What I see reading that is that the OpenRC was not seriously considered. There are a bunch of claimed requirements that appear to rule out OpenRC, but I don't see those requirements tracked back to any benefits. Perhaps the justification for those requirements is obvious to those who made the decision, but it isn't obvious to me.

Taking the requirements in turn:

* Lack of integration with kernel-level events to properly order startup.

So what? OpenRC has dependency built in and the added improvement of integration with kernel-level events would bring only a very minor improvement.

* No mechanism for process monitoring and restarting beyond inittab.

In my experience, this is solving a non-problem. I don't experience processes dying and needing an immediate re-start without any other action.

* Heavy reliance on shell scripting rather than declarative syntax.

So what?

* A fork and exit with PID file model for daemon startup.

Not sure what advantage this brings.

Perhaps we both should look up the word. While we're at it, let's look up Obama's preferred policy, "single payer". Wouldn't it be interesting if the two terms were synonymous.

Perhaps it would be interesting if the two terms were synonymous, but they are not. Had Obama advocated for all healthcare providers being directly employed by the government, all healthcare facilites owned by the government, that would be socialism. But he didn't. There is a difference between the government directly providing medical care and the government paying private companies to provide medical care. One is socialism and the other isn't.

But you don't care. All you care about is that he is left of your own views and any suggestions that he is not socialist don't fit into your ideology, so they can't be true, can they?

but most Democrats in office today would have been considered moderate Republicans even twenty-five years ago.

Yes, the Koch brothers and others have been successful in moving the center of US politics way to the right. The Tea Party is one of the strategies that they have used to achieve this.

Perhaps they were lost due to NAT.

A VPN that had been working, suddenly quit "due to NAT"? No, there was no NAT involved at either end.

A president who leans socialist

Very funny. Or did you not mean it as a joke? Then perhaps you need to look up the word socialist.

Obama doesn't "lean socialist", he just doesn't lean quite so far to the right as many US politicians.

Full Disclosure: I am a network ops engineer for Comcast.

Please tell me why (a few years ago), Comcast decided to block my VPN ESP packets. Yes, the VPN established a connection, but the payload was never delivered.

What network reason was there for this? Other people noticed it at the time and I can still see reports of this going on.

Clearly, your claim to transport all packets equally has not always been true and may not be true now.

Serious question. Forget about questions of fairness, step back and look at first principles and evaluate whether the regulations are of value to society. Were these rules ever necessary? If so, why? Do the same reasons apply to Uber and Lyft?

Some are clearly necessary. Others not so much. Unfortunately, the regulations around medallions are often abut revenue for the city, which merely pushes up costs for the taxi drivers. In return, the taxi drivers get a limit on competition.

Had the same problem until I started signing my email with DKIM. Suddenly google and friends were accepting it without problems.

I have good DKIM and SPF, and Google accepts my email, but with a fresh Gmail account, it goes into the spam folder. I know that my DKIM and SPF is good because Google sends me DMARC reports saying that my emails passed.

Regarding the person from yahoo rejecting my email - I can confirm that's not the case. I set up a yahoo account for my self, brand new, and can't email it.

I think that you misunderstand the reply from Yahoo. Yahoo is saying that *someone* flagged emails from your IP address as spam, so now, Yahoo won't accept *any* emails from your IP address.

Question for others: why is Yahoo rejecting the emails with a 4XX code if Yahoo will never accept the emails. Why not a 5XX code? Using a 4XX code forever seems like poor etiquette.

I should add that my domains are set up with spf and dkim records and I get dmarc reports indicating passes. My mail server has correct and matching forward and reverse DNS. My IP addresses do not show up in any reputable blacklists.

Yet still Gmail thinks that I am sending spam.

For Yahoo, set up DMARC with addresses to get DMARC reports.

I did this for one domain and found that Yahoo (and only Yahoo) was failing on my SPF with "permerr". I tracked this down to an excessive spf record (or perhaps an spf record that exceeded the limit on dns lookups).

Bummer. I was hoping that earlier post about using Comcast as my relay would solve it.

A Comcast residential account can be used to send emails through Comcast's servers with any "from" address (using my Comcast login and smtp auth). I just tried this and it worked. I suggest that you try it with your business account.

Contact Hotmail. Somewhere there is a link to contact them about email delivery.

Hotmail was blocking emails from my VPS, but after I contacted them, they put my IP on a list for "conditional accept" -- which the describe as allowing a limited number of emails to be sent from my IP to hotmail. It's enough for my small family server.

Gmail, on the other hand, tends to put emails from my VPS into spam boxes unless there is a history of the recipient receiving from my server.

I now have a problem with mxlogic. mxlogic blocks my IP address with a 550 code. They did not respond to me contacting them.

Basically, too many big email services use block lists that are not updated with enough frequency. My problems are not caused by nearby IP addresses -- the ISP has put in place a transparent email proxy which analyzes and rejects spam (if no TLS) and limits outgoing email rates (if TLS used).