9front - general discussion about 9front
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [9front] Change of Hashsize in acid (slow startup on netsurf)
@ 2021-01-05 12:10 Jonas Amoson
  2021-01-05 21:03 ` Fwd: " hiro
  2021-01-05 21:59 ` ori
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jonas Amoson @ 2021-01-05 12:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9front

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 646 bytes --]

It is slow to debug netsurf with acid, as it takes a long time to load
all the symbols from the binary. It is the process of checking if a
symbol has been encountered before, the function unique(), that makes
the loading slow.

Changing Hashsize from 128 to 32768 in acid takes down the loading
time from 4 minutes to 8 seconds for me (45 times faster). Philippe
reported a similar speed increase (30x from 15 min to 30 sec).

I don't know if it is desirable to change the hashsize in the 9front
repo, as it probably is only netsurf that has so many symbols to load,
that it matters. But it might be that it doesn't harm anything either.

/Jonas

[-- Attachment #2.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 369 bytes --]

from postmaster@1ess:
The following attachment had content that we can't
prove to be harmless.  To avoid possible automatic
execution, we changed the content headers.
The original header was:

	Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="acid.patch"
	Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="acid.patch"
	Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
	Content-ID: <f_kjjy5yq10>

[-- Attachment #2.2: acid.patch.suspect --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 197 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Fwd: [9front] Change of Hashsize in acid (slow startup on netsurf)
  2021-01-05 12:10 [9front] Change of Hashsize in acid (slow startup on netsurf) Jonas Amoson
@ 2021-01-05 21:03 ` hiro
  2021-01-05 21:10   ` hiro
  2021-01-05 21:59 ` ori
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: hiro @ 2021-01-05 21:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9front

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1401 bytes --]

the 9front mailing list seems to be making a weird subdomain
quarantine decision:

Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
       dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@gmail.com
header.s=20161025 header.b=frcOH6pW;
       spf=pass (google.com: domain of 9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net
designates 216.126.196.35 as permitted sender)
smtp.mailfrom=9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net;
       dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com

but the from header does not specify a subdomine, so quarantine should not apply

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jonas Amoson <jonas.amoson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 14:10:09 +0200
Subject: [9front] Change of Hashsize in acid (slow startup on netsurf)
To: 9front@9front.org

It is slow to debug netsurf with acid, as it takes a long time to load
all the symbols from the binary. It is the process of checking if a
symbol has been encountered before, the function unique(), that makes
the loading slow.

Changing Hashsize from 128 to 32768 in acid takes down the loading
time from 4 minutes to 8 seconds for me (45 times faster). Philippe
reported a similar speed increase (30x from 15 min to 30 sec).

I don't know if it is desirable to change the hashsize in the 9front
repo, as it probably is only netsurf that has so many symbols to load,
that it matters. But it might be that it doesn't harm anything either.

/Jonas

[-- Attachment #2: acid.patch.suspect --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 197 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [9front] Change of Hashsize in acid (slow startup on netsurf)
  2021-01-05 21:03 ` Fwd: " hiro
@ 2021-01-05 21:10   ` hiro
  2021-01-05 22:16     ` Stanley Lieber
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: hiro @ 2021-01-05 21:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9front

i did not manage to quote the relevant part:

Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
       dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@gmail.com
header.s=20161025 header.b=frcOH6pW;
       spf=pass (google.com: domain of 9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net
designates 216.126.196.35 as permitted sender)
smtp.mailfrom=9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net;
       dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com
Received: from mail-vk1-f180.google.com ([209.85.221.180]) by 1ess; Tue Jan

the old server, ewsd seems to have done the same, but somehow gmail
didn't take it serious (perhaps people have trained gmail well enough
by manually pressing NOT SPAM).

On 1/5/21, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:
> the 9front mailing list seems to be making a weird subdomain
> quarantine decision:
>
> Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
>        dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@gmail.com
> header.s=20161025 header.b=frcOH6pW;
>        spf=pass (google.com: domain of 9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net
> designates 216.126.196.35 as permitted sender)
> smtp.mailfrom=9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net;
>        dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com
>
> but the from header does not specify a subdomine, so quarantine should not
> apply
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Jonas Amoson <jonas.amoson@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 14:10:09 +0200
> Subject: [9front] Change of Hashsize in acid (slow startup on netsurf)
> To: 9front@9front.org
>
> It is slow to debug netsurf with acid, as it takes a long time to load
> all the symbols from the binary. It is the process of checking if a
> symbol has been encountered before, the function unique(), that makes
> the loading slow.
>
> Changing Hashsize from 128 to 32768 in acid takes down the loading
> time from 4 minutes to 8 seconds for me (45 times faster). Philippe
> reported a similar speed increase (30x from 15 min to 30 sec).
>
> I don't know if it is desirable to change the hashsize in the 9front
> repo, as it probably is only netsurf that has so many symbols to load,
> that it matters. But it might be that it doesn't harm anything either.
>
> /Jonas
>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [9front] Change of Hashsize in acid (slow startup on netsurf)
  2021-01-05 12:10 [9front] Change of Hashsize in acid (slow startup on netsurf) Jonas Amoson
  2021-01-05 21:03 ` Fwd: " hiro
@ 2021-01-05 21:59 ` ori
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: ori @ 2021-01-05 21:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9front

Quoth Jonas Amoson <jonas.amoson@gmail.com>:
> from postmaster@1ess:
> The following attachment had content that we can't
> prove to be harmless.  To avoid possible automatic
> execution, we changed the content headers.
> The original header was:
> 
> 	Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="acid.patch"
> 	Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="acid.patch"
> 	Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
> 	Content-ID: <f_kjjy5yq10>

Seems reasonable, will apply it soon.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [9front] Change of Hashsize in acid (slow startup on netsurf)
  2021-01-05 21:10   ` hiro
@ 2021-01-05 22:16     ` Stanley Lieber
  2021-01-05 22:39       ` hiro
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Stanley Lieber @ 2021-01-05 22:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9front

On January 5, 2021 4:10:19 PM EST, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>i did not manage to quote the relevant part:
>
>Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
>       dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@gmail.com
>header.s=20161025 header.b=frcOH6pW;
>       spf=pass (google.com: domain of 9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net
>designates 216.126.196.35 as permitted sender)
>smtp.mailfrom=9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net;
>       dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com
>Received: from mail-vk1-f180.google.com ([209.85.221.180]) by 1ess; Tue Jan
>
>the old server, ewsd seems to have done the same, but somehow gmail
>didn't take it serious (perhaps people have trained gmail well enough
>by manually pressing NOT SPAM).
>
>On 1/5/21, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>> the 9front mailing list seems to be making a weird subdomain
>> quarantine decision:
>>
>> Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
>>        dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@gmail.com
>> header.s=20161025 header.b=frcOH6pW;
>>        spf=pass (google.com: domain of 9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net
>> designates 216.126.196.35 as permitted sender)
>> smtp.mailfrom=9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net;
>>        dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com
>>
>> but the from header does not specify a subdomine, so quarantine should not
>> apply
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Jonas Amoson <jonas.amoson@gmail.com>
>> Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 14:10:09 +0200
>> Subject: [9front] Change of Hashsize in acid (slow startup on netsurf)
>> To: 9front@9front.org
>>
>> It is slow to debug netsurf with acid, as it takes a long time to load
>> all the symbols from the binary. It is the process of checking if a
>> symbol has been encountered before, the function unique(), that makes
>> the loading slow.
>>
>> Changing Hashsize from 128 to 32768 in acid takes down the loading
>> time from 4 minutes to 8 seconds for me (45 times faster). Philippe
>> reported a similar speed increase (30x from 15 min to 30 sec).
>>
>> I don't know if it is desirable to change the hashsize in the 9front
>> repo, as it probably is only netsurf that has so many symbols to load,
>> that it matters. But it might be that it doesn't harm anything either.
>>
>> /Jonas
>>
>

i failed to get the ptr record updated until earlier today. hopefully gmail will stop complaining once it propagates.

sl

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [9front] Change of Hashsize in acid (slow startup on netsurf)
  2021-01-05 22:16     ` Stanley Lieber
@ 2021-01-05 22:39       ` hiro
  2021-01-05 23:01         ` Stanley Lieber
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: hiro @ 2021-01-05 22:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9front

i mean, somehow the 9front mailing list software seems to be
complaining about gmail...

On 1/5/21, Stanley Lieber <sl@stanleylieber.com> wrote:
> On January 5, 2021 4:10:19 PM EST, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>i did not manage to quote the relevant part:
>>
>>Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
>>       dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@gmail.com
>>header.s=20161025 header.b=frcOH6pW;
>>       spf=pass (google.com: domain of 9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net
>>designates 216.126.196.35 as permitted sender)
>>smtp.mailfrom=9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net;
>>       dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com
>>Received: from mail-vk1-f180.google.com ([209.85.221.180]) by 1ess; Tue
>> Jan
>>
>>the old server, ewsd seems to have done the same, but somehow gmail
>>didn't take it serious (perhaps people have trained gmail well enough
>>by manually pressing NOT SPAM).
>>
>>On 1/5/21, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> the 9front mailing list seems to be making a weird subdomain
>>> quarantine decision:
>>>
>>> Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
>>>        dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@gmail.com
>>> header.s=20161025 header.b=frcOH6pW;
>>>        spf=pass (google.com: domain of 9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net
>>> designates 216.126.196.35 as permitted sender)
>>> smtp.mailfrom=9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net;
>>>        dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com
>>>
>>> but the from header does not specify a subdomine, so quarantine should
>>> not
>>> apply
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Jonas Amoson <jonas.amoson@gmail.com>
>>> Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 14:10:09 +0200
>>> Subject: [9front] Change of Hashsize in acid (slow startup on netsurf)
>>> To: 9front@9front.org
>>>
>>> It is slow to debug netsurf with acid, as it takes a long time to load
>>> all the symbols from the binary. It is the process of checking if a
>>> symbol has been encountered before, the function unique(), that makes
>>> the loading slow.
>>>
>>> Changing Hashsize from 128 to 32768 in acid takes down the loading
>>> time from 4 minutes to 8 seconds for me (45 times faster). Philippe
>>> reported a similar speed increase (30x from 15 min to 30 sec).
>>>
>>> I don't know if it is desirable to change the hashsize in the 9front
>>> repo, as it probably is only netsurf that has so many symbols to load,
>>> that it matters. But it might be that it doesn't harm anything either.
>>>
>>> /Jonas
>>>
>>
>
> i failed to get the ptr record updated until earlier today. hopefully gmail
> will stop complaining once it propagates.
>
> sl
>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [9front] Change of Hashsize in acid (slow startup on netsurf)
  2021-01-05 22:39       ` hiro
@ 2021-01-05 23:01         ` Stanley Lieber
  2021-01-06  9:07           ` hiro
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Stanley Lieber @ 2021-01-05 23:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9front

On January 5, 2021 5:39:05 PM EST, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>i mean, somehow the 9front mailing list software seems to be
>complaining about gmail...
>
>On 1/5/21, Stanley Lieber <sl@stanleylieber.com> wrote:
>> On January 5, 2021 4:10:19 PM EST, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>i did not manage to quote the relevant part:
>>>
>>>Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
>>>       dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@gmail.com
>>>header.s=20161025 header.b=frcOH6pW;
>>>       spf=pass (google.com: domain of 9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net
>>>designates 216.126.196.35 as permitted sender)
>>>smtp.mailfrom=9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net;
>>>       dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com
>>>Received: from mail-vk1-f180.google.com ([209.85.221.180]) by 1ess; Tue
>>> Jan
>>>
>>>the old server, ewsd seems to have done the same, but somehow gmail
>>>didn't take it serious (perhaps people have trained gmail well enough
>>>by manually pressing NOT SPAM).
>>>
>>>On 1/5/21, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> the 9front mailing list seems to be making a weird subdomain
>>>> quarantine decision:
>>>>
>>>> Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
>>>>        dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@gmail.com
>>>> header.s=20161025 header.b=frcOH6pW;
>>>>        spf=pass (google.com: domain of 9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net
>>>> designates 216.126.196.35 as permitted sender)
>>>> smtp.mailfrom=9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net;
>>>>        dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> but the from header does not specify a subdomine, so quarantine should
>>>> not
>>>> apply
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Jonas Amoson <jonas.amoson@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 14:10:09 +0200
>>>> Subject: [9front] Change of Hashsize in acid (slow startup on netsurf)
>>>> To: 9front@9front.org
>>>>
>>>> It is slow to debug netsurf with acid, as it takes a long time to load
>>>> all the symbols from the binary. It is the process of checking if a
>>>> symbol has been encountered before, the function unique(), that makes
>>>> the loading slow.
>>>>
>>>> Changing Hashsize from 128 to 32768 in acid takes down the loading
>>>> time from 4 minutes to 8 seconds for me (45 times faster). Philippe
>>>> reported a similar speed increase (30x from 15 min to 30 sec).
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if it is desirable to change the hashsize in the 9front
>>>> repo, as it probably is only netsurf that has so many symbols to load,
>>>> that it matters. But it might be that it doesn't harm anything either.
>>>>
>>>> /Jonas
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> i failed to get the ptr record updated until earlier today. hopefully gmail
>> will stop complaining once it propagates.
>>
>> sl
>>
>

you'll have to walk me through that. all i see is google demanding to see our papers.

sl

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [9front] Change of Hashsize in acid (slow startup on netsurf)
  2021-01-05 23:01         ` Stanley Lieber
@ 2021-01-06  9:07           ` hiro
  2021-01-06 15:23             ` Stanley Lieber
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: hiro @ 2021-01-06  9:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9front

well it's all new to me, too.

dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com

this line, seems to suggest that gmail.com has to go into quarantine
because of a dmarc subdomain policy. but no gmail subdomain is used so
it shouldn't apply. it feels like your mail server is incorrectly
looking at sp=.



On 1/6/21, Stanley Lieber <sl@stanleylieber.com> wrote:
> On January 5, 2021 5:39:05 PM EST, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>i mean, somehow the 9front mailing list software seems to be
>>complaining about gmail...
>>
>>On 1/5/21, Stanley Lieber <sl@stanleylieber.com> wrote:
>>> On January 5, 2021 4:10:19 PM EST, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>i did not manage to quote the relevant part:
>>>>
>>>>Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
>>>>       dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@gmail.com
>>>>header.s=20161025 header.b=frcOH6pW;
>>>>       spf=pass (google.com: domain of 9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net
>>>>designates 216.126.196.35 as permitted sender)
>>>>smtp.mailfrom=9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net;
>>>>       dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com
>>>>Received: from mail-vk1-f180.google.com ([209.85.221.180]) by 1ess; Tue
>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>>the old server, ewsd seems to have done the same, but somehow gmail
>>>>didn't take it serious (perhaps people have trained gmail well enough
>>>>by manually pressing NOT SPAM).
>>>>
>>>>On 1/5/21, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> the 9front mailing list seems to be making a weird subdomain
>>>>> quarantine decision:
>>>>>
>>>>> Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
>>>>>        dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@gmail.com
>>>>> header.s=20161025 header.b=frcOH6pW;
>>>>>        spf=pass (google.com: domain of 9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net
>>>>> designates 216.126.196.35 as permitted sender)
>>>>> smtp.mailfrom=9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net;
>>>>>        dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE)
>>>>> header.from=gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>> but the from header does not specify a subdomine, so quarantine should
>>>>> not
>>>>> apply
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: Jonas Amoson <jonas.amoson@gmail.com>
>>>>> Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 14:10:09 +0200
>>>>> Subject: [9front] Change of Hashsize in acid (slow startup on netsurf)
>>>>> To: 9front@9front.org
>>>>>
>>>>> It is slow to debug netsurf with acid, as it takes a long time to load
>>>>> all the symbols from the binary. It is the process of checking if a
>>>>> symbol has been encountered before, the function unique(), that makes
>>>>> the loading slow.
>>>>>
>>>>> Changing Hashsize from 128 to 32768 in acid takes down the loading
>>>>> time from 4 minutes to 8 seconds for me (45 times faster). Philippe
>>>>> reported a similar speed increase (30x from 15 min to 30 sec).
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know if it is desirable to change the hashsize in the 9front
>>>>> repo, as it probably is only netsurf that has so many symbols to load,
>>>>> that it matters. But it might be that it doesn't harm anything either.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Jonas
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> i failed to get the ptr record updated until earlier today. hopefully
>>> gmail
>>> will stop complaining once it propagates.
>>>
>>> sl
>>>
>>
>
> you'll have to walk me through that. all i see is google demanding to see
> our papers.
>
> sl
>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [9front] Change of Hashsize in acid (slow startup on netsurf)
  2021-01-06  9:07           ` hiro
@ 2021-01-06 15:23             ` Stanley Lieber
  2021-01-06 16:23               ` hiro
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Stanley Lieber @ 2021-01-06 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9front

On January 6, 2021 4:07:38 AM EST, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>well it's all new to me, too.
>
>dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com
>
>this line, seems to suggest that gmail.com has to go into quarantine
>because of a dmarc subdomain policy. but no gmail subdomain is used so
>it shouldn't apply. it feels like your mail server is incorrectly
>looking at sp=.
>
>
>
>On 1/6/21, Stanley Lieber <sl@stanleylieber.com> wrote:
>> On January 5, 2021 5:39:05 PM EST, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>i mean, somehow the 9front mailing list software seems to be
>>>complaining about gmail...
>>>
>>>On 1/5/21, Stanley Lieber <sl@stanleylieber.com> wrote:
>>>> On January 5, 2021 4:10:19 PM EST, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>i did not manage to quote the relevant part:
>>>>>
>>>>>Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
>>>>>       dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@gmail.com
>>>>>header.s=20161025 header.b=frcOH6pW;
>>>>>       spf=pass (google.com: domain of 9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net
>>>>>designates 216.126.196.35 as permitted sender)
>>>>>smtp.mailfrom=9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net;
>>>>>       dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com
>>>>>Received: from mail-vk1-f180.google.com ([209.85.221.180]) by 1ess; Tue
>>>>> Jan
>>>>>
>>>>>the old server, ewsd seems to have done the same, but somehow gmail
>>>>>didn't take it serious (perhaps people have trained gmail well enough
>>>>>by manually pressing NOT SPAM).
>>>>>
>>>>>On 1/5/21, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> the 9front mailing list seems to be making a weird subdomain
>>>>>> quarantine decision:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
>>>>>>        dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@gmail.com
>>>>>> header.s=20161025 header.b=frcOH6pW;
>>>>>>        spf=pass (google.com: domain of 9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net
>>>>>> designates 216.126.196.35 as permitted sender)
>>>>>> smtp.mailfrom=9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net;
>>>>>>        dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE)
>>>>>> header.from=gmail.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but the from header does not specify a subdomine, so quarantine should
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> apply
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>> From: Jonas Amoson <jonas.amoson@gmail.com>
>>>>>> Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 14:10:09 +0200
>>>>>> Subject: [9front] Change of Hashsize in acid (slow startup on netsurf)
>>>>>> To: 9front@9front.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is slow to debug netsurf with acid, as it takes a long time to load
>>>>>> all the symbols from the binary. It is the process of checking if a
>>>>>> symbol has been encountered before, the function unique(), that makes
>>>>>> the loading slow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Changing Hashsize from 128 to 32768 in acid takes down the loading
>>>>>> time from 4 minutes to 8 seconds for me (45 times faster). Philippe
>>>>>> reported a similar speed increase (30x from 15 min to 30 sec).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know if it is desirable to change the hashsize in the 9front
>>>>>> repo, as it probably is only netsurf that has so many symbols to load,
>>>>>> that it matters. But it might be that it doesn't harm anything either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Jonas
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> i failed to get the ptr record updated until earlier today. hopefully
>>>> gmail
>>>> will stop complaining once it propagates.
>>>>
>>>> sl
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> you'll have to walk me through that. all i see is google demanding to see
>> our papers.
>>
>> sl
>>
>

i don't understand. i don't think my server is writing that line at all. there is no mention of dmarc or quarantine in the ups source. the stuff you're quoting seems to be coming from google. what am i missing here?

sl

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [9front] Change of Hashsize in acid (slow startup on netsurf)
  2021-01-06 15:23             ` Stanley Lieber
@ 2021-01-06 16:23               ` hiro
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: hiro @ 2021-01-06 16:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9front

i thought gmail would *first* insert a Received: header before they
add their other stupid shit. thanks for clarifying this is actually
coming from them and not from you, sorry for my confusion

On 1/6/21, Stanley Lieber <sl@stanleylieber.com> wrote:
> On January 6, 2021 4:07:38 AM EST, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>well it's all new to me, too.
>>
>>dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com
>>
>>this line, seems to suggest that gmail.com has to go into quarantine
>>because of a dmarc subdomain policy. but no gmail subdomain is used so
>>it shouldn't apply. it feels like your mail server is incorrectly
>>looking at sp=.
>>
>>
>>
>>On 1/6/21, Stanley Lieber <sl@stanleylieber.com> wrote:
>>> On January 5, 2021 5:39:05 PM EST, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>i mean, somehow the 9front mailing list software seems to be
>>>>complaining about gmail...
>>>>
>>>>On 1/5/21, Stanley Lieber <sl@stanleylieber.com> wrote:
>>>>> On January 5, 2021 4:10:19 PM EST, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>i did not manage to quote the relevant part:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
>>>>>>       dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@gmail.com
>>>>>>header.s=20161025 header.b=frcOH6pW;
>>>>>>       spf=pass (google.com: domain of 9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net
>>>>>>designates 216.126.196.35 as permitted sender)
>>>>>>smtp.mailfrom=9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net;
>>>>>>       dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE)
>>>>>> header.from=gmail.com
>>>>>>Received: from mail-vk1-f180.google.com ([209.85.221.180]) by 1ess;
>>>>>> Tue
>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>the old server, ewsd seems to have done the same, but somehow gmail
>>>>>>didn't take it serious (perhaps people have trained gmail well enough
>>>>>>by manually pressing NOT SPAM).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On 1/5/21, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> the 9front mailing list seems to be making a weird subdomain
>>>>>>> quarantine decision:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
>>>>>>>        dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@gmail.com
>>>>>>> header.s=20161025 header.b=frcOH6pW;
>>>>>>>        spf=pass (google.com: domain of 9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net
>>>>>>> designates 216.126.196.35 as permitted sender)
>>>>>>> smtp.mailfrom=9front-bounces@1ess.inri.net;
>>>>>>>        dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE)
>>>>>>> header.from=gmail.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but the from header does not specify a subdomine, so quarantine
>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> apply
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>> From: Jonas Amoson <jonas.amoson@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 14:10:09 +0200
>>>>>>> Subject: [9front] Change of Hashsize in acid (slow startup on
>>>>>>> netsurf)
>>>>>>> To: 9front@9front.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is slow to debug netsurf with acid, as it takes a long time to
>>>>>>> load
>>>>>>> all the symbols from the binary. It is the process of checking if a
>>>>>>> symbol has been encountered before, the function unique(), that
>>>>>>> makes
>>>>>>> the loading slow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Changing Hashsize from 128 to 32768 in acid takes down the loading
>>>>>>> time from 4 minutes to 8 seconds for me (45 times faster). Philippe
>>>>>>> reported a similar speed increase (30x from 15 min to 30 sec).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know if it is desirable to change the hashsize in the 9front
>>>>>>> repo, as it probably is only netsurf that has so many symbols to
>>>>>>> load,
>>>>>>> that it matters. But it might be that it doesn't harm anything
>>>>>>> either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Jonas
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> i failed to get the ptr record updated until earlier today. hopefully
>>>>> gmail
>>>>> will stop complaining once it propagates.
>>>>>
>>>>> sl
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> you'll have to walk me through that. all i see is google demanding to
>>> see
>>> our papers.
>>>
>>> sl
>>>
>>
>
> i don't understand. i don't think my server is writing that line at all.
> there is no mention of dmarc or quarantine in the ups source. the stuff
> you're quoting seems to be coming from google. what am i missing here?
>
> sl
>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2021-01-06 16:29 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-01-05 12:10 [9front] Change of Hashsize in acid (slow startup on netsurf) Jonas Amoson
2021-01-05 21:03 ` Fwd: " hiro
2021-01-05 21:10   ` hiro
2021-01-05 22:16     ` Stanley Lieber
2021-01-05 22:39       ` hiro
2021-01-05 23:01         ` Stanley Lieber
2021-01-06  9:07           ` hiro
2021-01-06 15:23             ` Stanley Lieber
2021-01-06 16:23               ` hiro
2021-01-05 21:59 ` ori

9front - general discussion about 9front

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror http://inbox.vuxu.org/9front

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V1 9front 9front/ http://inbox.vuxu.org/9front \
		9front@9front.org
	public-inbox-index 9front

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.vuxu.org/vuxu.archive.9front


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git