On Mar 17, 2022, at 7:26 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> My script is in the process of being extended to also deal with apcupsd
> and that seems to have different variables, like timeleft in minutes
> instead of runtime in seconds. It seems obvious to me that I should
> bring things into a common
On 3/20/2022 2:15 PM, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
On 3/20/22 22:02, gene heskett wrote:
...
Even better, hide your local network by getting a good router, reflashing
it to something like dd-wrt or its ilk, and using it to NAT your local
net somewhere in the 192.168.xxx.yyy address space but which
On 3/21/22 01:44, Greg Troxel wrote:
Jim Klimov writes:
As for "how much NUT" is doing, it depends :)
For many of the values where mapping tables are involved, it just reads
some number or string from the protocol encapsulation (usb-hid, snmp,
netxml...) and passes it on. However, that
On 3/21/22 00:41, Greg Troxel wrote:
Manuel Wolfshant writes:
Connected to outlook-com.olc.protection.outlook.com..
Escape character is '^]'.
220 VE1EUR03FT022.mail.protection.outlook.com Microsoft ESMTP MAIL
Service ready at Sun, 20 Mar 2022 22:20:44 +
|_ssl-date:
Jim Klimov writes:
> As for "how much NUT" is doing, it depends :)
>
> For many of the values where mapping tables are involved, it just reads
> some number or string from the protocol encapsulation (usb-hid, snmp,
> netxml...) and passes it on. However, that entry's mapping may also involve
>
Manuel Wolfshant writes:
> Connected to outlook-com.olc.protection.outlook.com..
> Escape character is '^]'.
> 220 VE1EUR03FT022.mail.protection.outlook.com Microsoft ESMTP MAIL
> Service ready at Sun, 20 Mar 2022 22:20:44 +
>
> |_ssl-date: 2022-03-20T22:22:21+00:00; 0s from scanner time.
>
On 3/21/22 00:11, Greg Troxel wrote:
Roger Price writes:
I received the following comment from the Independent Submissions Editor (ISE):
The command VER is hazardous because it encourages exploiting of
implementation peculiarities that are not well documented in a
protocol. The best
Roger Price writes:
> I received the following comment from the Independent Submissions Editor
> (ISE):
>
> The command VER is hazardous because it encourages exploiting of
> implementation peculiarities that are not well documented in a
> protocol. The best example of such a failure is
On 3/20/22 22:02, gene heskett wrote:
On Sunday, 20 March 2022 15:10:00 EDT Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
On March 20, 2022 5:02:36 PM GMT+02:00, Roger Price
wrote:
I received the following comment from the Independent Submissions
Editor (ISE):
The command VER is hazardous because it
On Sunday, 20 March 2022 15:10:00 EDT Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
> On March 20, 2022 5:02:36 PM GMT+02:00, Roger Price
wrote:
> >I received the following comment from the Independent Submissions
Editor (ISE):
> > The command VER is hazardous because it encourages exploiting of
> > implementation
On March 20, 2022 5:02:36 PM GMT+02:00, Roger Price
wrote:
>I received the following comment from the Independent Submissions Editor (ISE):
>
> The command VER is hazardous because it encourages exploiting of
> implementation peculiarities that are not well documented in a
> protocol. The
I received the following comment from the Independent Submissions Editor (ISE):
The command VER is hazardous because it encourages exploiting of
implementation peculiarities that are not well documented in a
protocol. The best example of such a failure is the browser version
field in HTTP.
The proposed RFC (known as an I-D) is now under review by the Independent
Submissions Editor. One of his comments is:
I think the entire document could benefit from a complete ABNF
grammar. Have a look at RFCs 5234 and 7405.
RFC5234 specifies a case insensitive ABNF (Augmented
13 matches
Mail list logo
