Enterprise DBAs will nevertheless provision separate /dev/null0 and /dev/null1 devices due to corporate policy. In the event of an outage, the symlink from null will be updated manually following an approved run book. Please note that this runbook must be revalidated annually as part of the sarbox audit, without which the null device is no longer authorised for production use and must be deleted
Neither is nominating a third party for your parking fine.
The point is to get away from centralized gatekeepers, not establish more of them. A hierarchy of disavowal. It’s like cache invalidation for accountability.
If you don’t wanna be held responsible for something, you’d better be prepared to point the finger at someone whois.
I was running millions of accounts using Postfix/Dovecot on shared-nothing storage with a single MUA-facing endpoint and complex policy options, and that was over a decade ago.
Fastmail today would be much bigger again, and they’re on CMU Cyrus.
150k is rookie numbers. Perhaps that was meant ironically to satirise mediocre enterprise thinking?
FWIW, GSuite seems to do fewer things, but at least does them better (think nested groups and calendar invitations for parent groups: adding/removing people does not update future events with MS tools).
But at the same time, within an org of 150k people, we have separate people to support our Teams usge, our Outlook usage, our AD/Entra usage: with the same number of "sysadmins", could we do the same with open source stack?
I don't know, but I know the bugs I see with MS365.
Cool, you got a blog article detailing how that works with Postfix/Dovecot? All clustering articles I'm seeing for those involved shared storage. Fastmail is not very specific how that works.
In any case, Exchange is not just email, it has Calendaring/Contacts stuff going on as well.
Why DAV should be integrated into any SMTPd ?? DAV is some protocol over HTTP - another service, another port. Why any architect want it in same binary or even deployed on same server ?? And even if some "cal" or "address" part is content in email that still processing it is totally different software layer then plain "sending mail" and storing it.
But no, people get self backdoored by using Exchange... Or clolud :) Or AI hosted by someone else...
Well, you can if the signed URL is signed for the CDN's verification instead of the underlying storage.
Generalising this; you don't need stateful logged-in authentication to defeat IDOR, you can include an appropriately salted HMAC in the construction of a shared identifier, optionally incorporating time or other scoping semantics as necessary, and verify that at your application's trust boundary.
This tends to make identifiers somewhat longer but still fit well inside a reasonable email'd URL to download your phone bill without having to dig up what your telco password was.
However, note that one of the baseline requirements of privacy-oriented data access is issuing different and opaque identifiers for the same underlying thing to each identifiable principal that asks for it. Whether that's achieved cryptographically or by a lookup table is a big can of engineering worms.
The actual experts I was paying attention to said that wearing a K/N-94/95 type mask lowers the statistical rate of transmission, that is, infection of others by your deadly virus.
The subsequent findings are that cloth-type masks are less effective (but not wholly ineffective) compared to clinical/surgical masks at limiting the aerosolized viral shedding from those already infected. So if a cloth mask was all you had, the advice became "please wear it".
Turns out, many people assume advice is only relevant when given for their own direct & immediate personal benefit, so they hear what they want to hear, and even the idea of giving a shit about externalities is sheer anathema. That gets boiled down further for idiot-grade TV and bad-faith social media troll engagement and we wind up with reductive and snarky soundbites, like the remark above, that help nobody at all.
Back on topic, the choice of so-called "experts" in the Guardian's coverage of the AWS matter seems to be a classic matchup of journalistic expediency with self-promoting interests to pad an article that otherwise has little to say beyond paraphrasing Amazon's operational updates.
It's unclear what you're arguing. The leading experts (Fauci/CDC) who most Americans were paying attention to were not providing this shading of meaning which you are trying to impute to them. That would be the case if they said something like N95 masks will provide excellent protection for you from the virus if worn correctly, but we have a shortage, so please make do with alternatives so that health care workers have access to them. That is not what they said. Instead they sacrificed credibility at the altar of expediency to the detriment of future trust.
What's reductive is assuming that people are motivated exclusively by self-interest instead of trusting them to make good decisions when told the truth.
> When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.
> But, when you think masks, you should think of health care providers needing them and people who are ill... It could lead to a shortage of masks for the people who really need it.
He said that there's a shortage, and that he didn't trust that people would wear the masks correctly. I remember that most of the early anti-mask guidance I heard was claims that they weren't likely to prevent yourself from getting infected because: the mask would become an infectious surface; and people wouldn't handle the mask as infectious.
> It is mainly to prevent those people who have the virus — and might not know it — from spreading the infection to others.
> U.S. health authorities have long maintained that face masks should be reserved only for medical professionals and patients suffering from COVID-19, the deadly disease caused by the coronavirus. The CDC had based this recommendation on the fact that such coverings offer little protection for wearers, and the need to conserve the country's alarmingly sparse supplies of personal protective equipment.
Sounds more like you chose to ignore it. My family was wearing medical-grade disposable facemasks and socially distancing from February 2020 on the basis of healthcare advice.
Hunting for a bogeyman in retrospect is the bad-faith narrative of the mediocre culture warrior. Good luck with your undifferentiated rage or whatever.
Even wearing my ex-AWS hat and understanding to some degree the internal complexity of these services, I too am boggled that foundational stuff is still out of Virginia and not a separately operated global region for the subset of control-plane dependencies that can’t be refactored into tolerating eventual consistency (such as parts of IAM).
We always used to talk a lot about minimising blast radius and there’s been enough time, and enough scale, to fix it.
Nevertheless the Guardian’s choice to label self-promoting policy wonks as “experts” is a cringe-inducing reminder that journalists don’t know anything about anything.
For this audience it may be worth noting that Ruby’s blocks are closures and are passed to methods either anonymously/implicitly or as a named parameter, may be subsequently passed around to any collaborator object, or otherwise deferred/ignored, have the same range of argument arity as methods and lambdas, can even be formed from (and treated similarly to) lambdas, and are thereby fundamental to Ruby’s claim to being a multiparadigm language even as they also betray the Smalltalk roots.
In addition they have nonlocal return semantics, somewhat like a simple continuation, making them ideal for inline iteration and folding, which is how most new Rubyists first encounter them, but also occasionally a source of surprise and confusion, most notably if one mistakenly conflates return with result. Ruby does separately have callcc for more precise control over stack unwinding, although it’s a little known feature.
> can even be formed from (and treated similarly to) lambdas
They are also used to create lambdas (even the shorthand stabby-lambda syntax desugars to a call to Kernel#lambda with a block.)
> Ruby does separately have callcc for more precise control over stack unwinding, although it’s a little known feature.
callcc is included in CRuby but has been sidelined from Ruby as a language separate from CRuby as an implementation for a while, with Fibers understood to cover the most important use cases for callcc.
As someone who comes from strict languages (the more strict, the better) Ruby blocks are... not fun.
I've seen them used in situations where they are used like a callback, but due to the nature of how you write them, you have no clue whether the variable you're referring to is a local or a global one.
Ruby isn’t strict, no, but that’s by the by, because this doesn’t sound like a problem with blocks or how you write them. It sounds more like a problem with evals i.e. some library or framework misusing them. Blocks are closures and they straightforwardly bind variables and resolve constants/instance variables from the context of their instantiation, and resolve methods similarly because self within the block is from instantiation, when we call them normally with yield or Proc#call. Same goes for implicit contexts used for definition, if your block does a bit of metaprogramming.
If someone plays silly buggers and invokes them under instance_eval or class_exec etc that fiddle with self or definition contexts then some of this goes out the window, but those are special-purpose methods that come papered with red flags. This is typically seen in poorly designed DSLs that are trying too hard to pretend they’re not actually Ruby. If memory serves, the Chef DSL was a prime example in this regard. If the language was stricter, then sure, this wouldn’t be possible. But debugging these cases isn’t super hard either once you know the limited range of culprits, and the fix is always the same: place values in local stack variables to rely on them in a closure.
Using blocks for callbacks is fine. Don’t make assumptions about the semantics of flow control statements that other languages may have imposed on you, i.e. use next and break for explicit block results and local exit instead of return, and don’t eval them.
Symmetric encryption of IDs at the edge. Optional embedded HMAC. Optional text encoding. For monotonic bigserial values I'm somewhat fond of base58(AES_K1(id{8} || HMAC_K2(id{8})[0..7])) with purpose/table-salted HKDF subkeys from a scrypt'd system passphrase. The hot path of this is pretty fast. As with all cryptographic solutions it comes with a whole new jungle of pitfalls, caveats, and tradeoffs, but it works.
That depends on exact scheme and text encoding, but in the example I give above, they are 22 characters, and I will even pad them in the text encoder for length consistency.
