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 11 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 Next page →
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-01 10:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qfcici$7n3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #27494 |
On 01/07/2019 09:10, Jasen Betts wrote: > On 2019-06-30, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote: >> On 6/30/19 3:14 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>> Usually relaying is disabled, server accepts addresses only on this >>> host. >> >> That's Standard Operating Procedure to me. It probably qualifies as >> best practice too. >> >> The only common variance is allowing relay to specific domains when >> acting as a backup MX for them. >> >>> Also all dynamic ip addresses are blacklisted by default. >> >> I'd love to know how they detect /all/ dynamic IPs. >> >> I've seen various RBLs that list known dynamic IPs. > >> But as someone pointed out, they couldn't do that to their ISP when they >> were traveling abroad because where they were at was filtering the port >> used to connect to their ISP's mail server. > > I know a guy who built a business around that. Most days I work for him. > > OTOH few ISPs block outbound submission or SMTPS traffic, only port 25. > so it should be possible to submot from outside if they set up > authenticated submission > At my sisters house in Germany her domestic router had to be coinfigired to whitelist my SMTP relay. It came with google, hotmail etc. all there... Typical German.. 'Alle is verboten...." > -- Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-01 12:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <fb5puf-c8c.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #27494 |
On 01/07/2019 10.10, Jasen Betts wrote: > On 2019-06-30, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote: >> On 6/30/19 3:14 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>> Usually relaying is disabled, server accepts addresses only on this >>> host. >> >> That's Standard Operating Procedure to me. It probably qualifies as >> best practice too. >> >> The only common variance is allowing relay to specific domains when >> acting as a backup MX for them. >> >>> Also all dynamic ip addresses are blacklisted by default. >> >> I'd love to know how they detect /all/ dynamic IPs. >> >> I've seen various RBLs that list known dynamic IPs. > >> But as someone pointed out, they couldn't do that to their ISP when they >> were traveling abroad because where they were at was filtering the port >> used to connect to their ISP's mail server. > > I know a guy who built a business around that. Most days I work for him. > > OTOH few ISPs block outbound submission or SMTPS traffic, only port 25. > so it should be possible to submot from outside if they set up > authenticated submission I could not send using authenticated SMTP, which uses 25. You mean encrypted. Yes, that's another nuance. Several of my ISP services do not use encryption. STARTTLS with normal password on port 25, says Thunderbird. The default would be port 587. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-01 12:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qfcpj5$dr9$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #27497 |
On 01/07/2019 11:54, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 01/07/2019 10.10, Jasen Betts wrote: >> On 2019-06-30, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote: >>> On 6/30/19 3:14 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>> Usually relaying is disabled, server accepts addresses only on this >>>> host. >>> >>> That's Standard Operating Procedure to me. It probably qualifies as >>> best practice too. >>> >>> The only common variance is allowing relay to specific domains when >>> acting as a backup MX for them. >>> >>>> Also all dynamic ip addresses are blacklisted by default. >>> >>> I'd love to know how they detect /all/ dynamic IPs. >>> >>> I've seen various RBLs that list known dynamic IPs. >> >>> But as someone pointed out, they couldn't do that to their ISP when they >>> were traveling abroad because where they were at was filtering the port >>> used to connect to their ISP's mail server. >> >> I know a guy who built a business around that. Most days I work for him. >> >> OTOH few ISPs block outbound submission or SMTPS traffic, only port 25. >> so it should be possible to submot from outside if they set up >> authenticated submission > > I could not send using authenticated SMTP, which uses 25. You mean > encrypted. > > Yes, that's another nuance. Several of my ISP services do not use > encryption. STARTTLS with normal password on port 25, says Thunderbird. > The default would be port 587. > > In the german case, that wasn't allowed either -- There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent renewable energy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-01 11:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qfcs8q$628$1@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org> |
| In reply to | #27498 |
On 2019-07-01, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 01/07/2019 11:54, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 01/07/2019 10.10, Jasen Betts wrote: >>> On 2019-06-30, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote: >>>> On 6/30/19 3:14 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>> Usually relaying is disabled, server accepts addresses only on this >>>>> host. >>>> >>>> That's Standard Operating Procedure to me. It probably qualifies as >>>> best practice too. >>>> >>>> The only common variance is allowing relay to specific domains when >>>> acting as a backup MX for them. >>>> >>>>> Also all dynamic ip addresses are blacklisted by default. >>>> >>>> I'd love to know how they detect /all/ dynamic IPs. >>>> >>>> I've seen various RBLs that list known dynamic IPs. >>> >>>> But as someone pointed out, they couldn't do that to their ISP when they >>>> were traveling abroad because where they were at was filtering the port >>>> used to connect to their ISP's mail server. >>> >>> I know a guy who built a business around that. Most days I work for him. >>> >>> OTOH few ISPs block outbound submission or SMTPS traffic, only port 25. >>> so it should be possible to submot from outside if they set up >>> authenticated submission >> >> I could not send using authenticated SMTP, which uses 25. You mean >> encrypted. >> >> Yes, that's another nuance. Several of my ISP services do not use >> encryption. STARTTLS with normal password on port 25, says Thunderbird. >> The default would be port 587. >> >> > In the german case, that wasn't allowed either > I know a server that does SMTPS on port 443, that fools almost all firewalls, so you only need to configure your client once. -- When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-01 12:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qfdcev$vo6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #27499 |
Jasen Betts wrote:
> On 2019-07-01, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 01/07/2019 11:54, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 01/07/2019 10.10, Jasen Betts wrote:
>>>> On 2019-06-30, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/30/19 3:14 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>>>> Usually relaying is disabled, server accepts addresses only on this
>>>>>> host.
>>>>> That's Standard Operating Procedure to me. It probably qualifies as
>>>>> best practice too.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only common variance is allowing relay to specific domains when
>>>>> acting as a backup MX for them.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Also all dynamic ip addresses are blacklisted by default.
>>>>> I'd love to know how they detect /all/ dynamic IPs.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've seen various RBLs that list known dynamic IPs.
>>>>> But as someone pointed out, they couldn't do that to their ISP when they
>>>>> were traveling abroad because where they were at was filtering the port
>>>>> used to connect to their ISP's mail server.
>>>> I know a guy who built a business around that. Most days I work for him.
>>>>
>>>> OTOH few ISPs block outbound submission or SMTPS traffic, only port 25.
>>>> so it should be possible to submot from outside if they set up
>>>> authenticated submission
>>> I could not send using authenticated SMTP, which uses 25. You mean
>>> encrypted.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's another nuance. Several of my ISP services do not use
>>> encryption. STARTTLS with normal password on port 25, says Thunderbird.
>>> The default would be port 587.
>>>
>>>
>> In the german case, that wasn't allowed either
>>
>
> I know a server that does SMTPS on port 443, that fools almost all firewalls,
> so you only need to configure your client once.
>
ISPs with Deep Packet Inspection boxes, watch *everything*.
They can see attempts to mail relay on ports other than port 25.
The DPI is set up, so that without human intervention at all,
the port magically "closes" when a mail forwarding protocol is detected,
and the port magically "opens" again 15 minutes later if
the attempts stop. There are no humans playing whack-a-mole
with miscreants. It's all automated. And if you phone tech
support, the tech support will "feign cluelessness" rather
than admit the ISP has "standard armor". "No sir, we don't
block anything, you must be a psycho."
ISPs enforce these rules, so they can stay off email blacklists.
The reseller I use (an ISP) can't do anything about this,
because the company upstream of them uses a DPI.
The rule set for the DPI and the ISP routers, are set up for all
sorts of abuse cases. Again, to herd the turtles and keep
them out of trouble.
At one time, that box was blocking torrents. They don't do that
any more. (Presumably, you could hide your torrent inside
a VPN, and they'd have to block all VPNs to shut that down.)
When the DPI box was first acquired and set up, for a period
of around three months, it was issuing RST packets when I
was using a web browser to Port 80. That's how long it took
them to figure out it was mis-configured. I get the impression
from this, that the "programming" for it is a package,
and the staff might not be all that clued in when it comes
to configuration.
Normally, a response to that would be, "well RST is normal
and comes from overloaded servers". However, what I was observing,
is random RST packets coming from *every* web server I
connected to. That's how I could conclude this was the
new DPI box, hard at work.
Never underestimate the power of the DPI box.
Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-01 17:11 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qfe3vi$tk$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #27504 |
On 7/1/19 10:30 AM, Paul wrote: > ISPs with Deep Packet Inspection boxes, watch *everything*. Yes, but what they see may very likely be indecipherable noise. They might be able to apply some heuristics analysis on encrypted traffic, but they decidedly shouldn't be able to see into the encrypted traffic. > ISPs enforce these rules, so they can stay off email blacklists. Submission (TCP 587) and Submission Secure (TCP 465) are not open to the world and are supposed to require authentication (or some other form of access control) and as such not subject to spam / blacklisting. They may be subject to brute force attempts to guess authentication. But that's different. > The rule set for the DPI and the ISP routers, are set up for all > sorts of abuse cases. Again, to herd the turtles and keep them out > of trouble. Submission and Submission Secure shouldn't be scrutinized for anything other than brute force attempts. > Never underestimate the power of the DPI box. Never underestimate the stupidity of a DPI box. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-01 17:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qfe3le$ic3$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #27497 |
On 7/1/19 4:54 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > I could not send using authenticated SMTP, which uses 25. You mean > encrypted. SMTP Authentication is not port specific and can work on any port the server allows it on. > Yes, that's another nuance. Several of my ISP services do not use > encryption. STARTTLS with normal password on port 25, says Thunderbird. > The default would be port 587. STARTTLS /is/ encryption. (Assuming you aren't using a null cipher.) STARTTLS is not port specific and can work on any port the server allows it on. Note: Submission Secure likely won't support STARTTLS as TLS is implicitly negotiated before the SMTP session starts. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-02 09:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qff8gl$a2b$1@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org> |
| In reply to | #27507 |
On 2019-07-01, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote: > On 7/1/19 4:54 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> I could not send using authenticated SMTP, which uses 25. You mean >> encrypted. > > SMTP Authentication is not port specific and can work on any port the > server allows it on. > >> Yes, that's another nuance. Several of my ISP services do not use >> encryption. STARTTLS with normal password on port 25, says Thunderbird. >> The default would be port 587. > > STARTTLS /is/ encryption. (Assuming you aren't using a null cipher.) > > STARTTLS is not port specific and can work on any port the server allows > it on. > > Note: Submission Secure likely won't support STARTTLS as TLS is > implicitly negotiated before the SMTP session starts. port 587 (submission) has STARTTLS, 465 (smtps) is automatically TLS. -- When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-02 09:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qffsno$kcg$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #27523 |
On 7/2/19 3:35 AM, Jasen Betts wrote: > port 587 (submission) has STARTTLS, 465 (smtps) is automatically TLS. Per IANA, SMTPS is no longer a thing. It is now Submission Secure. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-02 14:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <n8vruf-5gh.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #27507 |
On 02/07/2019 01.06, Grant Taylor wrote: > On 7/1/19 4:54 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> I could not send using authenticated SMTP, which uses 25. You mean >> encrypted. > > SMTP Authentication is not port specific and can work on any port the > server allows it on. > >> Yes, that's another nuance. Several of my ISP services do not use >> encryption. STARTTLS with normal password on port 25, says Thunderbird. >> The default would be port 587. > > STARTTLS /is/ encryption. (Assuming you aren't using a null cipher.) > > STARTTLS is not port specific and can work on any port the server allows > it on. > > Note: Submission Secure likely won't support STARTTLS as TLS is > implicitly negotiated before the SMTP session starts. Yes, that's the current configuration. Sometime ago they were using plain. For example, IMAP is using "connection security none" and "encrypted password", so a sniffer can read my email. Jut not the password. So they secured SMTP but not IMAP. I forgot which one was not using encryption. At some point they used the sample configuration of the software. Yes, the word "sample config" got displayed on my logs. I think it was a sample certificate. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-01 07:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qfce1k$pbp$1@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org> |
| In reply to | #27483 |
On 2019-06-30, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote: > On 6/23/19 6:41 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote: >> I don't know, I've no way to use a different SMTP envelope. I know >> it is possible, but I've never done it. > > Am I correct in that servers in your corner of the Internet won't accept > email from SMTP servers around the world unless the sending server is > white listed or uses authentication? Blocking SMTP by RIR is fairly rare, but seems most prevalent in USA. I have a list of about 100 mostly USA domains that refuse SMTP connections from APNIC addreses... I don't have access to any RIPE or AFRNIC addresses to run tests form. Authentication is different matter SPF is used as a form of authentiction by most major carriers, also DKIM and the whole DMARC thing. > That seems strange and antithetical to how SMTP is supposed to work; > namely accepting email to a local address from anyone that wants to send it. The problem is finding people who want to read it. > The common egress SMTP filtering here in the U.S.A. is a way that ISPs > can help ensure that their user base doesn't send trash to the world. > Good 'Net Neighbor type thing. yeah, also most those customer addresses will be found on the dul.spamhous.org RBL -- When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-01 12:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rt4puf-10c.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #27483 |
On 30/06/2019 23.08, Grant Taylor wrote: > On 6/23/19 6:41 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote: >> I don't know, I've no way to use a different SMTP envelope. I know it >> is possible, but I've never done it. > > ACK > > Come to think of it, I'm not sure how to do it in Thunderbird either. > I'd likely do something in the shell or on the server if I wanted to do > something like that. > > There's almost always no need for the MUA to send with different From: > header and envelope from address. > >> The login/password is associated with the "from". That is, if I have 4 >> accounts with the same provider (it is the case), each one has a >> different login/pass. > > ACK > >> I was, yes. >> >> No, here it is not filtered. It doesn't make much difference, both >> methods can be secured. As the receivers will not accept a post sent >> directly to their smtp port if you are not authorized to send to them >> (either by auth or being an established server), there is no need to >> filter it, which hinders honest people using servers. > > Hum. > > Am I correct in that servers in your corner of the Internet won't accept > email from SMTP servers around the world unless the sending server is > white listed or uses authentication? > > That seems strange and antithetical to how SMTP is supposed to work; > namely accepting email to a local address from anyone that wants to send > it. Yes, email should be accepted by the mail server if the server is the destination of that email. I think they use several forms of block/black lists, and one of them is dynamic addresses. I'm not aware that they explicitly white list servers - except if some address is blocked and there is a complaint. They are doing mostly a good job: I receive very little spam, and I don't get complaints of people not being able to reach me. But for sending email to be relayed, they required authentication (on port 25). > The common egress SMTP filtering here in the U.S.A. is a way that ISPs > can help ensure that their user base doesn't send trash to the world. > Good 'Net Neighbor type thing. I know, but there are other ways; for example, by that ISP listing all their dynamic ranges. Any other ISP can block those ranges, and the effect is the same. They can not block port 25 because they do not have submission port working on their servers, and we have to connect to them on 25... Ie, to block 25 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. > >> The policy is thus "no filtering at all, we transmit everything". > > That sounds like filtering of what makes it into / through the server. Well, yes. Each server filters what it doesn't want to handle. > > Yet you have stated that the account name and email address needed to > match. (At least that's what I understood / took away.) That seems > like filtering to me. I meant port filtering. 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. > >> Yep. It was interesting, in a way. > > :-) > > > -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-01 09:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87h885lsgx.fsf@dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #27496 |
Carlos writes: > Yes, email should be accepted by the mail server if the server is the > destination of that email. More than 99% of the mail addressed to the Debian mailing lists is spam. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-01 17:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2jlpuf-poe.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #27502 |
On 01/07/2019 16.50, John Hasler wrote: > Carlos writes: >> Yes, email should be accepted by the mail server if the server is the >> destination of that email. > > More than 99% of the mail addressed to the Debian mailing lists is spam. They don't do spam filtering? Perhaps non subscribers can post? -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-01 12:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87d0itlly8.fsf@dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #27503 |
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]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-02 14:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tjuruf-erg.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #27506 |
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]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-02 10:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <874l44laut.fsf@dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #27524 |
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]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-02 19:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lpfsuf-vkl.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #27528 |
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]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-02 19:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m4gsuf-r0m.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #27529 |
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]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-02 12:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qfg7nr$h3m$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #27530 |
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]
Page 11 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web