On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 08:30:21AM +0100, Gilles Chehade wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 01:09:20AM +0100, Joerg Jung wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 10:54:14AM +0100, Gilles Chehade wrote:
> > >
> > > Ten years ago, it seemed a very neat idea that OpenSMTPD would have some
> > > implicit defa
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 01:09:20AM +0100, Joerg Jung wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 10:54:14AM +0100, Gilles Chehade wrote:
> >
> > Ten years ago, it seemed a very neat idea that OpenSMTPD would have some
> > implicit defaults to avoid people creating open relays.
> >
> > Back then I was trying
Hello tech@,
This diff attaches pvclock with lower priority (500) in case of unstable
tsc (PVCLOCK_FLAG_TSC_STABLE) instead of not attaching at all.
For reference current priorities,
tsc (variant) : -2000
i8254 : 0
acpitimer : 1000
acpihpet0 :
On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 10:54:14AM +0100, Gilles Chehade wrote:
>
> Ten years ago, it seemed a very neat idea that OpenSMTPD would have some
> implicit defaults to avoid people creating open relays.
>
> Back then I was trying to make the smtpd.conf as compact as possible and
> came up with the ve
Ross L Richardson:
> Question: Given that the private key file contains only a "key handle",
> what's the significance of setting a passphrase for it? Is there enough
> information in it for that to be considered a "factor" in multi-factor auth?
TL;DR: In practice, yes.
A U2F authenticator does
> Hello,
Hi Gilles,
> Is there strong objection to move to a mode where implicit notation will
> no longer be allowed ?
I think that's a good idea regarding the growing of matching facilities
in smtpd, as long as we make sure the removal of implicit "from local"
doesn't turn somehow into an impl
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 08:45:23AM +1100, Damien Miller wrote:
> Hi,
>[...]
> Please test this thoroughly - it's a big change that we want to have
> stable before the next release.
>
> -d
>
Works well for me with an old (ECDSA-SK-only) Yubico Security Key.
Observation: I guess it's unavoidable,
On 10:54 Sun 24 Nov, Gilles Chehade wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Ten years ago, it seemed a very neat idea that OpenSMTPD would have some
> implicit defaults to avoid people creating open relays.
>
> Back then I was trying to make the smtpd.conf as compact as possible and
> came up with the very nice idea
Hello,
Ten years ago, it seemed a very neat idea that OpenSMTPD would have some
implicit defaults to avoid people creating open relays.
Back then I was trying to make the smtpd.conf as compact as possible and
came up with the very nice idea of "implicit local" so that we would get
a very compact:
