* [Cerowrt-devel] Dave needs to get better at pushing out patches @ 2011-12-08 10:16 Dave Taht 2011-12-08 11:55 ` david 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Dave Taht @ 2011-12-08 10:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cerowrt, cerowrt-devel The overhead of formatting a patch properly is trivial. Getting a patch set into thunderbird or the web so totally dwarfs the tedium of actually creating the patch, it's unbelievable. I have a string of mostly trivial patches I could have got out ages ago with git send-email. I could slam out patches every day that way and be a zillion times more effective coding-wise. All year I have tried to get to where I could send email effectively from the command line on my laptop or wherever, and today's email server setups have become so complex that I have completely failed to find a way to so. (I note that I am frequently offline and need to be able to do it from my main development box, my laptop, and I have been highly mobile of late) I recently spent most of a day trying to get bufferbloat.net's email server to take email from me, using sasl, or certs, and failed entirely. I've been running my own email servers for 3 decades now, It's both embarrassing to me and unbelievable how difficult it's become to use such a basic transport. And I USED to read my email with emacs. I liked it. I was FAR more productive switching from code to irc to email to patches and back when I didn't have to run tools like a browser and thunderbird all the time. -- Dave Täht SKYPE: davetaht US Tel: 1-239-829-5608 FR Tel: 0638645374 http://www.bufferbloat.net ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Dave needs to get better at pushing out patches 2011-12-08 10:16 [Cerowrt-devel] Dave needs to get better at pushing out patches Dave Taht @ 2011-12-08 11:55 ` david 2011-12-08 12:06 ` Dave Taht 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: david @ 2011-12-08 11:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Taht; +Cc: cerowrt, cerowrt-devel On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Dave Taht wrote: > The overhead of formatting a patch properly is trivial. > > Getting a patch set into thunderbird or the web so totally dwarfs the > tedium of actually creating the patch, it's unbelievable. > > I have a string of mostly trivial patches I could have got out ages > ago with git send-email. I could slam out patches every day that way > and be a zillion times more effective coding-wise. > > All year I have tried to get to where I could send email effectively > from the command line on my laptop or wherever, and today's email > server setups have become so complex that I have completely failed to > find a way to so. (I note that I am frequently offline and need to be > able to do it from my main development box, my laptop, and I have been > highly mobile of late) > > I recently spent most of a day trying to get bufferbloat.net's email > server to take email from me, using sasl, or certs, and failed > entirely. > > I've been running my own email servers for 3 decades now, It's both > embarrassing to me and unbelievable how difficult it's become to use > such a basic transport. > > And I USED to read my email with emacs. I liked it. I was FAR more > productive switching from code to irc to email to patches and back > when I didn't have to run tools like a browser and thunderbird all the > time. as a holdout pine user I understand your frustration :-) have you considered doing something like setting up openvpn to connect to the bufferbloat.net server and then configuring the mail server to trust mail arriving form the VPN clients? I know this is horrible overkill for such a trivial job, but it avoids all the problems of doing authentication for the SMTP connection (and the fact that many locations block outbound connections from dhcp addresses to port 25) David Lang ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Dave needs to get better at pushing out patches 2011-12-08 11:55 ` david @ 2011-12-08 12:06 ` Dave Taht 2011-12-08 12:18 ` david 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Dave Taht @ 2011-12-08 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: david; +Cc: cerowrt-devel On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 12:55 PM, <david@lang.hm> wrote: > On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Dave Taht wrote: > >> The overhead of formatting a patch properly is trivial. >> >> Getting a patch set into thunderbird or the web so totally dwarfs the >> tedium of actually creating the patch, it's unbelievable. >> >> I have a string of mostly trivial patches I could have got out ages >> ago with git send-email. I could slam out patches every day that way >> and be a zillion times more effective coding-wise. >> >> All year I have tried to get to where I could send email effectively >> from the command line on my laptop or wherever, and today's email >> server setups have become so complex that I have completely failed to >> find a way to so. (I note that I am frequently offline and need to be >> able to do it from my main development box, my laptop, and I have been >> highly mobile of late) >> >> I recently spent most of a day trying to get bufferbloat.net's email >> server to take email from me, using sasl, or certs, and failed >> entirely. >> >> I've been running my own email servers for 3 decades now, It's both >> embarrassing to me and unbelievable how difficult it's become to use >> such a basic transport. >> >> And I USED to read my email with emacs. I liked it. I was FAR more >> productive switching from code to irc to email to patches and back >> when I didn't have to run tools like a browser and thunderbird all the >> time. > > > as a holdout pine user I understand your frustration :-) > > have you considered doing something like setting up openvpn to connect to > the bufferbloat.net server and then configuring the mail server to trust > mail arriving form the VPN clients? > > I know this is horrible overkill for such a trivial job, but it avoids all > the problems of doing authentication for the SMTP connection (and the fact > that many locations block outbound connections from dhcp addresses to port > 25) Both 25 and VPNs are blocked at lincs. 567 works. Neither certs nor sasl from postfix worked. So far I've figured out That the last 'update' from ubuntu wiped out my certs on my main email box. That dovecot sieve sucks compared to procmail that they've created a new abstraction for mail handling for doing sasl that doesn't want to work and I forget what else. I mean, mail used to 'just work'. Even with bang paths it would mostly just work. Nowadays you have to be a rocket scientist to run your own server, and damn it, I LIKE running my own mail server. Or at least, I used to. > > David Lang -- Dave Täht SKYPE: davetaht US Tel: 1-239-829-5608 FR Tel: 0638645374 http://www.bufferbloat.net ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Dave needs to get better at pushing out patches 2011-12-08 12:06 ` Dave Taht @ 2011-12-08 12:18 ` david 2011-12-08 12:39 ` Dave Taht 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: david @ 2011-12-08 12:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Taht; +Cc: cerowrt-devel On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Dave Taht wrote: >> as a holdout pine user I understand your frustration :-) >> >> have you considered doing something like setting up openvpn to connect to >> the bufferbloat.net server and then configuring the mail server to trust >> mail arriving form the VPN clients? >> >> I know this is horrible overkill for such a trivial job, but it avoids all >> the problems of doing authentication for the SMTP connection (and the fact >> that many locations block outbound connections from dhcp addresses to port >> 25) > > Both 25 and VPNs are blocked at lincs. 567 works. Neither certs nor > sasl from postfix worked. So far I've figured out openvpn works over any port you want. now, as a security person I am going to point out that you should not break the security of a company network by establishing a VPN that bypasses the security controls. but if it's just a careless network config (they allow anyone to connect to it, but then block specific ports outbound), I feel no guilt over establishing connections over oddball ports :-) I just took an openvpn class, and one of the upcoming features is the ability for openvpn to work over ping, so I'll bet that you can make it work (odds are really good that it will work over port 443 from just about anywhere, and anyone who has security setup well enough that you can't do it over 443 is probably a place where youreally shouldn't be doing it anywhay :-) > That the last 'update' from ubuntu wiped out my certs on my main > email box. > > That dovecot sieve sucks compared to procmail > > that they've created a new abstraction for mail handling > for doing sasl that doesn't want to work > > and I forget what else. > > I mean, mail used to 'just work'. Even with bang > paths it would mostly just work. Nowadays you have > to be a rocket scientist to run your own server, > and damn it, I LIKE running my own mail server. > > Or at least, I used to. It's not quite that bad, but yes, the spammers have required significant changes. If the problem is doing this from one particular network (and one that you trust to be sane, like your office), why not just configure the mail server to allow unauthenticated mail from that IP (or IP range)? David Lang ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Dave needs to get better at pushing out patches 2011-12-08 12:18 ` david @ 2011-12-08 12:39 ` Dave Taht 2011-12-08 12:54 ` david 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Dave Taht @ 2011-12-08 12:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: david; +Cc: cerowrt-devel On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 1:18 PM, <david@lang.hm> wrote: > On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Dave Taht wrote: > >>> as a holdout pine user I understand your frustration :-) >>> >>> have you considered doing something like setting up openvpn to connect to >>> the bufferbloat.net server and then configuring the mail server to trust >>> mail arriving form the VPN clients? >>> >>> I know this is horrible overkill for such a trivial job, but it avoids >>> all >>> the problems of doing authentication for the SMTP connection (and the >>> fact >>> that many locations block outbound connections from dhcp addresses to >>> port >>> 25) >> >> >> Both 25 and VPNs are blocked at lincs. 567 works. Neither certs nor >> sasl from postfix worked. So far I've figured out > > > openvpn works over any port you want. udp is completely blocked here. a tcp implementation of openvpn works, but at 170ms latencies, it's pretty horrible, and I don't know if openvpn can do both udp and tcp at the same time. > > now, as a security person I am going to point out that you should not break > the security of a company network by establishing a VPN that bypasses the > security controls. I'm not into that too. > > but if it's just a careless network config (they allow anyone to connect to > it, but then block specific ports outbound), I feel no guilt over > establishing connections over oddball ports :-) No, they are highly paranoid here. They have grad students to cope with, and after exposure to them, I kind of understand. I can get stuff out to the submit port, and it's just remote auth that's failing me. I'm getting there, but I've had to yank out a lot of hair so far. (thx for listening) > > I just took an openvpn class, and one of the upcoming features is the > ability for openvpn to work over ping, so I'll bet that you can make it work Heh. Even tunneling over DNS is blocked. I had never heard of someone using ping before now. > (odds are really good that it will work over port 443 from just about > anywhere, and anyone who has security setup well enough that you can't do it > over 443 is probably a place where youreally shouldn't be doing it anywhay > :-) 443 is kind of in use on all servers I have. > > >> That the last 'update' from ubuntu wiped out my certs on my main >> email box. >> >> That dovecot sieve sucks compared to procmail >> >> that they've created a new abstraction for mail handling >> for doing sasl that doesn't want to work >> >> and I forget what else. >> >> I mean, mail used to 'just work'. Even with bang >> paths it would mostly just work. Nowadays you have >> to be a rocket scientist to run your own server, >> and damn it, I LIKE running my own mail server. >> >> Or at least, I used to. > > > It's not quite that bad, but yes, the spammers have required significant > changes. If postel had lived, he'd have found a solution. > > If the problem is doing this from one particular network (and one that you > trust to be sane, like your office), why not just configure the mail server > to allow unauthenticated mail from that IP (or IP range)? Not going to be at this office much longer, am mostly on the road. > > David Lang -- Dave Täht SKYPE: davetaht US Tel: 1-239-829-5608 FR Tel: 0638645374 http://www.bufferbloat.net ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Dave needs to get better at pushing out patches 2011-12-08 12:39 ` Dave Taht @ 2011-12-08 12:54 ` david 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: david @ 2011-12-08 12:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Taht; +Cc: cerowrt-devel On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Dave Taht wrote: > On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 1:18 PM, <david@lang.hm> wrote: >> On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Dave Taht wrote: >> >>>> as a holdout pine user I understand your frustration :-) >>>> >>>> have you considered doing something like setting up openvpn to connect to >>>> the bufferbloat.net server and then configuring the mail server to trust >>>> mail arriving form the VPN clients? >>>> >>>> I know this is horrible overkill for such a trivial job, but it avoids >>>> all >>>> the problems of doing authentication for the SMTP connection (and the >>>> fact >>>> that many locations block outbound connections from dhcp addresses to >>>> port >>>> 25) >>> >>> >>> Both 25 and VPNs are blocked at lincs. 567 works. Neither certs nor >>> sasl from postfix worked. So far I've figured out >> >> >> openvpn works over any port you want. > > udp is completely blocked here. a tcp implementation of openvpn works, > but at 170ms latencies, it's pretty horrible, and I don't know if > openvpn can do both udp and tcp at the same time. I don't think a single connection can do both, but if all you really need to do is to send e-mail, why do you care what the latency is? it could be 1000ms and you would probably barely notice. I'm not saying that you need to use this VPN for all your communications, you can setup a VPN connection that only routes the traffic to the server over it, and the 'server' can be a separate RFC IP address bound to loopback that you only use for mail delivery. this would let you use normal SSH and everything else to the server's public IP address(es) without the overhad of the VPN. >> but if it's just a careless network config (they allow anyone to connect to >> it, but then block specific ports outbound), I feel no guilt over >> establishing connections over oddball ports :-) > > No, they are highly paranoid here. They have grad students to cope with, > and after exposure to them, I kind of understand. > > I can get stuff out to the submit port, and it's just remote auth that's > failing me. I'm getting there, but I've had to yank out a lot of hair so > far. unless you are worried about other grad students using the server to send spam, just establish trust for your IP range and disable the authentication for that range. David Lang > (thx for listening) >> >> I just took an openvpn class, and one of the upcoming features is the >> ability for openvpn to work over ping, so I'll bet that you can make it work > > Heh. Even tunneling over DNS is blocked. I had never heard of someone > using ping before now. > > >> (odds are really good that it will work over port 443 from just about >> anywhere, and anyone who has security setup well enough that you can't do it >> over 443 is probably a place where youreally shouldn't be doing it anywhay >> :-) > > 443 is kind of in use on all servers I have. >> >> >>> That the last 'update' from ubuntu wiped out my certs on my main >>> email box. >>> >>> That dovecot sieve sucks compared to procmail >>> >>> that they've created a new abstraction for mail handling >>> for doing sasl that doesn't want to work >>> >>> and I forget what else. >>> >>> I mean, mail used to 'just work'. Even with bang >>> paths it would mostly just work. Nowadays you have >>> to be a rocket scientist to run your own server, >>> and damn it, I LIKE running my own mail server. >>> >>> Or at least, I used to. >> >> >> It's not quite that bad, but yes, the spammers have required significant >> changes. > > If postel had lived, he'd have found a solution. > >> >> If the problem is doing this from one particular network (and one that you >> trust to be sane, like your office), why not just configure the mail server >> to allow unauthenticated mail from that IP (or IP range)? > > Not going to be at this office much longer, am mostly on the road. > > >> >> David Lang > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-12-08 12:54 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2011-12-08 10:16 [Cerowrt-devel] Dave needs to get better at pushing out patches Dave Taht 2011-12-08 11:55 ` david 2011-12-08 12:06 ` Dave Taht 2011-12-08 12:18 ` david 2011-12-08 12:39 ` Dave Taht 2011-12-08 12:54 ` david
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox