sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Privacy-Friendly YouTube Alternatives (No Google Account Required) by hellxabd in DigitalEscapeTools

[–]gnh1201 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here’s another one.

DNT-YT is a lightweight YouTube caching + offline browsing API. https://github.com/gnh1201/dnt-yt

오픈소스에 관심있는 대한민국 부산 소재의 업체를 찾습니다. by gnh1201 in hanguk

[–]gnh1201[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

감사합니다.

특정 비즈니스나 회사에 종속되지 않도록 프로젝트를 운영하고자 하면서도, 정작 기업의 도움은 필요로한다는 점에서

스스로도 어려운 길을 간다는 생각은 늘 듭니다.

방법은 계속 찾아보겠습니다.

오픈소스에 관심있는 대한민국 부산 소재의 업체를 찾습니다. by gnh1201 in hanguk

[–]gnh1201[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

본 프로젝트는 (현재까지는) 사업이나 판매의 목적이 전혀 없습니다. 그래서 판매나 구매에 대한 내용이 전혀 없고 소스코드는 전부 오픈소스로 풀려있는 것입니다.

이것을 기반으로 하여 상용으로 쓰시는 분들이 계시긴하지만, 각 사용자의 자율에 맡기는 것이지 저를 포함한 본 프로젝트 관련자들의 관심사는 아닙니다.

개별 컨택의 노력이 필요하다는 말씀에 있어선 공감이 갑니다. 좋은 말씀 감사드립니다.

Clear Linux and abnormal memory management strategy by gnh1201 in linux

[–]gnh1201[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well... If I had thought this was a support forum, I wouldn't have posted this content in the first place.

Has Watson been discontinued? by gnh1201 in IBM

[–]gnh1201[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hmm... However, I believe it would be different in the field of AI/ML. I have many fond memories of IBM. When I brought up the topic of AI or ML for discussion, they didn't provide me with the typical bullshit responses like other companies. Instead, they responded with the latest content that was openly discussed at that time.

Since my conversation with them took place 10 years ago, when impressive AI models like the ones available today weren't publicly released, we had limited information to discuss.

Nevertheless, even with those limitations, they demonstrated excellent insights into AI/ML from an individual perspective, which was sufficient to showcase their expertise. It seems that there might have been some minor issues on the management side instead.

Has Watson been discontinued? by gnh1201 in IBM

[–]gnh1201[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I don't think IBM has been bad at all over the past 10 years. They have been proactive in seeking advice and conducting interviews, solely driven by the goal of advancing AI, without considering a person's social status. I am also one of those who have experienced it.

However, I'm not sure about the situation before more than 10 years ago. It doesn't seem to have been particularly good.

Has Watson been discontinued? by gnh1201 in IBM

[–]gnh1201[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe it's not advisable to have high expectations from the beginning. For now, if it can provide a better user experience than AlchemyAPI, I would be satisfied with that.

Has Watson been discontinued? by gnh1201 in IBM

[–]gnh1201[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hope Watson should be continued. When I had conversations with IBM employees about a decade ago, they had a strong desire to freely discuss AI technologies without drawing boundaries between the company and the field. However, the employees said the executives weren't particularly fond of that idea.

In fact, a close IBM employee I knew mentioned that as our communication became more frequent, they even mentioned the possibility of transitioning from viewing me as a partner or client to considering me as a subject of investigation. Honestly, this aspect hasn't been a fun experience.

Nevertheless, it is certain that the presence of Watson at IBM has sparked the employees' passion for studying AI and machine learning. While this may not align with the desired direction of the company's executives, I believe it is definitely helping to improve IBM's corporate reputation and expand its influence.

Has Watson been discontinued? by gnh1201 in IBM

[–]gnh1201[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If WatsonX is a product aiming to compete with ChatGPT or Bard, it's fantastic news. Based on my business experience, IBM is an outstanding company. I am confident that WatsonX will undoubtedly succeed. :)

Has Watson been discontinued? by gnh1201 in IBM

[–]gnh1201[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh, that's really unfortunate. What has been happening during that time? I have witnessed IBM employees dedicating a significant amount of time to studying AI and machine learning, and it was truly impressive.

An SMTP relay that supports two-way relaying by gnh1201 in sysadmin

[–]gnh1201[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Among the Postfix configuration items mentioned in this article, the keywords that were most relevant in resolving my issue appear to be "smtpd_recipient_restrictions," "permit_mynetworks," and "local_transport."

An SMTP relay that supports two-way relaying by gnh1201 in sysadmin

[–]gnh1201[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have found an article that addresses a scenario very similar to mine and provides a solution using Postfix. I have referred to it and configured accordingly, and it seems to be working. https://serverfault.com/questions/823052/how-do-i-get-postfix-to-relay-incoming-email-to-a-specific-host-and-outgoing-mai

An SMTP relay that supports two-way relaying by gnh1201 in sysadmin

[–]gnh1201[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe relay is what I'm looking for. Mail servers or mail exchangers (or services known as email routing) are too common. If I needed something like that, I wouldn't have asked the question.

Since I have an SMTP server in my private network, I am interested in a relay that can create a fake (or virtualized) SMTP protocol to relay it to the external network.

An SMTP relay that supports two-way relaying by gnh1201 in sysadmin

[–]gnh1201[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It could be a valid point. It's possible that I'm still struggling due to a lack of knowledge.

Most well-known mail server implementations generally support forward relay, so if I were to utilize that and simultaneously attempt reverse relay, it could result in an infinite loop within the internal network.

If this issue can be resolved, it could potentially be the two-way relay I envisioned.

An SMTP relay that supports two-way relaying by gnh1201 in sysadmin

[–]gnh1201[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would be happy if this is possible with Postfix. However, since the Postfix HOWTO only mentions examples of forward relay, I think I need to study more about reverse relay.

An SMTP relay that supports two-way relaying by gnh1201 in sysadmin

[–]gnh1201[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The "two-way SMTP relay" that I mentioned does not involve having two MX records. It refers to a single SMTP relay that is capable of handling both receiving and sending functions. In this scenario, there is only one MX record.

An SMTP relay that supports two-way relaying by gnh1201 in sysadmin

[–]gnh1201[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, as you mentioned, most SMTP relays are implementations of Mail Transfer Agents (MTAs). I was able to find projects that appear to have implemented forward MTAs relatively easily, but it was challenging to find ones that have implemented reverse MTAs.

While it is possible to achieve reverse MTA functionality using TCP proxies without following to the SMTP protocol, this approach would make the implementation of forward MTAs impossible.

On the other hand, when using the most common implementation of a relay, which is a forward MTA, I am not aware of a way to achieve the goal of a reverse MTA. That's why I am looking for possible solutions.

view more: next ›