1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1Vy09l-0007SY-3c
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 31 Dec 2013 14:18:53 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.215.54 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.54; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-la0-f54.google.com;
Received: from mail-la0-f54.google.com ([209.85.215.54])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Vy09k-0007i5-9M
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 31 Dec 2013 14:18:53 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f54.google.com with SMTP id b8so6133099lan.41
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 31 Dec 2013 06:18:45 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.116.65 with SMTP id ju1mr135950lab.60.1388499525602;
Tue, 31 Dec 2013 06:18:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.198.65 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Dec 2013 06:18:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP2X_63qkuNuk0MvsLR9ewd7HR0mPVaD7bZSgWMTJ5-9FQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52A3C8A5.7010606@gmail.com>
<1795f3067ba3fcdd0caf978cc59ff024.squirrel@fruiteater.riseup.net>
<52A435EA.7090405@gmail.com> <201312081237.24473.luke@dashjr.org>
<CANAnSg2OrmQAcZ+cZdtQeADicH3U29QOgYPfP1AQhOMP6+P1wg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgR0khyJxmz9c2Oc87hOFgiNuiPJuaeugGajdo_EcKEW9w@mail.gmail.com>
<20131212205106.GA4572@netbook.cypherspace.org>
<CANAnSg3nPhrk2k=yDKf39AuBQnSuTWJbgANdMhGe=soiOy0NTw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgTmWRMxYweu3sNn_X7grgjUqTQujM-DbZRxG_YMZnD=7g@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2X_63qkuNuk0MvsLR9ewd7HR0mPVaD7bZSgWMTJ5-9FQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 06:18:45 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQmMZ6RYjbJ6ZfFO5+ZhZoR4d4yMf8CXLXKPmZt3-Je4Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
for more information. [URIs: plan99.net]
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Vy09k-0007i5-9M
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Dedicated server for bitcoin.org,
your thoughts?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 14:18:53 -0000
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:59 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> but moving to different ones is
> controversial, hence no progress :)
The site was actually moved onto a dedicated server temporarily and it
melted down under the load. I wouldn't call that no progress.
Perhaps I wasn't clear on the point I was making Drak's threat model
is not improved in the slightest by SSL. It would be improved by
increasing the use of signature checking, e.g. by making it easier.
Flat out misinformation never improves security.
|
