MSGID: 2:230/0 64c0d238   
   TZUTC: 0000   
   REPLY: 1:153/7001.2989 64c08f1b   
   CHRS: LATIN-1 2   
   TID: hpt/lnx 1.9.0-cur 17-02-17   
   Hello Maurice!   
      
   26 Jul 2023 03:12, Maurice Kinal wrote to Benny Pedersen:   
      
    MK> Which zenblead fixes?   
       
   why do you ask me ?  :=)   
       
    MK> I just booted it up on this machine earlier    
    MK> today but see little to no difference.   
      
   then you possible are fine with zen3 or zen4 with dont have this bugs to be   
   solved in ucode   
      
    BP>> keep away from zen2 hardware is safe on its own   
      
    MK> I am not convinced but it isn't like I can cite any unsafe behavior so    
    MK> far.  This machine is deploying a AMD Ryzen 7 5800U which if I am not    
    MK> mistaken is a zen3.  The Europoint is on a zen1 (AMD Ryzen Embedded    
    MK> R1505G).  I also have a zen2 but it is an Epyc and isn't part of the    
    MK> fidonet mix.  I am using it solely for R&D.   
      
   does it say epyc in uname -a ? :)   
      
   there exists zenbleed tarball that have tools to test if something is missing   
   in ucode, i dont know if the ucode is part of kernel, but imho only 6.4.6 have   
   zenbleed fix, not currently older kernels   
      
   i still don't have any epyc cpu, so i am happy :=)   
      
    MK> As for the www it is even more fsck'ed than it ever was.  No surprises    
    MK> there.  I note many a site that won't support my webbrowser anymore    
    MK> and it was probably the safest any browser ever is/was.  Very sad    
    MK> although I never really cared for the www so I wan't be missing it.     
    MK> How about you?   
      
   gopher is not well designed for roundcube webmail, lol :)   
      
   i dont know if there exists webmail based on gopher protocol, i will let it be   
   upto the reader to find why it does not work   
      
   sadly dovecot have planed to support jmap, but so far only cyrus-imapd have   
   it, on the other hand cyrus-imapd miss support for weakforced, it complicated   
   for secureity, i could just make reject rules in iptables change to accept for   
   a limited ip ranges where i have users, it would be rock solid, firewalls   
   should be static rule set, not dynamic, and this is why i think fail2ban is   
   designed for the incorrect problem   
      
      
    Regards Benny   
      
   ... too late to die young :)   
      
   --- Msged/LNX 6.1.2 (Linux/6.4.6-gentoo-dist (x86_64))   
    * Origin: gopher://fido.junc.eu/ (2:230/0)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/123 15/0 90/1 103/705 105/81 106/201 114/709 123/131 124/5016   
   SEEN-BY: 129/305 153/757 7715 154/10 201/0 203/0 124 412 218/700 221/0   
   SEEN-BY: 221/1 6 226/30 227/114 229/110 112 113 206 307 317 400 426   
   SEEN-BY: 229/428 452 470 550 616 664 700 230/0 240/1120 5832 266/512   
   SEEN-BY: 280/464 5003 282/1038 291/111 292/854 8125 301/1 113 812   
   SEEN-BY: 310/31 317/3 320/219 322/757 335/364 341/66 234 342/200 396/45   
   SEEN-BY: 423/120 460/58 256 1124 5858 633/280 712/848 770/1 5020/400   
   SEEN-BY: 5020/545 1042 5054/30 5075/35   
   PATH: 230/0 203/0 280/464 301/1 460/58 229/426