Ben Goren | 1 Apr 01:51 2003

Re: New Sendmail Patch

On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 05:31:31PM -0500, Brett Jones wrote:

> Steve Ewing wrote:
>
> >This  is  where  the  "dabbler"  part  comes  in: I  have  not
> >progressed   to  the   stage  yet   where  I   am  comfortable
> >compiling and installing without a hand-holding cookbook-style
> >step-by-step procedure (you get the picture).
>
> Open the patch in less or an editor and you'll see at the top of
> the patch  file are the  needed instructions for  installing and
> building.

If there's more than one machine  to patch, there's an even easier
(though  more time-consuming)  route. Follow  the instructions  in
release(8)--they're pure hand-holding. The machine on which you do
this will then be up-to-date.

At the  end, you'll have a  directory--call it ${RELEASEDIR}--that
looks strikingly like what you find  on a CD or the FTP site. Copy
the bsd file and all relevant *.tgz files *EXCEPT* etc.tgz to your
home directory on the other machines that need upgrading. On those
machines:

    $ sudo mv /bsd /bsd.old && sudo cp ./bsd / && sudo \
    chown root:wheel /bsd
    $ cd /
    $ for i in ~/*.tgz; do sudo tar xfzpvv ${i}; done

Obviously,  you  don't want  any  stay  .tgz  files in  your  home
(Continue reading)

Marcus Watts | 1 Apr 01:52 2003
Picon

Re: Michigan First With A Law That Could Outlaw VPNs

Various people wrote claiming that Michigan has a law that outlaws
VPNs.  Before people go all alarmist about this, I think they should
go read the actual law in question here:

http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-750-540c-amended

There's nothing in here about IPsec.  There is some stupid stuff here
about attempting to illegally decrypt stuff.  Probably that's intended
to cover cable de-scramblers.  Conceivably it could cover attempts to
break WEP - if you're going to get upset about it, at least get upset
over the right bad part.

There is stuff here about "concealing" ones origin.  What exactly that
means is up to the courts - there's no point in reading more into the
law than that.  I think the text was written to give law enforcement
more teeth with which to pursue people such as Ralsky.  VPNs and NATs
could simply be regarded as mechanisms to handle routing issues and
scarce IP address issues -- both legitimate and nothing to do with
concealment at all.  I don't know of anything that requires one to
*identify* one's point of origin per se -- so address mapping in itself
can't be an issue.  It's still badly worded, and there's a chance the
court decision could be too broadly interpreted with bad results.

For those who are curious; Michigan has term limits.  A lot of them
expired last year -- so something like 2/3rds of the legislature are
brand new at it.  Michigan also has a strong telecommuniations lobby --
so the text of this law was probably intended to favour Ameritech and
Comcast.  You can thank the Republicans for term limits.

Personally, in the wake of 9/11, I'm amazed that there hasn't
(Continue reading)

Steve Ewing | 1 Apr 02:05 2003

Re: New Sendmail Patch

On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:31:31 -0500, Brett Jones wrote:

>Open the patch in less or an editor and you'll see at the top of the patch file 
>are the needed instructions for installing and building.

Thanks all for your responses.  All set.

--
Steve<steve <at> qmss.com>
http://www.qmss.com/~sewing

Michael Teter | 1 Apr 02:36 2003
Picon

Re: Michigan First With A Law That Could Outlaw VPNs

The real problem with laws like these is they are
overly broad.  That leaves one more open to legal
action.

Then one has to defend themselves, at some expense.

The goal should be to write laws which are effective
in stopping most criminals while generating few false
positives.

The broader the law, the more innocent people will end
up defending themselves.  Carried to the extreme,
people simply quit doing anything that could be
construed as "illegal" under the overly broad law.

MT

--- Marcus Watts <mdw <at> umich.edu> wrote:
> Various people wrote claiming that Michigan has a
> law that outlaws
> VPNs.  Before people go all alarmist about this, I
> think they should
> go read the actual law in question here:
> 
>
http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-750-540c-amended
> 
> There's nothing in here about IPsec.  There is some
> stupid stuff here
> about attempting to illegally decrypt stuff. 
(Continue reading)

Jefferson Costa | 1 Apr 03:09 2003
Picon

Re: Where find about load balance in OBSD ?

Network load balance.

Chuck Yerkes wrote:

>Quoting Jefferson Costa (jscosta <at> fortalnet.com.br):
>
>>Where can i find docs ou sites about load balance in OBSD ?
>>
>
>"Load balance" means about 40 different things, depending
>one whose marketing people you talk to.
>
>
>What problem are you trying to solve?
>
>Without that info, I will answer one answer:  Use equal weight MX
>records and the load will be spread across the machines.
>
>Oh, see also GOOGLE before you post and you may find lots
>of answers.  (for whatever unknown problem you are having).

Bob Lalla | 1 Apr 03:29 2003

configuring sendmail for multiple domains

I've read up on all the stuff, and checked all the newsgroups, but those all point to using virtualuser
tables.  Fine, but I don't really want to do that.

I want to host three domains, d1.com, d2.com, d3.com.  Sendmail suggests using virtual hosting, such that
you set up the table to look like this:
user1 <at> d1.com points to local mailbox joe
user1 <at> d2.com points to local mailbox bob
user2 <at> d3.com points to local mailbox foo
etc...

So this means that you _MUST_ keep _VERY CAREFUL_ track of the virtualusers table, which can become a pain in
the butt if you must change it a lot.  Is there anyway that I can set up sendmail, using any local mail agent, so
that the users log into the server with username <at> domain.com without using virtualuser table, or should I
just go the way of the sendmail instructions?

If you are confused as to the meaning of this email, I'm not very good at explaining things, please reply, and
I will clarify.

Thanks.
--

-- 
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Nick Holland | 1 Apr 03:29 2003
Picon

Re: Michigan First With A Law That Could Outlaw VPNs

anonymous wrote:
> 
> I care.  Very much.
> And you should, too.
> It has everything to do with OpenBSD.
> Politics matters.  Very much.

Talking about it here won't change much, though.

I live in Michigan.  I work with some lawyers.  One of them is darned
good at what I do (that's scary, fortunately, law pays better than
geeking, and he likes law more than geeking, so I think I'm safe 8-). 
He's got NAT, he understands NAT, and he likes OpenBSD.  So, after
reading the law and thinking people might be blowing this all out of
proportion, I forwarded him a link to the actual law, and summed up a
few of the fear-monger arguments for him.  

His statement was that the intent of the law is not to eliminate NAT
in general, and no prosecutor would use it that way, if they even
understood NAT.  However, if you are giving your next door neighbor
Internet service, you might be in trouble if caught.

Fact is, there are a lot of stupid laws ("fortune -m law" for some
poorly referenced examples) or laws which could be interepreted in
abusive ways.  A bit of (probably poorly researched) lore is that the
average driver commits a ticketable offense every 20 seconds.  If you
are doing something you shouldn't be doing, you may be in even more
trouble now.  If you are not causing problems, there are much better
things to worry about.

(Continue reading)

Theo de Raadt | 1 Apr 03:34 2003
Picon

Re: Michigan First With A Law That Could Outlaw VPNs

This has nothing to do with OpenBSD.

Please deal with it on your state level.

> The real problem with laws like these is they are
> overly broad.  That leaves one more open to legal
> action.
> 
> Then one has to defend themselves, at some expense.
> 
> The goal should be to write laws which are effective
> in stopping most criminals while generating few false
> positives.
> 
> The broader the law, the more innocent people will end
> up defending themselves.  Carried to the extreme,
> people simply quit doing anything that could be
> construed as "illegal" under the overly broad law.
> 
> MT
> 
> 
> --- Marcus Watts <mdw <at> umich.edu> wrote:
> > Various people wrote claiming that Michigan has a
> > law that outlaws
> > VPNs.  Before people go all alarmist about this, I
> > think they should
> > go read the actual law in question here:
> > 
> >
(Continue reading)

anonymous | 1 Apr 03:34 2003
Picon

Re: Michigan First With A Law That Could Outlaw VPNs

Theo,

Since you seem to be cognitively impaired, let's go over this again . . .

Let me repeat: you should care.  Unfortunately, what happens in
America sooner or later affects the entire world.  And the idea that
such quaint notions as national borders will protect you from
American domination and control is naive, to say the least.  Wake up
and smell the coffee.  Politics does matter, and if you think they will
just leave you alone, you are mistaken.

Just ask your fellow Canadian, Gerald Bull.  Oh, that's right - you can't.
He's dead.

;-)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Theo de Raadt" <deraadt <at> cvs.openbsd.org>
To: "Michael Teter" <mt_bsd <at> yahoo.com>
Cc: <misc <at> openbsd.org>
Sent: Monday, 2003 March 31 19:34
Subject: Re: Michigan First With A Law That Could Outlaw VPNs 

> This has nothing to do with OpenBSD.
> 
> Please deal with it on your state level.

Theo de Raadt | 1 Apr 03:49 2003
Picon

Re: Michigan First With A Law That Could Outlaw VPNs

This has nothing to do with this mailing list.

In fact, the more you wreck your own country, the more beneficial
it is to mine.  So talking about it here won't help anything.

This is an OpenBSD list.  This is not a Michigan list, or a legal
list, or anything like that.

You're on drugs.

> Theo,
> 
> Since you seem to be cognitively impaired, let's go over this again . . .
> 
> Let me repeat: you should care.  Unfortunately, what happens in
> America sooner or later affects the entire world.  And the idea that
> such quaint notions as national borders will protect you from
> American domination and control is naive, to say the least.  Wake up
> and smell the coffee.  Politics does matter, and if you think they will
> just leave you alone, you are mistaken.
> 
> Just ask your fellow Canadian, Gerald Bull.  Oh, that's right - you can't.
> He's dead.
> 
> 
> ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
(Continue reading)


Gmane