|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 40 responses total. |
veek
|
|
response 7 of 40:
| 
Feb 5 14:39 UTC 2010 |
well.. it's a cool offer, but.. what if you install a nasty password
logger and we get the law suits. Sue me, I'm a pauper (and long
distance doesn't work all that great anyway) but *ahem* certain fat-
cats within range of the toasty flames.. aren't quite likely to err..
purr.. :p
Anyway, the hard part is not perl and the policyserver.. it's getting
SASL to work with our password file. basically from what I could make
of it, there's plain text SASL (sent over encrypted TLS/SSL) so the
server(Postfix, saslauthd) sees your plain-text password.. and then it
authenticates using PAM - it sounds very complicated.. too many daemons
in-between for Daltenus to toy with, but it's secure.
the easy way is maintain a separate mail-passwd file that postfix can
read.. but i'm not so keen on this.. the first method allows ppl to
really use cyberspace for email from anywhere with bandwidth limiting
quotas (size field is also sent).. but it looks scary.
|
tonster
|
|
response 8 of 40:
|
Feb 5 14:49 UTC 2010 |
resp:7: I don't see that as being any different really than any other
root on m-net or grex. anyone could install a password logger, hell
anyone could send spam or email from grex or mnet as anyone for that
matter.
Everything you're discussing seems like a ton of work for little or no
real benefit for most users.
|
veek
|
|
response 9 of 40:
|
Feb 5 17:46 UTC 2010 |
I'll be doing most of the work initially.. how much time can staff
spare once it's ready to install - 2hrs?? How much time to maintain/
month?? It's not like we are on a clock here.. right now we have 0 mail.
with the new proposal.. given certain reasonable conditions.. spam=0
and internal-spam=0 (cdalten type hosing) that's still subject to my
own limited knowledge on the subject!!
basically, all i'm asking you to quantify right away is: how much time
can staff spare for maintaining mail and installation of the new
proposal?? (once the proposal is ready)
I'm okay with your proposal(as a lay user) if you can swing it, but
until then is this okay???
|
tsty
|
|
response 10 of 40:
|
Feb 7 17:24 UTC 2010 |
veek - i;ve been reading htis .. wans;t gong to die a cold clammy death
but i ;m not a coder so about al i could do is cheer from the siddelines.
however ... i thik it woud be well wirth trying ... expecially since
yo ovlunteered and this a a volunterer system. enthusiaasm and will adn
teh sense of accoplishment really go a long way.
and besides, you;ll be a better coder afterwords with someting else to
show for yourself, which is a GoodThing (tm) imo.
also one one of my other accoutns, i can try it out in my dumb-user mode.
|
veek
|
|
response 11 of 40:
|
Feb 8 10:16 UTC 2010 |
hey TS, dank you. Purrl makes most things easy :) :) *groan* now if
only my flu would disappear.. i fell sick *duh*
|
tsty
|
|
response 12 of 40:
|
Feb 8 20:55 UTC 2010 |
on qustoin/statemnt at lsat night;'s baord meeting was that if this were
to be iplemented, that it wouild be -system wide- w/o exception.
a complete and toatl filt er for -everyone- is not necesarily good.
other sites have individually configaurable filtering in addition to the
segregation of wht the 'system' thinks is spam/etc.
if that arrangement is avaialble with what you prppoose, i could suppport
it. it might mean two mailboxes, one: spam from system filter + pserosonaly
filtered and, two: email that passed both sets of filters.
reaction(s)?
|
tonster
|
|
response 13 of 40:
|
Feb 8 22:10 UTC 2010 |
veeks suggesting some totally custom-written filter solution that would
be configurable for each individual user, basically with whitelists
and/or blacklists of users to allow to email you. My thought is that
this is something that's custom made and could be a pain to troubleshoot
on a system that already has a hard time getting things fixed. Once
it's implemented and veek says 'it works for me!' I question who will
track down issues where people say 'i'm not getting my email!' and 'how
do I set this up?'.
|
cross
|
|
response 14 of 40:
|
Feb 8 22:32 UTC 2010 |
Isn't this already built into postfix?
|
tonster
|
|
response 15 of 40:
|
Feb 8 22:46 UTC 2010 |
the ability to do it is, but he's talking about writing a custom filter
to do parts of it with the policyd functionality. at least, that's how
I understand what he's talking about doing.
|
veek
|
|
response 16 of 40:
|
Feb 9 05:32 UTC 2010 |
Re #12: yup it's system-wide but configurable on a user basis. There's
no system-wide blacklisting and 2 inboxes.. instead, anyone not in your
white-list is REJECT-ed UNLESS staff has given you permissions to get
ALL mail.. in which case you can have 2 inboxes and blacklisting.
Re #13: we could always turn it off and go back to no mail if it's too
much of a pain. I'm okay with anything so long as we get mail.. it's up
to you guys to decide what you'd like to try. If the board is willing
to migrate email to tonsters box.. that would be the easiest and
quickest. I don't think the current proposal is more complicated than
installing postgrey/policyd.. worst comes to worst we shut it down.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 17 of 40:
|
Feb 9 06:23 UTC 2010 |
What I would like is an option to to put an e-mail address in a filter
while reading e-mail. It shouldn't require setting up a separate filter
file.
|
tsty
|
|
response 18 of 40:
|
Feb 10 15:54 UTC 2010 |
one way to do that .. even now .. is ctrl-z (suspend) add whtaever
to your filter and tehn fg (go back to previous activity) and
contimue apace . however, separate filter files, white/black i
strognly suspect are necessary no matter what ... but i could be wroing.
|
veek
|
|
response 19 of 40:
|
Feb 10 17:09 UTC 2010 |
TS, this solution is not meant to be perfect. It's just meant to turn a
totally imperfect solution into something that is slightly better.
What whitelisting implies is that: If a stranger (good or bad) tries to
contact you on cyberspace it will be bounced because we have no way of
telling for sure if he's good or bad. There are ways to give you more
control and permit strangers to contact you - like getting him to add
himself to your whitelist, prior to mailing you, the way Jan has done
(via the web).
http://unixpapa.com/white.cgi Which is why I wanted a more personal web-
URL.
If we permit blacklisting, we'd still need SASL for outbound so it
would stop/rate-limit SPAM originating from Grex BUT it does nothing
for incoming SPAM which could fill our mail queue??
|
rcurl
|
|
response 20 of 40:
|
Feb 10 19:25 UTC 2010 |
Re #18: how about a script that does all that for me? Anyway, I didn't mean
that there isn't a filter file - there has to be - but that I don't have to
do the writing to it.
|
veek
|
|
response 21 of 40:
|
Feb 10 21:58 UTC 2010 |
that you could :) basically it should be possible to parse your Pine?
address-book for email addresses and just dump everything into sekret
whitelist. The reason I'm emphasizing this is because you got to
understand one thing.. if you receive mail from ID: 'wife@yahoo.com'
AND if someone who dislikes you gets hold of this email-ID, well he
could fake mail and hose your INBOX. If there is a quota implemented on
messages received/day (there will be) then legit mail will bounce as a
result.
|
tsty
|
|
response 22 of 40:
|
Feb 11 05:42 UTC 2010 |
yeh, well, the risk of taht spam is someting we'd ahve to live with.
imo, extermenly low probablility,
|
kentn
|
|
response 23 of 40:
|
Feb 24 03:29 UTC 2010 |
Are there any further comments or discussion of this proposed whitelisting
solution?
|
tsty
|
|
response 24 of 40:
|
Feb 26 06:26 UTC 2010 |
i iike veek;s ideas --- fwiw. creating an ooption is hte only bugaboo
that could arise, imo.
|
richard
|
|
response 25 of 40:
|
Feb 26 18:27 UTC 2010 |
Whitelisting is not necessary. Grex should simply do away with the
mail server altogether. It is clearly not necessary for Grex to offer
free email anymore.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 26 of 40:
|
Feb 26 20:34 UTC 2010 |
It's not /necessary/ for us to do anything.
|
kentn
|
|
response 27 of 40:
|
Feb 26 22:47 UTC 2010 |
Okay, so what would be some services to offer that Grex users would
appreciate?
In my opinion, even though e-mail is available elsewhere, it is still
very handy for communicating with staff and others when on Grex without
the need to go elsewhere to send a message. Having people go elsewhere
to do things is apt to mean they get in the habit of not using Grex for
anything.
|
tsty
|
|
response 28 of 40:
|
Feb 26 22:47 UTC 2010 |
re 25 . sorry richard , your blineders are too tight ... grex actualyy
does need to offer email. it is not necesary, howeer, for yo to suggest
sttrangling grex services ... and grex,.
|
tonster
|
|
response 29 of 40:
|
Feb 27 00:30 UTC 2010 |
I'd be curious to know why grex NEEDS to offer email. m-net survived
for several years without offering email and few people complained. I
brought it back up a few weeks ago and so far over 60 people have signed
up, so there is a desire to have an address, but I don't think it's an
essential component. That said, I agree it's a nice thing to offer and
that's why I've offered to host email similarly. veek has offered
another method, which while it's not the method I'd use, I can't fault
him for wanting to do it that way and it's another option.
|
richard
|
|
response 30 of 40:
|
Feb 27 03:54 UTC 2010 |
perhaps grex could simply eliminate offsite email. Maintain email for
communicating betweem users of this site only. surely ts that is the
only need for grex to offer email to communicate with its users.
please do tell for what other purpose grex must offer email?
|
veek
|
|
response 31 of 40:
|
Feb 27 06:28 UTC 2010 |
1. Guy who wants to learn UNIX, check mail headers, telnet port 25,
type commands, and try the various Postfix commands.
2. DIY guy has a bunch of friends in the DIY community that he wants to
keep in touch with BUT doesn't want to create a Yahoo account - he
invites them over to Grex and uses party, bbs and.. grex mail to keep
in touch.
3. Free publicity for Grex. People exchange email ID's all the time and
that clues other ppl in.
|