Fwd: Re: Reporting a Bug
It's a Debian volunteer support list, I'm in no way claiming to be a Debian "official". If you can share your fstab it will help massively in diagnosing the issue or potential bug before filling any potentially pointless bug reports Sorry for any misunderstanding Mike -- -- Lee Fuller (mobile) Original Message From: michael bailey Sent: 27 January 2016 17:10:46 GMT+00:00 To: Lee Fuller Subject: Re: Reporting a Bug A Debian user (note - not an official from Debian) has replied, asking for a copy of fstab. On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Lee Fuller wrote: > Could you share your fstab with us here? It'll help lots. > > -- > -- Lee Fuller (mobile) > > On 27 January 2016 16:03:53 GMT+00:00, michael bailey < > mbsolarwin...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> HI. >> >> I wish to report what I believe is a bug in Debian Jessie but am not sure >> which package is involved. >> >> In an /etc/fstab file I have lines for two removable file systems. For >> each file system I include the noauto option. >> >> However I find these file systems are automatically mounted on boot up. >> >> Mike Bailey >> >
Re: Reporting a Bug
Could you share your fstab with us here? It'll help lots. -- -- Lee Fuller (mobile) On 27 January 2016 16:03:53 GMT+00:00, michael bailey wrote: >HI. > >I wish to report what I believe is a bug in Debian Jessie but am not >sure >which package is involved. > >In an /etc/fstab file I have lines for two removable file systems. For >each >file system I include the noauto option. > >However I find these file systems are automatically mounted on boot up. > >Mike Bailey
Re: no response from listmaster
Sorry to drag up this old relic, Steve - did your investigation yield anything useful? Mail is a complicated subject so I'm keen to hear about the conclusion of issues like this. On 15 December 2015 at 23:14, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Tuesday 15 December 2015 19:29:50 Brian wrote: > > Pestering us > > appears to have its benefits. Just think, your response might have edged > > him towards it. :) > > To be fair, Brian, it wasn't pestering us that was complained about, it was > pestering the listmasters. "Pestering" us was the right thing to do, and > as > you say helped the OP solve his problem. > > Lisi > >
Re: no response from listmaster
For reference, the default timeout in the current release of mailman is 30 seconds. https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DSA I believe DSA are responsible for the list server. - - Lee Fuller On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 01:41:46PM +, Lee Fuller wrote: > Hey there, > > I checked your email address using basic telnet and a measurement tool. > > I identified the likely physicality of your mailbox to be Cincinnati, and > the > server connecting to you in these measurements is in Texas. > > I ran the test in a handful of arrangements but I repeated the general > routine > enough times intentionally to discount causes of likely performance > fluctuation. > > In both tests it is clear that an SMTP transaction takes as long as > 10 seconds to conclude, and that is using plaintext SMTP without actually > having > transferred anything more than a formal greeting of machines. > > I doubt a list server of this size is configured to wait anywhere near 10 > seconds before considering an address unreachable. > RFC 5321, section 4.5.3.2 lists the various timesouts that an SMTP client SHOULD employ (noting that they MUST be per-command, not on the whole transaction). They include: * Time to Initial 220 message: 5 minutes * Response to MAIL or RCPT command: 5 minutes * Waiting for "354 Start Input" after issueing "DATA": 3 minutes * Waiting for next command from server: 5 minutes So, any client that disconnects after waiting only 10 seconds is, while not explicitly spammy, at least poorly behaved. > That's probably the cause of your issues as you describe them. > > > > - > - Lee Fuller > >
Re: no response from listmaster
Hey there, I checked your email address using basic telnet and a measurement tool. I identified the likely physicality of your mailbox to be Cincinnati, and the server connecting to you in these measurements is in Texas. I ran the test in a handful of arrangements but I repeated the general routine enough times intentionally to discount causes of likely performance fluctuation. In both tests it is clear that an *SMTP transaction takes as long as 10 seconds *to conclude, and that is using plaintext SMTP without actually having transferred anything more than a formal greeting of machines. I doubt a list server of this size is configured to wait anywhere near 10 seconds before considering an address unreachable. That's probably the cause of your issues as you describe them. - - Lee Fuller On 14 Dec 2015 9:25 a.m., wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 02:46:43AM +, Steve Kleene wrote: > > [...] > > > I am running mailto/sendmail from the command line, configured locally by > > /etc/sendmail/sendmail.cf. This file includes: > > > > DSsmtp.uc.edu > > > > This sets my employer's server smtp.uc.edu as SMART_HOST. I did not > route > > through that server until 2006. At that point an organization across the > > street began refusing emails because my IP was seen as dynamic. I had to > > route through smtp.uc.edu to get around that. I haven't tried lately > to go > > back to the pre-2006 system. I do have one machine with a fixed IP. On > my > > desk machine I masquerade to the fixed IP, but apparently e-mails from > the > > desk machine were detected as dynamic IP before the header was even > checked. > > That sounds like a lot of guesswork. Note that the spam [1] protection > strategies are extremely varied these days, ranging from "I only accept > mail from a couple of well-known sites" to DKIM [1] or SPF [2] and a > whole zoo of other measures which don't really work (half of the spam > I get has a DKIM, which suggests that some filters are spoofed by it). > > Perhaps the DKIM record of your uni doesn't list your IP address as one > allowed to send mail from this domain? > > Other criteria are the domain's reputation and RBLs. The first mail I > sent to a friend on outlook.com (I maintain my own mail server) never > arrived (no bounce, no nothing: it just disappeared). Once she sent > me a mail, "the channel was open". > > Spam filtering is hard. > > Add to this that the "biggies" don't dislike the situation that people > have to turn to them to be able to reliably send mail, and then you > see why they take half-hearted measures which generate "some" collateral > damages. It's disgusting: mail, as a true peer-to-peer communication > medium is dying thanks to spam, and thanks to the likes of Microsoft, > Yahoo, Facebook, Google, Twitter et al. > > As if they were allies. > > So if you want still to send mail from your own IP, you'll have to > know a bit about spam. > > Another thing: don't be impatient with the Debian listmasters. They're > doing volunteer work. They deserve our appreciation. And if things > don't work as they should, perhaps offering our hand is better than > venting our ire. > > Cheers > > [1] Yes, counter to your suggestion in another mail I do mention the word > "spam", because you can't explain the current situation without that. > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys_Identified_Mail > [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Policy_Framework > [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL > > - -- tomás > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAlZuivsACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZq7ACeJuNNyiKaPEg+R/EA974On2+k > 8nYAn3+Q0eQOalTD5wV0bw0REqQ6pOFx > =GRxP > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > >
Re: apt-get error messages
At face value I'd assumed Tony was reflecting on the freedom a user has to make something work how they want. I didn't consider it as demanding, because unless he had offered to create the features or rally the developers himself or point the OP to another list, and assuming Tony wasn't overwhelmed by mutual consensus, if you want something, surely nobody owes it to anyone except themselves to write it? With sincerety, MHO. - - Lee Fuller On 11 Dec 2015 4:27 p.m., "kamaraju kusumanchi" wrote: > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Tony van der Hoff > wrote: > > On 08/12/15 13:41, Chris Bannister wrote: > > > >> *groan* *sigh* ... I wonder why there's not a 'dpkg > >> --print-architectures' which prints out *all* the architectures it knows > >> about. > >> > > Because you haven't written it yet? > > > > IMHO this is an inappropriate response. Not all users can be expected > to write software and submit patches. It is one thing to ask them to > file a wishlist bug, it is another thing to demand a patch from every > user who suggests a way to improve user experience. > > -- > Kamaraju S Kusumanchi | http://raju.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Blog > >
