From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Subject: Re: SMTP+SPF (was: [9fans] Re: new release?)
From: Dave Lukes <davel@anvil.com>
To: Geoff Collyer <geoff@collyer.net>
Cc: 9fans <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <1077840327.5034.5.camel@rea>
References: <bc704259e8a0070b4f752d2f849bffbc@collyer.net>
	 <1077840327.5034.5.camel@rea>
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1077840504.5089.5.camel@rea>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:08:42 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: fbd48516-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Thanks, Geoff.

I'm with you on buffer overflows.

named here died with an assertion failure
and PSInet obviously don't have sensible fallback arranged.
Yawn. YA job for the morning!

Thanks again,
        Dave.

On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 22:01, Geoff Collyer wrote:
> Dave, my dns is reporting a delegation loop for anvil.com, so I can't
> get mail to you.
>
> cpu Feb 26 13:52:01 delegation loop anvil.com
ns      pri2.dns.uk.psi.net ->  ns      f.root-servers.net from
154.32.107.30
> cpud Feb 26 13:52:03 delegation loop anvil.com
ns     wonderwall.anvil.com ->  ns     f.root-servers.net from
154.32.107.30
>
> You have my sympathies; sendmail and named should be taken out back
> and shot; that would eliminate most of the buffer overflows on (l)unix
> systems.  Buffer overflows are not inevitable, they are the product of
> careless programming.  Let me once again plug Dave Presotto's
> string(2) library:
>
>       string(2): avoiding buffer overruns in upas since 1984
>