🚀 go-pugleaf

On Saturday, in article
     <20120803.2333.12080043snz@i-m-t.demon.co.uk>
     v$af$ppint@i-m-t.demon.co.uk "ppint. at pplay" wrote:

>         - hi; in article, <20120801.1206.930022snz@twoplaces.co.uk>,
>              simon@twoplaces.co.uk "Simon Turner" elaborated:
> >                        "ppint. at pplay" wrote:

> >Lite loses the following things that are present in Large (in no
> >particular order):
> >
> > * Packet driver interface
> > * Packet tracing
> > * IP packet filtering
> 
>         - is one of these two "hop check <ip address>" from the net> ?

Nope.  Packet tracing is much lower level stuff than hop check (aka
traceroute); the packet driver interface connects to packet driver
software that is itself talking to a network card (this is what my build
uses to access DSL); and IP packet filtering is firewall-type stuff,
allowing you to apply filter rules to IP packets.  It's fairly complex,
and I don't know anyone that ever used it.

> > * RIP routing
> > * Domain name server
> 
>         - is this not "domain query <ip address>" from net> ?

Nope.  That's a local DNS *client* querying a remote (Demon) server;
only hardcore techies want to run their own local DNS servers.

> > * Finger server
> > * FTP server
> > * ttylink server
> > * Remote server (allows remote user to kick/exit/reboot your machine)
> > * Remote command (allows sending of commands to a remote server)
> > * DOS shell multitasker
> > * Shell out with '!'
> 
>         - ah; i thought i'd been able to do/use these two, once upon a time.

If there are bits missing from Lite that you want to use again, I can do
a build that re-enables them (at the expense of a larger memory
footprint)...

>         - o.k; it's taking me longer and longer dialled-up, to reject
>         the spam+malawi getting through the filtering service demon/
>         thus/clueless+witless've hired; the prospect of being able to
>         abandon it with them is one of the few potential advantages of
>         the new "system" i could see - was this then a mirage?

No, it's genuine enough.  The anti-spam in the new system seems a lot
more effective than the old cloudmark stuff, plus if the spammers are
targetting bogus recipient addresses, they can all be left uncollected
in the catch-all mailbox (once you've set up other user accounts to
receive the stuff you *do* want to get).

> >(The wording in the migration mail is that the old
> >mail account "will stop working 30 days after you have been migrated".)
> 
>         - will the last old stager to be forcibly emigrated please turn
>         off the lights - ?

Quite.  Sigh.

> >Demon's documentation on the new mail system, and in particular the
> >specialness of "administrator" is, as you would expect, vague, confusing
> >and contradictory.
> >
> >[...]
> 
>         - *nods*  - you posted to d.s regarding your investigations into
>         this (inter alia): i've responded to that, cross-posting my reply
>         here in case anyone reading dipspc missed it, as had an interest.

So I see; I'll respond to it later.  (In short, don't worry too much.)

>         - i've a suspicion that c+w may write to administrator@, rather
>         than to postmaster@, if ever they wish to contact us post-forced
>         mail emigration.

Interesting thought; you may be right.  I've set up a separate user
account to receive mail addressed to administrator@ and postmaster@, to
keep them away from the catch-all that will attract all the stuff to
bogus recipient addresses.

> >>      - and it does work, i can then leave everything placed by c+w
> >>      on the new, unprivileged "administrator" user's mail on their
> >>      machine until they choose to delete it. (- touch wood.)
> >
> >Yup (although I think they may bounce it back rather than silently
> >delete it; it is, of course, very unclear).  I may try it at some stage!
> 
>         - you've discovered it does not work like that ( :-( )

Not this bit, actually; I still don't know (and won't, for 30 days)
whether they silently delete uncollected mail or bounce it back.

> >Nope; it's happy to delete mail sent to unknown usernames unread.
> 
>         - good, good; so, if i can't isolate all the junk+malawi in a
>         wotsit i never tryto collect mail from, at least most of it'll
>         usually disappear.

Yup.

> >(As Pete found out when testing it and forgetting to add "*env" to the end
> >of the command: the recipient name ended up being the default "unknown",
> >which wasn't a known user...)
> 
>         - i actually created a user alias, "unknown", whilst trying to
>         get c+w's incompetently-forged email to us to download by smtp;
>         i wonder...

If "unknown" is in your FTPUSERS file, you wouldn't have suffered Pete's
fate...

> >No worries: with POP3 collection and "pop3 bounce off", the mailkilled
> >messages will simply vanish in a puff of logic.
> 
>         - *g*  - thanks for the str.  have you read much/any sheckley?

Not that I'm aware of; is this something I should correct?

> >I don't know what the current system does if you reject the mail it's
> >trying to send to you: I assume it sends a DSN to the poor sap whose
> >address has been forged as the envelope-from, but perhaps not.  (If you
> >want to find out, I can send a message to an invalid username @imt and
> >tell you if I get a DSN back!)
> 
>         - feel welcome, should you wish to discover.

Test message sent to weeble at i-m-t; I'll report back!

-- 
Simon Turner                                    DoD #0461
simon@twoplaces.co.uk
    Trust me -- I know what I'm doing!          -- Sledge Hammer