Ok I have had a rummage through the list before posting.
This I think is the nearest one to my observation. Whilst it does not
say exactly what I am thinking it may actually be highlighting the
underlying issue as to why the situation is such.
https://tools.bitfolk.com/redmine/issues/46
So probably worth some input, as I probably have got it wrong somewhere.
I have just been setting up a limited email service on our VPS and part
of the feedback from an online email checker:-
check-auth@???
Fails the part verifying the senders authenticity through a reverse
lookup to check that the reverse lookup matches the mx. So I needed to
change the reverse lookup pointers for our IP6 and IP4 records to match.
Useful to have in the battle against spam (as well as SPF and DKIM etc).
After some speedy pointers from Andy, I found it easy enough to change
the IP4 but there is no facility to do the IP6 record. The indicated
discussion on IP6 suggests running a primary DNS elsewhere to do it. But
this feels like overkill for a single pointer modification. Like what
the IP4 was.
Might be worth considering updating the web page and capability to do
the same for the IP6 reverse pointer for the VPS as it does for the IP4
one. It does feel a bit inconsistent to be able to do one but not the other.
Ultimately though not having the ip6 reverse lookup pointer matching the
ip4 is something that in the grand scheme of things is something I will
not loose any sleep over, nor will I be running up a whole DNA service
to fix this one little thing. But it would be very good to have consistency.
Cheers
Kirbs
On 07/01/2019 13:43, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is a list of open feature requests and the number of votes
> they have received:
>
> https://tools.bitfolk.com/redmine/issues?query_id=1
>
> (You can vote an issue up or down once you are logged in and viewing
> it)
>
> I am currently working on making a "billing" role for the address
> book, so that invoices can be sent to different/multiple people.
> That was actually the most desired thing of the whole "address book"
> feature and will allow for getting rid of a few cumbersome mail
> aliases that we have.
>
> I can take it as said that everyone wants "better spec VPSes for
> less money" but after I'm done with the billing role I'll move on to
> something else and I will use this list of issues and their votes to
> help me make that decision¹.
>
> At the moment it's looking like people really want to be able to add
> and remove secondary DNS domains from the panel.
>
> Next up is an SMS alerting method for Nagios, which I suppose now
> carries over for Icinga2. I am really sceptical about this. Mainly
> I worry that very few people will actually use it, and every SMS
> sent costs BitFolk money, so is it a good use of resources? If I
> don't charge for it then every customer not making use of it will be
> subsidising those who do. And as some people let alerts just fire
> over and over.
>
> Charging for it brings other issues, chiefly that once real money is
> being charged everything becomes much more serious; I start to
> wonder if this may be appropriate for a service whose main purpose
> is monitoring your stuff, but not for one that throws in monitoring
> as a free perk.
>
> I would be more comfortable implementing Pushover alerts as these
> are free to send (within some massive limit). There is a one-off fee
> to the Pushover app developers per receiving device. I will not do
> that however unless there is at least 1 person who might use it. If
> you are such a person, please vote it up:
>
> https://tools.bitfolk.com/redmine/issues/174
>
> Further down the list, the configurable lead time for raising
> invoices it quite likely to happen. There's a couple of corporate
> customers who regularly complain that 30 days is not enough time to
> pay an invoice and are unable/unwilling to do Direct Debit. I'm not
> extending credit terms any further than 30 days so the solution for
> them will be to have invoices raised and sent to them sooner.
>
> If you have any comments on these feature requests, or ideas for new
> ones, ideally please submit them at:
>
> https://tools.bitfolk.com/redmine/projects
>
> but posting here is okay if you feel it needs a more conversational
> start.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
> ¹ Though just because people want something doesn't mean that it's
> easy or even possible, so the feature requests made and the votes
> they have are only one factor, not the deciding factor.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users@???
> https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users
--
admins@???
www.sheffieldhackspace.org.uk
