> If that's the favoured way of doing it, then I'm happy to do it that
> way, I suppose.
I suspect I am in a minority as I route any email addressed to my
domain, hosted on bitfolk, to me via my ISP. I have always used the
smtp mail service provided by my ISP.
I know Andy, amongst others, doesn't recommend this because it means
changing email addresses on change of ISP but I cannot foresee me
moving away from Zen as I have been very happy with their service
since I moved to them several years ago.
I originally used the company that cabled Bournemouth before
being taken over by ntl/virgin. I shifted to Zen when I got fed up with
the service provided by virgin - moved from cable tv to freesat
at same time - and was happy that I had done so as we moved to an
un-cabled area shortly after.
I don't need the ability to get mail from anywhere other than home so
have never tried any web-mail service. I trust commercial companies
like google to stick to any privacy promises only as long as it suits
them.
--
John Lewis
Debian & the GeneWeb genealogical data server
From cgdennis@??? Fri May 25 10:01:19 2012
Received: from nm22-vm5.bullet.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.12.10.251])
by mail.bitfolk.com with smtp (Exim 4.72)
(envelope-from <cgdennis@???>) id 1SXrKh-00029y-A4
for users@???; Fri, 25 May 2012 10:01:19 +0000
Received: from [217.146.183.215] by nm22.bullet.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
25 May 2012 10:01:13 -0000
Received: from [217.146.183.203] by tm8.bullet.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
25 May 2012 10:01:13 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1001.bt.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
25 May 2012 10:01:13 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 478225.68939.bm@???
Received: (qmail 98429 invoked from network); 25 May 2012 10:01:13 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btinternet.com;
h=DKIM-Signature:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
b=i/Bi3Yim3jMQVlDJtuZwg6E1U8HQbRFzU5o1LCoB9EAnr5GFbeHp++CezSNQdzWE5xVBHeuML49HlhX5t/J6ZJeMmzN6ERJ6dBrZBUz2BXa5j62vlbAT5VP6GqD23Yxsg/+lnO65Wymn+/MwK5bNBayASkIil/DOp63vQXe0+PM=
;
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btinternet.com; s=s1024;
t=1337940073; bh=lgriVpSXV9vgOolzDQpX+UV6W5pQAIOJxWLECvXdLZQ=;
h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
b=bmomVM5Jl+TkBAfAK+pf5C4O/nZgiyxYX7JfFrq+4O/j9ynYYKR1s1PNysO2SkcEa2062PS5/kP6AhbcyT8acz/ubHhG8+BoE1NbFexnIvSP4MeXjTuxj7BREPLEG4mqDZf887nCIwKlEpmbnvWNSsspdAm1nkXAs0Ig4ilaprI=
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: kVygCuwVM1npDr1PPm4VD_ai5rwvIc5ryMwR3TqTBZFV3QR
Rzgmahd9pXOIM19Ebiw6jRTK_20HZuu7yMxtGqNrmTizkr6vqVb_okV5axR6
agy5BjjO1.HtxjB.rwdEw3yeJFUE2LXWxTcljqNpXUdEbGSySClxN9qiaHup
m0FOiCSvDAeUsKSX5teGY8ztTQvz1fyIx0wuoZ4H0C816P36ncDkCJ5q1Bse
p3lOnvxrAsJKR81dM8Lblt1lme5ajw5.UPP3CZNPkYVr5MO8Q.DM5YQjrPrv
Qhl0.l0RzNHz5dS6p3BfFMBlenjz2LH0CzVxCULtGc2tWylvVCYNM.mdb3sE
f9NKcg_u_oIQj7egHss4Zb98ceTAVjgRkrUSfBxknt85eySsU.BfYOPExzSa
tx9xqDGpl9J5Fz98Ev07JmA6zfFgAWau0bVb.ggc7ZRJLC1O3bH7ki9cT4IK
O1Q2ernS3711oOSvb___Tp.I2fU27h_1IjnTWon7RpHHNZ4_0gMkGodpgbpy
ka7d.kSJwoT5zu.Q2NA--
X-Yahoo-SMTP: frT3FcGswBDW5RqBrlkG6ccFTpQ9vcvxzPWsyWPsU_yJq6xb
Received: from [192.168.1.7] (cgdennis@78.32.16.193 with plain)
by smtp815.mail.ird.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 May 2012 10:01:13 +0000 GMT
Message-ID: <4FBF5868.9000602@???>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 11:01:12 +0100
From: Chris Dennis <cgdennis@???>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686;
rv:11.0) Gecko/20120406 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: users@???
References: <20120524131344.GS12360@???>
<4FBE39C0.5010804@???>
<20120524135132.GV12360@???>
In-Reply-To: <20120524135132.GV12360@???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Fri,
25 May 2012 10:01:19 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 217.12.10.251
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: cgdennis@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd3.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN: AS15635 217.12.0.0/20
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=disabled
version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at
http://www.dnswl.org/, no * trust
* [217.12.10.251 listed in list.dnswl.org]
* -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's * domain
* -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
* 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily
* valid
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.bitfolk.com)
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] Testing out apt-cacher-ng for Debian/Ubuntu package
caching
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 10:01:20 -0000
Thank you for your patient and comprehensive answer, Andy.
I hadn't comprehended the difference between /updates and -updates before.
On 24/05/12 14:51, Andy Smith wrote:
> ...
> A sources.list for squeeze looks like this:
>
> deb http://test-cacher.lon.bitfolk.com/debian/ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/ squeeze main
> deb http://test-cacher.lon.bitfolk.com/debian/ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/ squeeze-updates main
> deb http://test-cacher.lon.bitfolk.com/debian/security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates main
>
> Replace "squeeze" with "wheezy" for yours (and add on non-free,
> contrib etc. if you like).
Yes, except that wheezy doesn't have wheezy-updates yet, only
wheezy-proposed-updates.
cheers
Chris
--
Chris Dennis cgdennis@???
Fordingbridge, Hampshire, UK
From spw+lists@??? Fri May 25 13:30:13 2012
Received: from mx.sdf.org ([192.94.73.19] helo=sdf.lonestar.org ident=root)
by mail.bitfolk.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
(Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <spw+lists@???>) id 1SXuaq-0003JL-Fb
for users@???; Fri, 25 May 2012 13:30:13 +0000
Received: from localhost (IDENT:spw@??? [192.94.73.5])
by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q4PD9feo023780;
Fri, 25 May 2012 13:09:41 GMT
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 13:09:41 +0000 (UTC)
From: Sean Whitton <spw+lists@???>
X-X-Sender: spw@???
To: Hugo Mills <hugo-bf@???>
In-Reply-To: <20120524200233.GE31037@???>
Message-ID: <alpine.NEB.2.00.1205251309140.5030@???>
References: <20120524131344.GS12360@???>
<20120524200233.GE31037@???>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (NEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Fri,
25 May 2012 13:30:13 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 192.94.73.19
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: spw+lists@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd2.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN: AS14361 192.94.73.0/24
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
shortcircuit=no autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches
handover relay * domain
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.bitfolk.c
