{"thread":{"id":"7593","subject":"Feature request - Subtree checkouts","startedAt":"2007-04-10T07:44:44Z","lastAt":"2007-04-14T08:59:21Z","messageCount":15,"participants":["Robin H. Johnson","Shawn O. Pearce","Junio C Hamano","Linus Torvalds","alan","Christer Weinigel","David Lang","Jimmy Tang","Johannes Schindelin"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"38994","messageId":"20070410074444.GA18541@curie-int.orbis-terrarum.net","threadId":"7593","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Feature request - Subtree checkouts","fromName":"Robin H. Johnson","fromEmail":"robbat2@gentoo.org","sentAt":"2007-04-10T07:44:44Z","receivedAt":"2007-04-10T07:44:44Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"robbat2@gentoo.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/373898?v=4"},"body":"Heya,\n\nI'm trying to dig at various issues that are potential holdups for\nmigrating the Gentoo CVS tree into Git.\n\nSince shallow checkouts are now available, there's just one more thing\nthat's missing: subtree checkouts. Not to be confused with sub-projects.\n\nIf the master tree has this as some example contents:\n/foo\n/abc/...\n/bar/example\n/bar/baz/some-content\n\nWe need to be able to check out arbitrary subtrees. So I might want to\ncheck out everything (as the CVS administrator), while one of the more\nfocused developers just wants to check out /bar/baz/.\n\nP.S. Does this list do some weird spam-blocking? I've tried 3 times now\nto use git-send-email to send an unrelated minor patch set\n(--subject-prefix for git-format-patch), and it has never shown up on\nthe list :-(.\n\n-- \nRobin Hugh Johnson\nGentoo Linux Developer & Council Member\nE-Mail : robbat2@gentoo.org\nGnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85\n"},{"id":"39009","messageId":"20070410132011.GH5436@spearce.org","threadId":"7593","inReplyTo":"20070410074444.GA18541@curie-int.orbis-terrarum.net","subject":"Re: Feature request - Subtree checkouts","fromName":"Shawn O. Pearce","fromEmail":"spearce@spearce.org","sentAt":"2007-04-10T13:20:11Z","receivedAt":"2007-04-10T13:20:11Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"spearce@spearce.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/34844?v=4"},"body":"\"Robin H. Johnson\" wrote:\n> P.S. Does this list do some weird spam-blocking? I've tried 3 times now\n> to use git-send-email to send an unrelated minor patch set\n> (--subject-prefix for git-format-patch), and it has never shown up on\n> the list :-(.\n\nYes. It has cut down on our spam, but it has also caused some\nthings to be blocked, almost without good reason. ;-)\n\nI send a fair number of patches to this list (at times anyway) and\nam also unable to use git-send-email. If I have the email also CC\nback to me it does make it through a number of SMTP server hops,\nincluding my own spam filters, but it never makes it through the\nGit mailing list. So I dump the patches to an mbox with --stdout,\nopen them up in mutt and resend them there. I've bound shift-G\nto resend-message for that purpose...\n\n-- \nShawn.\n"},{"id":"39045","messageId":"7vslb8ug7y.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","threadId":"7593","inReplyTo":"20070410132011.GH5436@spearce.org","subject":"Re: Feature request - Subtree checkouts","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"junkio@cox.net","sentAt":"2007-04-10T20:28:17Z","receivedAt":"2007-04-10T20:28:17Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"\"Shawn O. Pearce\" writes:\n\n> \"Robin H. Johnson\" wrote:\n>> P.S. Does this list do some weird spam-blocking? I've tried 3 times now\n>> to use git-send-email to send an unrelated minor patch set\n>> (--subject-prefix for git-format-patch), and it has never shown up on\n>> the list :-(.\n>\n> Yes. It has cut down on our spam, but it has also caused some\n> things to be blocked, almost without good reason. ;-)\n>\n> I send a fair number of patches to this list (at times anyway) and\n> am also unable to use git-send-email. If I have the email also CC\n> back to me it does make it through a number of SMTP server hops,\n> including my own spam filters, but it never makes it through the\n> Git mailing list. So I dump the patches to an mbox with --stdout,\n> open them up in mutt and resend them there. I've bound shift-G\n> to resend-message for that purpose...\n\nWell, we need to do something about this. I haven't seen\nRobin's patch neither on the list nor in my mailbox (if they\nwere CC'ed to me).\n\nOne thing that people need to be careful about is which SMTP\nserver they use. I had an impression (I do not use send-email\nmyself) that it defaulted to local MTA, so the mail trail would\nlook like your local MTA receives from the MUA (which is\nsend-email), which forwards it to whereever destination (or\nintermediaries). On the other hand, I suspect many people use\ntheir ISP's SMTP server when using their usual MUA, so the mail\ntrail would look different. I do not know what filtering vger\ndoes, but if it is filtering based on the MTA address\n(dul.dnsbl.sorbs filtering comes to mind), that would make a\ndifference.\n"},{"id":"39057","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0704101338060.6730@woody.linux-foundation.org","threadId":"7593","inReplyTo":"7vslb8ug7y.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","subject":"Re: Feature request - Subtree checkouts","fromName":"Linus Torvalds","fromEmail":"torvalds@linux-foundation.org","sentAt":"2007-04-10T20:56:37Z","receivedAt":"2007-04-10T20:56:37Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"torvalds@linux-foundation.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1024025?v=4"},"body":"\n\nOn Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> \n> One thing that people need to be careful about is which SMTP\n> server they use.\n\nABSOLUTELY!\n\nThere are a ton of spam blockers that simply *refuse* to accept email from \npeople who just randomly send to port 25. \n\nFor example, I will personally never see email that comes directly to my \nemail address though an open mail relay *or* from something that appears \nto be just a random botnet PC (I forget the exact rule, since I'm hapily \nignorant of MIS, but I think it boils down to requiring a good reverse DNS \nlookup).\n\nThat's getting much more common. Most spam is done through botnets, and \nthey still try to do the direct-to-port-25 thing, exactly because if you \ngo through a *real* SMTP host, your ISP will generally shut you down \npretty quickly if you're spamming.\n\nSo special spammers with their own machines will work with ISP's that \ndon't care (they make money off the spammers), but botnets depend on \ncracked Windows machines, and those often have ISP's that *do* care, \nbecause they get complaints and it costs them money if they don't.\n\n> I had an impression (I do not use send-email myself) that it defaulted \n> to local MTA, so the mail trail would look like your local MTA receives \n> from the MUA (which is send-email), which forwards it to whereever \n> destination (or intermediaries).\n\nA lot of people configure their MUA to send specially, and never even \nconfigure their MTA at all apart from whatever default configuration it \nhas.\n\nFor example, I may have sendmail installed on my machine, but its only \npurpose in life is to do *local* email delivery (using fetchmail -> \nsendmail). It wouldn't know how to send an email outside of the machine.\n\nInstead, my MUA is configured to do this:\n\n\t# List of SMTP servers for sending mail. If blank: Unix Pine uses sendmail.\n\tsmtp-server=localhost:10025\n\nwhere localhost port 10025 is just a ssh tunnel to inside the osdl \nnetwork. If I tried to send email any other way, people would often not \naccept it, because various SMTP servers will simply *refuse* to forward \nemails that claim to be coming from a point that isn't somethign that they \nactually *receive* email for.\n\nAnd I don't think my setup is at all unusual. I may be unusual in my \nchoice of MUA, but most MUA's will have configuration for where to send \nthe mail, and I think very few people actually configure sendmail to do it \nright.\n\nSo no, I don't think people should assume that \"sendmail\" magically knows \nhow to send emails other than to the local machine (ie use it to send \nproblem reports to \"root\", or let fetchmail deliver to it for local \nemails, but that's about it)\n\n\t\t\tLinus\n"},{"id":"39043","messageId":"20070410211040.GC18541@curie-int.orbis-terrarum.net","threadId":"7593","inReplyTo":"7vslb8ug7y.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","subject":"Re: Feature request - Subtree checkouts","fromName":"Robin H. Johnson","fromEmail":"robbat2@orbis-terrarum.net","sentAt":"2007-04-10T21:10:41Z","receivedAt":"2007-04-10T21:10:41Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"robbat2@orbis-terrarum.net","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/6f1181f41d80f036d5db109308d31255fd0ab833373bb849e7b773453cb306bb?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 01:28:17PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> Well, we need to do something about this. I haven't seen\n> Robin's patch neither on the list nor in my mailbox (if they\n> were CC'ed to me).\nThey definitely were CC'd to you Junio.\n\n> One thing that people need to be careful about is which SMTP\n> server they use. I had an impression (I do not use send-email\n> myself) that it defaulted to local MTA, so the mail trail would\n> look like your local MTA receives from the MUA (which is\n> send-email), which forwards it to whereever destination (or\n> intermediaries). On the other hand, I suspect many people use\n> their ISP's SMTP server when using their usual MUA, so the mail\n> trail would look different. I do not know what filtering vger\n> does, but if it is filtering based on the MTA address\n> (dul.dnsbl.sorbs filtering comes to mind), that would make a\n> difference.\nNo, it's not SMTP path differences.\n\nI _know_ that my mail path is identical for git-send-email as well as my\nMUA, because I had problems with GIT and whitespace in email addresses\ninitially ;-).\n\nSince I have access to all the mail servers in my path (home -> AUTH\nSMTP @ work -> wherever), I dug at the logs, and found that vger did\nindeed accept my email to the list, but the messages never turned up on\nthe list.\n\nThe only weirdness I saw in that, is that the envelope sender did not\nappear to be set correct from git-send-email. Give me a moment to\nexplore down that path.\n\n-- \nRobin Hugh Johnson\nE-Mail : robbat2@orbis-terrarum.net\nHome Page : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2\nICQ# : 30269588 or 41961639\nGnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85\n"},{"id":"39061","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0704101414330.15823@blackbox.fnordora.org","threadId":"7593","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0704101338060.6730@woody.linux-foundation.org","subject":"[OT] Re: Feature request - Subtree checkouts","fromName":"alan","fromEmail":"alan@clueserver.org","sentAt":"2007-04-10T21:33:54Z","receivedAt":"2007-04-10T21:33:54Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"alan@clueserver.org","avatar":null},"body":"On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:\n\n>\n>\n> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>>\n>> One thing that people need to be careful about is which SMTP\n>> server they use.\n>\n> ABSOLUTELY!\n>\n> There are a ton of spam blockers that simply *refuse* to accept email from\n> people who just randomly send to port 25.\n>\n> For example, I will personally never see email that comes directly to my\n> email address though an open mail relay *or* from something that appears\n> to be just a random botnet PC (I forget the exact rule, since I'm hapily\n> ignorant of MIS, but I think it boils down to requiring a good reverse DNS\n> lookup).\n\nDepending on your definition of \"good\".\n\nI run my mail server off my DSL line. I prefer having control over my \nmail server instead of being chained to what my ISP provides. (The \nproblems of having been a sysadmin for way too many years.) I don't have \ncontrol over the reverse ip address, but I do over my DNS resolution. \n(Well, most of it. A couple domains are sitting on really old dns servers \nfrom years past.)\n\n> That's getting much more common. Most spam is done through botnets, and\n> they still try to do the direct-to-port-25 thing, exactly because if you\n> go through a *real* SMTP host, your ISP will generally shut you down\n> pretty quickly if you're spamming.\n\nWhich makes Greylisting a useful tool. However, some people define a \n\"real SMTP host\" as being the one your ISP provides and no other. No \nmatter how good your OS or how stringent your rulesets for sending mail \nare.\n\n> So special spammers with their own machines will work with ISP's that\n> don't care (they make money off the spammers), but botnets depend on\n> cracked Windows machines, and those often have ISP's that *do* care,\n> because they get complaints and it costs them money if they don't.\n\nAnd the various RBL lists will just nuke everyone in the same class c. (I \nhave seen it happen for people at colos. Someone on the class c get \ncompromised, sends spam and the whole address space gets blocked. \nSometimes I think the anti-spam methods are as obnoxious as the spammers. \nAlmost.)\n\n>> I had an impression (I do not use send-email myself) that it defaulted\n>> to local MTA, so the mail trail would look like your local MTA receives\n>> from the MUA (which is send-email), which forwards it to whereever\n>> destination (or intermediaries).\n>\n> A lot of people configure their MUA to send specially, and never even\n> configure their MTA at all apart from whatever default configuration it\n> has.\n\nBut the people who use git are probably the exceptions. (At least I hope \nso...)\n\nA number of programs assume that the local MTA can send mail. (The bug \nhandling software for Gnome is an example of that.)\n\nThis sounds more like a distro problem though. The MTA configuration \nshould be a proper part of an install, not something that you have to \nuncover and piece together later.\n\nOf course I also believe that Sendmail configuration was designed by an \norganic chemistry major as part of an \"experiment\" in ergot derivitives.\n\n-- \n\"Invoking the supernatural can explain anything, and hence explains nothing.\"\n - University of Utah bioengineering professor Gregory Clark\n"},{"id":"39038","messageId":"20070410220438.GD18541@curie-int.orbis-terrarum.net","threadId":"7593","inReplyTo":"20070410211040.GC18541@curie-int.orbis-terrarum.net","subject":"Re: Feature request - Subtree checkouts","fromName":"Robin H. Johnson","fromEmail":"robbat2@orbis-terrarum.net","sentAt":"2007-04-10T22:04:38Z","receivedAt":"2007-04-10T22:04:38Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"robbat2@orbis-terrarum.net","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/6f1181f41d80f036d5db109308d31255fd0ab833373bb849e7b773453cb306bb?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 02:10:41PM -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:\n> The only weirdness I saw in that, is that the envelope sender did not\n> appear to be set correct from git-send-email. Give me a moment to\n> explore down that path.\nOk, see my patch series for envelope sender, that is the source of the\nproblem.\n\n-- \nRobin Hugh Johnson\nE-Mail : robbat2@orbis-terrarum.net\nHome Page : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2\nICQ# : 30269588 or 41961639\nGnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85\n"},{"id":"39047","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0704101501590.6730@woody.linux-foundation.org","threadId":"7593","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0704101414330.15823@blackbox.fnordora.org","subject":"Re: [OT] Re: Feature request - Subtree checkouts","fromName":"Linus Torvalds","fromEmail":"torvalds@linux-foundation.org","sentAt":"2007-04-10T22:12:13Z","receivedAt":"2007-04-10T22:12:13Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"torvalds@linux-foundation.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1024025?v=4"},"body":"\n\nOn Tue, 10 Apr 2007, alan wrote:\n> > \n> > For example, I will personally never see email that comes directly to my\n> > email address though an open mail relay *or* from something that appears\n> > to be just a random botnet PC (I forget the exact rule, since I'm hapily\n> > ignorant of MIS, but I think it boils down to requiring a good reverse DNS\n> > lookup).\n> \n> Depending on your definition of \"good\".\n\nWell, the most common case (and the thing I *think* our spam software does \nhere) is to just confirm that the reverse DNS lookup (that you want to do \n*anyway* for the \"Received\" headers for the email) will resolve back to \nthe same IP (aka \"FCrDNS\").\n\nIt's also possible to just not accept mail if the reverse lookup indicates \nthat the sending IP address is a dynamic address, which you can sometimes \nsee from the hostname. I would suggest you *not* name your hosts to \ncontain a lot of numbers and the string \"dhcp\", for example ;)\n\n> Sometimes I think the anti-spam methods are as obnoxious as the \n> spammers. Almost.)\n\nI'll take strict anti-spam methods any day. I get about 10 pieces of spam \na day, that I can handle easily without worrying about it. I shudder to \neven just think about what it used to be like before aggressive spam \nfiltering.\n\nSo I'm personally *solidly* in the camp that says \"if you want to send me \nemail, it's worth making a conscious effort to not look like spam\".\n\n\t\tLinus\n"},{"id":"39064","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0704101513480.17260@blackbox.fnordora.org","threadId":"7593","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0704101501590.6730@woody.linux-foundation.org","subject":"Re: [OT] Re: Feature request - Subtree checkouts","fromName":"alan","fromEmail":"alan@clueserver.org","sentAt":"2007-04-10T22:30:16Z","receivedAt":"2007-04-10T22:30:16Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"alan@clueserver.org","avatar":null},"body":"On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:\n\n>\n>\n> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, alan wrote:\n>>>\n>>> For example, I will personally never see email that comes directly to my\n>>> email address though an open mail relay *or* from something that appears\n>>> to be just a random botnet PC (I forget the exact rule, since I'm hapily\n>>> ignorant of MIS, but I think it boils down to requiring a good reverse DNS\n>>> lookup).\n>>\n>> Depending on your definition of \"good\".\n>\n> Well, the most common case (and the thing I *think* our spam software does\n> here) is to just confirm that the reverse DNS lookup (that you want to do\n> *anyway* for the \"Received\" headers for the email) will resolve back to\n> the same IP (aka \"FCrDNS\").\n>\n> It's also possible to just not accept mail if the reverse lookup indicates\n> that the sending IP address is a dynamic address, which you can sometimes\n> see from the hostname. I would suggest you *not* name your hosts to\n> contain a lot of numbers and the string \"dhcp\", for example ;)\n\nI actually have a fixed IP address.\n\n>> Sometimes I think the anti-spam methods are as obnoxious as the\n>> spammers. Almost.)\n>\n> I'll take strict anti-spam methods any day. I get about 10 pieces of spam\n> a day, that I can handle easily without worrying about it. I shudder to\n> even just think about what it used to be like before aggressive spam\n> filtering.\n\nGreylisting dropped my spam level by at least 90%. RBLs have, for the \nmost part, had far too many false positives to be useful. (If it was just \nme, it would not be so bad, but my wife gets mail on this server as well. \nShe is not so forgiving.)\n\n> So I'm personally *solidly* in the camp that says \"if you want to send me\n> email, it's worth making a conscious effort to not look like spam\".\n\nI try pretty hard. However, some anti-spam methods share some of the same \nmethods with dowsing and other witchcraft. What \"looks like spam\" seems \npretty subjective at times.\n\nI do have a reason for being a bit negative about it. I once ran a very \nlarge development list back in the last century. A piece of spam got past \nmy spam filters and onto the list. Some idiot got offended and reported \nme as a spammer (because my ip was the first thing he saw) and reported me \nto my isp and to my isp's upstream feed. Took me a couple days to get \neveryone calmed down. Excessive anti-spammers still get on my nerves \nafter that incident.\n\n-- \n\"Invoking the supernatural can explain anything, and hence explains nothing.\"\n - University of Utah bioengineering professor Gregory Clark\n"},{"id":"39073","messageId":"m3wt0j7sm6.fsf@zoo.weinigel.se","threadId":"7593","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0704101501590.6730@woody.linux-foundation.org","subject":"Re: [OT] Re: Feature request - Subtree checkouts","fromName":"Christer Weinigel","fromEmail":"christer@weinigel.se","sentAt":"2007-04-10T22:49:05Z","receivedAt":"2007-04-10T22:49:05Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"christer@weinigel.se","avatar":null},"body":"Linus Torvalds writes:\n\n> It's also possible to just not accept mail if the reverse lookup indicates \n> that the sending IP address is a dynamic address, which you can sometimes \n> see from the hostname. I would suggest you *not* name your hosts to \n> contain a lot of numbers and the string \"dhcp\", for example ;)\n\nThat would be a very bad idea I think. Doing that would lose quite a\nlot of small companies and individuals such as me that run a mail\nserver but are unable to get the ISP to change the reverse DNS. For\nexample I do have a fixed IP, but have an reverse DNS pointer which\nlooks like 1-2-3-4-5a.foo.bar.bostream.se. \n\nForcing everybody to send mail through their ISP (and I'm not even\nsure if my ADSL subscription includes such a service) would be a big\nloss. First of all its a philosophical thing, I think that it's very\nimportant that small shops or individuals should be able to control\nthe services they need, the internet is supposed to be peer to peer.\nSecond because the ISP's mess up a lot more often than I do, for\nexample Telia, one of the largest ISPs in Sweden have been having\nmassive mail server problems during the last week which I'm happily\nunaffected by.\n\n /Christer\n\n-- \n\"Just how much can I get away with and still go to heaven?\"\n\nChrister Weinigel http://www.weinigel.se\n"},{"id":"39076","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.63.0704101554500.27318@qynat.qvtvafvgr.pbz","threadId":"7593","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0704101614370.17260@blackbox.fnordora.org","subject":"Re: [OT] Re: Feature request - Subtree checkouts","fromName":"David Lang","fromEmail":"david.lang@digitalinsight.com","sentAt":"2007-04-10T22:56:10Z","receivedAt":"2007-04-10T22:56:10Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"david.lang@digitalinsight.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, alan wrote:\n\n> \n> On Tue, 11 Apr 2007, Christer Weinigel wrote:\n>\n>> Linus Torvalds writes:\n>> \n>>> It's also possible to just not accept mail if the reverse lookup indicates\n>>> that the sending IP address is a dynamic address, which you can sometimes\n>>> see from the hostname. I would suggest you *not* name your hosts to\n>>> contain a lot of numbers and the string \"dhcp\", for example ;)\n>> \n>> That would be a very bad idea I think. Doing that would lose quite a\n>> lot of small companies and individuals such as me that run a mail\n>> server but are unable to get the ISP to change the reverse DNS. For\n>> example I do have a fixed IP, but have an reverse DNS pointer which\n>> looks like 1-2-3-4-5a.foo.bar.bostream.se.\n>\n> I am in the same situation. I also have three domains. Which one do I pick? \n> I can't afford to get an individual ip address for each. Virtual servers on \n> a single ip also will have similar problems.\n\nthis isn't a problem. as long as you can lookup 1-2-3-4-5a.foo.bar.bostream.se. \nand get your IP address you pass this test.\n\nDavid Lang\n"},{"id":"39075","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0704101614370.17260@blackbox.fnordora.org","threadId":"7593","inReplyTo":"m3wt0j7sm6.fsf@zoo.weinigel.se","subject":"Re: [OT] Re: Feature request - Subtree checkouts","fromName":"alan","fromEmail":"alan@clueserver.org","sentAt":"2007-04-10T23:20:18Z","receivedAt":"2007-04-10T23:20:18Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"alan@clueserver.org","avatar":null},"body":"On Tue, 11 Apr 2007, Christer Weinigel wrote:\n\n> Linus Torvalds writes:\n>\n>> It's also possible to just not accept mail if the reverse lookup indicates\n>> that the sending IP address is a dynamic address, which you can sometimes\n>> see from the hostname. I would suggest you *not* name your hosts to\n>> contain a lot of numbers and the string \"dhcp\", for example ;)\n>\n> That would be a very bad idea I think. Doing that would lose quite a\n> lot of small companies and individuals such as me that run a mail\n> server but are unable to get the ISP to change the reverse DNS. For\n> example I do have a fixed IP, but have an reverse DNS pointer which\n> looks like 1-2-3-4-5a.foo.bar.bostream.se.\n\nI am in the same situation. I also have three domains. Which one do I \npick? I can't afford to get an individual ip address for each. Virtual \nservers on a single ip also will have similar problems.\n\n> Forcing everybody to send mail through their ISP (and I'm not even\n> sure if my ADSL subscription includes such a service) would be a big\n> loss. First of all its a philosophical thing, I think that it's very\n> important that small shops or individuals should be able to control\n> the services they need, the internet is supposed to be peer to peer.\n> Second because the ISP's mess up a lot more often than I do, for\n> example Telia, one of the largest ISPs in Sweden have been having\n> massive mail server problems during the last week which I'm happily\n> unaffected by.\n\nMy ISP only reciently started to think about using greylisting. They \nroute all their mail through a filter service that I do not trust. (Too \nmany false positives. I also expect that all this talk about \"forking \nchildren\" would get me on some list somewhere.)\n\nI have more experience running mail servers than the people at my ISP. \n(Not their fault. They are young.)\n\n-- \n\"Invoking the supernatural can explain anything, and hence explains nothing.\"\n - University of Utah bioengineering professor Gregory Clark\n"},{"id":"39078","messageId":"20070410234107.GI5436@spearce.org","threadId":"7593","inReplyTo":"7vslb8ug7y.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","subject":"Re: Feature request - Subtree checkouts","fromName":"Shawn O. Pearce","fromEmail":"spearce@spearce.org","sentAt":"2007-04-10T23:41:07Z","receivedAt":"2007-04-10T23:41:07Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"spearce@spearce.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/34844?v=4"},"body":"Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> One thing that people need to be careful about is which SMTP\n> server they use. I had an impression (I do not use send-email\n> myself) that it defaulted to local MTA, so the mail trail would\n> look like your local MTA receives from the MUA (which is\n> send-email), which forwards it to whereever destination (or\n> intermediaries). On the other hand, I suspect many people use\n> their ISP's SMTP server when using their usual MUA, so the mail\n> trail would look different. I do not know what filtering vger\n> does, but if it is filtering based on the MTA address\n> (dul.dnsbl.sorbs filtering comes to mind), that would make a\n> difference.\n\nI'm pretty sure the last time I tried git-send-email I had the\nMTA path exactly the same. My mutt sends to `localhost`, which\nforwards over an SSL channel to my colo'd spearce.org mail server,\nand that relays to the final destination. Hence spearce.org mail\nalways originates from spearce.org.\n\nNow I ran git-send-email on a different system, but had it connect\nover SMTP to port 25 of the same system mutt runs on, so the\ninitial Received line was different, but othewrise the mail path\nwas the same.\n\nI also have a few other addresses that I can send to that will go\nout the spearce.org colo'd box to another SMTP system, then bounce\nback, and the round-trip was the same for anything from mutt and\nfrom git-send-email.\n\nI marked the whole mess up to some mail header difference that\ngit-send-email wasn't sending the same way mutt was, and that vger\ncared about. I didn't see the difference easily. I just gave up.\n;-)\n\n-- \nShawn.\n"},{"id":"39213","messageId":"20070412095519.GB26763@vual.tchpc.tcd.ie","threadId":"7593","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0704101414330.15823@blackbox.fnordora.org","subject":"Re: [OT] Re: Feature request - Subtree checkouts","fromName":"Jimmy Tang","fromEmail":"jtang@tchpc.tcd.ie","sentAt":"2007-04-12T09:55:19Z","receivedAt":"2007-04-12T09:55:19Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jtang@tchpc.tcd.ie","avatar":null},"body":"On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 02:33:54PM -0700, alan wrote:\n> >\n> >For example, I will personally never see email that comes directly to my\n> >email address though an open mail relay *or* from something that appears\n> >to be just a random botnet PC (I forget the exact rule, since I'm hapily\n> >ignorant of MIS, but I think it boils down to requiring a good reverse DNS\n> >lookup).\n> \n> Depending on your definition of \"good\".\n> \n> I run my mail server off my DSL line. I prefer having control over my \n> mail server instead of being chained to what my ISP provides. (The \n> problems of having been a sysadmin for way too many years.) I don't have \n> control over the reverse ip address, but I do over my DNS resolution. \n> (Well, most of it. A couple domains are sitting on really old dns servers \n> from years past.)\n> \n> >That's getting much more common. Most spam is done through botnets, and\n> >they still try to do the direct-to-port-25 thing, exactly because if you\n> >go through a *real* SMTP host, your ISP will generally shut you down\n> >pretty quickly if you're spamming.\n> \n> Which makes Greylisting a useful tool. However, some people define a \n> \"real SMTP host\" as being the one your ISP provides and no other. No \n> matter how good your OS or how stringent your rulesets for sending mail \n> are.\n> \n\ngreylisting unfortunately requires \"some maintenance\" to keep it\ngoing well, and it also breaks some mail appliances and probably some\nMTA's that are completely compliant in retrying to send mails. \n\nanother tactic which is probably just as good if not better than\ngreylisting is \"nolisting\", that is to have your primary mx point to a\nnon-existant machine with a real ip-address and dns entries (or even\na machine with a firewall that runs iptables that blackholes or does\nfunky stuff to anything coming in on port 25 and then just drops the\nconnections). \n\nif the remote end is a compliant MTA it will failover to the secondary\nmx which is a real machine that receives mail. but it probably suffers\nfrom the same problem of mail appliances not being completely compliant\nto the specs on how MTA's should work.\n\nnolisting offers almost as good effects as greylisting without the\nhassle of maintaining a list.\n\n\nJimmy.\n\n-- \nJimmy Tang\nTrinity Centre for High Performance Computing,\nLloyd Building, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland.\nhttp://www.tchpc.tcd.ie/ | http://www.tchpc.tcd.ie/~jtang\n"},{"id":"39331","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0704141039270.18846@racer.site","threadId":"7593","inReplyTo":"20070410074444.GA18541@curie-int.orbis-terrarum.net","subject":"Re: Feature request - Subtree checkouts","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2007-04-14T08:59:21Z","receivedAt":"2007-04-14T08:59:21Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Robin H. Johnson wrote:\n\n> Since shallow checkouts are now available, there's just one more thing \n> that's missing: subtree checkouts. Not to be confused with sub-projects.\n\nIt should not be _that_ difficult. If I'm correct, it should touch exactly \nthe same code as the commit v1.3.0~263^2~6 (\"Assume unchanged\" git).\n\nATM I have no time to do anything about it, so feel free to give it a try.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"}]}