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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #211099 > unrolled thread

Re: chromebook

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: chromebook Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-07-09 19:00 +0200
    Re: chromebook Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2019-07-10 02:20 +0200
    Re: chromebook John Crawley <john@bunsenlabs.org> - 2019-07-10 03:40 +0200
      Re: chromebook Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2019-07-10 06:30 +0200
        Re: chromebook Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-07-10 09:20 +0200
        Re: chromebook <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-07-10 09:30 +0200
          Re: chromebook Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2019-07-10 22:00 +0200
      Re: chromebook Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-07-10 08:40 +0200
        Re: chromebook Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-07-10 15:10 +0200
          Re: mutt vs HTML (was: chromebook) Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-07-10 16:10 +0200
        Re: HTML mail (was: chromebook) John Crawley <john@bunsenlabs.org> - 2019-07-11 05:50 +0200
          Re: HTML mail (was: chromebook) Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2019-07-11 08:30 +0200
            Re: HTML mail John Crawley <john@bunsenlabs.org> - 2019-07-11 09:00 +0200
              Re: HTML mail Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-07-11 09:20 +0200
              Re: HTML mail Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2019-07-11 09:20 +0200
                Re: HTML mail <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-07-11 10:10 +0200
                  Re: HTML mail Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2019-07-11 11:20 +0200
                    Re: HTML mail <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-07-11 11:40 +0200
                      Re: HTML mail Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2019-07-11 16:00 +0200
                        Re: HTML mail Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-07-11 16:10 +0200
                        Re: HTML mail Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2019-07-11 19:00 +0200
                        Re: HTML mail Carl Fink <carl@finknetwork.com> - 2019-07-11 20:20 +0200
                    Re: HTML mail John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-07-11 14:30 +0200
                      Re: HTML mail <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-07-11 14:50 +0200
                        Re: HTML mail Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-07-11 18:00 +0200
                        Re: HTML mail Thomas D Dial <tdial@acm.org> - 2019-07-11 21:30 +0200
                          Re: HTML mail tomas@tuxteam.de - 2019-07-12 09:30 +0200
                      Re: HTML mail Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2019-07-11 16:00 +0200
                      Re: HTML mail David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-07-11 17:20 +0200
                Re: HTML mail John Crawley <john@bunsenlabs.org> - 2019-07-11 13:20 +0200
    Re: chromebook Kenneth Parker <sea7kenp@gmail.com> - 2019-07-11 04:40 +0200
      Re: chromebook <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-07-11 10:30 +0200
        Re: Own MTA is hard (was: chromebook) Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-07-11 10:40 +0200
          Re: Own MTA is hard (was: chromebook) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-07-11 10:50 +0200
        Re: chromebook John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-07-11 18:40 +0200
          Re: chromebook <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-07-12 09:40 +0200
            Re: chromebook Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-07-12 10:00 +0200
              Re: chromebook <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-07-12 10:40 +0200
            [Off-topic] John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-07-12 16:00 +0200
              Re: [Off-topic] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-07-12 16:30 +0200
              Re: [Off-topic] Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-07-12 19:00 +0200
                Re: [Off-topic] Diagonal Arg <debian.org@niwas.net> - 2019-07-17 04:20 +0200
                  Re: [Off-topic] Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2019-07-17 18:30 +0200
      Re: chromebook rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-07-11 14:00 +0200
        Re: chromebook <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-07-11 14:50 +0200
          Re: chromebook Keith Bainbridge <keithrbau@gmail.com> - 2019-07-17 06:30 +0200
            Re: chromebook Diagonal Arg <debian.org@niwas.net> - 2019-07-17 06:50 +0200
              Re: chromebook <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-07-17 09:10 +0200

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#211241 — Re: HTML mail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Brad Rogers wrote:
> [...]
>
> By and large, people simply do not care.
> In fact, it seems most would rather have pretty than be safe.  For a
> certain value of 'safe', obviously.

There's a certain elegance to amber-on-black...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAl0nZnQACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooFFsAgAql4zXq5gTpQxdphtT7fC73k2o5T8hVubxSR8i78h0X6h5peKXeJ4kEEU
hpzAWE6kErSZhjfqAciYFTt1enVpScljRa7MuApkQgJHgpcKq2JSZldd8t072lEF
fH/7Lh5rpUyjA3G0ad48OFKzUzC/xMy+ag5ZSkcLMpRWHwr8d0EeDl9xNR2ECvON
mklRKyeBvLQSRdZgx73Wtc2iwwMnMnRcpOQxCTrhT6PprsOfzjfkfitUHyja+sQ5
FCuDs+U2j5R8JeuHe8ZcNz+LIXDyfbVTFl4fgcuG6J/fyyZsZAT5NS9TZmsMRB6o
coCIo4Ed7hkSbQB1B6GXiTxIA0SgYA==
=lysu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
|_|O|_| 
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

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

#211245 — Re: HTML mail

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 02:49:41PM +0100, Brad Rogers wrote:

> By and large, people simply do not care.
> In fact, it seems most would rather have pretty than be safe.  For a
> certain value of 'safe', obviously.

I think "convenient" more than "pretty". (This idea stolen from Bruce
Schneier.)
-- 
Carl Fink                           nitpicking@nitpicking.com 

Read John Grant's book, Corrupted Science: http://a.co/9UsUoGu 
Dedicated to ... Carl Fink!

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

#211217 — Re: HTML mail

Brad Rogers writes:
> Except that the worst offenders are commercial entities such google,
> ebay(1), all banks, amazon, etc, etc. ad nauseam.  *None* of them are
> going to remove HTML and/or CSS from their emails until something
> 'better'(2) comes along.

Some banks have found something "better".  Their emails contain a link
which automatically opens a page on their site in your browser (they
assume that everyone reads email in a browser, of course).  They claim
this is more secure.

Citi does this with emails inquiring about a possibly fraudulent
transaction.  If you kill the process as soon as you realize that
something in that email is trying to connect to something (as any sane
person would) they consider that you have authorized the transaction.

There is no point in complaining.  99% of users object to anything *but*
html mail.  Most don't know that anything else exists.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

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

#211220 — Re: HTML mail

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:26:00AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Brad Rogers writes:
> > Except that the worst offenders are commercial entities such google,
> > ebay(1), all banks, amazon, etc, etc. ad nauseam.  *None* of them are
> > going to remove HTML and/or CSS from their emails until something
> > 'better'(2) comes along.
> 
> Some banks have found something "better".  Their emails contain a link
> which automatically opens a page on their site in your browser (they
> assume that everyone reads email in a browser, of course).  They claim
> this is more secure.

Horrifying.

[...]

> There is no point in complaining.  99% of users object to anything *but*
> html mail.  Most don't know that anything else exists.

For me, that would be a reason to change the bank.

My bank offers a standardized protocol based on public key cryptography.
I can initiate a transaction (or fetch records) with a simple shell
script.

No browser involved.

Cheers
-- t

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

#211236 — Re: HTML mail

On Thursday 11 July 2019 08:46:48 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:26:00AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> > Brad Rogers writes:
> > > Except that the worst offenders are commercial entities such
> > > google, ebay(1), all banks, amazon, etc, etc. ad nauseam.  *None*
> > > of them are going to remove HTML and/or CSS from their emails
> > > until something 'better'(2) comes along.
> >
> > Some banks have found something "better".  Their emails contain a
> > link which automatically opens a page on their site in your browser
> > (they assume that everyone reads email in a browser, of course). 
> > They claim this is more secure.
>
> Horrifying.
>
> [...]
>
> > There is no point in complaining.  99% of users object to anything
> > *but* html mail.  Most don't know that anything else exists.
>
> For me, that would be a reason to change the bank.
>
And you would be amazed at the leverage a 5 digit account gives the 
disgruntled customer.  Do some shopping around, and don't be afraid to 
vote with your wallet.

> My bank offers a standardized protocol based on public key
> cryptography. I can initiate a transaction (or fetch records) with a
> simple shell script.
>
> No browser involved.
>
> Cheers
> -- t


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#211250 — Re: HTML mail

On Thu, 2019-07-11 at 14:46 +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:26:00AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> > Brad Rogers writes:
> > > Except that the worst offenders are commercial entities such
> > > google,
> > > ebay(1), all banks, amazon, etc, etc. ad nauseam.  *None* of them
> > > are
> > > going to remove HTML and/or CSS from their emails until something
> > > 'better'(2) comes along.
> > 
> > Some banks have found something "better".  Their emails contain a
> > link
> > which automatically opens a page on their site in your browser (they
> > assume that everyone reads email in a browser, of course).  They
> > claim
> > this is more secure.
> 
> Horrifying.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > There is no point in complaining.  99% of users object to anything
> > *but*
> > html mail.  Most don't know that anything else exists.
> 
> For me, that would be a reason to change the bank.
> 
> My bank offers a standardized protocol based on public key
> cryptography.
> I can initiate a transaction (or fetch records) with a simple shell
> script.
> 
> No browser involved.

Can you name the bank? It has annoyed me for between 20 and 30 years
that banks, generally, have avoided this obvious way to conduct business
with their customers in favor of more vulnerable methods pushed by their
enterprise IT suppliers.

Regards,
Tom Dial
> 
> Cheers
> -- t

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

#211273 — Re: HTML mail

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 01:00:11PM -0600, Thomas D Dial wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-07-11 at 14:46 +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

[...]

> > My bank offers a standardized protocol based on public key
> > cryptography.

[...]

> > No browser involved.
> 
> Can you name the bank? It has annoyed me for between 20 and 30 years
> that banks, generally, have avoided this obvious way to conduct business
> with their customers in favor of more vulnerable methods pushed by their
> enterprise IT suppliers.

Most probably it won't help you -- my guess is that we're at opposite
banks (heh) of the big pond. But FWIW, my bank is GLS bank [1] (which
specializes in ethical investment) and the mentined standard is
HBCI [2].

Cheers

[1] https://www.gls.de/privatkunden/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBCI

-- tomás

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

#211223 — Re: HTML mail

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 07:26:00 -0500
John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote:

Hello John,

>assume that everyone reads email in a browser, of course).  They claim
>this is more secure.

They can claim it, but they're wrong.  The safest, most secure way is to
send plain text, without any links at all.

Safer still;  Never send email.   :-)

-- 
 Regards  _
         / )           "The blindingly obvious is
        / _)rad        never immediately apparent"
He signed up for just three years, it seemed a small amount
Tin Soldiers - Stiff Little Fingers

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

#211229 — Re: HTML mail

On Thu 11 Jul 2019 at 07:26:00 (-0500), John Hasler wrote:
> Brad Rogers writes:
> > Except that the worst offenders are commercial entities such google,
> > ebay(1), all banks, amazon, etc, etc. ad nauseam.  *None* of them are
> > going to remove HTML and/or CSS from their emails until something
> > 'better'(2) comes along.
> 
> Some banks have found something "better".  Their emails contain a link
> which automatically opens a page on their site in your browser (they
> assume that everyone reads email in a browser, of course).  They claim
> this is more secure.

And if you don't open that link, they¹ assume you don't read their
emails at all. After a few months, they start sending emails
complaining about that, and threatening to stop sending you emails.

> Citi does this with emails inquiring about a possibly fraudulent
> transaction.  If you kill the process as soon as you realize that
> something in that email is trying to connect to something (as any sane
> person would) they consider that you have authorized the transaction.

I can't confirm that as they sent me a simultaneous text as well as
the email, so our dialogue was continued by text and then phone. (They
were extremely efficient, and I can't complain about their actions.)
But thanks for the heads-up.

> There is no point in complaining.  99% of users object to anything *but*
> html mail.  Most don't know that anything else exists.

¹ not Citi, thankfully.

Cheers,
David.

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

#211214 — Re: HTML mail

On 2019-07-11 16:10, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Jo, 11 iul 19, 15:52:56, John Crawley wrote:
>> On 2019-07-11 15:25, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>>> On Jo, 11 iul 19, 12:31:07, John Crawley wrote:
>>>> ...user agents that could deal with html in some sane way, and without
>>>> exposing the recipient to attacks. Simply not following any web links would
>>>> be enough I'd have thought? Or are there some more subtle attack paths?
>>>
>>> Yes, look up the EFAIL vulnerability (I posted a link in another
>>> message). It enabled a potential attacker to trick e-mail clients
>>> parsing html e-mail to decrypt an (old) encrypted message.
>>>
>>> In most cases users only had to open the message.
>> Since enforcing no-html, and particularly no-malevolent-html on all incoming
>> mail is not an option available to us, the only remaining choices for a
>> "good" MUA would then be:
>> A) Display html as-is, tags and all
>> B) Strip out the tags and display what's left, like html2text
>>
>> I think B) is the better option.
> 
> C) Treat *all* message parts as potentially harmful, not just some
> attachments. If additional parsing is needed (check signature, parse
> html, etc.) do so in a safe way.
> 
> Of course, this is not easy to do, especially if you insist on parsing
> all the bells and whistles in the html/css, which is probably why so
> many clients were vulnerable.

Fair enough. Easier if you don't insist on having all that stuff.
Thunderbird, anyway, let's you view message bodies as "Simple html", 
which I'm hoping avoids most of the vulnerabilities. Maybe it's 
something similar to the mutt/mailcap config Reco  posted earlier.

-- 
John

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

#211195

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 12:52 PM Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 06:48:22PM +0200, mjonsson1986@gmail.com wrote:
> > <html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="
> http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type
> content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft
> Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
>
> Please post only text, not HTML.  If your email agent *cannot* do plain
> text alone, at least configure it to send both plain text and HTML.  Or,
> y'know, get a better email agent.
>

As a Gmail User, but with a corporate (Universe?) email address (
sea7kenp@eyeblinkuniverse.com), running on a hosted Ubuntu 16.04.6 Server
with Exim4 4.86.2 running its Mail.  I administer it via ssh, and get email
via alpine 2.20.  I used to use that corporate email for my technical email
lists, until Gmail started putting MY OWN email into my Spam Folder.  I
just tried it now.  Google's Error message:  "Why is this message in spam?
It is in violation of Google's recommended sender guidelines",  So now,
Google is running the Internet?  Those Universe emails were DEFINITELY text
only!

I'm sorry to say:  This issue is bigger than a Bread Basket!

That said, I also would be interested in Booting a USB Stick on a
Chromebook.

Please give me feedback:  How badly did Gmail mangle my text?  Thanks!

Kenneth Parker

P.S.  Just for Grins, I'm going to enroll sea7kenp@eyeblinkuniverse.com
into the Debian Users list so I can participate in this text/html/Microsoft
Word issue.

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

#211208

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:33:58PM -0400, Kenneth Parker wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 12:52 PM Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 06:48:22PM +0200, mjonsson1986@gmail.com wrote:
> > > <html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> > xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="
> > http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type
> > content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft
> > Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
> >
> > Please post only text, not HTML.  If your email agent *cannot* do plain
> > text alone, at least configure it to send both plain text and HTML.  Or,
> > y'know, get a better email agent.
> >
> 
> As a Gmail User, but with a corporate (Universe?) email address (
> sea7kenp@eyeblinkuniverse.com), running on a hosted Ubuntu 16.04.6 Server
> with Exim4 4.86.2 running its Mail.  I administer it via ssh, and get email
> via alpine 2.20.  I used to use that corporate email for my technical email
> lists, until Gmail started putting MY OWN email into my Spam Folder.  I
> just tried it now.  Google's Error message:  "Why is this message in spam?
> It is in violation of Google's recommended sender guidelines",  So now,
> Google is running the Internet?  Those Universe emails were DEFINITELY text
> only!

Most probably you'll have to implement SPF and/or DKIM [1, 2]

I manage my own mail server. Because I Want To Know (TM).

As this was happening to me more and more (people "on" some variant of
googlemail, or hotmail/outlook/some other Microsoft mail thingy, etc.
not receiving my mails -- and digging further yes, receiving them in
their spam folders and thus not seeing them), I bit the bullet and
went for SPF/DKIM (I hadn't the guts for DMARC yet, I don't particularly
like that one).

I think bigcorps love that, because they hate the decentralized nature
of mail. Spam pressure plus measures making the live of small mail
providers help centralization.

And this spam folder thingy was too tasty to pass on: SMTP RFCs
force you to either deliver a mail or bounce it [3]. Since bouncing
has become unattractive (cf. backscatter spam), the temptation to
silently drop things was high, but not permitted by RFC. Ha! Deliver
to a spam folder and tell the users that it is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS to
"open" a spam mail, heck, it's even dangerous to sneeze in the general
direction of your spam folder [4] -- Tada! "no, we don't drop any mail,
missus, we deliver it. It's the user who's doing that".

This is what I call Emergent Evil. I thon't think there's a single
person out there scheming out those things, but a corporation as
a whole does come up with that kind of perverse behaviour.

Of course, most of the spam I receive these days (i do look into
my spam from time to time :-) has correct SPF and DKIM records :-/

Cheers

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Policy_Framework
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DKIM
[3] There's also reject at the DATA phase, which is quite attractive
   for smaller sites.
[4] Of course, if your MUA "opens" HTML mails and Word attachments...

-- tomás

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

#211209 — Re: Own MTA is hard (was: chromebook)

	Hi.

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:22:40AM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:33:58PM -0400, Kenneth Parker wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 12:52 PM Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 06:48:22PM +0200, mjonsson1986@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > <html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> > > xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="
> > > http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="
> > > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type
> > > content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft
> > > Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
> > >
> > > Please post only text, not HTML.  If your email agent *cannot* do plain
> > > text alone, at least configure it to send both plain text and HTML.  Or,
> > > y'know, get a better email agent.
> > >
> > 
> > As a Gmail User, but with a corporate (Universe?) email address (
> > sea7kenp@eyeblinkuniverse.com), running on a hosted Ubuntu 16.04.6 Server
> > with Exim4 4.86.2 running its Mail.  I administer it via ssh, and get email
> > via alpine 2.20.  I used to use that corporate email for my technical email
> > lists, until Gmail started putting MY OWN email into my Spam Folder.  I
> > just tried it now.  Google's Error message:  "Why is this message in spam?
> > It is in violation of Google's recommended sender guidelines",  So now,
> > Google is running the Internet?  Those Universe emails were DEFINITELY text
> > only!
> 
> Most probably you'll have to implement SPF and/or DKIM [1, 2]

Both, and a DMARC too. Also, valid PTR records. While not required by
any RFC, valid PTRs are considered mandatory by some big players like
GMail.


> As this was happening to me more and more (people "on" some variant of
> googlemail, or hotmail/outlook/some other Microsoft mail thingy, etc.
> not receiving my mails -- and digging further yes, receiving them in
> their spam folders and thus not seeing them), I bit the bullet and
> went for SPF/DKIM (I hadn't the guts for DMARC yet, I don't particularly
> like that one).

DKIM is very straightforward. There are some "gotchas" if you're sending
mails to the maillists - some maillists just love to modify arbitrary
e-mail headers, which leads to failed DKIM checks - but they can be
solved.

Reco

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

#211210 — Re: Own MTA is hard (was: chromebook)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 11:34:53AM +0300, Reco wrote:
> 	Hi.
> 
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:22:40AM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

[...]

> > Most probably you'll have to implement SPF and/or DKIM [1, 2]
> 
> Both, and a DMARC too. Also, valid PTR records. While not required by
> any RFC, valid PTRs are considered mandatory by some big players like
> GMail.

You're possibly right. As I said, I could get by without DMARC yet,
but we're not done (we're never done, are we ;-)

[...]

> DKIM is very straightforward. There are some "gotchas" if you're sending
> mails to the maillists - some maillists just love to modify arbitrary
> e-mail headers, which leads to failed DKIM checks - but they can be
> solved.

And for SPF you've got to have some control over your DNS records,
which, depending on your hoster (or registrar) may get "interesting".

Same for DMARC.

Cheers
-- t

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

#211240

tomas writes:
> I think bigcorps love that, because they hate the decentralized nature
> of mail.

I don't think they care (except that they don't want one of their
competitors in control).  Government hates it, of course.  It would have
been easy to adopt anti-spam measures that would have made what you do
impossible, but it wasn't done.

> Spam pressure plus measures making the live of small mail providers
> [difficult] help centralization.

This is true.  People also seem to like centralization, unfortunately.

> This is what I call Emergent Evil. I thon't think there's a single
> person out there scheming out those things, but a corporation as a
> whole does come up with that kind of perverse behaviour.

Better "emergent evil" (I've seen the term elsewhere) than the "devil"
theory but I don't think it is useful to talk about evil at all.  They
are just people doing what works for them (even in government, the
biggest and most powerful bigcorp of all).

-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

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

#211274

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 11:34:01AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> tomas writes:
> > I think bigcorps love that, because they hate the decentralized nature
> > of mail.
> 
> I don't think they care (except that they don't want one of their
> competitors in control). 

Oh, they do. You can't easily monetize mail (the interfaces are standard,
for a consumer it's easy to change providers), whereas with whichever
"platform" (Facebook, LinkedIn, Slack, Google+, younameit) the audience
is captive: changing provider means giving up on your network.

>                          Government hates it, of course.  It would have
> been easy to adopt anti-spam measures that would have made what you do
> impossible, but it wasn't done.

I have the impression you're being blindsided by ideology there. To me,
Bigcorp is like state (minus First Amendment).

> > Spam pressure plus measures making the live of small mail providers
> > [difficult] help centralization.
> 
> This is true.  People also seem to like centralization, unfortunately.
> 
> > This is what I call Emergent Evil. I thon't think there's a single
> > person out there scheming out those things, but a corporation as a
> > whole does come up with that kind of perverse behaviour.
> 
> Better "emergent evil" (I've seen the term elsewhere) than the "devil"
> theory but I don't think it is useful to talk about evil at all.  They
> are just people doing what works for them (even in government, the
> biggest and most powerful bigcorp of all).

I had early and intense religious education. Not trying to offend
anyone, but I had my share of devil and then some. These days I
prefer to make do without :-)

Cheers
-- t

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

#211275

On 2019-07-12, <tomas@tuxteam.de> <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
>
>
> I have the impression you're being blindsided by ideology there. To me,

C’est l’hôpital qui se moque de la charité.

-- 
“We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.” 
― Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan

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

#211282

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 07:57:33AM -0000, Curt wrote:
> On 2019-07-12, <tomas@tuxteam.de> <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I have the impression you're being blindsided by ideology there. To me,
> 
> C’est l’hôpital qui se moque de la charité.

:-)

But still, *my* ideology is right and *yours* is wrong ;-P

Cheers
-- t

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

#211299 — [Off-topic]

tomas writes:
> You can't easily monetize mail (the interfaces are standard, for a
> consumer it's easy to change providers)

Gmail.  The only interface that matters to most people is the user
interface they see in their browser and that is not standardized.

> I have the impression you're being blindsided by ideology there.

I don't suffer from that disease (which is pretty much the same as
religion).

> To me, Bigcorp is like state (minus First Amendment).

Businesses don't have armies.

> I had early and intense religious education.  Not trying to offend
> anyone, but I had my share of devil and then some. These days I prefer
> to make do without

If you still believe in evil you haven't entirely overcome your
religious indoctrination.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

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

#211300 — Re: [Off-topic]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 08:52:57AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> tomas writes:
> > You can't easily monetize mail (the interfaces are standard, for a
> > consumer it's easy to change providers)
> 
> Gmail.  The only interface that matters to most people is the user
> interface they see in their browser and that is not standardized.
> 
> > I have the impression you're being blindsided by ideology there.
> 
> I don't suffer from that disease (which is pretty much the same as
> religion).

Famous Last Words (TM).

> > To me, Bigcorp is like state (minus First Amendment).
> 
> Businesses don't have armies.

Says who?

> > I had early and intense religious education.  Not trying to offend
> > anyone, but I had my share of devil and then some. These days I prefer
> > to make do without
> 
> If you still believe in evil you haven't entirely overcome your
> religious indoctrination.

Of course I don't believe in "evil". What's there to believe in?
Still there are actions I'd describe as evil. It's a useful
adjective, as are "red" or "bitter" or "tenuous".

Cheers
-- t

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web