From o1bigtenor at gmail.com  Tue Jul  2 17:09:43 2019
From: o1bigtenor at gmail.com (o1bigtenor)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 17:09:43 -0500
Subject: [tclug-list] question on available software
Message-ID: <CAPpdf58cS19VyOXpg6+S-LkJkQUcHZQt6m3K4phDo3bSTAUj5Q@mail.gmail.com>

Greetings

I am working to build a program where the program itself sits on a
designated server where a database and a front end provide
interaction. Want to have the user's data and results (from using the
program (process) reside on their machine. AIUI this means that I'm
trying to have a service on the cloud (or some such).

Is there anyone out there who has done something like this or has some
knowledge of the developmental process in such a program (beast
perhaps - - - grin) that might provide some pointers as to tools
and/or techniques.

TIA

Regards

From iznogoud at nobelware.com  Tue Jul  2 18:11:09 2019
From: iznogoud at nobelware.com (Iznogoud)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 23:11:09 +0000
Subject: [tclug-list] question on available software
In-Reply-To: <CAPpdf58cS19VyOXpg6+S-LkJkQUcHZQt6m3K4phDo3bSTAUj5Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPpdf58cS19VyOXpg6+S-LkJkQUcHZQt6m3K4phDo3bSTAUj5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20190702231109.GA16208@nobelware.com>

> 
> I am working to build a program where the program itself sits on a
> designated server where a database and a front end provide
> interaction. Want to have the user's data and results (from using the
> program (process) reside on their machine. AIUI this means that I'm
> trying to have a service on the cloud (or some such).
>

There are several ways to do this. I do it with MySQL and a code in C, which
uses the MySQL library as an API to do "queries" and whatever else is needed
to the SQL server.

Data to the SQL server comes from a web page and from my running programs,
all of which reside on a virtual private server (VPS) hosted somewhere.

Start from there. Others can suggest other options as well.


From o1bigtenor at gmail.com  Tue Jul  2 21:30:53 2019
From: o1bigtenor at gmail.com (o1bigtenor)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 21:30:53 -0500
Subject: [tclug-list] question on available software
In-Reply-To: <20190702231109.GA16208@nobelware.com>
References: <CAPpdf58cS19VyOXpg6+S-LkJkQUcHZQt6m3K4phDo3bSTAUj5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190702231109.GA16208@nobelware.com>
Message-ID: <CAPpdf58Qd7ResNibw4kTCj53xgtkPUGReOhzjjUSvjP10d1Bkw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 6:11 PM Iznogoud <iznogoud at nobelware.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I am working to build a program where the program itself sits on a
> > designated server where a database and a front end provide
> > interaction. Want to have the user's data and results (from using the
> > program (process) reside on their machine. AIUI this means that I'm
> > trying to have a service on the cloud (or some such).
> >
>
> There are several ways to do this. I do it with MySQL and a code in C, which
> uses the MySQL library as an API to do "queries" and whatever else is needed
> to the SQL server.
>
> Data to the SQL server comes from a web page and from my running programs,
> all of which reside on a virtual private server (VPS) hosted somewhere.
>
> Start from there. Others can suggest other options as well.

Thank you.

I was thinking of using Postgresql, Python and Django - - don't think
that my choices are too different than yours.
Different but similar but them I'm a noob at this and therefore the ask.

Thanking you for your assistance!!

From tclug1 at whitleymott.net  Wed Jul  3 10:58:48 2019
From: tclug1 at whitleymott.net (gregrwm)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 10:58:48 -0500
Subject: [tclug-list] spf handling error?
In-Reply-To: <20190702173919.0771A4D26@gateway23.websitewelcome.com>
References: CAD+dB9AcKcrNkHAjoH_NOPxXpBpjrBZAecMSfP8PUrOgjdTZ+w@mail.gmail.com
 <20190702173919.0771A4D26@gateway23.websitewelcome.com>
Message-ID: <CAD+dB9CUd8G4DHnE7XbgUspgHSw7maYtg2DQoHUpeJyGeM+zUw@mail.gmail.com>

i received the two delivery failure notices copied below (portions
suppressed with ...).  it's clear heidi's address in my messages must have
forwarded to her address at landvantage.com, and i expect the problem is in
the mail handler there.  but i dont want to overlook the possibility the
error might be mine.  the zone definition for whitleymott.net is also
copied below.  if anyone can see what's amis please advise.  i'vs also
written to postmaster at gateway33.websitewelcome.com.  i also welcome your
suggestions on where better to post this question.


>$TTL  4h ;ttl for all RRs lacking an explicit ttl
>@ SOA @ hostmaster.scalliondata.com. (
>     696 ;serial
>      4h ;secondary server refresh
>      1h ;secondary server refresh retry
>      4d ;expire unrefreshed secondary server
>      4h ;ttl for no-such-domain (NXDOMAIN) responses from us
>)
>@ NS ns
>googleffffffffed11605c CNAME                  google.com.
>mail                   CNAME              ghs.google.com.
>webmail                CNAME              ghs.google.com.
>mx                     CNAME          ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM.
>smtp                   CNAME          ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM.
>@ MX 10                               ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM.
>@ MX 20                          ALT1.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM.
>@ MX 20                          ALT2.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM.
>@ MX 30                               ASPMX2.GOOGLEMAIL.COM.
>@ MX 30                               ASPMX3.GOOGLEMAIL.COM.
>@ MX 30                               ASPMX4.GOOGLEMAIL.COM.
>@ MX 30                               ASPMX5.GOOGLEMAIL.COM.
>@ TXT "v=spf1 a a:rose.fo4.net a:okra.fo4.net include:aspmx.googlemail.com
-all"
>@   A 206.123.88.191
>www A 206.123.88.191
>ns0 A 206.123.88.191
>ns  A 209.240.82.11


On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:39 PM Mail Delivery System <
MAILER-DAEMON at gateway23.websitewelcome.com> wrote:

> This is the mail system at host gateway23.websitewelcome.com.
>
> I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
> be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
>
> For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
>
> If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
> delete your own text from the attached returned message.
>
>                    The mail system
>
> <... at landvantage.com>: host mx10.mailspamprotection.com[184.154.208.34]
> said:
>     550 192.185.48.84 is not allowed to send mail from whitleymott.net.
> Please
>     see the SPF record, with scope mfrom, identity greg at whitleymott.net,
> and ip
>     192.185.48.84 (in reply to end of DATA command)
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: gregory mott <greg at whitleymott.net>
> To:
> Cc: David ... <...>, heidi... at ...com
> Bcc:
> Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 12:38:35 -0500
> ...




On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:05 AM Mail Delivery System <
MAILER-DAEMON at gateway33.websitewelcome.com> wrote:

> This is the mail system at host gateway33.websitewelcome.com.
>
> I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
> be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
>
> For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
>
> If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
> delete your own text from the attached returned message.
>
>                    The mail system
>
> <... at landvantage.com>: host mx10.mailspamprotection.com[108.163.228.170]
>     said: 550 192.185.146.78 is not allowed to send mail from
> whitleymott.net.
>     Please see the SPF record, with scope mfrom, identity
> greg at whitleymott.net,
>     and ip 192.185.146.78 (in reply to end of DATA command)
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: gregory mott <greg at whitleymott.net>
> To: Sarah ... <... at gmail.com>
> Cc: Laurel ...<... at gmail.com>, Kurt ... <... at gmail.com>, David ... <...>,
> heidi... at ...com
> Bcc:
> Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 11:05:17 -0500

...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20190703/48e365b5/attachment.html>

From ryan.coleman at cwis.biz  Wed Jul  3 18:28:14 2019
From: ryan.coleman at cwis.biz (Ryan Coleman)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 18:28:14 -0500
Subject: [tclug-list] spf handling error?
In-Reply-To: <CAD+dB9CUd8G4DHnE7XbgUspgHSw7maYtg2DQoHUpeJyGeM+zUw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD+dB9AcKcrNkHAjoH_NOPxXpBpjrBZAecMSfP8PUrOgjdTZ+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190702173919.0771A4D26@gateway23.websitewelcome.com>
 <CAD+dB9CUd8G4DHnE7XbgUspgHSw7maYtg2DQoHUpeJyGeM+zUw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A2E787A0-3A5A-4891-8282-499317A82E0B@cwis.biz>

Looks to me like your external IP (192.185.48.84) is not on the SPF1 list… 

Here’s mine for d3photography:
> v=spf1 a mx include:zoho.com include:spf.smtp2go.com ~all


You’re definitely lacking you’re 192.185 IP in that include list.

https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/192.185.48.84 <https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/192.185.48.84>
Hostname:	gateway23.websitewelcome.com


—
Ryan


> On Jul 3, 2019, at 10:58 AM, gregrwm <tclug1 at whitleymott.net> wrote:
> 
> i received the two delivery failure notices copied below (portions suppressed with ...).  it's clear heidi's address in my messages must have forwarded to her address at landvantage.com <http://landvantage.com/>, and i expect the problem is in the mail handler there.  but i dont want to overlook the possibility the error might be mine.  the zone definition for whitleymott.net <http://whitleymott.net/> is also copied below.  if anyone can see what's amis please advise.  i'vs also written to postmaster at gateway33.websitewelcome.com <mailto:postmaster at gateway33.websitewelcome.com>.  i also welcome your suggestions on where better to post this question.
> 
> 
> >$TTL  4h ;ttl for all RRs lacking an explicit ttl
> >@ SOA @ hostmaster.scalliondata.com <http://hostmaster.scalliondata.com/>. (
> >     696 ;serial
> >      4h ;secondary server refresh
> >      1h ;secondary server refresh retry
> >      4d ;expire unrefreshed secondary server
> >      4h ;ttl for no-such-domain (NXDOMAIN) responses from us
> >)
> >@ NS ns
> >googleffffffffed11605c CNAME                  google.com <http://google.com/>.
> >mail                   CNAME              ghs.google.com <http://ghs.google.com/>.
> >webmail                CNAME              ghs.google.com <http://ghs.google.com/>.
> >mx                     CNAME          ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM <http://aspmx.l.google.com/>.
> >smtp                   CNAME          ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM <http://aspmx.l.google.com/>.
> >@ MX 10                               ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM <http://aspmx.l.google.com/>.
> >@ MX 20                          ALT1.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM <http://alt1.aspmx.l.google.com/>.
> >@ MX 20                          ALT2.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM <http://alt2.aspmx.l.google.com/>.
> >@ MX 30                               ASPMX2.GOOGLEMAIL.COM <http://aspmx2.googlemail.com/>.
> >@ MX 30                               ASPMX3.GOOGLEMAIL.COM <http://aspmx3.googlemail.com/>.
> >@ MX 30                               ASPMX4.GOOGLEMAIL.COM <http://aspmx4.googlemail.com/>.
> >@ MX 30                               ASPMX5.GOOGLEMAIL.COM <http://aspmx5.googlemail.com/>.
> >@ TXT "v=spf1 a a:rose.fo4.net <http://rose.fo4.net/> a:okra.fo4.net <http://okra.fo4.net/> include:aspmx.googlemail.com <http://aspmx.googlemail.com/> -all"
> >@   A 206.123.88.191
> >www A 206.123.88.191
> >ns0 A 206.123.88.191
> >ns  A 209.240.82.11
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:39 PM Mail Delivery System <MAILER-DAEMON at gateway23.websitewelcome.com <mailto:MAILER-DAEMON at gateway23.websitewelcome.com>> wrote:
> This is the mail system at host gateway23.websitewelcome.com <http://gateway23.websitewelcome.com/>.
> 
> I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
> be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
> 
> For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
> 
> If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
> delete your own text from the attached returned message.
> 
>                    The mail system
> 
> <... at landvantage.com <http://landvantage.com/>>: host mx10.mailspamprotection.com <http://mx10.mailspamprotection.com/>[184.154.208.34] said:
>     550 192.185.48.84 is not allowed to send mail from whitleymott.net <http://whitleymott.net/>. Please
>     see the SPF record, with scope mfrom, identity greg at whitleymott.net <mailto:greg at whitleymott.net>, and ip
>     192.185.48.84 (in reply to end of DATA command)
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: gregory mott <greg at whitleymott.net <mailto:greg at whitleymott.net>>
> To: 
> Cc: David ... <...>, heidi... at ...com
> Bcc: 
> Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 12:38:35 -0500
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:05 AM Mail Delivery System <MAILER-DAEMON at gateway33.websitewelcome.com <mailto:MAILER-DAEMON at gateway33.websitewelcome.com>> wrote:
> This is the mail system at host gateway33.websitewelcome.com <http://gateway33.websitewelcome.com/>.
> 
> I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
> be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
> 
> For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
> 
> If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
> delete your own text from the attached returned message.
> 
>                    The mail system
> 
> <... at landvantage.com <http://landvantage.com/>>: host mx10.mailspamprotection.com <http://mx10.mailspamprotection.com/>[108.163.228.170]
>     said: 550 192.185.146.78 is not allowed to send mail from whitleymott.net <http://whitleymott.net/>.
>     Please see the SPF record, with scope mfrom, identity greg at whitleymott.net <mailto:greg at whitleymott.net>,
>     and ip 192.185.146.78 (in reply to end of DATA command)
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: gregory mott <greg at whitleymott.net <mailto:greg at whitleymott.net>>
> To: Sarah ... <... at gmail.com <http://gmail.com/>>
> Cc: Laurel ...<... at gmail.com <http://gmail.com/>>, Kurt ... <... at gmail.com <http://gmail.com/>>, David ... <...>, heidi... at ...com
> Bcc: 
> Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 11:05:17 -0500
> ...
> _______________________________________________
> TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota
> tclug-list at mn-linux.org
> http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20190703/7c47f604/attachment.html>

From tclug1 at whitleymott.net  Thu Jul  4 02:44:43 2019
From: tclug1 at whitleymott.net (gregrwm)
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 02:44:43 -0500
Subject: [tclug-list] spf handling error?
In-Reply-To: <A2E787A0-3A5A-4891-8282-499317A82E0B@cwis.biz>
References: <CAD+dB9AcKcrNkHAjoH_NOPxXpBpjrBZAecMSfP8PUrOgjdTZ+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190702173919.0771A4D26@gateway23.websitewelcome.com>
 <CAD+dB9CUd8G4DHnE7XbgUspgHSw7maYtg2DQoHUpeJyGeM+zUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <A2E787A0-3A5A-4891-8282-499317A82E0B@cwis.biz>
Message-ID: <CAD+dB9Amf-VE1V0DgV46b0BxO7ub-KjyCM4H2f4hcVMJXb9uDQ@mail.gmail.com>

it's not mine.  note the similarity with the node that issued the notice.
i see now, it's the spf forwarding trap.  by specifying strict spf
compliance, i break their forwarding of my messages.  hmm.
>$  host 192.185.48.84
>84.48.185.192.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer gateway23.websitewelcome.com
.


On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 6:28 PM Ryan Coleman <ryan.coleman at notcwis.biz>
wrote:

> Looks to me like your external IP (192.185.48.84) is not on the SPF1 list…
>
> Here’s mine for d3photography:
>
> v=spf1 a mx include:zoho.com include:spf.smtp2go.com ~all
>
> You’re definitely lacking you’re 192.185 IP in that include list.
>
> https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/192.185.48.84
> Hostname: gateway23.websitewelcome.com
>
> —
> Ryan
>
>
> On Jul 3, 2019, at 10:58 AM, gregrwm <tclug1 at whitleymott.net> wrote:
> i received the two delivery failure notices copied below (portions
> suppressed with ...).  it's clear heidi's address in my messages must have
> forwarded to her address at landvantage.com, and i expect the problem is
> in the mail handler there.  but i dont want to overlook the possibility the
> error might be mine.  the zone definition for whitleymott.net is also
> copied below.  if anyone can see what's amis please advise.  i'vs also
> written to postmaster at gateway33.websitewelcome.com.  i also welcome your
> suggestions on where better to post this question.
>
>
> >$TTL  4h ;ttl for all RRs lacking an explicit ttl
> >@ SOA @ hostmaster.scalliondata.com. (
> >     696 ;serial
> >      4h ;secondary server refresh
> >      1h ;secondary server refresh retry
> >      4d ;expire unrefreshed secondary server
> >      4h ;ttl for no-such-domain (NXDOMAIN) responses from us
> >)
> >@ NS ns
> >googleffffffffed11605c CNAME                  google.com.
> >mail                   CNAME              ghs.google.com.
> >webmail                CNAME              ghs.google.com.
> >mx                     CNAME          ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM
> <http://aspmx.l.google.com/>.
> >smtp                   CNAME          ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM
> <http://aspmx.l.google.com/>.
> >@ MX 10                               ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM
> <http://aspmx.l.google.com/>.
> >@ MX 20                          ALT1.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM
> <http://alt1.aspmx.l.google.com/>.
> >@ MX 20                          ALT2.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM
> <http://alt2.aspmx.l.google.com/>.
> >@ MX 30                               ASPMX2.GOOGLEMAIL.COM
> <http://aspmx2.googlemail.com/>.
> >@ MX 30                               ASPMX3.GOOGLEMAIL.COM
> <http://aspmx3.googlemail.com/>.
> >@ MX 30                               ASPMX4.GOOGLEMAIL.COM
> <http://aspmx4.googlemail.com/>.
> >@ MX 30                               ASPMX5.GOOGLEMAIL.COM
> <http://aspmx5.googlemail.com/>.
> >@ TXT "v=spf1 a a:rose.fo4.net a:okra.fo4.net include:
> aspmx.googlemail.com -all"
> >@   A 206.123.88.191
> >www A 206.123.88.191
> >ns0 A 206.123.88.191
> >ns  A 209.240.82.11
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:39 PM Mail Delivery System <
> MAILER-DAEMON at gateway23.websitewelcome.com> wrote:
>
>> This is the mail system at host gateway23.websitewelcome.com.
>>
>> I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
>> be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
>>
>> For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
>>
>> If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
>> delete your own text from the attached returned message.
>>
>>                    The mail system
>>
>> <... at landvantage.com>: host mx10.mailspamprotection.com[184.154.208.34]
>> said:
>>     550 192.185.48.84 is not allowed to send mail from whitleymott.net.
>> Please
>>     see the SPF record, with scope mfrom, identity greg at whitleymott.net,
>> and ip
>>     192.185.48.84 (in reply to end of DATA command)
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: gregory mott <greg at whitleymott.net>
>> To:
>> Cc: David ... <...>, heidi... at ...com
>> Bcc:
>> Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 12:38:35 -0500
>> ...
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:05 AM Mail Delivery System <
> MAILER-DAEMON at gateway33.websitewelcome.com> wrote:
>
>> This is the mail system at host gateway33.websitewelcome.com.
>>
>> I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
>> be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
>>
>> For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
>>
>> If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
>> delete your own text from the attached returned message.
>>
>>                    The mail system
>>
>> <... at landvantage.com>: host mx10.mailspamprotection.com[108.163.228.170]
>>     said: 550 192.185.146.78 is not allowed to send mail from
>> whitleymott.net.
>>     Please see the SPF record, with scope mfrom, identity
>> greg at whitleymott.net,
>>     and ip 192.185.146.78 (in reply to end of DATA command)
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: gregory mott <greg at whitleymott.net>
>> To: Sarah ... <... at gmail.com>
>> Cc: Laurel ...<... at gmail.com>, Kurt ... <... at gmail.com>, David ...
>> <...>, heidi... at ...com
>> Bcc:
>> Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 11:05:17 -0500
>
> ...
>
> _______________________________________________
> TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota
> tclug-list at mn-linux.org
> http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota
> tclug-list at mn-linux.org
> http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list
>


-- 
this concludes test 42 of big bang inflation dynamics.  in the advent of an
actual universe, further instructions will be provided.
000000000000000000000042
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20190704/cd7408f9/attachment-0001.html>

From ryan.coleman at cwis.biz  Thu Jul  4 09:29:09 2019
From: ryan.coleman at cwis.biz (Ryan Coleman)
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 09:29:09 -0500
Subject: [tclug-list] spf handling error?
In-Reply-To: <CAD+dB9Amf-VE1V0DgV46b0BxO7ub-KjyCM4H2f4hcVMJXb9uDQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD+dB9AcKcrNkHAjoH_NOPxXpBpjrBZAecMSfP8PUrOgjdTZ+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190702173919.0771A4D26@gateway23.websitewelcome.com>
 <CAD+dB9CUd8G4DHnE7XbgUspgHSw7maYtg2DQoHUpeJyGeM+zUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <A2E787A0-3A5A-4891-8282-499317A82E0B@cwis.biz>
 <CAD+dB9Amf-VE1V0DgV46b0BxO7ub-KjyCM4H2f4hcVMJXb9uDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA17C64B-E12F-4EF1-9203-7211E6979745@cwis.biz>

Correct. Their problem, not yours. :) Just annoying. 


> On Jul 4, 2019, at 2:44 AM, gregrwm <tclug1 at whitleymott.net> wrote:
> 
> it's not mine.  note the similarity with the node that issued the notice.  i see now, it's the spf forwarding trap.  by specifying strict spf compliance, i break their forwarding of my messages.  hmm.
> >$  host 192.185.48.84
> >84.48.185.192.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer gateway23.websitewelcome.com <http://gateway23.websitewelcome.com/>.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 6:28 PM Ryan Coleman <ryan.coleman at notcwis.biz <mailto:ryan.coleman at notcwis.biz>> wrote:
> Looks to me like your external IP (192.185.48.84) is not on the SPF1 list… 
> 
> Here’s mine for d3photography:
>> v=spf1 a mx include:zoho.com <http://zoho.com/> include:spf.smtp2go.com <http://spf.smtp2go.com/> ~all
> 
> You’re definitely lacking you’re 192.185 IP in that include list.
> 
> https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/192.185.48.84 <https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/192.185.48.84>
> Hostname:	gateway23.websitewelcome.com <http://gateway23.websitewelcome.com/>
> 
> —
> Ryan
> 
> 
>> On Jul 3, 2019, at 10:58 AM, gregrwm <tclug1 at whitleymott.net <mailto:tclug1 at whitleymott.net>> wrote:
>> i received the two delivery failure notices copied below (portions suppressed with ...).  it's clear heidi's address in my messages must have forwarded to her address at landvantage.com <http://landvantage.com/>, and i expect the problem is in the mail handler there.  but i dont want to overlook the possibility the error might be mine.  the zone definition for whitleymott.net <http://whitleymott.net/> is also copied below.  if anyone can see what's amis please advise.  i'vs also written to postmaster at gateway33.websitewelcome.com <mailto:postmaster at gateway33.websitewelcome.com>.  i also welcome your suggestions on where better to post this question.
>> 
>> 
>> >$TTL  4h ;ttl for all RRs lacking an explicit ttl
>> >@ SOA @ hostmaster.scalliondata.com <http://hostmaster.scalliondata.com/>. (
>> >     696 ;serial
>> >      4h ;secondary server refresh
>> >      1h ;secondary server refresh retry
>> >      4d ;expire unrefreshed secondary server
>> >      4h ;ttl for no-such-domain (NXDOMAIN) responses from us
>> >)
>> >@ NS ns
>> >googleffffffffed11605c CNAME                  google.com <http://google.com/>.
>> >mail                   CNAME              ghs.google.com <http://ghs.google.com/>.
>> >webmail                CNAME              ghs.google.com <http://ghs.google.com/>.
>> >mx                     CNAME          ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM <http://aspmx.l.google.com/>.
>> >smtp                   CNAME          ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM <http://aspmx.l.google.com/>.
>> >@ MX 10                               ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM <http://aspmx.l.google.com/>.
>> >@ MX 20                          ALT1.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM <http://alt1.aspmx.l.google.com/>.
>> >@ MX 20                          ALT2.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM <http://alt2.aspmx.l.google.com/>.
>> >@ MX 30                               ASPMX2.GOOGLEMAIL.COM <http://aspmx2.googlemail.com/>.
>> >@ MX 30                               ASPMX3.GOOGLEMAIL.COM <http://aspmx3.googlemail.com/>.
>> >@ MX 30                               ASPMX4.GOOGLEMAIL.COM <http://aspmx4.googlemail.com/>.
>> >@ MX 30                               ASPMX5.GOOGLEMAIL.COM <http://aspmx5.googlemail.com/>.
>> >@ TXT "v=spf1 a a:rose.fo4.net <http://rose.fo4.net/> a:okra.fo4.net <http://okra.fo4.net/> include:aspmx.googlemail.com <http://aspmx.googlemail.com/> -all"
>> >@   A 206.123.88.191
>> >www A 206.123.88.191
>> >ns0 A 206.123.88.191
>> >ns  A 209.240.82.11
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:39 PM Mail Delivery System <MAILER-DAEMON at gateway23.websitewelcome.com <mailto:MAILER-DAEMON at gateway23.websitewelcome.com>> wrote:
>> This is the mail system at host gateway23.websitewelcome.com <http://gateway23.websitewelcome.com/>.
>> 
>> I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
>> be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
>> 
>> For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
>> 
>> If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
>> delete your own text from the attached returned message.
>> 
>>                    The mail system
>> 
>> <... at landvantage.com <http://landvantage.com/>>: host mx10.mailspamprotection.com <http://mx10.mailspamprotection.com/>[184.154.208.34] said:
>>     550 192.185.48.84 is not allowed to send mail from whitleymott.net <http://whitleymott.net/>. Please
>>     see the SPF record, with scope mfrom, identity greg at whitleymott.net <mailto:greg at whitleymott.net>, and ip
>>     192.185.48.84 (in reply to end of DATA command)
>> 
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: gregory mott <greg at whitleymott.net <mailto:greg at whitleymott.net>>
>> To: 
>> Cc: David ... <...>, heidi... at ...com
>> Bcc: 
>> Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 12:38:35 -0500
>> ...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:05 AM Mail Delivery System <MAILER-DAEMON at gateway33.websitewelcome.com <mailto:MAILER-DAEMON at gateway33.websitewelcome.com>> wrote:
>> This is the mail system at host gateway33.websitewelcome.com <http://gateway33.websitewelcome.com/>.
>> 
>> I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
>> be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
>> 
>> For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
>> 
>> If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
>> delete your own text from the attached returned message.
>> 
>>                    The mail system
>> 
>> <... at landvantage.com <http://landvantage.com/>>: host mx10.mailspamprotection.com <http://mx10.mailspamprotection.com/>[108.163.228.170]
>>     said: 550 192.185.146.78 is not allowed to send mail from whitleymott.net <http://whitleymott.net/>.
>>     Please see the SPF record, with scope mfrom, identity greg at whitleymott.net <mailto:greg at whitleymott.net>,
>>     and ip 192.185.146.78 (in reply to end of DATA command)
>> 
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: gregory mott <greg at whitleymott.net <mailto:greg at whitleymott.net>>
>> To: Sarah ... <... at gmail.com <http://gmail.com/>>
>> Cc: Laurel ...<... at gmail.com <http://gmail.com/>>, Kurt ... <... at gmail.com <http://gmail.com/>>, David ... <...>, heidi... at ...com
>> Bcc: 
>> Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 11:05:17 -0500
>> ...
>> _______________________________________________
>> TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota
>> tclug-list at mn-linux.org <mailto:tclug-list at mn-linux.org>
>> http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota
> tclug-list at mn-linux.org <mailto:tclug-list at mn-linux.org>
> http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list>
> 
> 
> -- 
> this concludes test 42 of big bang inflation dynamics.  in the advent of an actual universe, further instructions will be provided.  000000000000000000000042
> _______________________________________________
> TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota
> tclug-list at mn-linux.org
> http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20190704/0272f4a8/attachment.html>

From tclug1 at whitleymott.net  Thu Jul  4 10:36:24 2019
From: tclug1 at whitleymott.net (gregrwm)
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 10:36:24 -0500
Subject: [tclug-list] spf handling error?
In-Reply-To: <CA17C64B-E12F-4EF1-9203-7211E6979745@cwis.biz>
References: <CAD+dB9AcKcrNkHAjoH_NOPxXpBpjrBZAecMSfP8PUrOgjdTZ+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190702173919.0771A4D26@gateway23.websitewelcome.com>
 <CAD+dB9CUd8G4DHnE7XbgUspgHSw7maYtg2DQoHUpeJyGeM+zUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <A2E787A0-3A5A-4891-8282-499317A82E0B@cwis.biz>
 <CAD+dB9Amf-VE1V0DgV46b0BxO7ub-KjyCM4H2f4hcVMJXb9uDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA17C64B-E12F-4EF1-9203-7211E6979745@cwis.biz>
Message-ID: <CAD+dB9D4iOstORSG5z-KMewJk_KPHzc9sOuXt6UfeXV1RbNnRg@mail.gmail.com>

we wish.  but in the real world we need to deal with and interface with
poor protocols and sorry software.  almost nobody specifies strict spf
compliance.  this is probably why.  so i guess i also will back off to
advisory only.  yes it is my problem when folks dont receive my emails.


On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:29 AM Ryan Coleman <ryan.coleman at cwis.biz> wrote:

> Correct. Their problem, not yours. :) Just annoying.
>
>
> On Jul 4, 2019, at 2:44 AM, gregrwm <tclug1 at whitleymott.net> wrote:
> it's not mine.  note the similarity with the node that issued the notice.
> i see now, it's the spf forwarding trap.  by specifying strict spf
> compliance, i break their forwarding of my messages.  hmm.
> >$  host 192.185.48.84
> >84.48.185.192.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer
> gateway23.websitewelcome.com.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 6:28 PM Ryan Coleman <ryan.coleman at notcwis.biz>
> wrote:
>
>> Looks to me like your external IP (192.185.48.84) is not on the SPF1
>> list…
>>
>> Here’s mine for d3photography:
>>
>> v=spf1 a mx include:zoho.com include:spf.smtp2go.com ~all
>>
>> You’re definitely lacking you’re 192.185 IP in that include list.
>>
>> https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/192.185.48.84
>> Hostname: gateway23.websitewelcome.com
>>
>> —
>> Ryan
>>
>>
>> On Jul 3, 2019, at 10:58 AM, gregrwm <tclug1 at whitleymott.net> wrote:
>> i received the two delivery failure notices copied below (portions
>> suppressed with ...).  it's clear heidi's address in my messages must have
>> forwarded to her address at landvantage.com, and i expect the problem is
>> in the mail handler there.  but i dont want to overlook the possibility the
>> error might be mine.  the zone definition for whitleymott.net is also
>> copied below.  if anyone can see what's amis please advise.  i'vs also
>> written to postmaster at gateway33.websitewelcome.com.  i also welcome your
>> suggestions on where better to post this question.
>>
>>
>> >$TTL  4h ;ttl for all RRs lacking an explicit ttl
>> >@ SOA @ hostmaster.scalliondata.com. (
>> >     696 ;serial
>> >      4h ;secondary server refresh
>> >      1h ;secondary server refresh retry
>> >      4d ;expire unrefreshed secondary server
>> >      4h ;ttl for no-such-domain (NXDOMAIN) responses from us
>> >)
>> >@ NS ns
>> >googleffffffffed11605c CNAME                  google.com.
>> >mail                   CNAME              ghs.google.com.
>> >webmail                CNAME              ghs.google.com.
>> >mx                     CNAME          ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM
>> <http://aspmx.l.google.com/>.
>> >smtp                   CNAME          ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM
>> <http://aspmx.l.google.com/>.
>> >@ MX 10                               ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM
>> <http://aspmx.l.google.com/>.
>> >@ MX 20                          ALT1.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM
>> <http://alt1.aspmx.l.google.com/>.
>> >@ MX 20                          ALT2.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM
>> <http://alt2.aspmx.l.google.com/>.
>> >@ MX 30                               ASPMX2.GOOGLEMAIL.COM
>> <http://aspmx2.googlemail.com/>.
>> >@ MX 30                               ASPMX3.GOOGLEMAIL.COM
>> <http://aspmx3.googlemail.com/>.
>> >@ MX 30                               ASPMX4.GOOGLEMAIL.COM
>> <http://aspmx4.googlemail.com/>.
>> >@ MX 30                               ASPMX5.GOOGLEMAIL.COM
>> <http://aspmx5.googlemail.com/>.
>> >@ TXT "v=spf1 a a:rose.fo4.net a:okra.fo4.net include:
>> aspmx.googlemail.com -all"
>> >@   A 206.123.88.191
>> >www A 206.123.88.191
>> >ns0 A 206.123.88.191
>> >ns  A 209.240.82.11
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:39 PM Mail Delivery System <
>> MAILER-DAEMON at gateway23.websitewelcome.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This is the mail system at host gateway23.websitewelcome.com.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
>>> be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
>>>
>>> For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
>>>
>>> If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
>>> delete your own text from the attached returned message.
>>>
>>>                    The mail system
>>>
>>> <... at landvantage.com>: host mx10.mailspamprotection.com[184.154.208.34]
>>> said:
>>>     550 192.185.48.84 is not allowed to send mail from whitleymott.net.
>>> Please
>>>     see the SPF record, with scope mfrom, identity greg at whitleymott.net,
>>> and ip
>>>     192.185.48.84 (in reply to end of DATA command)
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: gregory mott <greg at whitleymott.net>
>>> To:
>>> Cc: David ... <...>, heidi... at ...com
>>> Bcc:
>>> Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 12:38:35 -0500
>>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:05 AM Mail Delivery System <
>> MAILER-DAEMON at gateway33.websitewelcome.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This is the mail system at host gateway33.websitewelcome.com.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
>>> be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
>>>
>>> For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
>>>
>>> If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
>>> delete your own text from the attached returned message.
>>>
>>>                    The mail system
>>>
>>> <... at landvantage.com>: host mx10.mailspamprotection.com[108.163.228.170]
>>>     said: 550 192.185.146.78 is not allowed to send mail from
>>> whitleymott.net.
>>>     Please see the SPF record, with scope mfrom, identity
>>> greg at whitleymott.net,
>>>     and ip 192.185.146.78 (in reply to end of DATA command)
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: gregory mott <greg at whitleymott.net>
>>> To: Sarah ... <... at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Laurel ...<... at gmail.com>, Kurt ... <... at gmail.com>, David ...
>>> <...>, heidi... at ...com
>>> Bcc:
>>> Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 11:05:17 -0500
>>
>> ...
>>>
>>
> --
> this concludes test 42 of big bang inflation dynamics.  in the advent of
> an actual universe, further instructions will be provided.
> 000000000000000000000042
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20190704/74765df2/attachment-0001.html>

From ryan.coleman at cwis.biz  Fri Jul  5 16:40:28 2019
From: ryan.coleman at cwis.biz (Ryan Coleman)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 16:40:28 -0500
Subject: [tclug-list] spf handling error?
In-Reply-To: <CAD+dB9D4iOstORSG5z-KMewJk_KPHzc9sOuXt6UfeXV1RbNnRg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD+dB9AcKcrNkHAjoH_NOPxXpBpjrBZAecMSfP8PUrOgjdTZ+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190702173919.0771A4D26@gateway23.websitewelcome.com>
 <CAD+dB9CUd8G4DHnE7XbgUspgHSw7maYtg2DQoHUpeJyGeM+zUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <A2E787A0-3A5A-4891-8282-499317A82E0B@cwis.biz>
 <CAD+dB9Amf-VE1V0DgV46b0BxO7ub-KjyCM4H2f4hcVMJXb9uDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA17C64B-E12F-4EF1-9203-7211E6979745@cwis.biz>
 <CAD+dB9D4iOstORSG5z-KMewJk_KPHzc9sOuXt6UfeXV1RbNnRg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B4A19C9F-0D62-423A-9CFE-D21BC293408E@cwis.biz>

But if you’re sending to someone that is redirecting and the failure happens at the redirect that cannot be your problem… 


> On Jul 4, 2019, at 10:36 AM, gregrwm <tclug1 at whitleymott.net> wrote:
> 
> we wish.  but in the real world we need to deal with and interface with poor protocols and sorry software.  almost nobody specifies strict spf compliance.  this is probably why.  so i guess i also will back off to advisory only.  yes it is my problem when folks dont receive my emails.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:29 AM Ryan Coleman <ryan.coleman at cwis.biz <mailto:ryan.coleman at cwis.biz>> wrote:
> Correct. Their problem, not yours. :) Just annoying. 
> 
> 
>> On Jul 4, 2019, at 2:44 AM, gregrwm <tclug1 at whitleymott.net <mailto:tclug1 at whitleymott.net>> wrote:
>> it's not mine.  note the similarity with the node that issued the notice.  i see now, it's the spf forwarding trap.  by specifying strict spf compliance, i break their forwarding of my messages.  hmm.
>> >$  host 192.185.48.84
>> >84.48.185.192.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer gateway23.websitewelcome.com <http://gateway23.websitewelcome.com/>.
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 6:28 PM Ryan Coleman <ryan.coleman at notcwis.biz <mailto:ryan.coleman at notcwis.biz>> wrote:
>> Looks to me like your external IP (192.185.48.84) is not on the SPF1 list… 
>> 
>> Here’s mine for d3photography:
>>> v=spf1 a mx include:zoho.com <http://zoho.com/> include:spf.smtp2go.com <http://spf.smtp2go.com/> ~all
>> 
>> You’re definitely lacking you’re 192.185 IP in that include list.
>> 
>> https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/192.185.48.84 <https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/192.185.48.84>
>> Hostname:	gateway23.websitewelcome.com <http://gateway23.websitewelcome.com/>
>> 
>> —
>> Ryan
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 3, 2019, at 10:58 AM, gregrwm <tclug1 at whitleymott.net <mailto:tclug1 at whitleymott.net>> wrote:
>>> i received the two delivery failure notices copied below (portions suppressed with ...).  it's clear heidi's address in my messages must have forwarded to her address at landvantage.com <http://landvantage.com/>, and i expect the problem is in the mail handler there.  but i dont want to overlook the possibility the error might be mine.  the zone definition for whitleymott.net <http://whitleymott.net/> is also copied below.  if anyone can see what's amis please advise.  i'vs also written to postmaster at gateway33.websitewelcome.com <mailto:postmaster at gateway33.websitewelcome.com>.  i also welcome your suggestions on where better to post this question.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> >$TTL  4h ;ttl for all RRs lacking an explicit ttl
>>> >@ SOA @ hostmaster.scalliondata.com <http://hostmaster.scalliondata.com/>. (
>>> >     696 ;serial
>>> >      4h ;secondary server refresh
>>> >      1h ;secondary server refresh retry
>>> >      4d ;expire unrefreshed secondary server
>>> >      4h ;ttl for no-such-domain (NXDOMAIN) responses from us
>>> >)
>>> >@ NS ns
>>> >googleffffffffed11605c CNAME                  google.com <http://google.com/>.
>>> >mail                   CNAME              ghs.google.com <http://ghs.google.com/>.
>>> >webmail                CNAME              ghs.google.com <http://ghs.google.com/>.
>>> >mx                     CNAME          ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM <http://aspmx.l.google.com/>.
>>> >smtp                   CNAME          ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM <http://aspmx.l.google.com/>.
>>> >@ MX 10                               ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM <http://aspmx.l.google.com/>.
>>> >@ MX 20                          ALT1.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM <http://alt1.aspmx.l.google.com/>.
>>> >@ MX 20                          ALT2.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM <http://alt2.aspmx.l.google.com/>.
>>> >@ MX 30                               ASPMX2.GOOGLEMAIL.COM <http://aspmx2.googlemail.com/>.
>>> >@ MX 30                               ASPMX3.GOOGLEMAIL.COM <http://aspmx3.googlemail.com/>.
>>> >@ MX 30                               ASPMX4.GOOGLEMAIL.COM <http://aspmx4.googlemail.com/>.
>>> >@ MX 30                               ASPMX5.GOOGLEMAIL.COM <http://aspmx5.googlemail.com/>.
>>> >@ TXT "v=spf1 a a:rose.fo4.net <http://rose.fo4.net/> a:okra.fo4.net <http://okra.fo4.net/> include:aspmx.googlemail.com <http://aspmx.googlemail.com/> -all"
>>> >@   A 206.123.88.191
>>> >www A 206.123.88.191
>>> >ns0 A 206.123.88.191
>>> >ns  A 209.240.82.11
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:39 PM Mail Delivery System <MAILER-DAEMON at gateway23.websitewelcome.com <mailto:MAILER-DAEMON at gateway23.websitewelcome.com>> wrote:
>>> This is the mail system at host gateway23.websitewelcome.com <http://gateway23.websitewelcome.com/>.
>>> 
>>> I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
>>> be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
>>> 
>>> For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
>>> 
>>> If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
>>> delete your own text from the attached returned message.
>>> 
>>>                    The mail system
>>> 
>>> <... at landvantage.com <http://landvantage.com/>>: host mx10.mailspamprotection.com <http://mx10.mailspamprotection.com/>[184.154.208.34] said:
>>>     550 192.185.48.84 is not allowed to send mail from whitleymott.net <http://whitleymott.net/>. Please
>>>     see the SPF record, with scope mfrom, identity greg at whitleymott.net <mailto:greg at whitleymott.net>, and ip
>>>     192.185.48.84 (in reply to end of DATA command)
>>> 
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: gregory mott <greg at whitleymott.net <mailto:greg at whitleymott.net>>
>>> To: 
>>> Cc: David ... <...>, heidi... at ...com
>>> Bcc: 
>>> Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 12:38:35 -0500
>>> ...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:05 AM Mail Delivery System <MAILER-DAEMON at gateway33.websitewelcome.com <mailto:MAILER-DAEMON at gateway33.websitewelcome.com>> wrote:
>>> This is the mail system at host gateway33.websitewelcome.com <http://gateway33.websitewelcome.com/>.
>>> 
>>> I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
>>> be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
>>> 
>>> For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
>>> 
>>> If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
>>> delete your own text from the attached returned message.
>>> 
>>>                    The mail system
>>> 
>>> <... at landvantage.com <http://landvantage.com/>>: host mx10.mailspamprotection.com <http://mx10.mailspamprotection.com/>[108.163.228.170]
>>>     said: 550 192.185.146.78 is not allowed to send mail from whitleymott.net <http://whitleymott.net/>.
>>>     Please see the SPF record, with scope mfrom, identity greg at whitleymott.net <mailto:greg at whitleymott.net>,
>>>     and ip 192.185.146.78 (in reply to end of DATA command)
>>> 
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: gregory mott <greg at whitleymott.net <mailto:greg at whitleymott.net>>
>>> To: Sarah ... <... at gmail.com <http://gmail.com/>>
>>> Cc: Laurel ...<... at gmail.com <http://gmail.com/>>, Kurt ... <... at gmail.com <http://gmail.com/>>, David ... <...>, heidi... at ...com
>>> Bcc: 
>>> Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 11:05:17 -0500
>>> ...
>> 
>> --
>> this concludes test 42 of big bang inflation dynamics.  in the advent of an actual universe, further instructions will be provided.  000000000000000000000042
> _______________________________________________
> TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota
> tclug-list at mn-linux.org <mailto:tclug-list at mn-linux.org>
> http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20190705/99997b58/attachment-0001.html>

From tclug1 at whitleymott.net  Fri Jul  5 18:03:34 2019
From: tclug1 at whitleymott.net (gregrwm)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 18:03:34 -0500
Subject: [tclug-list] spf handling error?
In-Reply-To: <B4A19C9F-0D62-423A-9CFE-D21BC293408E@cwis.biz>
References: <CAD+dB9AcKcrNkHAjoH_NOPxXpBpjrBZAecMSfP8PUrOgjdTZ+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190702173919.0771A4D26@gateway23.websitewelcome.com>
 <CAD+dB9CUd8G4DHnE7XbgUspgHSw7maYtg2DQoHUpeJyGeM+zUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <A2E787A0-3A5A-4891-8282-499317A82E0B@cwis.biz>
 <CAD+dB9Amf-VE1V0DgV46b0BxO7ub-KjyCM4H2f4hcVMJXb9uDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA17C64B-E12F-4EF1-9203-7211E6979745@cwis.biz>
 <CAD+dB9D4iOstORSG5z-KMewJk_KPHzc9sOuXt6UfeXV1RbNnRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <B4A19C9F-0D62-423A-9CFE-D21BC293408E@cwis.biz>
Message-ID: <CAD+dB9Dsqg2digEdSYDQeA-jCNpJU3-2EZuANpSpAK5oengkrg@mail.gmail.com>

good luck getting everybody to fix their forwarders to a spec that's being
mostly ignored.  meanwhile i want my mail to get thru those forwarders just
like everyone else's does.


On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 4:41 PM Ryan Coleman <ryan.coleman at cwis.biz> wrote:

> But if you’re sending to someone that is redirecting and the failure
> happens at the redirect that cannot be your problem…
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20190705/e9fb2bfe/attachment.html>

From mbmiller+l at gmail.com  Fri Jul  5 18:36:23 2019
From: mbmiller+l at gmail.com (Mike Miller)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 18:36:23 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [tclug-list] Ubuntu 19.04 upgrade issues
In-Reply-To: <87pnn31ssr.fsf@wookimus.net>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1906222037310.4423@taxahome2>
 <7993350B-2B23-490A-A543-9B2CDCDC0202@gmail.com>
 <87pnn31ssr.fsf@wookimus.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1907051834100.3537@taxahome2>

As I reported, there were some initial suggestions of a problem with the 
Ubuntu upgrade.  I tried something that was supposed to fix it.  I would 
just like to report now that after a couple of weeks of use I have seen no 
sign of trouble.  So I'm happy with how it is going.  I think the upgrade 
issue affected a lot of people.

Mike

From mbmiller+l at gmail.com  Fri Jul  5 19:29:09 2019
From: mbmiller+l at gmail.com (Mike Miller)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 19:29:09 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [tclug-list] using rsync with --partial : is that a good idea?
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1907051837030.3537@taxahome2>

I was not aware of the --partial option until today.  It sounded 
appealing, but after testing it, I'm not sure if I can make good use of 
it.  I killed a big file half way through transfer:

$ rsync -av --partial --progress BIGFILE .
sending incremental file list
BIGFILE
   3,629,744,128  50%  106.53MB/s    0:00:32  ^C
rsync error: received SIGINT, SIGTERM, or SIGHUP (code 20) at rsync.c(644) [sender=3.1.2]
rsync error: received SIGINT, SIGTERM, or SIGHUP (code 20) at io.c(513) [generator=3.1.2]


Then I completed it using --append (which does not test like it used to 
before version 3.0), but the file was different.  The difference turned 
out to be in the last 256KB of the first part of the transfer, just before 
the append.  Everything else was fine.  So, obviously, I need to use the 
verification when using appened.  I tried again, killing the job midway as 
before, then I did this:


$ rsync -av --append-verify --progress BIGFILE .
sending incremental file list
BIGFILE
   7,175,385,088 100%  158.88MB/s    0:00:43 (xfr#1, to-chk=0/1)
WARNING: BIGFILE failed verification -- update retained (will try again).
BIGFILE
   7,175,385,088 100%  251.69MB/s    0:00:27 (xfr#2, to-chk=0/1)

sent 3,461,803,040 bytes  received 1,694,498 bytes  39,582,829.01 bytes/sec
total size is 7,175,385,088  speedup is 2.07


As you can see, it caught the problem, then it fixed it, but this took 70 
seconds, plus about 19 seconds in between the two transfers for a total of 
89 seconds.  But transferring the whole file takes only 56 seconds:

$ rsync -av --progress BIGFILE .
sending incremental file list
BIGFILE
   7,175,385,088 100%  120.51MB/s    0:00:56 (xfr#1, to-chk=0/1)

sent 7,177,137,019 bytes  received 35 bytes  124,819,774.85 bytes/sec
total size is 7,175,385,088  speedup is 1.00

I tested a couple more things.  I chopped off the last megabyte of the 
received half-file like so:

$ truncate -s -1M BIGFILE

That did chop off the damaged part of the file, so then --append worked 
and it took 27 seconds.  Also, --append-verify found the file passed 
verification, so that took 48 seconds instead of 89 seconds.

So for most use cases, I would not use --partial.  I would just start the 
file transfer from scratch.  Use of --append can leave me with errors in 
binary files (even though file size is an exact match), and 
--append-verify works but it can be slower than just starting over.

Are there use cases where you think use of --partial followed by --append 
or --append-verify works much better than leaving them off?

Best,
Mike

From iznogoud at nobelware.com  Fri Jul  5 23:34:10 2019
From: iznogoud at nobelware.com (Iznogoud)
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 04:34:10 +0000
Subject: [tclug-list] using rsync with --partial : is that a good idea?
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1907051837030.3537@taxahome2>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1907051837030.3537@taxahome2>
Message-ID: <20190706043410.GA4217@nobelware.com>

This can be a good thread.

I use rsync all the time, mostly without provisions for partial transfers,
and it works great. I recommend using the "-avz" switch combination, so that
you get zlib compression of the data prior to transmission.

Your conclusions are highly subjective, and I mean this in a good way.
What is a BIGFILE to you can be tiny to me. I routinely move GBs of data
around our Gigabit networks with rsync and with NFS as the underlying
filesystem. It costs me little to re-send files when rsync fails, which
seldom happens. But in the event that I move files to other systems that
are not on our network, I make rsync allow partial transfers.

I rsync 1.x TB single files. Those are huge.

Your 7GB file is a big file, do not get me wrong. And your network speeds
seem fast.

The underlying filesystem plays a role in the speed of calculating checksums,
which I do not know how rsync does. I am certain it does not checksum the
whole file unless it is instructed; i could be wrong. But it seems to me that
it is instructed in your case (see below).

Your strategy of over-truncating sounds solid to me. It is also nice to know
the count (in bytes) that was different. This is subjective at a whole
different level -- this triggers all kinds of paranoia in my head about using
this method too.

Can you see if there are any other switches that better control the behaviour
of rsync in the calculation of checksums (verify mode)? It seems odd that it
would not allow for some kind of continuation from where it left off without
going through the trouble of calculating checksums. I am only guessing, but I
think rsync's verify option the way you used it is searching for differences
in the file by segmenting it and calculating checksums. As such, it has no
knowledge of where the problem can be, and it has to calculate checksums for
the whole length of the file. So, the bahaviour your discribe does make sense
to me, at least.


From woodbrian77 at gmail.com  Fri Jul 12 11:55:07 2019
From: woodbrian77 at gmail.com (Brian Wood)
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:55:07 -0500
Subject: [tclug-list] Hardware
Message-ID: <CABWFOjt-ha++1v2cwi=eLQVBN0kDfcmdgM4Giq5xEWMPHYiAmQ@mail.gmail.com>

Shalom

I'm installing an AMD CPU into a Gigabyte motherboard.
That seems to have worked.  Now I'm trying to install the
Wraith cooler.  3 of the 4 screws tightened and stopped
turning, but one of them didn't.  What to do?  Try it like
this?  Tia


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - I'd like to encourage Joan Grabel
and the UofM to extend a warm welcome to Ben Shapiro
at dailywire.com.  The last time Mr. Shapiro visited the
UofM they gave him a small space.
https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards
<https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards/blob/master/src/cmw/tiers/genz.cc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20190712/7889cdd9/attachment.html>

From woodbrian77 at gmail.com  Fri Jul 12 12:22:23 2019
From: woodbrian77 at gmail.com (Brian Wood)
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 12:22:23 -0500
Subject: [tclug-list] tclug-list Digest, Vol 175, Issue 6
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1562950801.24943.tclug-list@mn-linux.org>
References: <mailman.1.1562950801.24943.tclug-list@mn-linux.org>
Message-ID: <CABWFOjsqiVnR=asx390Y=42DrbE-pGYx5r2CKDtRMCLOeOCuRA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 12:00 PM <tclug-list-request at mn-linux.org> wrote:

>
> Shalom
>
> I'm installing an AMD CPU into a Gigabyte motherboard.
> That seems to have worked.  Now I'm trying to install the
> Wraith cooler.  3 of the 4 screws tightened and stopped
> turning, but one of them didn't.  What to do?  Try it like
> this?  Tia
>
>
OK, I got it.  I wound up loosening the 3 screws that
were tight and then starting over.

Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust.
https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20190712/0f45fd00/attachment.html>

From woodbrian77 at gmail.com  Fri Jul 12 22:50:13 2019
From: woodbrian77 at gmail.com (Brian Wood)
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 22:50:13 -0500
Subject: [tclug-list] tclug-list Digest, Vol 175, Issue 6
In-Reply-To: <CABWFOjsqiVnR=asx390Y=42DrbE-pGYx5r2CKDtRMCLOeOCuRA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1.1562950801.24943.tclug-list@mn-linux.org>
 <CABWFOjsqiVnR=asx390Y=42DrbE-pGYx5r2CKDtRMCLOeOCuRA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABWFOjtaUM1zufhdnV3hj-rrgT3BArpbPr5z8rgs6ygbbSvOUA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 12:22 PM Brian Wood <woodbrian77 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 12:00 PM <tclug-list-request at mn-linux.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Shalom
>>
>> I'm installing an AMD CPU into a Gigabyte motherboard.
>> That seems to have worked.  Now I'm trying to install the
>> Wraith cooler.  3 of the 4 screws tightened and stopped
>> turning, but one of them didn't.  What to do?  Try it like
>> this?  Tia
>>
>>
> OK, I got it.  I wound up loosening the 3 screws that
> were tight and then starting over.
>
>
It's not booting though.  It does a long beep, followed by
two short beeps.  I took out one of ram sticks and same
thing.  The motherboard is a Gigabyte GA-A320M-HD2
and I have DDR4-2666 ram.  This page:
https://www.crucial.com/usa/en/compatible-upgrade-for/GIGABYTE/ga-a320m-hd2#MEMORYFilters
seems to indicate using DDR4-2400 ram.  But other sources
say that 2666 should be OK.  One person said that if the
ram fits it should work.   There's nothing on the monitor.

I'm trying to keep my old power converter (supply) that
works with my Haswell cpu and also keep my old ssd.
I didn't know that the ssd might not work with the new
equipment until I saw that page above.

I'm not sure how to proceed at this point.


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20190712/f2ac4118/attachment.html>

From ryan.coleman at cwis.biz  Sat Jul 13 08:39:56 2019
From: ryan.coleman at cwis.biz (Ryan Coleman)
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2019 08:39:56 -0500
Subject: [tclug-list] tclug-list Digest, Vol 175, Issue 6
In-Reply-To: <CABWFOjtaUM1zufhdnV3hj-rrgT3BArpbPr5z8rgs6ygbbSvOUA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1.1562950801.24943.tclug-list@mn-linux.org>
 <CABWFOjsqiVnR=asx390Y=42DrbE-pGYx5r2CKDtRMCLOeOCuRA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABWFOjtaUM1zufhdnV3hj-rrgT3BArpbPr5z8rgs6ygbbSvOUA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B867C884-8BB7-44EB-A73E-4A7A629773F6@cwis.biz>

Those beeps mean something. What does the Gigabyte board manual state the BIOS beeps mean?

> On Jul 12, 2019, at 10:50 PM, Brian Wood <woodbrian77 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 12:22 PM Brian Wood <woodbrian77 at gmail.com <mailto:woodbrian77 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 12:00 PM <tclug-list-request at mn-linux.org <mailto:tclug-list-request at mn-linux.org>> wrote:
> 
> Shalom
> 
> I'm installing an AMD CPU into a Gigabyte motherboard.
> That seems to have worked.  Now I'm trying to install the
> Wraith cooler.  3 of the 4 screws tightened and stopped
> turning, but one of them didn't.  What to do?  Try it like
> this?  Tia
> 
> 
> OK, I got it.  I wound up loosening the 3 screws that
> were tight and then starting over.  
> 
> 
> It's not booting though.  It does a long beep, followed by
> two short beeps.  I took out one of ram sticks and same
> thing.  The motherboard is a Gigabyte GA-A320M-HD2 
> and I have DDR4-2666 ram.  This page:
> https://www.crucial.com/usa/en/compatible-upgrade-for/GIGABYTE/ga-a320m-hd2#MEMORYFilters <https://www.crucial.com/usa/en/compatible-upgrade-for/GIGABYTE/ga-a320m-hd2#MEMORYFilters>
> seems to indicate using DDR4-2400 ram.  But other sources 
> say that 2666 should be OK.  One person said that if the
> ram fits it should work.   There's nothing on the monitor.
> 
> I'm trying to keep my old power converter (supply) that
> works with my Haswell cpu and also keep my old ssd.
> I didn't know that the ssd might not work with the new
> equipment until I saw that page above.
> 
> I'm not sure how to proceed at this point.
> 
> 
> Brian
> Ebenezer Enterprises 
> http://webEbenezer.net <http://webebenezer.net/>_______________________________________________
> TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota
> tclug-list at mn-linux.org <mailto:tclug-list at mn-linux.org>
> http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20190713/5889a73c/attachment.html>

From woodbrian77 at gmail.com  Sat Jul 13 13:07:05 2019
From: woodbrian77 at gmail.com (Brian Wood)
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2019 13:07:05 -0500
Subject: [tclug-list] Hardware
Message-ID: <CABWFOjtSReYUiE-diSpbYAmGq4NRjeVG=eiRdHMN1h1VOXXomw@mail.gmail.com>

Ryan Coleman writes:

> Those beeps mean something. What does the Gigabyte board
> manual state the BIOS beeps mean?

This is a refurbished motherboard.  The cpu and memory
are new.  I downloaded the manual, but it only uses the
word "beep" two times:

'The system reports system startup status by issuing a beep code.
One single short beep will be heard if no problem is detected at system
startup."

I forgot to mention the fans spin.  I removed the cmos battery
for 30 minutes and then put it back.  That didn't change anything.
I also tried it with no ram.  It didn't beep at all with no ram.
It also didn't adjust the fan speed with no ram like it does
when there's ram in there.

I haven't tried reseating the cpu.  Am reluctant to do that.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20190713/db5b3141/attachment.html>

From ryan.coleman at cwis.biz  Sat Jul 13 14:39:46 2019
From: ryan.coleman at cwis.biz (Ryan Coleman)
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2019 14:39:46 -0500
Subject: [tclug-list] Hardware
In-Reply-To: <CABWFOjtSReYUiE-diSpbYAmGq4NRjeVG=eiRdHMN1h1VOXXomw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABWFOjtSReYUiE-diSpbYAmGq4NRjeVG=eiRdHMN1h1VOXXomw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1EB459A1-69A6-4644-AB0F-CBFBF845A325@cwis.biz>

Sigh.
This is really frustrating - I found the detail in less than 5 seconds: 
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hvmVsBezKyEJ:https://ddr4motherboard.com/beepcodes/GIGABYTE-GA-A320M-HD2-REV.-1.0+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us <https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hvmVsBezKyEJ:https://ddr4motherboard.com/beepcodes/GIGABYTE-GA-A320M-HD2-REV.-1.0+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us>

https://www.google.com/search?q=Gigabyte+GA-A320M-HD2+beep+codes <https://www.google.com/search?q=Gigabyte+GA-A320M-HD2+beep+codes>

seriously, Brian… 



> On Jul 13, 2019, at 1:07 PM, Brian Wood <woodbrian77 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Ryan Coleman writes:
> 
> > Those beeps mean something. What does the Gigabyte board 
> > manual state the BIOS beeps mean?
> 
> This is a refurbished motherboard.  The cpu and memory 
> are new.  I downloaded the manual, but it only uses the
> word "beep" two times:
> 
> 'The system reports system startup status by issuing a beep code. 
> One single short beep will be heard if no problem is detected at system startup."
> 
> I forgot to mention the fans spin.  I removed the cmos battery
> for 30 minutes and then put it back.  That didn't change anything.
> I also tried it with no ram.  It didn't beep at all with no ram.
> It also didn't adjust the fan speed with no ram like it does
> when there's ram in there.
> 
> I haven't tried reseating the cpu.  Am reluctant to do that.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota
> tclug-list at mn-linux.org
> http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20190713/adca64b4/attachment.html>

From woodbrian77 at gmail.com  Mon Jul 15 22:42:13 2019
From: woodbrian77 at gmail.com (Brian Wood)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 22:42:13 -0500
Subject: [tclug-list] Hardware
In-Reply-To: <CABWFOjtSReYUiE-diSpbYAmGq4NRjeVG=eiRdHMN1h1VOXXomw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABWFOjtSReYUiE-diSpbYAmGq4NRjeVG=eiRdHMN1h1VOXXomw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABWFOjtOBemNfqxhQCWr6cpoBzvxtYXUBXxb0hzRnx=Z2j20Pw@mail.gmail.com>

>
> Ryan Coleman writes:
>
> > Those beeps mean something. What does the Gigabyte board
> > manual state the BIOS beeps mean?
>

I found this page: https://www.gigabyte.com/Support/FAQ/816
with duckduckgo.com.  It's hard to read, but was helpful.

It turned out that I needed a graphics card.  This was my
first AMD build and am used to Intel having integrated
graphics.  I didn't do enough research before buying the
components, but now that it's working I'm relieved.

I'm selling my old parts: Supermicro server motherboard,
Haswell I3  and 16G of ECC ram for $80.  I can provide
more details if you are interested.


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - Enjoying programming again.
https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards
<https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards/graphs/traffic>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20190715/c59b8a22/attachment.html>