00:52:49 <geometry> What does  ^b in csh do?
00:53:28 <geometry> I'm looking at a shell inside tmux, accidentally caused a ^b to be sent and it isn't responding.
00:54:17 <LXGHTNXNG> It's a tmux escape code, not csh.
00:54:27 <LXGHTNXNG> ^b c can create a new window, ^b w can switch windows
00:55:10 <geometry> Yes, but ^b^b will cause it to send a ^b and the shell's state seems to now be unknown.
00:56:18 <geometry> Ah, perhaps tmux is in some sort of command-mode.
01:01:09 <LXGHTNXNG> so the shell received a ^B?
01:01:53 <geometry> Seems tmux had gotten into some sort of command mode, simply needed a 'q' to be talking to the shell again.
01:04:16 <geometry> Okay finally archived any history from that shell.
01:19:46 <mason> rwp: Thank you. Yeah, that doesn't sound bad.
01:30:57 <rdr> nesting tmux is illegal in many states
01:31:12 <LXGHTNXNG> citation?
01:31:22 <rdr> it's a joke haha
01:31:57 <bsdrobert> punchline shoulda been a funny citation
01:32:05 <bsdrobert> comedians never give up
01:32:14 <rdr> dang you're right
01:46:13 <jan0t> you nest tmux?
01:46:21 <jan0t> i nested 3 instances of emacs inside emacs
01:46:41 <jan0t> I used emacs shell to ssh into a server and use emacs there
01:46:53 <jan0t> then i continued to use ssh from there to another server
01:47:13 <LXGHTNXNG> i nest tmux
03:12:21 <geometry> Now I need to find help with Sendmail (guess how long this installation has been around).
03:47:43 <mason> geometry: What's your Sendmail doing?
03:50:46 <geometry> Rather a lot for this site.  :-/
03:51:12 <geometry> In this case a message was rejected by a rule and I'm not too familiar with Sendmail rules.
03:52:08 <geometry> "ruleset=check_relay"
03:54:08 <geometry> "reject=550 5.7.1 Access denied", though that should nominally be incoming handled by the local system.
03:54:17 <mason> geometry: Safest bet is to ignore .cf and manage your config with .mc.
03:55:55 <geometry> Would be safe, accept this is an existing installation and I'm not ready to make major changes yet.
03:56:06 <geometry> ^accept^except
04:12:00 <mason> geometry: Well. If it's failing in various ways, getting it under control is critical, and having a maintainable config is part of that. It'd be worth understanding what the expected behaviour is.
04:12:51 <geometry> I suspect it may be a maintainable config, but it was written by someone who had been working on it for decades.
04:12:58 <mason> geometry: Your error sounds like it's an outdated RBL or something, possibly, and that could have some pretty bad effects on delivery depending on how you react to the inability to check.
04:13:33 <mason> geometry: Well. They should have been using .mc. That was the best practise when I started using Sendmail in the 90s.
04:14:38 <mason> If they're doing funny things in .cf, those should have been well-documented. It's really just about unheard-of to have anything that would require any complexity in .cf.
04:15:01 <mason> geometry: So you can do things like, configure a sane .mc, generate a .cf, and see how it differs from what you've got.
04:15:15 <LXGHTNXNG> is the format of .cf directly docuented?
04:15:53 <geometry> They may be derived from the .mc files, but I'm less than 100% certain of that.
04:16:19 <mason> geometry: Find all the .mc files you can, generate .cf's from them, and see what matches or what's closest.
04:16:45 <mason> And as LXGHTNXNG notes, see if they properly commented the .cf in the event that they were writing .cf directly.
04:17:07 <geometry> Ah, I think I found the issue.
04:17:22 <mason> Also, if it's a legacy system and no one's been maintaining it, look at mtimes on the various files and you might match up .mc and .cf that way.
04:18:21 <geometry> Someone had been maintaining it, but I think they had gotten over their head.
04:18:44 <mason> Easy to do.
04:19:07 <geometry> They were resorting to desparation tactics to try to cut down on spam and looks like they added something incorrect to the access list.
04:20:21 <geometry> Hmm, seems the RCS files are out of date.  :-(
04:20:30 <mason> geometry: Look at dnsbl here: https://www.sendmail.org/~ca/email/doc8.12/cf/m4/features.html
04:21:06 <mason> Should be trivial to add.
04:22:54 <mason> The last time I ran Sendmail myself, I was using it with UUCP. But I've had to support it for other folks much more recently.
04:23:55 <geometry> The real problem is nothing is the spammers are still trying despite all efforts to fight them.  :-(
04:24:07 <geometry> ^is nothing^
04:26:24 <geometry> Educating users still isn't crushing their margins sufficiently to make them stop.
04:26:46 <geometry> I haven't decided advertising is inherently evil, but I've started to wonder...
04:53:53 <mason> geometry: Beware, a whole new worldview awaits you.
05:42:56 * LXGHTNXNG whistles the internationale
15:44:46 <polarian> objectivist: I have to ask, is your username based on objectivism?
15:54:24 <lts> Quite a bold assumption there
15:58:20 <bsdrobert> You opened a can of worms that's already been discussed in #freebsd-social
16:12:06 <hc> Is there a public backlog of that channel?
16:13:50 <bsdrobert> Dunno.
16:14:06 <bsdrobert> Good channel though. Even weirder than #freebsd.
16:14:25 <bsdrobert> We have resident poets and other talented folks there.
16:18:07 <sbr> I'm like a moth to weird.
16:18:18 <sbr> Normal just doesn't cut it anymore
16:18:34 <lts> Sold
16:38:11 <hc> bsdrobert: sounds interesting; I've just joined as an idler
16:38:58 <bsdrobert> welcome
16:43:25 <objectivist> polarian: objectively, yes
16:44:07 <polarian> objectivist: do you like Ayn Rand by chance
16:44:09 * polarian runs
16:44:31 <polarian> bsdrobert: oh
16:44:51 <objectivist> polarian: I think she had nice ideas, her philosophy is decent I guess.  The name more or less is just because it's what I've been studying for the time being
16:46:24 <objectivist> Politically, I don't do doctrines but I'm of the mindset that allowing the government to grow larger than what it is has proven to be a dangerous path.  So I really find her "predictions" to be on the money in a lot of ways...  One book that Fascinated me of hers was Return Of The Primitive and she described much of this Net Zero stuff to this date
16:47:11 <objectivist> So I guess if a person were to put me in a category, I would be a Libertarian, maybe Classic Liberal, Maybe Minarchist
16:47:23 <objectivist> But again, I don't do doctrines
16:48:30 <objectivist> I like her stuff though, for Philosophy, it's very approachable
16:49:13 <objectivist> There are holes, but no philosophy is sound, that's why she said that you really need to read and understand them all.  To never stop learning
16:54:28 <polarian> sorry should put this in -social
17:01:14 <nesta> or not :P
17:01:30 <polarian> mod will smite me :p
17:01:45 <polarian> objectivist: do you have Atlas Shrugged on your bookshelf?
17:01:48 <polarian> I have been meaning to read it
17:01:53 <polarian> just not found the time
17:02:54 <nesta> smh
17:05:59 <objectivist> I own it but not really big on fiction
17:13:11 <polarian> nesta: sorry :/
18:00:29 <voy4g3r2> probably best to have those types of discussions in the social channel.. but we all know anthem, fountainhead and atlas shrugged.. should be seen in that order
18:01:57 <bsdrobert> hate 2 say it but told you it was a can of worms
18:03:17 <voy4g3r2> hehe, yes
18:03:23 <voy4g3r2> i will go back to my yard work