The sender domain has a DMARC Reject/Quarantine policy which disallows sending mailing list messages using the original "From" header.
To mitigate this problem, the original message has been wrapped automatically by the mailing list software.
--- Begin Message ---See below... On 24 August 2025 02:03:33 CEST, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > >Tom Li via openwrt-devel <[email protected]> wrote: > > For OpenWrt routers, writing to NVRAM by default can serve useful > > purposes in several contexts: > >Would the discussion change if these things went into uboot variables? >While that's often the same NVRAM as the system, sometimes it's not. >NVRAM is also getting much better. >(Of course, I think that there are systems that don't use uboot) > >Certainly the IPv6 prefix seems like a good candidate. >It doesn't change that often. That is a hypothesis, not a fact unfortunately. ISPs, as far as I can tell, do not all have a decent grasp on IPv6 provisioning so there will be cases in which the prefix changes quite often. Hopefully these will be transient, but I would not bet the farm on that... So I thing saving this information out should be done in a rate limited fashion and cause a report if attempted too often, no? >So a READ-CHECK-MODIFY-WRITE process would >avoid wear. > >urandom and last-known system date are ideally written only just before >shutting down, but my bet is that 90% of shutdowns are because power loss. >So, really both need to be written periodically, which is exactly what hurts >NVRAM. > > > As a result, any project discussion that involves writing to the > > filesystem would quickly become an off-topic one about "whether one > > should write to NVRAM by default" rather than its original > > problem. Although the answer seems to be "No, we shouldn't", but those > > discussions had an extremely limited audience - only a few developers > > (perhaps 3) who happened to work on that specific project were > > involved, their ideas and conclusions are not known to others. The next > > time the same problem is raised in a different context, the whole > > discussion repeats again. For example, in [1], Etienne Champetier said > > that they "would love to have more devs comment". > >:-) > > > We need to answer these questions: > > > 1. In the current OpenWrt Stable Release or Development Build, do we > > have anything that writes to the filesystem by default (e.g. do we > > still have /etc/dnsmasq.time)? If yes, do we have a full list of them? > > > 2. When is it acceptable to write to NVRAM by default? Always banned? > > Or is it conditionally allowed, with a rate limit (based on the file's > > timestep and NTP time, via NTP hotplug)? My impression is that > > rate-limited writes are allowed by the project, but this needs > > clarification. > >I think this is the right policy. > > > 3. Should we set a filesystem default-write policy for all OpenWrt > > packages? > >Packages should say if they follow that policy. >(Probably we should have policies more subtle than 0/1) >Perhaps no default/critical packages should write more often than X. > > > 4. In a previous discussion, an alternative solution was suggested by > > John Crispin that "let's add a system.system.write_state_to_ > > flash_on_boot=0/1 UCI option, and lock this and the DNSSEC time stuff > > with it, and default it to 0". Should we consider this idea? > >This is a good thing to do, regardless. > -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
