I updated the auth_smtpd plug-in for qpsmtpd to also support CRAM-MD5 authentication. I initially was sitting puzzling about how to do so when I realised there was also an auth plugin hook for CRAM-MD5 already defined. Duh. So now fixed and on the Wiki – http://wiki.qpsmtpd.org/auth_smtpd. Even seems to work.
Posts Tagged ‘wiki’
auth_smtpd with CRAM-MD5
October 17th, 2006Ana Matronic
October 6th, 2006Ana Matronic from the Scissor Sisters is really rather foxy. Okay – nothing to see hear – move along – this is not the blogpost you are looking for – move along…
A new spam strategy for me
September 27th, 2006I get a lot of email. Mountains of the stuff. A fair chunk of it is spam. A consequence of having some older email addresses that still forward mail to me. As a result I spend quite a bit of time perfecting spam defenses. I used amavisd-new, dspam, grey-listing, SpamAssassin, SPF, DK/DKIM, p0f, bogofilter and Anomy and anti-virus all mingled together and tuned to an inch of their lives. My mail server burns some serious memory and CPU and has the world’s most damned complicated Postfix configuration. Recently, however, I threw my hands in the air and said “Enough!” Another approach was needed.
So I started doing some investigation and discovered qpmstpd – which is a very fast SMTP proxy written in Perl that comes with plug-ins for a variety of purposes – again all written in Perl. It sits in front of my Postfix and processes mail for spam and then submits it to the queue. After some initial tweaking it worked perfectly and the resulting configuration has greatly – greatly – simplified my mail configuration. The reduction in Postfix complexity alone (I nearly needed a flowchart to work out where mail was routed and injected) makes life considerably easier. The simplified anti-spam configuration in qpsmtpd is also much easier to manage.
Initial testing also reveals only a slight increase in spam slipping through and that’ll reduce as I tune SpamAssassin with some more training. Performance is also much improved and my box isn’t sucking up anywhere near as much memory and CPU – which might prolong the lifespan of the box.
I did need to add a new plug-in to do SMTP authentication for qpsmtpd. Luckily I found an older, not functional, plug-in that I adapted and fixed. You can find the updated auth_smtpd plug-in at the qpsmtpd wiki. Enjoy.
On the road to another White Australia Policy?
September 18th, 2006Shucks who knew politicians from both parties missed the White Australia Policy*? First Bomber Beazley’s comments suggesting visitors to Australia sign an ‘oath’ to abide by Australian values (oh yes – that’ll stop terrorism – “Damn can’t attack Australia now – they’ve made me sign this ‘oath’ saying I’ll be everyone’s mate. Crikey…”). Now shining light for tolerance Andrew Robb wants to change immigration laws to extend the time required to convert permenant residency to citizenship and administer a language test before conferring citizenship. A slippery slope perhaps? Are we heading back to the dark days of the White Australia Policy and eroding the good works of the Whitlam and Fraser governments in reforming Australia’s previously shameful immigration policy? As Barton did in 1901 at the start of the White Australia Policy, the current government acknowledges that this change in immigration laws is an act of appeasement rather than likely to have any substantial impact on the quality of our citizens.
* Linked for the benefit of my American friends.
Nancy of the Overflow
September 7th, 2006Nancy of the Overflow is, as you would expect, a homage of sorts to the classic Clancy of the Overflow by Banjo Paterson. Very enjoyable.
John Howard – Uncyclopedia
August 7th, 2005This is very funny. I especially like the photograph. One of my favourites that I had forgotten about. Priceless. Acquired via Ruth
Met chief apologises for shooting
July 23rd, 2005Saying sorry to the victim is a little tricky after shooting him five times in the head. Kind of makes the apology redundant. Of course there is the school of thought that says it was still justified. What is a few innocent lives if it saves some other innocent lives? The endless and disgusting justification of the doctrine of collateral damage and the truly offensive calculation of the value of human life. Is one life worth 10? 20? Is the life of a child worth more than an adult? Or a pregnant woman more than 2 lives? The whole concept makes me sick to my stomach.
Ellison backs call for anti-terrorism law review – ABC News Online
July 22nd, 2005This item is very interesting. Especially this line: “including taking citizenship away from people of bad character”. Bad character? And how do we judge bad character? Do we base it on a classified ASIO file? Does it need to be proven in open court? Do we base it on statements made? Or actions?
Does anyone remember other governments doing this. But of course those countries are both different cases – nothing like Australia. After all in those other bad countries they did it for immoral reasons and in illegal ways – either without any judicial oversight or based on falsified or classified evidence or because of someone’s religious, political or social beliefs… Oh.
Vale David Hackworth
June 29th, 2005Colonel David Hackworth, Vietnam Veteran and advocate for veterans and serving soldiers, has died aged 74. Affectionately known as ‘Hack’ by soldiers and friends he died from bladder cancer thought to be the result of exposure to Agent Blue during the Vietnam War.
Hackworth was one of the most decorated US Army soldiers and best known for his outspoken views on US involvement in the Vietnam War. Hackworth stated that the US could not win the war and narrowly escaped a court martial for his comments. After leaving the Army he went into self-imposed exile in Australia. In Australia he lived in and around Brisbane and was heavily involved in the anti-nuclear movement.
He later returned to the US as a journalist and commentator on military affairs. He expressed considerable doubts about the US role in Afghanistan and Iraq. He had also regularly criticised the Pentagon and the Bush Administration for both their poor logistical support of the soldiers serving there and their battle strategy. Hackworth believed there was no way the United States could win a war in Iraq under their current battle strategy.
He leaves behind a wife and extended family. Vale Colonel David Hackworth – you will be much missed.
To the everlasting glory of the infantry
Shines the name, shines the name…
Free Speech and me
January 10th, 2005Thinking about free speech after some argument over at Darp’s weblog. I think the refrain of “free speech is free speech is free speech” is not as cut and dried as people make it out to be. Whilst I support a general principle that all speech should be free I think the reality is a lot more complicated. An interesting example, which has been both extensively documented and disputed under US law, is free speech whose intent is to solely inspire criminal actions or violence. The US Supreme Court originally described this as so-called ‘fighting words’ statements (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 315 U.S. 568). Since then a whole wave of cases and rulings have swung the pendulum, limiting and freeing this kind of speech depending on the governments of the day, the mood of the community, and the flavour of the Justices. The current crop, arguably an odd mix of Strict Constructionists (and for some fascinating argument on what this is and whether it actually exists see this excellent exchange of ideas) and judicial activists, have been back and forward on the topic of the strength of the 1st Amendment quite a bit and I expect any future Justices (almost certainly likely to be appointed by George W. Bush) will cause further debate. But I digress… Back to free speech.
Whilst it is nice to want to adopt a purist-approach to free speech – all speech is free and must be always defended – I don’t think the broader community in Australia and the United States agrees. Laws around this issue in Australia and the US are considerably more complicated than this because the community wants them to be. Restrictions on so-called ‘hate’ speech inspires a vitriolic response from the far left and right wing but it also inspires a strong reaction from the broader community. People do seem to want to restrict expression, including speech – often irrationally. Hence a government enforcing ‘all speech is free’ NEVER works. You have to accept that some speech is never going to be ‘free’ because it is not acceptable to the community that sets laws. Hence the concept of ‘free speech is free speech is free speech’ is unsupportable in a democratic society.
For example, in most instances I am familiar with (mostly in the US), communities supported laws restricting speech they weren’t happy with. Whether that speech be racial hate speech, anti-pornography, flag burning, separation. of Church and State issues etc, etc. Often those laws were struck or watered down by the courts as illegal (in a Constitutional sense in the US) but the support for them came from the people. I don’t think you can dictate a ‘every speech is free speech’ approach to people – they won’t abide it. Another example would be paedophiliac literature or images? Find me a representative majority of Australians who’d consider that free speech. My opinion:
1. Let the people determine, via the normal democratic means, what is free speech and what, if any, speech they want restricted.
2. Have a strong set of principles above those laws (such as the Bill of Rights) which uphold the principal(s) of free speech.
3. Have a justice system which regularly tests the people’s laws against the principles and mediates them.
Not perfect. But better than assuming people will always do the right thing and respect all speech.
P.S. I wonder where on the political spectrum this piece of thinking rests. Social Democrat? Social Humanist? Something along those lines. Whatever I am sure I’ll be labelled a leftie again by the raving hordes of “Free speech! Free speech!” RWDBs.
