| ↑back Search ←Prev date Next date→ Show only urls | (Click on time to select a line by its url) |
| Who | What | When |
|---|---|---|
| *** | dj_goku has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
dj_goku has joined #arpnetworks dj_goku has quit IRC (Changing host) dj_goku has joined #arpnetworks | [01:16] |
| ............................................................................ (idle for 6h16mn) | ||
| sjackso has joined #arpnetworks | [07:32] | |
| ............................. (idle for 2h21mn) | ||
| mnathani | anyone use mailchimp before? I am trying to determine if email addresses can be added to a list / campaign without confirmation or double opt in | [09:53] |
| ......... (idle for 44mn) | ||
| sjackso | mnathani: I'm about 90% sure that they can. (Haven't used it myself, but have been added to several such mailing lists without any special handshaking) | [10:37] |
| brycec | I know there are certain "anti-spam" rules/laws one has to follow so I understand if MailChimp doesn't allow you to blind-add addresses.
(but since I have no idea for sure, I didn't answer before :p) | [10:44] |
| sjackso | they may require you to assert that people have asked to receive messages from you, and will probably give you grief if a lot of people report spam from your campaign
all the mailchimp messages have fairly prominent 'this is spam, make it stop' buttons in the footer | [10:45] |
| brycec | Looking at a message I got via Mailchimp (last year) I'm pretty sure I didn't directly sign-up through MailChimp but rather my email address had been imported (from Kickstarter or some such). So I guess the answer is "probably" | [10:56] |
| ...... (idle for 26mn) | ||
| *** | jbum has joined #arpnetworks | [11:22] |
| jbum has quit IRC (Quit: jbum) | [11:35] | |
| mnathani | thanks brycec sjackso : Looks like there is an import email feature - http://kb.mailchimp.com/lists/growth/import-subscribers-to-a-list | [11:49] |
| .............................................................................................. (idle for 7h49mn) | ||
| *** | mkb is now known as poogles
poogles is now known as mkb | [19:38] |
| .................................................. (idle for 4h5mn) | ||
| brycec | This may seem like a strange question for up_the_irons/mercutio... Is there some sort of IP filtering at the switch level? Here's the deal: I have a VPS and a physical machine which are on the same customer VLAN. Using IP's in the allocated block, I can ping back and forth just fine. If I assign private IP's (technically just aliasing), I see (tcpdump) the ping VPS->Metal, and I see the reply leave Metal
but that reply never shows up at the VPS. Everything looks right, same MAC addresses etc. Logical conclusion is the switch in front of the VPS is filtering that. (Or I guess it could be the switch in front of the dedi) (end goal is to find a way to put a VPS "behind" a firewall that's running on the dedi. Tried VLANs but didn't see those tagged packets make it to the VPS either, but that's easily explained as VLANs or QinQ getting stripped out. So I went with the more basic test of putting a couple RFC1918 IP's onto a couple of hosts and trying that.) | [23:44] |
| mercutio | brycec: that doesn't sound like something that should be happening
it's bridged rather than routed for your vlan | [23:49] |
| brycec | I presumed it was, but tcpdump indicates otherwise. | [23:49] |
| mercutio | vps -> metal is working, but not metal -> vps? | [23:50] |
| brycec | tcpdumps of a single packet: http://sprunge.us/JagA
mercutio: right, when using 192.168.* | [23:50] |
| mercutio | what happens if you trying pinging 192.168.1.3 from 192.168.1.1, the same thing? | [23:51] |
| brycec | weird... that worked. Now you've got me scratching my head | [23:52] |
| mercutio | sounds like firewall issue
you may need state to accept inbound icmp-reply or you may just want to accept inbound icmp-reply regardless but yeah, i'm thinking checking firewall makes sense first in that situation | [23:52] |
| brycec | I'm open to the whole damn subnet, pass in quick from 192.168.1.0/28
But I even disabled pf and it still didn't (and I tried and it still doesn't work the first way) hmm well I guess this technically clears ARP of issue | [23:53] |
| mercutio | what about with tcp, same diff?
is this pf with freebsd? | [23:54] |
| brycec | one side is FreeBSD+pf, the VPS side is OpenBSD+pf | [23:55] |
| mercutio | maybe temp try disabling pf on the dedicated? or did you?
although it looks like it's getting out, and it looks like it's getting in so that is strange i do seem to recall some kind of weird freebsd pf bugs being around though | [23:56] |
| brycec | Can't disable pf on the FreeBSD machine, it's production.
Well, I'll fiddle... | [23:57] |
| mercutio | ahh true | [23:57] |
| brycec | brycec assumes the issue boils down to this error when trying from VPS->Dedi: * Immediate connect fail for 192.168.1.1: No route to host
(but Dedi->VPS works) | [23:58] |
| mercutio | weird | [23:58] |
| brycec | (that's TCP, specifically curl) | [23:58] |
| mercutio | good luck :) | [23:58] |
| brycec | thx | [23:59] |
| ↑back Search ←Prev date Next date→ Show only urls | (Click on time to select a line by its url) |