Re: Web + email hosting recommendations
Am 8. Mai 2019 08:19:05 MESZ schrieb Sad Clouds : >Price is 2.50EUR per month and no setup fees, which sounds rather >cheap. >Last time I looked into web hosting was about 15 years ago, so maybe >prices have come down this much. For such a small price, do they really >offer a reasonable service, or is there something I'm not aware of? Prices did not come down really for such low level mass products - typically the (written) resources per product grown (bandwidth, memory) as typical customers look onto that (only). similiar prices exist i.e. 10 or 15 years ago on the market. we never stepped into that segment... if runned with typical, "well" dimensioned and configured business server hardware (i.e. HP DL or IBM etc. - what many think about if they think "servers") on top IP uplink with skilled support personal without any possible restrictions such prices are not to held. But the very most of such products have "bottlenecks" otherwhere (compared to "less cheap" products) and/or are driven on much cheaper PC hardware (what could makes sense in some apps). Another option / version are "hidden" costs in pratical usage. I.e. "shared CPU" could mean everything and could act as a bottleneck if "required" from hosters side (if you are getting "to expa|ensive"). Usually first customers are happy as they get the most resources at their time - and these are most important from a marketing view... This doesnt mean that such products did not have any applications with any sense - but you have to be very clear about (if you rely on that service / resources in any way). just my two cents... niels. -- Niels Dettenbach Syndicat IT & Internet https://www.syndicat.com
Re: RISC-V port ?
Am 22. Januar 2019 20:26:05 MEZ schrieb Richard Ibbotson : >such things. Most of us do have the time to watch TV or a video. >That's the way that large parts of the population of this planet >actually receive their information. May be, but the most engineers on this planet still recieve / share / archive / search their informations with the highest transfer-efficiency for maximum flexibility - in text, sorry.. and commercial ad stuff is "not liked" on scientific mailing lists. just my .02$, niels. -- Niels Dettenbach Syndicat IT & Internet https://www.syndicat.com
Re: postfix alternatives on NetBSD / pkgsrc
Am 18. Januar 2019 14:49:15 MEZ schrieb Tobias Ulmer : >On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 07:50:52AM +0100, Niels Dettenbach (Syndicat IT >& Internet) wrote: >> The security footprint is very good. > >https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-10919/product_id-19563/Exim-Exim.html I know the Exim CVEs - we (as many even larger mail service providers worldwide) run EXIM since many years (nearly 20 years now) and had only one real urgent sec flaw to "close" some monthes ago, requiring urgent updates. I remember the "postfix tricks" in the last decade too... The very most of "more dangerous" sounding Exim CVEs describe flaws which require typically special setups and/or all possible features compiled in and/or foreign libraries onto (what a lot of end users with binary distributions typically use, because their distributors compile anything in by default (by docs, this is not the recommened way to install and use Exim) - but no professional mail ISP nor pkgsrc users (as here) does this afaik. So, things are very relative between numbers and the real world...ß) Cheers, niels. -- Niels Dettenbach Syndicat IT & Internet https://www.syndicat.com
Re: postfix alternatives on NetBSD / pkgsrc
>A quick search shows exim as the main alternative. I am looking for >efficiency and if possible clearer semantics (than postfix!) of the >configuration files. We use EXIM since decades now from small satellite mailer setups to very large ISP setups after migrated from sendmail and postfix as they brought our hardware down in performance with heavy mail loads. EXIM is very (!) efficient - especially when build from sources the "official" way (what is provided by pkgsrc by build options). This means you just compile fucntionality / code into the binary what you really need. The security footprint is very good. The config is very flexible but of consistent syntax (developed my a mathematican - Phillip Hazel) - for me much more transparent then on postfix. There are many of good examples and howtos out there which provide single config files you could easily adapt and use. But you can split config files too if you prefer that. i can hardly recommend it. just my .02$ good luck, niels. -- Niels Dettenbach Syndicat IT & Internet https://www.syndicat.com
Re: Native sound system
Am 5. April 2018 03:40:12 MESZ schrieb Sid <s...@bsdmail.com>: >> Wednesday, April 04, 2018 at 6:32 AM; "Benny Siegert" > /, from OpenBSD, which can >> handle MIDI frontends to a sound server (or directly to the >hardware). >> >> Are people still using MIDI? > The amount of MIDI capable devices as the number of MIDI users is growing since years - mainly in the modern music scenes. Most music studios and more and more musicians today working with MIDI in any way. The MIDI Ass. byself is still working on extensions and new versions of MIDI (i.e. more Controllers, new link media etc.), but the old MIDI standard / protocol design still is robust and widely used without any further changes over decades. Take a look into a modern music shop and count the amount of MIDI capable devices today (means DIN MIDI or USB-MIDI). I think most MIDI application under NetBSD would be Desktop and headless audio/MIDI appliances (i.e. MIDI "routers" and similiar) if NetBSD would "provide" a reliable "MIDI stack" in any way. In my own (commercial) music project studio MIDI is a core part for any musical data (beside audio) too. just my two cents, niels. -- Niels Dettenbach Syndicat IT & Internet http://www.Syndicat.com
Re: dhcpcd / IPv6 question
Am 8. April 2015 14:40:14 MESZ, schrieb Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com: I have tunnels from sixxs, and aside from occasional POP issues they have been pretty reliable. With SIXX i have (sorry) very bad experiences - mainly regarding their support (just silence or no help in regaining an access to a misconfigured tunnel on SIXX side, inflexibility to just ignorance...) and partly their register policies. I wouldn't recommend it for applications require any kind of reliability, but may OK for playing around with IPv6, where bandwidth and reliability are secondly or tertiary... I'm in the luck of having an access provider (VDSL) now who offers IPv6 natively within their products over a dual stack by default - so the user can decide what IP to use for what in his network. Before i've runned my own IPv6 tunnels over some of our noc locations with dual stack uplink. If you have similiar options (or i.e. some access to a machine/system on an IPv6), i would recommend to prefer them too over SIXX. Not at least - if you want to prevent third party snooping of your traffic activities by i.e. services or whatever - i would avoid such well known / costless quasi anonymous tunnel services because they are much more easy to watchover by services - with or without the help of the provider (if the tunnel services is not runned by a service directly...). And if you come not around a tunnel service, try to prefer one which is usable with any proven standard open source solutions / completely open protocol standards. just my two cents, Niels. -- Niels Dettenbach Syndicat IT Internet http://www.syndicat.com
