23:11 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-17 17:36 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2019-06-17 18:27 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-18 08:45 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-06-18 23:58 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2019-06-18 21:42 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-06-19 18:23 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 23:06 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug rlhamil@bigapple.pri (Richard L. Hamilton) - 2019-06-22 01:00 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-19 07:49 +0100
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) Shehu Dikko <unreachable@destination.invalid> - 2019-06-20 17:30 +0100
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 Kara M'bola <maxupixu@in.val.it> - 2019-06-18 20:12 +0000
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) Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-16 22:52 +0200
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 Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-16 22:47 +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 Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-16 22:58 +0200
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 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 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-06-20 02:15 +0000
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 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-17 23:22 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-18 16:07 -0400
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 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-06-19 18:23 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-19 20:42 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-19 19:49 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-19 21:56 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-19 20:38 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-20 00:04 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> - 2019-06-20 11:34 +0300
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 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 21:11 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Kara M'bola <maxupixu@in.val.it> - 2019-06-19 19:31 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 23:18 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Kara M'bola <maxupixu@in.val.it> - 2019-06-21 13:13 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-22 16:57 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Kara M'bola <maxupixu@in.val.it> - 2019-06-23 09:46 +0000
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 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-06-20 04:23 +0000
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 Kara M'bola <maxupixu@in.val.it> - 2019-06-20 04:49 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-20 07:05 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Kara M'bola <maxupixu@in.val.it> - 2019-06-20 08:41 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-20 12:21 +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 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 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-18 03:22 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Sidney_Kotic <kant@have.it> - 2019-06-17 18:25 -0800
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-18 08:30 +0200
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] "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] Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-06-25 17:53 +0000
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 Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2019-06-25 15:11 +0200
Page 12 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 Next page →
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-02 14:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87zhlwjkoc.fsf@dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #27530 |
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]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-03 13:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mfguuf-fmr.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #27532 |
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]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-03 09:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87muhvjjpr.fsf@dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #27539 |
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]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-04 03:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qfjneg$96o$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #27541 |
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]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-04 15:26 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug - spam on mail |
| Message-ID | <0db1vf-947.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #27541 |
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]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-01 17:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qfe48g$ds8$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #27496 |
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]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-02 14:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uouruf-erg.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #27509 |
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]
| From | Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-23 16:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <878sts11k6.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> |
| In reply to | #27407 |
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]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-24 03:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <j3m5ufxu5p.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor> |
| In reply to | #27420 |
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]
| From | Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-24 13:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <878stqan5g.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> |
| In reply to | #27425 |
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]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-24 23:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u2r7uf-36m.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #27439 |
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]
| From | Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-21 16:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <87ef3myafn.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> |
| In reply to | #27346 |
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]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-21 23:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5g00uf-qin.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #27375 |
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]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-21 17:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87y31ur2h6.fsf@dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #27378 |
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]
| From | "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-21 22:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <20190621220412.21eb0fda@WizardsTower> |
| In reply to | #27380 |
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 17:35:33 -0500 John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote: > 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). THAT'S the package that used the pon/poff commands. Memory begins to fail... Thanks for reviving it for the moment. -- Cybe R. Wizard “It’s a lack of clarity that creates chaos and frustration. Those emotions are poison to any living goal.” Steve Maraboli
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-22 12:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <87h88h1rt1.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> |
| In reply to | #27383 |
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 22:04:12 -0500, Cybe R. Wizard wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 17:35:33 -0500 > John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote: > >> Debian had Pppconfig before Wvdial arrived. Pppconfig was better (I'm >> biased). > > THAT'S the package that used the pon/poff commands. Memory begins to > fail... That's how I go online with DSL since more than 14 years. -- Andreas My random thoughts and comments https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-21 21:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <20190621215818.08ad828b@WizardsTower> |
| In reply to | #27378 |
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 23:57:57 +0200 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: [wvdial] > > 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'm no big Linux expert man, but didn't pon/poff suffice? I seem to remember setting that up once in about 5 minutes and using it until modems went by the wayside. Wvdial? Confuse me more. ;-] ...but them I still prefer a WM to a DE even if I'm not a command line cowboy. That said, in the modern world wicd rocks. -- Cybe R. Wizard You can't stop the signal... Everything goes somewhere, and I go everywhere. Mr. Universe Serenity
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-22 07:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87pnn5rebh.fsf@dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #27382 |
Cybe R. Wizard writes: > I'm no big Linux expert man, but didn't pon/poff suffice? You have to edit the pppd configuration files. Pppconfig and Wvdial do that for you. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-21 23:10 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qekd9q$ma$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #27378 |
On 6/21/19 3:57 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > Certainly. It was possible to not use it, but quite more > complicated. What would be used as an alternative to wvdial? I remember Roaring Penguin had a PPPoE implementation. By the time I needed PPPoE, the Linux kernel had support for it. I think it creates a pseudo network interface and serial interface, linking the two. The traditional PPP daemon would interface with the serial, while the TCP/IP stack would work with the pseudo interface. Something like that. It's been a while. > It arrived at the scene just as I was studying how to connect my > Linux machine to Internet, just in time. I remember using SLIP in the mid-to-late '90s to connect to what started as a BBS like creation on a Sun system. You could start SLIP after connecting, and navigating a few menus. In hindsight it was exiting the BBS interface and execing (?) the user space slip program. After that, everything I did was PPP (over serial or Ethernet) or stock TCP/IP over Ethernet. Admittedly it might have been Ethernet encapsulated as ATM (RFC 1483), Frame Relay (???), or Cable Modem. But that was still bog standard Ethernet to the Linux machine. > 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. "netmail", was that the email in FidoNet? I seem to recall "echos" being the term for newsgroups. I can think of a couple of people that still run BBSs, at least one of which still has a modem & phone line. One of them also has a Usenet feed into the system. I don't know if he's gatewaying into FidoNet or just having echos and Usenet available on his board. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-22 08:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qekkuo$pnc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #27386 |
On 22/06/2019 06:10, Grant Taylor wrote: > On 6/21/19 3:57 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> Certainly. It was possible to not use it, but quite more complicated. > > What would be used as an alternative to wvdial? > > I remember Roaring Penguin had a PPPoE implementation. By the time I > needed PPPoE, the Linux kernel had support for it. I think it creates a > pseudo network interface and serial interface, linking the two. The > traditional PPP daemon would interface with the serial, while the TCP/IP > stack would work with the pseudo interface. Something like that. It's > been a while. > >> It arrived at the scene just as I was studying how to connect my Linux >> machine to Internet, just in time. > > I remember using SLIP in the mid-to-late '90s to connect to what started > as a BBS like creation on a Sun system. You could start SLIP after > connecting, and navigating a few menus. In hindsight it was exiting the > BBS interface and execing (?) the user space slip program. > > After that, everything I did was PPP (over serial or Ethernet) or stock > TCP/IP over Ethernet. Admittedly it might have been Ethernet > encapsulated as ATM (RFC 1483), Frame Relay (???), or Cable Modem. But > that was still bog standard Ethernet to the Linux machine. > >> 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. > > "netmail", was that the email in FidoNet? I seem to recall "echos" > being the term for newsgroups. > > I can think of a couple of people that still run BBSs, at least one of > which still has a modem & phone line. One of them also has a Usenet > feed into the system. I don't know if he's gatewaying into FidoNet or > just having echos and Usenet available on his board. > > > Oddly I dont think I ever ran IP over a modem. I went from UUCP mail and usenet at work to BBS gateways over a modem at home, until at some point I got ISDN for IP which got replaced by ADSL when that became available. -- Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web