Re: [gentoo-user] tc filter add ... fails
Hi, On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 13:52:20 +0100 lee wrote: > it seems I might be missing some kernel modules: > > > , > | heimdali ~ # tc filter add dev ppp0 parent : protocol all prio 10 basic > police mpu 64 rate 16000kbit burst 10kb action drop > | RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument > | We have an error talking to the kernel > | heimdali ~ # > ` > > > This is a filter shorewall would add. I have enabled options as shown > in [1]. How can I find out which modules I'm missing, or what else went > wrong? See your dmesg after such command, it usually contains a hint on what is wrong. Also it is much better to write iptables / iproute / tc rules manually then using high level generators like shorewall — this will give you a good understanding on what is going on and how to optimize or tighten your setup. Best regards, Andrew Savchenko pgpqL3S9RiSjn.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-user] grub-0.97-r16 missing manifest
Is this a matter of rinse and repeat later in the day, or shall I be filing a bug report? = These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild U ] sys-boot/grub-0.97-r16::gentoo [0.97-r14::gentoo] USE="ncurses -custom-cflags -netboot -static" 0 KiB [ebuild U ] sys-apps/man-pages-4.02::gentoo [4.00::gentoo] USE="nls" LINGUAS="-da -de -fr -it -ja -nl -pl -ro -ru -zh_CN" 1,371 KiB Total: 2 packages (2 upgrades), Size of downloads: 1,371 KiB Would you like to merge these packages? [Yes/No] y >>> Verifying ebuild manifests !!! A file listed in the Manifest could not be found: /usr/portage/sys- boot/grub/grub-0.97-r15.ebuild = -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-user] System only recognizes 1 of 2 partitions
I recently received and installed a 3TB drive. Before formatting it, I zeroed the first GiB (dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdb bs=1M count=1024). Then formatted with gdisk. Both gdisk and parted report the partition table correctly as containing a ~1MB (empty) sdb1 and ~2.7TB sdb2 (with a protective MBR). However, on boot, only one partition is recognized: the 1MB sdb1. And yet after running partprobe, sdb2 will magically appear. I've managed to work around this for now with a /etc/local.d/ file that just does "partprobe; mount /home" but I'd like to figure out the underlying cause... Has anyone ever run into this before? # grep sdb /var/log/messages Dec 9 01:38:49 precision kernel: [1.224703] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] 5860533168 512-byte logical blocks: (3.00 TB/2.72 TiB) Dec 9 01:38:49 precision kernel: [1.228246] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] 4096-byte physical blocks Dec 9 01:38:49 precision kernel: [1.230017] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] Write Protect is off Dec 9 01:38:49 precision kernel: [1.231765] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA Dec 9 01:38:49 precision kernel: [1.245054] sdb: sdb1 Dec 9 01:38:49 precision kernel: [1.247172] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] Attached SCSI disk Dec 9 01:38:57 precision kernel: [ 23.777108] sdb: sdb1 Dec 9 01:38:58 precision kernel: [ 25.120921] EXT4-fs (sdb2): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. Opts: (null) # gdisk -l /dev/sdb GPT fdisk (gdisk) version 1.0.1 Partition table scan: MBR: protective BSD: not present APM: not present GPT: present Found valid GPT with protective MBR; using GPT. Disk /dev/sdb: 5860533168 sectors, 2.7 TiB Logical sector size: 512 bytes Disk identifier (GUID): 0A8A7DB1-45D0-44DD-AACB-1A4957077401 Partition table holds up to 128 entries First usable sector is 34, last usable sector is 5860533134 Partitions will be aligned on 2048-sector boundaries Total free space is 2014 sectors (1007.0 KiB) Number Start (sector)End (sector) Size Code Name 120484095 1024.0 KiB 8300 Linux filesystem 24096 5860533134 2.7 TiB 8300 Linux filesystem # parted -l [...] Model: ATA ST3000DM001-1ER1 (scsi) Disk /dev/sdb: 3001GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B Partition Table: gpt Disk Flags: Number Start End SizeFile system Name Flags 1 1049kB 2097kB 1049kB Linux filesystem 2 2097kB 3001GB 3001GB ext4 Linux filesystem [...]
Re: [gentoo-user] tc filter add ... fails
On Wednesday 09 December 2015 11:56:39 Andrew Savchenko wrote: > ... Also it is much better to write iptables / iproute / > tc rules manually then using high level generators like shorewall — > this will give you a good understanding on what is going on and how > to optimize or tighten your setup. I don't often disagree with a Gentoo dev, but if I were to attempt this I'd certainly make a hash of it, and we're often told that a badly set up firewall is worse than none. I've been very happy with shorewall for many years and I intend to continue with it. -- Rgds Peter
Re: [gentoo-user] grub-0.97-r16 missing manifest
On 09/12/2015 11:12, Mick wrote: Is this a matter of rinse and repeat later in the day, or shall I be filing a bug report? = These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild U ] sys-boot/grub-0.97-r16::gentoo [0.97-r14::gentoo] USE="ncurses -custom-cflags -netboot -static" 0 KiB [ebuild U ] sys-apps/man-pages-4.02::gentoo [4.00::gentoo] USE="nls" LINGUAS="-da -de -fr -it -ja -nl -pl -ro -ru -zh_CN" 1,371 KiB Total: 2 packages (2 upgrades), Size of downloads: 1,371 KiB Would you like to merge these packages? [Yes/No] y Verifying ebuild manifests !!! A file listed in the Manifest could not be found: /usr/portage/sys- boot/grub/grub-0.97-r15.ebuild = File a bug report - someone has to go first, why not you? :-) Meanwhile, delete the offending line form your local manifest and continue emerging. /alanm
Re: [gentoo-user] grub-0.97-r16 missing manifest
On Wednesday 09 Dec 2015 11:03:21 Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 09/12/2015 11:12, Mick wrote: > > Is this a matter of rinse and repeat later in the day, or shall I be > > filing a bug report? > > > > = > > These are the packages that would be merged, in order: > > > > Calculating dependencies... done! > > [ebuild U ] sys-boot/grub-0.97-r16::gentoo [0.97-r14::gentoo] > > USE="ncurses -custom-cflags -netboot -static" 0 KiB > > [ebuild U ] sys-apps/man-pages-4.02::gentoo [4.00::gentoo] USE="nls" > > LINGUAS="-da -de -fr -it -ja -nl -pl -ro -ru -zh_CN" 1,371 KiB > > > > Total: 2 packages (2 upgrades), Size of downloads: 1,371 KiB > > > > Would you like to merge these packages? [Yes/No] y > > > Verifying ebuild manifests > > > > !!! A file listed in the Manifest could not be found: /usr/portage/sys- > > boot/grub/grub-0.97-r15.ebuild > > = > > File a bug report - someone has to go first, why not you? :-) > > Meanwhile, delete the offending line form your local manifest and > continue emerging. > > /alanm Thanks Alan, Bug 567842 was dully posted. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=567842 -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] System only recognizes 1 of 2 partitions
On Wednesday, December 09, 2015 03:19:45 AM John Runyon wrote: > I recently received and installed a 3TB drive. Before formatting it, I > zeroed the first GiB (dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdb bs=1M count=1024). > Then formatted with gdisk. > > Both gdisk and parted report the partition table correctly as containing a > ~1MB (empty) sdb1 and ~2.7TB sdb2 (with a protective MBR). However, on boot, > only one partition is recognized: the 1MB sdb1. And yet after running > partprobe, sdb2 will magically appear. > > I've managed to work around this for now with a /etc/local.d/ file that > just does "partprobe; mount /home" but I'd like to figure out the underlying > cause... Has anyone ever run into this before? > > # grep sdb /var/log/messages > Dec 9 01:38:49 precision kernel: [1.224703] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] > 5860533168 512-byte logical blocks: (3.00 TB/2.72 TiB) Dec 9 01:38:49 > precision kernel: [1.228246] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] 4096-byte physical > blocks Dec 9 01:38:49 precision kernel: [1.230017] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] > Write Protect is off Dec 9 01:38:49 precision kernel: [1.231765] sd > 1:0:0:0: [sdb] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't support > DPO or FUA Dec 9 01:38:49 precision kernel: [1.245054] sdb: sdb1 > Dec 9 01:38:49 precision kernel: [1.247172] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] Attached > SCSI disk Dec 9 01:38:57 precision kernel: [ 23.777108] sdb: sdb1 > Dec 9 01:38:58 precision kernel: [ 25.120921] EXT4-fs (sdb2): mounted > filesystem with ordered data mode. Opts: (null) > > # gdisk -l /dev/sdb > GPT fdisk (gdisk) version 1.0.1 > > Partition table scan: > MBR: protective > BSD: not present > APM: not present > GPT: present > > Found valid GPT with protective MBR; using GPT. > Disk /dev/sdb: 5860533168 sectors, 2.7 TiB > Logical sector size: 512 bytes > Disk identifier (GUID): 0A8A7DB1-45D0-44DD-AACB-1A4957077401 > Partition table holds up to 128 entries > First usable sector is 34, last usable sector is 5860533134 > Partitions will be aligned on 2048-sector boundaries > Total free space is 2014 sectors (1007.0 KiB) > > Number Start (sector)End (sector) Size Code Name >120484095 1024.0 KiB 8300 Linux filesystem >24096 5860533134 2.7 TiB 8300 Linux filesystem > > # parted -l > [...] > Model: ATA ST3000DM001-1ER1 (scsi) > Disk /dev/sdb: 3001GB > Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B > Partition Table: gpt > Disk Flags: > > Number Start End SizeFile system Name Flags > 1 1049kB 2097kB 1049kB Linux filesystem > 2 2097kB 3001GB 3001GB ext4 Linux filesystem > [...] How old is the BIOS in your system? Older systems have issues recognizing disks larger than 2TB, Linux has a history of being able to ignore that. I am not sure how that works with boot- disks though. -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] System only recognizes 1 of 2 partitions
Its not a boot disk. / and /boot are on 500GB, MBR-only sda. BIOS is ~2011 i'd guess. Its a Dell. "J. Roeleveld" wrote: >On Wednesday, December 09, 2015 03:19:45 AM John Runyon wrote: >> I recently received and installed a 3TB drive. Before formatting it, I >> zeroed the first GiB (dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdb bs=1M count=1024). >> Then formatted with gdisk. >> >> Both gdisk and parted report the partition table correctly as containing a >> ~1MB (empty) sdb1 and ~2.7TB sdb2 (with a protective MBR). However, on boot, >> only one partition is recognized: the 1MB sdb1. And yet after running >> partprobe, sdb2 will magically appear. >> >> I've managed to work around this for now with a /etc/local.d/ file that >> just does "partprobe; mount /home" but I'd like to figure out the underlying >> cause... Has anyone ever run into this before? >> >> # grep sdb /var/log/messages >> Dec 9 01:38:49 precision kernel: [1.224703] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] >> 5860533168 512-byte logical blocks: (3.00 TB/2.72 TiB) Dec 9 01:38:49 >> precision kernel: [1.228246] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] 4096-byte physical >> blocks Dec 9 01:38:49 precision kernel: [1.230017] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] >> Write Protect is off Dec 9 01:38:49 precision kernel: [1.231765] sd >> 1:0:0:0: [sdb] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't support >> DPO or FUA Dec 9 01:38:49 precision kernel: [1.245054] sdb: sdb1 >> Dec 9 01:38:49 precision kernel: [1.247172] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] Attached >> SCSI disk Dec 9 01:38:57 precision kernel: [ 23.777108] sdb: sdb1 >> Dec 9 01:38:58 precision kernel: [ 25.120921] EXT4-fs (sdb2): mounted >> filesystem with ordered data mode. Opts: (null) >> >> # gdisk -l /dev/sdb >> GPT fdisk (gdisk) version 1.0.1 >> >> Partition table scan: >> MBR: protective >> BSD: not present >> APM: not present >> GPT: present >> >> Found valid GPT with protective MBR; using GPT. >> Disk /dev/sdb: 5860533168 sectors, 2.7 TiB >> Logical sector size: 512 bytes >> Disk identifier (GUID): 0A8A7DB1-45D0-44DD-AACB-1A4957077401 >> Partition table holds up to 128 entries >> First usable sector is 34, last usable sector is 5860533134 >> Partitions will be aligned on 2048-sector boundaries >> Total free space is 2014 sectors (1007.0 KiB) >> >> Number Start (sector)End (sector) Size Code Name >>120484095 1024.0 KiB 8300 Linux filesystem >>24096 5860533134 2.7 TiB 8300 Linux filesystem >> >> # parted -l >> [...] >> Model: ATA ST3000DM001-1ER1 (scsi) >> Disk /dev/sdb: 3001GB >> Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B >> Partition Table: gpt >> Disk Flags: >> >> Number Start End SizeFile system Name Flags >> 1 1049kB 2097kB 1049kB Linux filesystem >> 2 2097kB 3001GB 3001GB ext4 Linux filesystem >> [...] > >How old is the BIOS in your system? > >Older systems have issues recognizing disks larger than 2TB, Linux has a >history of being able to ignore that. I am not sure how that works with boot- >disks though. > >-- >Joost >
Re: [gentoo-user] grub-0.97-r16 missing manifest
On Wednesday 09 Dec 2015 12:03:02 Mick wrote: > On Wednesday 09 Dec 2015 11:03:21 Alan McKinnon wrote: > > On 09/12/2015 11:12, Mick wrote: > > > Is this a matter of rinse and repeat later in the day, or shall I be > > > filing a bug report? > > > > > > === > > > == These are the packages that would be merged, in order: > > > > > > Calculating dependencies... done! > > > [ebuild U ] sys-boot/grub-0.97-r16::gentoo [0.97-r14::gentoo] > > > USE="ncurses -custom-cflags -netboot -static" 0 KiB > > > [ebuild U ] sys-apps/man-pages-4.02::gentoo [4.00::gentoo] > > > USE="nls" LINGUAS="-da -de -fr -it -ja -nl -pl -ro -ru -zh_CN" 1,371 > > > KiB > > > > > > Total: 2 packages (2 upgrades), Size of downloads: 1,371 KiB > > > > > > Would you like to merge these packages? [Yes/No] y > > > > > Verifying ebuild manifests > > > > > > !!! A file listed in the Manifest could not be found: /usr/portage/sys- > > > boot/grub/grub-0.97-r15.ebuild > > > === > > > == > > > > File a bug report - someone has to go first, why not you? :-) > > > > Meanwhile, delete the offending line form your local manifest and > > continue emerging. > > > > /alanm > > Thanks Alan, > > Bug 567842 was dully posted. > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=567842 Ahh, duplicate. Someone was there before me, but I missed it when I looked: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=567830 -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: i7-6700, anyone already?
Am 2015-12-02 um 23:13 schrieb Stefan G. Weichinger: > > I consider buying a new machine for my office in december. > > The intel core-i7-6xxx look interesting to me, although the plain CPU > performance isn't that much better than my plain old i7-2600 when I look > at cpunbenchmark.net > > I assume the overall package makes more difference: DDR4-RAM, etc etc Ordered today. Looking forward .. It will be triple-boot: gentoo, fedora, win10 (as I paid for it) ordered with standard 8 gigs of RAM for a start, more later. right now my box uses 1425 megs with full gnome-3.18 running ... so what ... I assume an optimized kernel will perform quite well on that CPU. Although I am no expecting too much. 5yrs of improvement ? ;)
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: i7-6700, anyone already?
On 09/12/2015 22:39, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: > Am 2015-12-02 um 23:13 schrieb Stefan G. Weichinger: >> >> I consider buying a new machine for my office in december. >> >> The intel core-i7-6xxx look interesting to me, although the plain CPU >> performance isn't that much better than my plain old i7-2600 when I look >> at cpunbenchmark.net >> >> I assume the overall package makes more difference: DDR4-RAM, etc etc > > Ordered today. Looking forward .. > It will be triple-boot: gentoo, fedora, win10 (as I paid for it) > > ordered with standard 8 gigs of RAM for a start, more later. > right now my box uses 1425 megs with full gnome-3.18 running ... so what > ... > > I assume an optimized kernel will perform quite well on that CPU. > Although I am no expecting too much. 5yrs of improvement ? ;) Did you get an SSD as well? It's one of the biggest performance improvements you can make[1] and to be honest is worth more overall than expensive CPUs. [1] The other huge improvement is another 8G of RAM and make /var/tmp/portage a tmpfs with default settings (it will use up to 8G RAM on demand). Everything you build will fit, including firefox and libreoffice -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: i7-6700, anyone already?
Am 2015-12-09 um 21:42 schrieb Alan McKinnon: > Did you get an SSD as well? sure. I even look for the PCIe variant (just contacted my dealer for this option ... forgot in the first place). I am on SSDs for years now on desktop and laptops. > It's one of the biggest performance improvements you can make[1] and to > be honest is worth more overall than expensive CPUs. > > [1] The other huge improvement is another 8G of RAM and make > /var/tmp/portage a tmpfs with default settings (it will use up to 8G RAM > on demand). Everything you build will fit, including firefox and libreoffice I have that right now, yes. The RAM was out of stock there so I ordered the 8g-default and will add more later.
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: i7-6700, anyone already?
On 09/12/2015 23:24, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: > Am 2015-12-09 um 21:42 schrieb Alan McKinnon: > >> Did you get an SSD as well? > > sure. I even look for the PCIe variant (just contacted my dealer for > this option ... forgot in the first place). > > I am on SSDs for years now on desktop and laptops. > >> It's one of the biggest performance improvements you can make[1] and to >> be honest is worth more overall than expensive CPUs. >> >> [1] The other huge improvement is another 8G of RAM and make >> /var/tmp/portage a tmpfs with default settings (it will use up to 8G RAM >> on demand). Everything you build will fit, including firefox and libreoffice > > I have that right now, yes. > > The RAM was out of stock there so I ordered the 8g-default and will add > more later. Sounds like you're all set to use that i7 to it's fullest :-) -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: i7-6700, anyone already?
Am 2015-12-09 um 22:49 schrieb Alan McKinnon: > Sounds like you're all set to use that i7 to it's fullest :-) most of my work is terminal stuff ... and email the i7-2600 does that as well, if we are honest! I will give the i7-2xxx to someone with a way older CPU ... so it all works out in a way ;-) the i7-6700 should be more snappy in a way. And I think, some fitting CFLAGS will help as well. evolution instead of revolution We will see. I will see ;)
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: i7-6700, anyone already?
On Wednesday 09 Dec 2015 20:39:30 Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: > Ordered today. Looking forward .. > It will be triple-boot: gentoo, fedora, win10 (as I paid for it) If you bought it in EU you can ask for the cost of Win10 back. There was an case brought in France (against Dell I think) and it was judged that the OEM cannot force the buyer to pay for an OS which they do not wish to buy/use. If you decide to use Win10, you may want to switch off all the malware which now comes as part of the OS: https://fix10.isleaked.com/ -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-user] Re: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
On Tue, 8 Dec 2015 19:00:20 +0200 Alan McKinnon wrote: > Allow me to translate the Google-speak: > > "less secure mail app" really means "a really shitty auth method that > isn't our (Google's) auth method". So click the (rather well-hidden) > button in Gmail's interface and go back to the really shitty auth > method we all used just fine for 10+ years already. Sounds like it's still grumpy Scotsman day. This is a test email to discover if you really have a gmail account, and, if so, how often you check it for new email. I'll be happy to explain the origin of "grumpy Scotsman" if this test succeeds. -- Visualize a clever sig from Neil here
[gentoo-user] terminal colors
I have a hard time reading text in terminal when editing *.tex files. My background is black but the dark blue/violet text it is very hard to see on a black background. Recently Gentoo changed those colors, how to restore them the colors so I can read the text on a black background. -- Thelma
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: i7-6700, anyone already?
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 11:03:23PM +0100, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote > Am 2015-12-09 um 22:49 schrieb Alan McKinnon: > > > Sounds like you're all set to use that i7 to it's fullest :-) > > most of my work is terminal stuff ... and email > > the i7-2600 does that as well, if we are honest! > > I will give the i7-2xxx to someone with a way older CPU ... so it all > works out in a way ;-) > > the i7-6700 should be more snappy in a way. And I think, some fitting > CFLAGS will help as well. You can't get beat... CFLAGS="-O2 -march=native -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe -fno-unwind-tables -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables" That's what I use, except for cross-compiling. For an explanation of the "unwind" flags, see thread... http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.busybox/36695 from the busybox mailing list. And don't forget CPU_FLAGS_X86. Emerge and run app-portage/cpuinfo2cpuflags as soon as you can during the install process. I believe that's right after running "eselect profile". And then run "emerge system && emerge world". It's a lot quicker when you don't have very much installed on the machine. -- Walter Dnes I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: i7-6700, anyone already?
Am 10.12.2015 um 05:50 schrieb waltd...@waltdnes.org: > CFLAGS="-O2 -march=native -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe -fno-unwind-tables > -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables" > > That's what I use, except for cross-compiling. For an explanation of > the "unwind" flags, see thread... > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.busybox/36695 from the busybox > mailing list. And don't forget CPU_FLAGS_X86. Emerge and run > app-portage/cpuinfo2cpuflags as soon as you can during the install > process. I believe that's right after running "eselect profile". And > then run "emerge system && emerge world". It's a lot quicker when you > don't have very much installed on the machine. did not know that tool, thanks. Will try on my existing box already. Do I have to set that variable then (in make.conf?) ?
Re: [gentoo-user] OT: i7-6700, anyone already?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Am 09.12.2015 um 23:44 schrieb Mick: > On Wednesday 09 Dec 2015 20:39:30 Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: >> Ordered today. Looking forward .. It will be triple-boot: gentoo, >> fedora, win10 (as I paid for it) > > If you bought it in EU you can ask for the cost of Win10 back. > There was an case brought in France (against Dell I think) and it > was judged that the OEM cannot force the buyer to pay for an OS > which they do not wish to buy/use. interesting, thanks. I don't really need windows, only for some specific tools (Suunto sports watch ... it doesn't dump its data elsewhere). > If you decide to use Win10, you may want to switch off all the > malware which now comes as part of the OS: > > https://fix10.isleaked.com/ Will have a look. I consider moving my existing SSD into the new machine. No more fiddling with all the partitioning and EFI stuff.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
On 10/12/2015 02:08, walt wrote: > On Tue, 8 Dec 2015 19:00:20 +0200 > Alan McKinnon wrote: > >> Allow me to translate the Google-speak: >> >> "less secure mail app" really means "a really shitty auth method that >> isn't our (Google's) auth method". So click the (rather well-hidden) >> button in Gmail's interface and go back to the really shitty auth >> method we all used just fine for 10+ years already. > > Sounds like it's still grumpy Scotsman day. > > This is a test email to discover if you really have a gmail account, > and, if so, how often you check it for new email. > > I'll be happy to explain the origin of "grumpy Scotsman" if this test > succeeds. > Hello walt, Yes it's me and this is a valid account, it's in constant use. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
On Thursday 10 Dec 2015 06:51:45 Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 10/12/2015 02:08, walt wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Dec 2015 19:00:20 +0200 > > > > Alan McKinnon wrote: > >> Allow me to translate the Google-speak: > >> > >> "less secure mail app" really means "a really shitty auth method that > >> isn't our (Google's) auth method". So click the (rather well-hidden) > >> button in Gmail's interface and go back to the really shitty auth > >> method we all used just fine for 10+ years already. > > > > Sounds like it's still grumpy Scotsman day. > > > > This is a test email to discover if you really have a gmail account, > > and, if so, how often you check it for new email. > > > > I'll be happy to explain the origin of "grumpy Scotsman" if this test > > succeeds. > > Hello walt, > > Yes it's me and this is a valid account, it's in constant use. OK, this must be a good 2FA then? ;-) Walt's test worked for me too. I wouldn't say that the old auth method is sh*tty as Alan asserts, but Google in their wisdom wanted to deal with all sort of new apps authenticating with user credentials into their mail servers, without revealing to intermediaries (e.g. ISPs, hackers, app server admins) the Google user credentials. They could have done this by adding CRAM, SCRAM, et al. in their POP3/IMAP4/SMTP authentication, rather than keeping AUTH=PLAIN, but instead they chose to follow MSoft's embrace-extend-extinguish strategy by creating their own tokenising standard over https. In other words, using time honoured mail client protocols alone is not good enough for Google and you have to use a browser as well. Of course, we all know how secure browsers are. The world is changing from classic mail clients and protocols to mobile apps, mobile apps running on (proxy) servers in foreign countries and an awful lot of bad code, which can be exploited. There may be cleverer ways to resolve this problem, while still adhering to mail protocols, but Google has decided to move us all to a protocol (http) where they reign supreme. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
