Re: Can anyone explain this "user_in_whitelist" mystery?
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Isn't there some way to make setting trusted_networks a required part
of the installation process? This is probably the single most common
misconfiguration.
The first time the question might be asked is well into the install
process.
How do you figure? Couldn't it be asked upfront?
< Think CPAN. I'm not sure if it could be. CPAN seems to try to
< automate from the gitgo. And RPM is another one that is not heavy
< on interaction during or in front of installs. Even with a tarball
< you have overwritten old already by the time the README_INSTALL is
< installed for reading. If people were more religiously observant
< about reading manuals, at LEAST install manuals, before moving
< forward it'd be no problem. There's a stupid MS vs Open Sores
< debate in the FC lists at the moment that makes this point very well.
< "Any GOOD software doesn't need a manual. It's intuitive." I've
< stayed out of it. It's just that in 40+ years of trying to use
< computers I have yet to find a really intuitive to use program
< no matter the computer or OS.
{^_^}
RE: Can anyone explain this "user_in_whitelist" mystery?
jdow wrote: > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Isn't there some way to make setting trusted_networks a required part >> of the installation process? This is probably the single most common >> misconfiguration. > > The first time the question might be asked is well into the install > process. How do you figure? Couldn't it be asked upfront? -- Matthew.van.Eerde (at) hbinc.com 805.964.4554 x902 Hispanic Business Inc./HireDiversity.com Software Engineer
Re: Can anyone explain this "user_in_whitelist" mystery?
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Brian S. Powell wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
I'll bet you tomorrow's lunch that you haven't manually set your
trusted_networks. Do so and all should be well.
I have been running this software for two years, have read through
the docs on countless ocassions, and never discovered the existence
of this setting.
Isn't there some way to make setting trusted_networks a required part of the
installation process? This is probably the single most common
misconfiguration.
< The first time the question might be asked is well into the install
< process. And unless a page of documentation is popped up in the user's
< face setting trusted_networks is likely to add an erroneous entry or
< lead to half an install. SA gets erroneous entries just as easily with
< the existing script. And SA avoids the "half an install" situation. So
< I suspect the current mode is best. How many SA newbies might be smart
< enough to fill it in right if you used "smarthost" or similar terms
< for the trusted network parlance? "Your own network and your smtp
< server's address" might work. But then "^Clook up
< email programs smarthost/smtp servercheck my
< greymatter recall of the address just foundback to try to
< install again, try to run, discover I transposed two digits"
< (Yeah, yeah, multitasking works. But I've watched people used to
< running multiple programs at once abort rather than push into the
< background temporarily. So) I suppose if you like slapstick
< humor a question in the middle of the install is a good idea. And if
< some RTFM had taken place the question's answer would be at the user's
< finger tips. But we all know that for most people RTFM means ReTrash
< Fine Manuals.
{^_-}/2
RE: Can anyone explain this "user_in_whitelist" mystery?
Brian S. Powell wrote: > On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote: >> >> I'll bet you tomorrow's lunch that you haven't manually set your >> trusted_networks. Do so and all should be well. > > I have been running this software for two years, have read through > the docs on countless ocassions, and never discovered the existence > of this setting. Isn't there some way to make setting trusted_networks a required part of the installation process? This is probably the single most common misconfiguration. -- Matthew.van.Eerde (at) hbinc.com 805.964.4554 x902 Hispanic Business Inc./HireDiversity.com Software Engineer
Re: Can anyone explain this "user_in_whitelist" mystery?
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote: I'll bet you tomorrow's lunch that you haven't manually set your trusted_networks. Do so and all should be well. I have been running this software for two years, have read through the docs on countless ocassions, and never discovered the existence of this setting. I'm sure you're absolutely right though. Upon reading the docs on trusted_networks, I see if I set that I can get rid of several whitelist_rcvd entries. Thanks! I probably owe you lunch ;-) -- Brian Powell - Senior Systems Manager, The Ohio Supercomputer Center Phone: 614-292-6017 GPG(pgp) key at, http://www.osc.edu/~bpowell/ "Since the general civilizations of mankind I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." --James Madison
Re: Can anyone explain this "user_in_whitelist" mystery?
Brian S. Powell wrote: > Could this have something to do with the fact that these seem to all be getting through via some MailMan mailing list "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" addresses? I have a system-wide entry of: whitelist_from_rcvd [EMAIL PROTECTED] osc.edu It may be the Sender: header that is being used for the from address part of your whitelist_from_rcvd rule. Now we just need to match a received header... and there's only one usable one. I'll bet you tomorrow's lunch that you haven't manually set your trusted_networks. Do so and all should be well. Daryl
