53

Provide as much information as necessary to answer the question. You may obfuscate anything that may be sensitive, but be careful of obfuscating too much. These may occasionally come into conflict... Server Fault does not require you to obfuscate anything. These guidelines are intended to keep you out of trouble and to help you get better answers to your ...


34

It's very useful to know that a particular version of software/drivers/firmware actually fixes the problem that someone is describing, so these answers can be incredibly helpful to other people facing the same problem (especially people for whom upgrading firmware may be a practical problem, e.g. in production systems, high availability systems, or just ...


15

Since this question's floated up to to the top of the front page, I'm going to give my contrarian answer, which is: obfuscate nearly no technical data in your question. Michael has a point inasmuch as some data are supposed to be secret, and you shouldn't post them. Passwords, SSL secret keys (don't laugh, it's happened, though I can no longer find the ...


15

Good idea!


11

To my understanding canonical questions are a ServerFault convention, of which the review-question selection algorithm is completely unaware. Which is to say, it had to happen some time. Treat it like any other question.


10

One time I had to rush at a customer's site whose quite impressive Exchange 2010 system (talking about > 20 servers here) kept randomly stopping mail delivery, which definitely isn't something you would like a mail system to do. The root issue was a random crash of the main mail transport service (edgetransport.exe, for those who know and/or care) on all ...


9

Yes, please. I have that Q&A "starred" and regularly use it as a duplicate and in comments to point out that people made their bed and now must lie in it...


8

I think it would be a good canonical question to have. I imagine the core of the question would be roughly this: Which protocols support hostname based proxying and what can I do if I need to support a protocol which doesn't? But some context on why you would want to do such a thing in the first place could make it a better question. The list of ...


8

We should First of all see if a suitable Q&A already exists and if one does it should be made into our canonical. If one doesn't exist then we should make one. Once we have a canonical Q&A we should arrange an event with the co-operation of the moderators and get as many people as possible to work through the relevant searches/tags. It should be ...


6

You can always downvote and move on. Leave a comment if you really wanna help, but there's no obligation to help any question asker, let alone the especially clueless, lazy or stupid. And really, someone who doesn't have the good sense God gave pigeons in not someone worth getting burned out over.


6

It's a good question. But I'm not convinced we have a good existing question that covers this issue in sufficient depth: I don't see that the existing answers fully explain what is happening. The existing questions and answers seem to be MTA-specific. Some MTAs and cloud email services don't seem to be covered at all. None of the existing answers I saw ...


5

As TheCleaner pointed out, this is "too localized" for Server Fault. Since we don't know what your company does (the advice for a medical services company or DoD contractor will be substantially different from a company that sells coffee mugs), or what each employee you're intending to speak with does (different job roles require different briefings - the ...


4

A canonical question is fine, but a couple comments: It's not clear to me what you're proposing to write about. Your title and some of the post make it sound like you're talking about migrating from a Samba NT domain to a Samba AD domain, but you also mention preserving NT compatibility in Win10 clients. So it's not clear if you mean migrating from ...


4

Yes I think a canonical Q&A for ENOSPC. There are so many that turn up it can only be a good thing.


3

The canonical solution to this kind of thing is to create a canonical Q&A then close stuff as a duplicate of it. The canonical cron Q&A is a good example of this. For new cron related questions I will often cast a close duplicate vote on it and then leave a comment Please work your way through the link above it will almost certainly help you solve ...


3

I've gone ahead and created one: I am under DDoS. What can I do? I think it's pretty comprehensive, but of course I'm sure it can be improved upon. Let's close a bunch of things as a duplicate of it.


2

Most providers just null-route the server/VPS when under DDoS. Telling people to "contact their upstream provider" is not a solution at all in most cases. Providers just don't want to continue providing service to you, they don't want to fight for you, they just null-route. They care about their network, not you. In fact this null-route is usually automatic:...


2

This would be more a question about shared SMTP domains (whose configuration strongly depend on the actual mail servers being in use) than MX records. Multiple MX records, depending on priority and reachability, can cause incoming messages to go to a server or to another one... but there is no way all servers are going to receive a copy. They have to be ...


1

I like the idea as it’s a bit like the canonical question we have for licensing question, but this one would be more specific to design question. It’s better for the asker to use such canonical than to close as to broad IMO For the answer I would write under a Windows’s section some facts; like; The licensing mode of Microsoft that allow two VM for one ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible