On Aug 1, 2016 7:46 PM, "juan" wrote:

On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 22:36:15 +0200 rysiek wrote:

...

Hey,

apparently this is the best way to get the trolls and discourse

poisoners to come out of the woodwork around here.

Look, it's rysiek! Hi rysiek!

Have you heard the latest news about your beloved tor project?

Those people are really something eh.

I think this 'community' of 'cypherpunks' would profit greatly by

hearing your testimony, praise and explanation of your blind trust and faith in the tor supreme humanitarians. Wow!!! I don't know about metro's code yet, but rysiek's method for summon the trolls works well! :D (ok, I am late, but it was cute and I needed another pause, hihi...)

Yes lets hear about your thoughts on tor project rysiek On Aug 2, 2016 2:41 AM, "juan" wrote:

On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 20:15:07 -0300 Cecilia Tanaka wrote:

...

On Aug 1, 2016 7:46 PM, "juan" wrote:

...

On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 22:36:15 +0200 rysiek wrote:

...

Hey,

apparently this is the best way to get the trolls and discourse

poisoners to come out of the woodwork around here.

...

Look, it's rysiek! Hi rysiek!

Have you heard the latest news about your beloved tor project?

Those people are really something eh.

...

I think this 'community' of 'cypherpunks' would profit greatly by

hearing your testimony, praise and explanation of your blind trust and faith in the tor supreme humanitarians.

Wow!!! I don't know about metro's code yet, but rysiek's method for summon the trolls works well! :D

Are you talking about yourself? =)

Or about rysiek? I mean, what can be more trolling than a pentagon apologist* and state apologist* in an allegedly 'cypherpunk' mailing list?

*like rysiek *like rysiek

So go ahead guys, let's hear about tor, bruce schneider, your amazing 'coding' that's causing the state to crash down before our very eyes!

...

(ok, I am late, but it was cute and I needed another pause, hihi...)

On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 06:37:21PM -0700, Rayzer wrote:

On 08/01/2016 05:33 PM, Cari Machet wrote:

...

Yes lets hear about your thoughts on tor project rysiek

Tell them Rysiek.

ALL Cyber-security measures come with a 'taillight warranty'... expressed AND implied.

Jokes aside Rysiek, your view on the Tor project 'challenges' occurring at the moment would be appreciated if you can spare a moment...

On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 20:02:36 -0700 Rayzer wrote:

On 08/01/2016 07:24 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 06:37:21PM -0700, Rayzer wrote:

...

On 08/01/2016 05:33 PM, Cari Machet wrote:

...

Yes lets hear about your thoughts on tor project rysiek Tell them Rysiek.

ALL Cyber-security measures come with a 'taillight warranty'... expressed AND implied. Jokes aside Rysiek, your view on the Tor project 'challenges' occurring at the moment would be appreciated if you can spare a moment...

Why do you think I was joking?

Is your nickname rysiek?

Rr

On 08/01/2016 07:24 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 06:37:21PM -0700, Rayzer wrote:

...

On 08/01/2016 05:33 PM, Cari Machet wrote:

...

Yes lets hear about your thoughts on tor project rysiek Tell them Rysiek.

ALL Cyber-security measures come with a 'taillight warranty'... expressed AND implied. Jokes aside Rysiek, your view on the Tor project 'challenges' occurring at the moment would be appreciated if you can spare a moment...

Really! Do you need a technical fucking explanation what "Taillight Warranty" means? It MEANS (in this context) when you're doing something that might collapse a government or on the run for any number of reasons from a global superpower you CANNOT COUNT ON ANYTHING except your own judgment and wits for your survival. Your own fucking mother might sell you out no less torproject's s/w, or anything else. Rr

On 08/01/2016 08:34 PM, juan wrote:

On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 20:16:32 -0700 Rayzer wrote:

...

On 08/01/2016 07:24 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 06:37:21PM -0700, Rayzer wrote:

...

On 08/01/2016 05:33 PM, Cari Machet wrote:

...

Yes lets hear about your thoughts on tor project rysiek Tell them Rysiek.

ALL Cyber-security measures come with a 'taillight warranty'... expressed AND implied. Jokes aside Rysiek, your view on the Tor project 'challenges' occurring at the moment would be appreciated if you can spare a moment...

Really! Do you need a technical fucking explanation what "Taillight Warranty" means?

Boy is RAYZER retarded. Zen's post was addressed to RYSIEK, not you RAYZER.

RAYZER, can't you even recognize your own fucking nickname?

Fuck off troll (I'm going to automate this message to avoid wasting my time typing it)

...

It MEANS (in this context) when you're doing something that might collapse a government or on the run for any number of reasons from a global superpower you CANNOT COUNT ON ANYTHING except your own judgment and wits for your survival. Your own fucking mother might sell you out no less torproject's s/w, or anything else.

Rr

On 8/2/16, John wrote:

In the days of Linux and /bin/sh being a link to bash

Would be worse if link was to csh (freebsd curiously use csh but only as default interactive root shell). Both defaults indoctrinate users poorly, at least for forming noninteractive work.

who needs posix sh(1) compatibility ..?

BSDs still have an actual Bourne shell without all the bashisms (it's picked up a couple but mainly just better keyboard handling).

For people serious about shell, cross system, unix, work they likely encounter, and why things are... at least a quick one time through the likes of these is in order... http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/ash/ https://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/anthony/info/shell/csh.whynot-1.7.txt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_command_shells http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/sh.html http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/test.html Being Bourne based, Bash isn't a bad interactive choice, so long as stuff people ship is some reasonable least common of ash / posix / bsd. You start putting associative arrays and brace expansion in that shit and some real SA is going well beyond postal on your ass.

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 12:16:13AM -0400, grarpamp wrote:

It's not posix sh(1) compatible, nor appear need any bashism.

Not related to the original code. Is this SEGV compliant with anything? sendmail is link to procmail. $sendmail -- root a # CTL-D Segmentation fault It breaks at least mutt + procmail for local delivery.

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 05:27:52AM -0400, grarpamp wrote:

...

sendmail is link to procmail.

Then it's procmail.

Clearly it is procmail.

...

It breaks at least mutt + procmail for local delivery.

Perhaps try among others...

http://www.courier-mta.org/maildrop/ http://wiki.dovecot.org/LDA http://www.postfix.org/ https://www.opensmtpd.org/

I am not looking for SMTPD, just for _local delivery_.

comment: you are not addressing your relationship to tor On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 4:20 PM, rysiek wrote:

Dnia wtorek, 2 sierpnia 2016 04:50:53 CEST Mirimir pisze:

...

...

tl;dr setting up IPsec is a pain in the arse, so by the power of way too many lines of Bash it has been made simpler. Comments, pull requests, criticism welcome.

I presume that this is a flavor of IPsec that NSA can't pwn.

Hopefully. If anyone has more info, please share!

...

But why do we need IPsec? What's the advantage over OpenVPN?

I needed an encrypted back-end link between several servers, so that even if any set of them goes down, encrypted comms keep working between all of the rest.

OpenVPN felt more like client-server thingy, more slated towards a star topology. IPsec is node-node (at least in this particular usecase).

But I might be missing something here, so again, comments welcome.

-- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak

Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147

-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet https://twitter.com/carimachet 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.

On 08/02/2016 07:20 AM, rysiek wrote:

Dnia wtorek, 2 sierpnia 2016 04:50:53 CEST Mirimir pisze:

...

...

tl;dr setting up IPsec is a pain in the arse, so by the power of way too many lines of Bash it has been made simpler. Comments, pull requests, criticism welcome.

I presume that this is a flavor of IPsec that NSA can't pwn.

Hopefully. If anyone has more info, please share!

...

But why do we need IPsec? What's the advantage over OpenVPN?

I needed an encrypted back-end link between several servers, so that even if any set of them goes down, encrypted comms keep working between all of the rest.

OpenVPN felt more like client-server thingy, more slated towards a star topology. IPsec is node-node (at least in this particular usecase).

But I might be missing something here, so again, comments welcome.

OK, I get it. I've never used IPsec. OpenVPN doesn't do many to many.