pyzor-users — general discussion of Pyzor and Pyzor-related topics

Re: pyzor id/account (was: registering)

[Benny P. <me...@ju...>]

On Tue 23 Feb 2010 09:24:47 AM CET, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote

>> I'd like to subscribeget my pyzor ID so I could report spam (and optionally
>> whitelist FPs) with pyzor system.
>> First I have to agree with server's admin on my login, that requires finding
>> admin contact. I wasn't able to find it ;-)
>> second I have to create a key, protected with the password... why the
>> password? Is it OK when I won't put any (enter empty one)?
> any way to get an account on public pyzor server?

is server to server digest protocol dropped ?

i had pyzord running before, but then came a opdate :(

-- 
xpoint

pyzor id/account (was: registering)

[Matus U. - f. <uh...@fa...>]

Ok,

On 21.10.09 17:01, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> I'd like to subscribeget my pyzor ID so I could report spam (and optionally
> whitelist FPs) with pyzor system.
> 
> First I have to agree with server's admin on my login, that requires finding
> admin contact. I wasn't able to find it ;-)
> 
> second I have to create a key, protected with the password... why the
> password? Is it OK when I won't put any (enter empty one)?

any way to get an account on public pyzor server?

-- 
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fa... ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
- Holmes, what kind of school did you study to be a detective?
- Elementary, Watson.  -- Daffy Duck & Porky Pig

Pyzor timing out

[Chris <cpo...@em...>]

Noticed just now when running my SA reporting script that pyzor is
timing out. Running pyzor ping nets:

public.pyzor.org:24441	TimeoutError:

-- 
KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C

Timeouts again when reporting

[Andreas S. <sch...@fa...>]

Pings are OK, checks also, but reports timeout frequently.
Can someone have a look, please?

-- 
-- Andreas

Re: reporting timing out

[Robert H. L. <la...@la...>]

Andreas Schamanek wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, at 00:20, Dreas van Donselaar wrote:
> 
>> This should be working again now. Please let me know if it doesn't 
>> from your location.
> 
> Works again here. Thanks a lot!
> 

Here too.

Thanks

-- 
END OF LINE
      --MCP

Re: reporting timing out

[Andreas S. <sch...@fa...>]

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, at 00:20, Dreas van Donselaar wrote:

> This should be working again now. Please let me know if it doesn't 
> from your location.

Works again here. Thanks a lot!

-- 
-- Andreas

Re: reporting timing out

[Dreas v. D. <dr...@sp...>]

Hi,

This should be working again now. Please let me know if it doesn't from 
your location.

Regards,

Dreas

Andreas Schamanek wrote:
> Hi fellow pyzors,
>
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, at 11:40, Robert Hajime Lanning wrote:
>
>   
>> $  pyzor ping
>> public.pyzor.org:24441	TimeoutError:
>>     
>
> I've been away. Checking my logs I have to confirm this for my 
> location [128.130.51.1].
>
> $ pyzor ping
> public.pyzor.org:24441  TimeoutError:
> $ host public.pyzor.org
> public.pyzor.org has address 188.40.77.236
> $ ping public.pyzor.org
> PING public.pyzor.org (188.40.77.236) 56(84) bytes of data.
> 64 bytes from pyzor.spamexperts.com (188.40.77.236): icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=20.7 ms
> 64 bytes from pyzor.spamexperts.com (188.40.77.236): icmp_seq=2 ttl=53 time=20.2 ms
> ...
> $ host 188.40.77.236
> 236.77.40.188.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer pyzor.spamexperts.com.
> $ host pyzor.spamexperts.com.
> pyzor.spamexperts.com is an alias for public.pyzor.org.
> public.pyzor.org has address 188.40.77.236
>
> HTH,
>
>   

Re: reporting timing out

[Andreas S. <sch...@fa...>]

Hi fellow pyzors,

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, at 11:40, Robert Hajime Lanning wrote:

> $  pyzor ping
> public.pyzor.org:24441	TimeoutError:

I've been away. Checking my logs I have to confirm this for my 
location [128.130.51.1].

$ pyzor ping
public.pyzor.org:24441  TimeoutError:
$ host public.pyzor.org
public.pyzor.org has address 188.40.77.236
$ ping public.pyzor.org
PING public.pyzor.org (188.40.77.236) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from pyzor.spamexperts.com (188.40.77.236): icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=20.7 ms
64 bytes from pyzor.spamexperts.com (188.40.77.236): icmp_seq=2 ttl=53 time=20.2 ms
...
$ host 188.40.77.236
236.77.40.188.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer pyzor.spamexperts.com.
$ host pyzor.spamexperts.com.
pyzor.spamexperts.com is an alias for public.pyzor.org.
public.pyzor.org has address 188.40.77.236

HTH,

-- 
-- Andreas

reporting timing out

[Robert H. L. <la...@la...>]

$  pyzor ping
public.pyzor.org:24441	TimeoutError:

I am coming from 173.8.187.197

$ traceroute public.pyzor.org
traceroute to public.pyzor.org (188.40.77.236), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
 1  gatekeeper.monsoonwind.com (192.168.0.1)  0.233 ms  0.299 ms  0.152 ms
 2  * * *
 3  te-3-3-ur10.sanjose.ca.sfba.comcast.net (68.85.190.157)  12.976 ms
12.952 ms  12.888 ms
 4  be-50-ar01.oakland.ca.sfba.comcast.net (68.85.154.141)  14.736 ms
14.681 ms  14.617 ms
 5  pos-0-4-0-0-cr01.sacramento.ca.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.90.141)
17.054 ms  16.995 ms  16.926 ms
 6  68.86.86.202 (68.86.86.202)  23.923 ms  20.729 ms  20.600 ms
 7  pos-0-0-0-0-pe01.11greatoaks.ca.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.50)
25.619 ms  20.249 ms  20.224 ms
 8  xe-9-3-0-0.sjc10.ip4.tinet.net (213.200.80.165)  20.166 ms  26.658
ms  26.651 ms
 9  xe-11-2-0.fra21.ip4.tinet.net (89.149.184.77)  206.112 ms  197.441
ms xe-1-3-0.fra21.ip4.tinet.net (89.149.186.37)  203.589 ms
10  hetzner-gw.ip4.tinet.net (77.67.64.18)  190.331 ms  204.050 ms
200.036 ms
11  hos-bb1.juniper2.rz10.hetzner.de (213.239.240.243)  192.957 ms
220.029 ms  195.137 ms
12  hos-tr4.ex3k5.rz10.hetzner.de (213.239.227.230)  203.757 ms
hos-tr3.ex3k5.rz10.hetzner.de (213.239.227.198)  210.345 ms  202.043 ms
13  pyzor.spamexperts.com (188.40.77.236)  205.474 ms  192.130 ms
200.437 ms

-- 
END OF LINE
      --MCP

Re: timeout again

[Dreas v. D. <dr...@sp...>]

Hi all,

Andreas Schamanek wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, at 02:01, Robert Hajime Lanning wrote:
>   
>> $ pyzor ping
>> public.pyzor.org:24441  TimeoutError: 
>>     
> My logs show timeouts (I checked only the reporting log) to
> a few hours ago. Right now it seems to work!?
The monitoring does show some issues last night. I presume it was 
because of changes to the machine related to the earlier issues. Should 
all be fine again! Thnx for the notifications.

Regards,

Dreas

Re: timeout again

[Andreas S. <sch...@fa...>]

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, at 02:01, Robert Hajime Lanning wrote:

> $ pyzor ping
> public.pyzor.org:24441  TimeoutError: 

My logs show timeouts (I checked only the reporting log) too
a few hours ago. Right now it seems to work!?

-- 
-- Andreas

timeout again

[Robert H. L. <la...@la...>]

$ pyzor ping
public.pyzor.org:24441  TimeoutError: 
$ traceroute public.pyzor.org      
traceroute to public.pyzor.org (188.40.77.236), 30 hops max, 40 byte
packets
1  gatekeeper.monsoonwind.com (192.168.0.1)  0.240 ms  0.271 ms  0.122 ms
2  * * *
3  te-3-3-ur10.sanjose.ca.sfba.comcast.net (68.85.190.157)  13.737 ms 
13.705 ms  13.638 ms
4  l-99-ur01.pasadena.tx.houston.comcast.net (68.85.154.141)  15.780 ms 
15.732 ms  15.666 ms
5  pos-0-4-0-0-cr01.sacramento.ca.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.90.141)  17.115
ms  17.062 ms  18.975 ms
6  pos-0-9-0-0-cr01.sanjose.ca.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.85.181)  18.919 ms 
21.324 ms  21.217 ms
7  pos-0-0-0-0-pe01.11greatoaks.ca.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.50)  26.259
ms  21.096 ms  26.194 ms
8  xe-9-3-0-0.sjc10.ip4.tinet.net (213.200.80.165)  26.098 ms  24.514 ms 
24.426 ms
9  xe-11-2-0.fra21.ip4.tinet.net (89.149.184.77)  191.294 ms
xe-10-0-0.fra21.ip4.tinet.net (89.149.184.85    )  188.578 ms
xe-9-2-0.fra21.ip4.tinet.net (89.149.186.181)  189.760 ms
10  hetzner-gw.ip4.tinet.net (77.67.64.18)  186.708 ms  186.627 ms  189.791
ms
11  hos-bb1.juniper2.rz10.hetzner.de (213.239.240.243)  196.182 ms  196.550
ms  200.327 ms
12  hos-tr3.ex3k5.rz10.hetzner.de (213.239.227.198)  196.711 ms  196.603 ms
198.295 ms
13  pyzor.spamexperts.com (188.40.77.236)  194.788 ms  186.375 ms  191.213
ms

Coming from 173.8.187.197

-- 
END OF LINE
--MCP

Re: Getting timeouts when running report.

[Andreas S. <sch...@fa...>]

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009, at 22:38, Dreas van Donselaar wrote:

> >> $ pyzor ping
> >> public.pyzor.org:24441  TimeoutError:
> Can you please test again to see if this is resolved now?

Yep. Looks all good.

> > $ host pyzor.spamexperts.com.
> > Host pyzor.spamexperts.com not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
> The A record should be working now.

It does for me.

Thanks for the prompt fix!

-- 
-- Andreas

Re: Getting timeouts when running report.

[Robert H. L. <la...@la...>]

Dreas van Donselaar wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> Andreas Schamanek wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009, at 12:39, Robert Hajime Lanning wrote:
>>
>>   
>>> For the last few days I have been getting timeouts. (pyzor 0.5.0-r1)
>>>     
>> [...]
>>   
>>> $ pyzor ping
>>> public.pyzor.org:24441  TimeoutError:
>>>     
>> I have to confirm this for my location (128.130.51.99).
>>   
> Can you please test again to see if this is resolved now?

It now works for me.

Thanks

-- 
END OF LINE
       --MCP

Re: Getting timeouts when running report.

[Dreas v. D. <dr...@sp...>]

Hi guys,

Andreas Schamanek wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009, at 12:39, Robert Hajime Lanning wrote:
>
>   
>> For the last few days I have been getting timeouts. (pyzor 0.5.0-r1)
>>     
> [...]
>   
>> $ pyzor ping
>> public.pyzor.org:24441  TimeoutError:
>>     
>
> I have to confirm this for my location (128.130.51.99).
>   
Can you please test again to see if this is resolved now?
> Uhm are there issues with DNS?
>
> schamane@doob:~$ cat .pyzor/servers
> public.pyzor.org:24441
> schamane@doob:~$ host public.pyzor.org
> public.pyzor.org has address 188.40.77.236
> schamane@doob:~$ host 188.40.77.236
> 236.77.40.188.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer pyzor.spamexperts.com.
> schamane@doob:~$ host pyzor.spamexperts.com.
> Host pyzor.spamexperts.com not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
>   
The A record should be working now. This won't have affected the reporting.

Regards,

Dreas

Re: Getting timeouts when running report.

[Andreas S. <sch...@fa...>]

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009, at 12:39, Robert Hajime Lanning wrote:

> For the last few days I have been getting timeouts. (pyzor 0.5.0-r1)
[...]
> $ pyzor ping
> public.pyzor.org:24441  TimeoutError:

I have to confirm this for my location (128.130.51.99).

Uhm are there issues with DNS?

schamane@doob:~$ cat .pyzor/servers
public.pyzor.org:24441
schamane@doob:~$ host public.pyzor.org
public.pyzor.org has address 188.40.77.236
schamane@doob:~$ host 188.40.77.236
236.77.40.188.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer pyzor.spamexperts.com.
schamane@doob:~$ host pyzor.spamexperts.com.
Host pyzor.spamexperts.com not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)

-- 
-- Andreas

Getting timeouts when running report.

[Robert H. L. <la...@la...>]

For the last few days I have been getting timeouts. (pyzor 0.5.0-r1)

public.pyzor.org:24441  TimeoutError:

$ pyzor ping
public.pyzor.org:24441  TimeoutError:

$ traceroute public.pyzor.org
traceroute to public.pyzor.org (188.40.77.236), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
  1  gatekeeper.monsoonwind.com (192.168.0.1)  0.219 ms  0.117 ms  1.431 ms
  2  * * *
  3  te-3-3-ur10.sanjose.ca.sfba.comcast.net (68.85.190.157)  15.795 ms 
  15.743 ms  15.676 ms
  4  l-99-ur01.pasadena.tx.houston.comcast.net (68.85.154.141)  18.012 
ms  17.949 ms  17.879 ms
  5  pos-0-4-0-0-cr01.sacramento.ca.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.90.141) 
19.656 ms  19.595 ms  19.526 ms
  6  pos-0-9-0-0-cr01.sanjose.ca.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.85.181) 
22.388 ms  23.681 ms  23.594 ms
  7  pos-0-0-0-0-pe01.11greatoaks.ca.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.50) 
27.044 ms  20.502 ms  20.399 ms
  8  xe-9-3-0-0.sjc10.ip4.tinet.net (213.200.80.165)  20.151 ms  24.423 
ms  24.352 ms
  9  xe-11-2-0.fra21.ip4.tinet.net (89.149.184.77)  200.830 ms  193.583 
ms xe-10-0-0.fra21.ip4.tinet.net (89.149.184.85)  217.023 ms
10  hetzner-gw.ip4.tinet.net (77.67.64.18)  193.475 ms  198.743 ms 
196.221 ms
11  hos-bb1.juniper2.rz10.hetzner.de (213.239.240.243)  252.173 ms 
255.240 ms  256.551 ms
12  hos-tr3.ex3k5.rz10.hetzner.de (213.239.227.198)  250.604 ms  250.536 
ms  256.263 ms
13  pyzor.spamexperts.com (188.40.77.236)  203.595 ms  191.417 ms 
196.914 ms

-- 
END OF LINE
       --MCP

registering

[Matus U. - f. <uh...@fa...>]

Hello,

I'd like to subscribeget my pyzor ID so I could report spam (and optionally
whitelist FPs) with pyzor system.

First I have to agree with server's admin on my login, that requires finding
admin contact. I wasn't able to find it ;-)

second I have to create a key, protected with the password... why the
password? Is it OK when I won't put any (enter empty one)?
-- 
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fa... ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
I don't have lysdexia. The Dog wouldn't allow that.

Re: what should be whitelisted?

[Tony M. <to...@sp...>]

Hi Alpana,

> What types of emails should be whitelisted?

IMO:

 * 'Bugs': ham where the hash of the message is identical to the hash
of another (unrelated) message, either because of a flaw in the code
(e.g. the one mentioned in ticket #57 and in this list at various
times), or because the digest algorithm isn't selecting sufficiently
unique text to hash.  This is the only case where single-recipient
messages would be worth reporting.

 * 'False positives': ham that has already been processed with Pyzor,
which isn't sent to a single recipient, and had a non-zero hit count.
IOW someone has incorrectly reported the message as spam (it's
unfortunately common for people to hit the 'spam' button for automated
messages that they subscribed to but are no longer interested in; this
could also occur if someone is automatically feeding messages to
Pyzor; it could also be a true mistake).  If you are the only
recipient, then there isn't really any value in whitelisting, but if
there is even one other, then it's possible that you'll whitelist
before their message is checked, and you'll save them from the false
positive.

An average user is not going to be able to distinguish between these
two, but they are distinct to me as (a) a Pyzor developer, and (b)
someone using Pyzor to filter many users' mail.

 * 'My mail': this is controversial, and no-one is doing this on
public.pyzor.org at the moment (but might be in their own servers).
If you're sending out messages to multiple recipients, then you could
whitelist the message before you actually send it (this could be done
automatically by your local SMTP server).  Since headers aren't used
in the hash, the hash would be the same pre-sending as on arrival.
You'd then be ensuring that Pyzor didn't detect your messages.  Of
course, if the spammers did this, it would not be good! (Whitelisting
typically requires an account on the Pyzor server, to avoid that).

 * 'True negatives': i.e. you have some other method(s) of determining
if a multiple-recipient message is ham/spam, and if it comes out as
ham, then you report it to Pyzor, either without checking Pyzor, or
even when Pyzor does not consider it spam.  I'm not certain this is a
good idea - it increases the resources required for the Pyzor server,
and you're saying that you really trust these other classification
methods (because they'll override any Pyzor result).  However, if you
assume that the other classification never has false negatives, and
you're willing to commit the additional server resources, then this
would avoid false positives (from bugs or user error) for anyone
classifying their mail after you do.

Something that you could look at (if you get suitable corpora of
email) is the time distribution of identically-hashed messages
(ignoring any caused by bugs).  If identical-hash messages generally
arrive in a small period of time (e.g. several hours), then the value
of manual whitelisting based on user feedback is diminished (because
it is likely that by the time it is done all the messages have been
classified already).  In that case, only automated whitelisting would
have much value.  However, if they arrive over a long period of time
(e.g. batches occurring over a week), then there is value in a manual
whitelist operation.

Cheers,
Tony

Re: what should be whitelisted?

[Guido <lis...@gu...>]

On (09-09-04 21:57), Alpana Weaver wrote:
> What types of emails should be whitelisted?  I assume that there is no 
> value in me whitelisting for example a personal email from my sister of 
> which I am the only recipient because no one else will receive that same 
> email?  If that is correct, do we only whitelist hams that have many 
> recipients e.g. the weekly emails sent from 
> Mar...@mo... where recipients have elected to 
> subscribe to the emails?
> I suppose my broader question is: how should spam and ham be defined for 
> the use of Pyzor?

>From my point of view there are two reasons why someone would whitelist
a message.

The first (and may be the more important one) is if a spam mail has been
correctly reported as spam. Unfortunately it may happen that the digest
of the spam mail is not meaningful and therefore may match the digest of
ham mails. Check this thread [1] for an example. 
Here I assume that a low false positive rate is more important than a
high true positive rate.

The second case is that someone reported (by accident or not) a ham message 
as spam. As it is not easy to remove reported messages from the server
someone has to whitelist this message in order that it does not hit
pyzor any more. This may be the case for bulk mails for example.
Unfortunately it is very likely that these messages to your users already
hit pyzor at the time when you whitelist it.

As the messages from your sister should be unique there is no need to
whitelist them. That's true. This would just generate futile entries in
pyzords database.

>From my point of view whitelisting messages from bulk senders that have not 
been reported yet, does not make sense too. At the time you find this
message in you mailbox it is very likely that it is already delivered to
all recipients. So a whitelisting entry in the database would be useless
too. Hopefully the next month's message will differ from the actual
message ;-)

If you indeed get recurring messages with the same digest it may be a good idea
to whitelist those. Just to prevent from accidental reporting. (For
reporting would not have any affect after this.) 
Anyhow, I can't see any use case for this.

There may be another reason for whitelisting messages. Assuming that
pyzor checks are done _before_ the mail goes into spamassassin it could
save a lot of system resources when a whitelisted message bypasses
spamassin. But I am not sure if this acutally makes sense in real world.


Good luck with your paper. Would like to read it after it's finished.

[1]
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_name=1248706984.24454.17.camel%40werner

Re: what should be whitelisted?

[Matus U. - f. <uh...@fa...>]

On 04.09.09 21:57, Alpana Weaver wrote:
> I am writing my Master's dissertation on Pyzor and would be grateful for 
> an answer to the following.
> 
> What types of emails should be whitelisted?
>  I assume that there is no 
> value in me whitelisting for example a personal email from my sister of 
> which I am the only recipient because no one else will receive that same 
> email?  If that is correct, do we only whitelist hams that have many 
> recipients e.g. the weekly emails sent from 
> Mar...@mo... where recipients have elected to 
> subscribe to the emails?

I think that all mail that hits pyzor and you believe it's not spam should
be whitelisted. That means, not emails from your sister, but email from your
sister if it hits pyzor.

> I suppose my broader question is: how should spam and ham be defined for 
> the use of Pyzor?


-- 
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fa... ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
10 GOTO 10 : REM (C) Bill Gates 1998, All Rights Reserved!

what should be whitelisted?

[Alpana W. <al...@ut...>]

Hello,

I am writing my Master's dissertation on Pyzor and would be grateful for 
an answer to the following.

What types of emails should be whitelisted?  I assume that there is no 
value in me whitelisting for example a personal email from my sister of 
which I am the only recipient because no one else will receive that same 
email?  If that is correct, do we only whitelist hams that have many 
recipients e.g. the weekly emails sent from 
Mar...@mo... where recipients have elected to 
subscribe to the emails?

I suppose my broader question is: how should spam and ham be defined for 
the use of Pyzor?


Many thanks,

Alpana Weaver

Pyzor Debian package

[Carl C. <ch...@oh...>]

Hi,

I'm one of the current maintainers of Pyzor Debian package. Pyzor 0.5.0
was packaged and uploaded in Debian offical repository two weeks ago.
The package is now available in both Debian testing and Debian unstable.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any question about Pyzor in
Debian. Don't hesitate to fill a bug report if something is wrong with
the Debian package.


Bye,
-- 
Carl Chenet

RE: pyzor report timeouts

[Robert H. L. <la...@la...>]

It is also an issue with stateful firewalls, like the IPTables that my server is behind.

We had the same issue with the Sun SNMP implementation.
--
END OF LINE
              --MCP

-original message-
Subject: Re: pyzor report timeouts
From: Tony Meyer <to...@sp...>
Date: 08/20/2009 19:34

Hi,

The problem is definitely resolved now.  If you want to know the
technical details of what happened, read on.  If not, you're done!

The server that public.pyzor.org was moved to has multiple IP
addresses.  public.pyzor.org was pointed to one setup as eth0:1, but
the pyzord client was bound to all interfaces.  The pyzor client would
correct send a message to pyzor, and pyzord would send a message back
to the client.  However, the response would have the eth0 IP address
as the sender (because pyzord can't tell which IP was connected to,
and so all outgoing messages are from the 'default' interface).  The
client then silently rejected this response, because it didn't match
the sendto IP (this occurs at the C library level, not in the pyzor or
Python code).  It seems that this is just how UDP works on many
servers.

As far as I have been able to determine, the only way to solve this is
to either connect to the default interface (which is the case now) or
to bind only to the IP that is wanted (we might swap to that, but
no-one will notice anything if we do).

I still don't understand why this didn't happen universally.  I wonder
if it has something to do with the implementation of the underlying C
library, although I could both reproduce the problem and have it work
in the same OS.

More of the gory details are available here, if anyone is
super-interested:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1309370/does-a-udp-service-have-to-respond-from-the-connected-ip-address

Apologies again for the downtime.

Thanks,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
pyzor-users mailing list
pyz...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pyzor-users

Re: pyzor report timeouts

[Tony M. <to...@sp...>]

Hi,

The problem is definitely resolved now.  If you want to know the
technical details of what happened, read on.  If not, you're done!

The server that public.pyzor.org was moved to has multiple IP
addresses.  public.pyzor.org was pointed to one setup as eth0:1, but
the pyzord client was bound to all interfaces.  The pyzor client would
correct send a message to pyzor, and pyzord would send a message back
to the client.  However, the response would have the eth0 IP address
as the sender (because pyzord can't tell which IP was connected to,
and so all outgoing messages are from the 'default' interface).  The
client then silently rejected this response, because it didn't match
the sendto IP (this occurs at the C library level, not in the pyzor or
Python code).  It seems that this is just how UDP works on many
servers.

As far as I have been able to determine, the only way to solve this is
to either connect to the default interface (which is the case now) or
to bind only to the IP that is wanted (we might swap to that, but
no-one will notice anything if we do).

I still don't understand why this didn't happen universally.  I wonder
if it has something to do with the implementation of the underlying C
library, although I could both reproduce the problem and have it work
in the same OS.

More of the gory details are available here, if anyone is
super-interested:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1309370/does-a-udp-service-have-to-respond-from-the-connected-ip-address

Apologies again for the downtime.

Thanks,
Tony