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 10 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 14 Next page →
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-22 16:53 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qembir$16g$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #27389 |
On 6/22/19 6:51 AM, John Hasler wrote: > There is UUCP over TCP/IP. Yep. I've not actually seen people use it. But I'm aware that it exists. I think I've also heard about people using things like stunnel to do UUCP over TLS over TCP/IP I have seen people use UUCP over SSH (over TCP/IP). > You can and many of us still do. Don't rely on your ISP, though. > Pay a small amount of money to somebody such as Newsguy who makes a > business of providing such service. Or pay a small amount for a VPS and run your own smart host. ;-) > Not a problem. Newsguy deals with all that. I just configure Exim > to use Newsguy as a smarthost (it's a choice in the configuration > dialogue at install time) and use Fetchmail to get my incoming mail > from Newsguy via POP every 5 minutes. Gandi redirects mail to my > domains to Newsguy. I get all the benefits of running my own mail > server (I once did that) without any of the hassles. Fair. I don't like the idea of POPing email, but I suspect there are other options, including Newsguy relaying SMTP to you. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-22 18:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87v9wxp41n.fsf@dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #27397 |
I wrote: > Don't rely on your ISP, though. Pay a small amount of money to > somebody such as Newsguy who makes a business of providing such > service. Grant writes: > Or pay a small amount for a VPS and run your own smart host. I've administered an Internet-facing mail server. I'd rather pay Newsguy to do that (cheaper than a VPS, too). > I don't like the idea of POPing email... Why? > ...but I suspect there are other options, including Newsguy relaying > SMTP to you. In today's environment that would be the only practical way for me to run my own mail server but again, I'd rather pay Newsguy to do that. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-22 20:09 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qemn22$j9h$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #27400 |
On 6/22/19 5:56 PM, John Hasler wrote: > I've administered an Internet-facing mail server. I'd rather pay > Newsguy to do that (cheaper than a VPS, too). Fair enough. > Why? I believe in leveraging things in the SMTP protocol, e.g. ORCPT, DSN, DELIVERBY. None of those things are supported all the way to your server when the SMTP delivery stops at the upstream server and you POP things from the mailbox(es). There's also the issue(s) around supporting multiple email addresses. SMTP makes it trivial to pass the different addresses down to your machine, even if you are only BCCed. POP will very either mix multiple email addressees into one mailbox, where they need to be separated back out, or you need to POP multiple mailboxes. I think that SMTP (or even UUCP) is cleaner than that. Especially if you use ETRN. The upstream server can be told to try to deliver to your server and queue the email while your server's offline. When you are online, issue an ETRN and the server will try to deliver to you again and succeed. > In today's environment that would be the only practical way for me > to run my own mail server but again, I'd rather pay Newsguy to do that. To each his / her own. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-22 22:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87mui9otbj.fsf@dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #27401 |
Grant writes: > There's also the issue(s) around supporting multiple email > addresses. SMTP makes it trivial to pass the different addresses down > to your machine, even if you are only BCCed. POP will very either mix > multiple email addressees into one mailbox, where they need to be > separated back out, or you need to POP multiple mailboxes. Newsguy gives me lots of mailboxes and Fetchmail has no problem dealing with them. Mailagent sorts mail for local delivery by Exim even when different addresses get mixed in one box. > The upstream server can be told to try to deliver to your server and > queue the email while your server's offline. When you are online, > issue an ETRN and the server will try to deliver to you again and > succeed. That comes for free with POP. If I don't fetch my mail it just sits there. I could even read it via Webmail if necessary or fetch it to a different machine at a different site. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-22 22:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qen0i2$roo$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #27403 |
On 6/22/19 9:48 PM, John Hasler wrote: > Newsguy gives me lots of mailboxes and Fetchmail has no problem dealing > with them. Mailagent sorts mail for local delivery by Exim even when > different addresses get mixed in one box. There are always a lot of different things that can be done. But not all of them achieve the same thing or do so by the same method. It sounds like you are happy with what you are doing. Good for you. I would not be happy using POP. > That comes for free with POP. If I don't fetch my mail it just sits > there. I could even read it via Webmail if necessary or fetch it to > a different machine at a different site. 2+2=4 ≠ 2*2=4 + ≠ * Different methods are used for different things. Even if they both get email into your mailbox. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-23 13:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <gn95hgF8nplU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #27404 |
On 23/06/2019 06.51, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 6/22/19 9:48 PM, John Hasler wrote:
>> Newsguy gives me lots of mailboxes and Fetchmail has no problem
>> dealing with them. Mailagent sorts mail for local delivery by Exim
>> even when different addresses get mixed in one box.
>
> There are always a lot of different things that can be done. But not
> all of them achieve the same thing or do so by the same method.
>
> It sounds like you are happy with what you are doing. Good for you.
>
> I would not be happy using POP.
I no longer use POP, only IMAP. Much easier with multiple machines.
And I also use fetchmail.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-23 07:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87fto0pjl1.fsf@dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #27408 |
Carlos writes: > I no longer use POP, only IMAP. Much easier with multiple machines. > And I also use fetchmail. I have IMAP available but it has no advantages for me. I do not want my mail to remain on Newsguy's server any longer than necessary. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-23 15:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qeo13e$548$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #27411 |
On 23/06/2019 13:33, John Hasler wrote: > Carlos writes: >> I no longer use POP, only IMAP. Much easier with multiple machines. >> And I also use fetchmail. > > I have IMAP available but it has no advantages for me. I do not want my > mail to remain on Newsguy's server any longer than necessary. > Same here. I do not want it to reamin on MY virtual server -- "Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) " Alan Sokal
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-24 02:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <9ug5ufxaom.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor> |
| In reply to | #27411 |
On 23/06/2019 14.33, John Hasler wrote:
> Carlos writes:
>> I no longer use POP, only IMAP. Much easier with multiple machines.
>> And I also use fetchmail.
>
> I have IMAP available but it has no advantages for me. I do not want my
> mail to remain on Newsguy's server any longer than necessary.
Doesn't have to, if you so wish. Fetchmail will retrieve and delete it
instantly from the server, as always.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-23 22:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87wohboefv.fsf@dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #27426 |
Carlos writes: > I no longer use POP, only IMAP. Much easier with multiple machines. > And I also use fetchmail. I wrote: > I have IMAP available but it has no advantages for me. I do not want my > mail to remain on Newsguy's server any longer than necessary. Carlos writes: > Doesn't have to, if you so wish. Fetchmail will retrieve and delete it > instantly from the server, as always. Sure but for my purposes IMAP does nothing POP doesn't do. If Newsguy ever deprecates POP I'll switch to IMAP. It's a trivial change. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-24 11:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oei6ufxhvu.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor> |
| In reply to | #27427 |
On 24/06/2019 05.22, John Hasler wrote:
> Carlos writes:
>> I no longer use POP, only IMAP. Much easier with multiple machines.
>> And I also use fetchmail.
>
> I wrote:
>> I have IMAP available but it has no advantages for me. I do not want my
>> mail to remain on Newsguy's server any longer than necessary.
>
> Carlos writes:
>> Doesn't have to, if you so wish. Fetchmail will retrieve and delete it
>> instantly from the server, as always.
>
> Sure but for my purposes IMAP does nothing POP doesn't do. If Newsguy
> ever deprecates POP I'll switch to IMAP. It's a trivial change.
If you read the fetchmail manual, you will find they favour imap over
pop for a number of features and problems it solves - in the fetchmail
use case, which is typically download and remove from server.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-24 07:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87o92nnpcg.fsf@dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #27431 |
Carlos writes: > If you read the fetchmail manual, you will find they favour imap over > pop for a number of features and problems it solves - in the fetchmail > use case, which is typically download and remove from server. None that matter to me. My present setup works fine. If anything ever comes up I'll change. For now, it ain't broke. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-23 13:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <gn959gF8nplU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #27384 |
On 22/06/2019 06.59, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 6/21/19 6:03 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> You are right. There was (is) some software that does fidonet over
>> TCP, but it is rather "recent". This century or end of the XX. Let me
>> see, I must have it on this computer... Could be binkd for hpt. Long
>> time since last I used it. Confirm, it is binkd.
>
> I know of binkd, but I've never used it.
>
>> It still lives:
>
> :-)
>
>> Some of the links are dead, like the user guide.
>
> That happens.
>
> 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.
>> Mail and news, standard tcp/ip, not uucp on my time. I used fetchmail,
>> and initially sendmail. … For news, leafnode.
>
> Nice. So you were using standard internet protocols between your
> client(s) and a local server. I like it. :-)
>
>> … Most places accepted directly sent mail, till antispam measures
>> killed it and we had to use the ISPs. …
>
> Ya. I suspect you could have made it work by smart hosting through a
> well established email server, possibly your ISP.
One nuance with all Spain providers I know, is that they do not allow
sending of email with a "from" header that is not theirs. Thus, as I
have different email accounts, I could not use a single smarthost. So
for a while I was stuck. First I tried to mail directly, and if it
bounced, I used Thunderbird to send via the provider of that account.
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.
Ah, with a difference compared to other countries: I can send using the
standard SMTP port, which is blocked by providers on USA or Canada, for
instance. When I visited, I had to reconfigure to use the Delivery port
instead.
And that posed another problem, because my main local Spain provider
doesn't listen on the Deliver port and insists on the SMTP port - which
was blocked by Bell. So I could not send some mail while I was there...
>
> Relatively recent anti-spam techniques have made it harder, SPF, DKIM,
> DMARC, MTA-STS.
>
> But still possible.
Yes, maybe, but I have not bothered. :-)
>> Most Fidonet development switched to Russia, for some reason they were
>> interested. I lost contact when the the machine that powered the node I
>> used died. The sysop was an OS/2 fan, and said he could not manage to do
>> it in Linux, too difficult for him. Another sysop offered to give us
>> access, but I did not manage to configure it. He was using a
>> fidonet-nntp gateway, but with some incomplete software; needed auth
>> that failed with both Thunderbird and leafnode.
>
> I've heard that the Russians were interested in FidoNet and / or other
> FTNs from multiple sources. I've had one source tell me that's not the
> case. Though he was thinking I was talking about dial-up. I think a
> fair bit of FTN is done over TCP/IP now, possibly via anonymizing
> technologies like Tor (hidden services) / I2P.
I suspect that some used Fidonet technology with direct phone calls, and
outside of the Fidonet network, for mail outside of Internet scooping.
>> That's right, I used the time for a little browsing. I don't remember
>> if I automated the hanging at some point. That was long ago...
>
> Fair enough.
>
>> There was software that would establish a call when needed, and kill
>> it on no network activity, but that could be prohibitive here, because
>> call establishment was charged. And of course, I had to tell/ask my
>> roommates that I was going to connect.
>
> ACK
>
> I find it interesting to hear from people that lived through it, what
> they did, and why they did it. Thank you. :-)
Welcome :-)
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-23 11:50 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qeoe70$58h$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #27407 |
On 6/23/19 5:14 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote: > 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. ACK > One nuance with all Spain providers I know, is that they do not allow > sending of email with a "from" header that is not theirs. Did they only check if the From: header (and hopefully the SMTP envelope too) was in their domain(s)? Or did they also check to see if the From: header … was associated with the account you used to authenticate to their server(s)? (I'm assuming that you do authenticate to their server(s)) > Thus, as I have different email accounts, I could not use a single > smarthost. So for a while I was stuck. First I tried to mail directly, > and if it bounced, I used Thunderbird to send via the provider of > that account. That's annoying. > 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. ACK > Ah, with a difference compared to other countries: I can send using > the standard SMTP port, which is blocked by providers on USA or Canada, > for instance. When I visited, I had to reconfigure to use the Delivery > port instead. Ya. It's my understanding that a current best practice is for ISPs to filter traffic from residential IP space to TCP port 25. I /thought/ that this was becoming common around the world. > And that posed another problem, because my main local Spain provider > doesn't listen on the Deliver port and insists on the SMTP port - which > was blocked by Bell. So I could not send some mail while I was there... Oops! > Yes, maybe, but I have not bothered. :-) > > I suspect that some used Fidonet technology with direct phone calls, > and outside of the Fidonet network, for mail outside of Internet > scooping. That jives with what I've heard elsewhere. > Welcome :-) :-) -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-24 02:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <fqi5ufxmkn.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor> |
| In reply to | #27417 |
On 23/06/2019 19.50, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 6/23/19 5:14 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> 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.
>
> ACK
>
>> One nuance with all Spain providers I know, is that they do not allow
>> sending of email with a "from" header that is not theirs.
>
> Did they only check if the From: header (and hopefully the SMTP envelope
> too) was in their domain(s)?
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.
> Or did they also check to see if the From:
> header … was associated with the account you used to authenticate to
> their server(s)? (I'm assuming that you do authenticate to their
> server(s))
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.
>> Thus, as I have different email accounts, I could not use a single
>> smarthost. So for a while I was stuck. First I tried to mail directly,
>> and if it bounced, I used Thunderbird to send via the provider of that
>> account.
>
> That's annoying.
I was, yes.
>> 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.
>
> ACK
>
>> Ah, with a difference compared to other countries: I can send using
>> the standard SMTP port, which is blocked by providers on USA or
>> Canada, for instance. When I visited, I had to reconfigure to use the
>> Delivery port instead.
>
> Ya. It's my understanding that a current best practice is for ISPs to
> filter traffic from residential IP space to TCP port 25. I /thought/
> that this was becoming common around the world.
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. The policy is thus
"no filtering at all, we transmit everything".
>> And that posed another problem, because my main local Spain provider
>> doesn't listen on the Deliver port and insists on the SMTP port -
>> which was blocked by Bell. So I could not send some mail while I was
>> there...
>
> Oops!
Yep. It was interesting, in a way.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-30 15:08 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qfb8dc$6ua$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #27422 |
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. 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. > The policy is thus "no filtering at all, we transmit everything". That sounds like filtering of what makes it into / through the server. 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. > Yep. It was interesting, in a way. :-) -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-30 21:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kD9SE.83477$_%7.4186@fx21.am4> |
| 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. > > 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. Usually relaying is disabled, server accepts addresses only on this host. Also all dynamic ip addresses are blacklisted by default. > > 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. You can send anywhere from your ISP smtp server or gmail or whatever, but you have to have valid credentials. > >:-) > > > -- press any key to continue or any other to quit... U ničemu ja ne uživam kao u svom statusu INVALIDA -- Zli Zec Na divljem zapadu i nije bilo tako puno nasilja, upravo zato jer su svi bili naoruzani. -- Mladen Gogala
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-30 15:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qfb97i$h35$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #27484 |
On 6/30/19 3:14 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > Usually relaying is disabled, server accepts addresses only on this > host. That's Standard Operating Procedure to me. It probably qualifies as best practice too. The only common variance is allowing relay to specific domains when acting as a backup MX for them. > Also all dynamic ip addresses are blacklisted by default. I'd love to know how they detect /all/ dynamic IPs. I've seen various RBLs that list known dynamic IPs. I've seen filters to match naming patterns, frequently something along the lines of names containing <number><separator><number><separator><number><separator><number>. But that doesn't account for /all/ dynamic IPs. ;-) Probably many to most of them. > You can send anywhere from your ISP smtp server or gmail or whatever, > but you have to have valid credentials. That's the idea anyway. But as someone pointed out, they couldn't do that to their ISP when they were traveling abroad because where they were at was filtering the port used to connect to their ISP's mail server. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-30 21:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <E5aSE.188722$fw6.110573@fx29.am4> |
| In reply to | #27485 |
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. They don't individually rather known ranges. > > I've seen various RBLs that list known dynamic IPs. > > I've seen filters to match naming patterns, frequently something along > the lines of names containing ><number><separator><number><separator><number><separator><number>. > > But that doesn't account for /all/ dynamic IPs. ;-) Probably many to > most of them. Well, they try. > >> You can send anywhere from your ISP smtp server or gmail or whatever, >> but you have to have valid credentials. > > That's the idea anyway. > > 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. > > > -- press any key to continue or any other to quit... U ničemu ja ne uživam kao u svom statusu INVALIDA -- Zli Zec Na divljem zapadu i nije bilo tako puno nasilja, upravo zato jer su svi bili naoruzani. -- Mladen Gogala
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-07-01 08:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qfcf53$pbp$2@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org> |
| In reply to | #27485 |
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 -- When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web