[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Re (2): message threading in debian lists; was Re (6): OpenVPN server mode usage.



peasthope@shaw.ca wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > You have a complicated setup!
> 
> A complex setup.  "complicated" is a verb.  ... Sorry.

Uhm...  No.  Complicated is an adjective.

 From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:

   complicated
       adj : difficult to analyze or understand; "a complicated problem";
             "complicated Middle East politics"

> It's simplifying slowly and surely.  One helpful detail is to 
> route to a LAN rather than to individual machines.
> route 172.23.0.0 255.255.0.0
> rather than
> # Curie
> route 172.23.4.2
> # Heaviside
> route 172.23.5.2

Yes.  Definitely yes.  Simpler is better.

> > But since you have routes to public IP space there perhaps you would
> > want to route all of your traffic over the vpn (once you have it
> > working) and then you wouldn't need specific routes for everything.
> 
> Dalton has a relatively fast connection to the 'net 
> provided by the university.  Joule at home has a 
> relatively slow connection to the net through shaw.ca.  
>
> Are you suggesting that all of dalton's 'net traffic 
> go through the tunnel and Joule?  Are you suggesting 
> that all of joule's 'net traffic go through the tunnel 
> and dalton?  Aren't both significantly disadvantageous? 

I am suggesting that you have such a complicated routing setup that it
is causing you difficulty and that you should simplify it by some
method.  You listed five (5!) route commands in your configuration.

>>> # Machines in the local home zone reached _via_ the tunnel.
>>> # Curie
>>> route 172.23.4.2
>>> # Heaviside
>>> route 172.23.5.2
>>> # Shaw mail servers _via_ the tunnel.
>>> # route shawmail.gv.shawcable.net
>>> route 64.59.128.135
>>> route 24.71.223.43
>>> # Shaw ftp server _via_ the tunnel.
>>> # route ftp.shaw.ca
>>> route 64.59.128.134

And you have been having such trouble with your vpn(s).  To me that is
like a house of cards.  A light breeze blows it over.  In order to be
more robust it needs to be simpler, less rigid, and more flexible.

> > Standard email headers apply.  RFC 2822 would cover them. 
> 
> Certainly, but how many new Debian users will find RFC 2822, study 
> it and perceive how threading works when subscribing to debian-user?  

But you asked the question!  :-) It isn't fair to ask a question, get
an answer, and then complain about it.  :-)  That is dirty dealing!

In response I will only say that most users will simply use an MUA
(mail user agent) and will simply use it (mutt, thunderbird, gmail,
whatever) to generate follow-ups.  It is the MUA's job to do the right
thing with respect to email headers.  Let's hope the author of the MUA
actually took the time to read the RFCs.

Bob

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: