Best option is probably to look for providers that support custom domains, so you can point your domain directly to their mail servers. This usually require a paid subscription. Upside is that you retain control over your domain without having to host any email server.

The problem is that by putting a mail relay in between, while technically possible will break the SPF and DKIM chain for all emails that you forward. I don’t think there is a good way around this since they check against the senders domain (and assuming that you can’t get the email provider to trust your relay server)

This really has nothing to do with Smart TVs in itself though… It’s just a problem if you choose to play YouTube videos on your TV, which seems like a pretty reasonable thing to want to do.

You can bind an exposed port to a specific IP by prefixing the IP address like this “-p xxx.xx.x.360:80:80”. Should work in a compose file “ports” list as well.

For outgoing traffic it’s a bit trickier, but if you create a separate network I think it should be possible to inject an iptables SNAT rule to use a specific source IP. Might be handy to make sure you’re sending emails from the correct IP but with your setup I would just make sure to use the primary IP as email egress…

This is case in point though, there’s no way a new Linux user is even going to consider that there is a choice of desktop environment. Of course different distributions is going to be the first one comes across as the most direct analog to Windows/macOS.

I’ve been running straight Ubuntu with ZFS-on-Linux since 18.04, and it has been smooth sailing. If you’re running a lot of containerized things it’s very convenient to just be able to bind mount ZFS dataset into containers.

Normally I prefer CentOS/RockyLinux, or some other EL distribution, but in this case I really appreciate that Canonical isn’t purist enough to ship ZFS as a loadable kernel module that is guaranteed to be in sync with the shipped kernel. And don’t have to deal with DKMS.

I believe this doesn’t apply to the Linux kernel. I mean there is a lot of products that include a Linux kernel and runs proprietary code on top.

I’m not really certain about the legalities, but IIRC it has to do with Linux being licensed under GPLv2 instead of GPLv3(?)

While I would say sending MAC Addresses and Wi-Fi names is very far from tracking everything you do on the internet, this highlight another very important point: The routers that provided by ISPs are usually very cheap and crappy, and this in itself security implications.

Like this example of pulling a script from an unverified HTTP source and executing it as root 🤯… Not to mention that firewalling and port forward configuration options may be pretty simplified and limited.

It’s extremely unlikely that they are going to do any kind of deep traffic inspection in the router/modem itself. Inspecting network traffic is very intensive though and gives very little value since almost all traffic is encrypted/HTTPS today, with all major browsers even showing scare warnings if’s regular unencrypted HTTP. Potentially they could track DNS queries, but you can mitigate this with DNS over TLS or DNS over HTTPS (For best privacy I would recommend Mullvad: https://mullvad.net/en/help/dns-over-https-and-dns-over-tls)

And of course, make sure that anything you are self-hosting is encrypted and using proper HTTPS certificates. I would recommend setting up a reverse proxy like Nginx or Traefik that you expose. Then you can route to different internal services over the same port based on hostname. Also make sure you have a good certificate from Letsencrypt

Imo the biggest problem with Teamspeak is that it still requires an active connection to the server at all time… So unless your computer is on with the app opened 24/7 you may miss messages. That may or may not be an issue, but you may miss messages that your friends send to the group when you aren’t actively online.

Frankly the UI of TeamSpeak is ageing as well, and there is value in for instance being able to simply attach a screenshot directly in a Discord chat without having to upload it to some external service.

I’m like 90% sure that this post is AI Slop, and I just love the irony.

First of all, the writing style reads a lot like AI… but that is not the biggest problem. None of the mitigations mentioned has anything to do with the Huntarr problem. Sure, they have their uses, but the problem with Huntarr was that it was a vibe coded piece of shit. Using immutable references, image signing or checking the Dockerfile would do fuck-all about the problem that the code itself was missing authentication on some important sensitive API Endpoints.

Also, Huntarr does not appear to be a Verified Publisher at all. Did their status get revoked, or was that a hallucination to begin with?

To be fair though the last paragraph does have a point, but for a homelab I don’t think it’s feasible to fully review the source code of everything you install. It would rather come down to being careful with things that are new and doesn’t have an established reputation, which is especially a problem in the era of AI coding. Like the rest of the *arr stack is probably much safer because it’s open source projects that have been around for a long time and had had a lot of eyes on it.

The free version is mainly just a number of user and device limit. Although the relaying service might be limited as well, but that should only matter if both of your clients have strict NAT, otherwise the Wireguard tunnels gets directly connected and no traffic goes through Netbirds managed servers.

You can also self-host the control plane with pretty much no limitations, and I believe you no longer need SSO (which increased the complexity a lot for homelab setups).

That seems to be the terms for the personal edition of Microsoft 365 though? I’m pretty sure the enterprise edition that has the features like DLP and tagging content as confidential would have a separate agreement where they are not passing on the data.

That is like the main selling point of paying extra for enterprise AI services over the free publicly available ones.

Unless this boundary has actually been crossed in which case, yes. It’s very serious.

That is kind of assuming the worst case scenario though. You wouldn’t assume that QA can read every email you send through their mail servers ”just because ”

This article sounds a bit like engagement bait based on the idea that any use of LLMs is inherently a privacy violation. I don’t see how pushing the text through a specific class of software is worse than storing confidential data in the mailbox though.

That is assuming that they don’t leak data for training but the article doesn’t mention that.

It sounds like you are assuming that the wallet needs to re-validate each session and I don’t see why this would be needed. Each user account would just need to validate their age once then the website operator could store this in their database. If you’ve validated once you can be sure the user keeps being old enough.

They’re probably not going to use it…

… but if they do it’s going to be a hell of a good starting point in motivating people to leave Facebook

I believe something like this is supposed to be a use-case of the digital EU Wallet. A website is supposed to be able to receive an attestation of a users age without nessecarily getting any other information about the person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Digital_Identity_Wallet

Apparently the relevant feature is Electronic attestations of attributes (EAAs). I’m not really familiar with how it will be implemented though and I am a bit afraid of beurocratic design is going to fuck this up…

Imo something like this would be magnitudes better than the current reliance of video identification. Not only is it much more reliable, it will also not feel nearly as invasive as having to scan your face and hope the provider doesn’t save it somewhere.

Honestly you pretty much don’t. Llama are insanely expensive to run as most of the model improvements will come from simply growing the model. It’s not realistic to run LLMs locally and compete with the hosted ones, it pretty much requires the economics of scale. Even if you invest in a 5090 you’re going to be behind the purpose made GPUs with 80GB VRAM.

Maybe it could work for some use cases but I rather just don’t use AI.

Maybe i misunderstand what you mean but yes, you kind of can. The problem in this case is that the user sends two requests in the same input, and the LLM isn’t able to deal with conflicting commands in the system prompt and the input.

The post you replied to kind of seems to imply that the LLM can leak info to other users, but that is not really a thing. As I understand when you call the LLM it’s given your input and a lot of context that can be a hidden system prompt, perhaps your chat history, and other data that might be relevant for the service. If everything is properly implemented any information you give it will only stay in your context. Assuming that someone doesn’t do anything stupid like sharing context data between users.

What you need to watch out for though, especially with free online AI services is that they may use anything you input to train and evolve the process. This is a separate process but if you give personal to an AI assistant it might end up in the training dataset and parts of it end up in the next version of the model. This shouldn’t be an issue if you have a paid subscription or an Enterprise contract that would likely state that no input data can be used for training.

I can’t really tell if you’re joking or not but no, I’m saying that it’s a bug, and at no point anything is sent off your computer