postfix – How did I set up an email alias on ClearOs 7?

A year or two ago, I configured some sort of email alias on my ClearOs 7 server, so the mail sent to addressa@myserver.net went to me@myserver.net.

Now, I want to change the mail destination, but I do not remember how I configured it, nor how to change it!

I looked in / etc / aliasesbut it is not there.

I sent him an email, and the maillog says something like …

                June 25 16:15:02 postfix router / smtpd[29295]: 14CDD17C71AC: client = woc.myserver.net[192.168.1.6], sasl_method = LOGIN, sasl_username=nikki@myserver.net
25 Jun 16:15:02 postfix router / cleanup[29387]: 14CDD17C71AC: message-id =
    June 25 16:15:02 postfix router / qmgr[2236]: 14CDD17C71AC: de =, size = 743, nrcpt = 1 (active queue)
June 25 16:15:02 postfix router / pipe[29422]: 14CDD17C71AC: to =, orig_to =, relay = mailprefilter, delay = 0.26, delay = 0.08 / 0.02 / 0 / 0.16, dsn = 2.0.0, status = sent (delivered via the mailprefilter service)
June 25 16:15:02 postfix router / qmgr[2236]: 14CDD17C71AC: deleted

Can someone give me a clue where to look to change it?

Programming Practices – What property rights and file permissions should I initially set for files / directories before opening a project sourcing?

Of course, anyone can change permissions and ownership as they please after downloading the project (or perhaps on other platforms), but is there any better practice regarding the initial definition? the owner, the user and the group?

Just leave the property at default values. Once someone clone a repository on his machine, he becomes the owner.

Same for the authorization, go with the default values, unless you plan to include executables in the repository that you can set for the user (u + x).

construct the function – Generate all connected graphs from a set of vertices to n values?

I would like to have a function générerConnecté[list_] a set of predefined valence vertices (number of outgoing edges) generates all possible connected diagrams.

For example, choose the following names for valence vertices 1 through 6:

vertexNames = {x, u, y, z, q, w};

which means a top of the label X can only have one edge attached, you can only have 2 edges, there can only have three edges, etc.

Then, a set of vertices can be chosen, for example. as follows, so that the output is

set = flatten[{Array[x, 5], y, z}]générerConnecté[set,vertexNames]

{X[1] , X[2] , X[3] , X[4] , X[5] , y, z}

enter the description of the image here

Is there an effective way to do this in Mathematica?

Need to set hibernation parameters with the help of a command

I need to solve this problem by command with d-conf or without it because I need it every time I prepare a new system.

How to do that?

Do you fit a sum of two normal distributions to one set of data?

Let's take the example of the following data:

hl = {{- (153/400), 1}, {- (151/400), 0}, {- (149/400), 0}, {- (147/400), 0}, {- ( 29/80), 0}, {- (143/400), 0}, {- (141/400), 0}, {- (139/400), 0}, {- (137/400), 0 }, {- (27/80), 0}, {- (133/400), 0}, {- (131/400), 0}, {- (129/400), 0}, {- (127 / 400), 0}, {- (5/16), 0}, {- (123/400), 0}, {- (121/400), 0}, {- (119/400), 0} , {- (117/400), 0}, {- (23/80), 0}, {- (113/400), 1}, {- (111/400), 0}, {- (109 / 400), 0}, {- (107/400), 0}, {- (21/80), 0}, {- (103/400), 0}, {- (101/400), 0}, {- (99/400), 0}, {- (97/400), 0}, {- (19/80), 0}, {- (93/400), 0}, {- (91/400 ), 0}, {- (89/400), 0}, {- (87/400), 0}, {- (17/80), 0}, {- (83/400), 3}, { - (81/400), 0}, {- (79/400), 0}, {- (77/400), 1}, {- (3/16), 0}, {- (73/400) , 0}, {- (71/400), 1}, {- (69/400), 3}, {- (67/400), 4}, {- (13/80), 4}, {- (63/400), 5}, {- (61/400), 3}, {- (59/400), 2}, {- (57/400), 5}, {- (11/80), 8}, {- (53/400), 4}, {- (51/400), 8}, {- (49/400), 8}, {- (47/400), 11}, {- ( 9/80), 13}, {- (43/400), 10}, {- (41/400), 11}, {- (39/400), 18}, {- (37/400), 13}, {- (7/80), 21}, {- (33/400), 24}, {- (31/400), 28}, {- (29/400), 18}, {- (27/400), 35}, {- (1/16), 40}, {- (23/400), 39}, {- ( 21/400), 40}, {- (19/400), 41}, {- (17/400), 45}, {- (3/80), 58}, {- (13/400), 47 }, {- (11/400), 59}, {- (9/400), 55}, {- (7/400), 71}, {- (1/80), 85}, {- (3) / 400), 70}, {- (1/400), 65}, {1/400, 83}, {3/400, 85}, {1/80, 83}, {7/400, 68}, {9/400, 73}, {11/400, 66}, {13/400, 61}, {3/80, 70}, {17/400, 60}, {19/400, 63}, {21 / 400, 48}, {23/400, 52}, {1/16, 46}, {27/400, 34}, {29/400, 43}, {31/400, 36}, {33/400 , 27}, {7/80, 21}, {37/400, 23}, {39/400, 13}, {41/400, 17}, {43/400, 26}, {9/80, 9} }, {47/400, 15}, {49/400, 6}, {51/400, 7}, {53/400, 5}, {11/80, 5}, {57/400, 8}, {59/400, 2}, {61/400, 2}, {63/400, 4}, {13/80, 2}, {67/400, 4}, {69/400, 3}, {71 / 400, 3}, {73/400, 5}, {3/16, 1}, {77/400, 3}, {79/400, 0}, {81/400, 3}, {83/400 , 1}, {17/80, 1}, {87/400, 0}, {89/400, 1}, {91/400, 0}, {93/400, 5}, {19/80, 0} }, {97/400, 1}, { 99/400, 1}, {101/400, 0}, {103/400, 0}, {21/80, 1}, {107/400, 0}, {109/400, 0}, {111 / 400, 0}, {113/400, 0}, {23/80, 2}, {117/400, 0}, {119/400, 1}, {121/400, 0}, {123/400, 0}, {5/16, 0}, {127/400, 0}, {129/400, 0}, {131/400, 1}, {133/400, 0}, {27/80, 1} , {137/400, 0}, {139/400, 0}, {141/400, 0}, {143/400, 0}, {29/80, 0}, {147/400, 0}, { 149/400, 0}, {151/400, 0}, {153/400, 0}, {31/80, 0}, {157/400, 0}, {159/400, 0}, {161 / 400, 0}, {163/400, 0}, {33/80, 0}, {167/400, 0}, {169/400, 0}, {171/400, 0}, {173/400, 0}, {7/16, 0}, {177/400, 0}, {179/400, 0}, {181/400, 1}, {183/400, 1}, {37/80, 0} {187/400, 0}, {189/400, 0}, {191/400, 0}, {193/400, 0}, {39/80, 0}, {197/400, 0}, { 199/400, 0}, {201/400, 0}, {203/400, 0}, {41/80, 1}};
ListLinePlot[hl]

enter the description of the image here

I would like to insert a sum of two normal distributions into this data, so I try

mod = NonlinearModelFit[hl, A1 Exp[-A2 (x - A3)^2] + B1 Exp[-B2 (x - B3)^2], {A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3}, x]// Ordinary;

Mathematica complains of convergence problems. A graph of the result is very unsatisfactory:

Show[ListLinePlot[hl, PlotRange -> All], Ground[mod, {x, -0.3, 0.3}, PlotStyle -> Red]]

enter the description of the image here

What is the right way to adapt this to Mathematica, so that it really converges to a reasonable approximation?

Convex Optimization – Proven Subspace $ V = C-x_ {0} = left {x-x_ {0} | x in C subseteq R ^ n right } $ associated with the affine set $ C $ does not depend on the choice of $ x_0 $

Subspace $ V = C-x_ {0} = left {x-x_ {0} | x in C subseteq R ^ n right $ associated with the whole affine $ C $ does not depend on the choice of $ x_0 in C $, that is to say. $ V $ are the same regardless of $ x_0 $

My essay:
For $ V_0 = C-x_ {0} = left {x-x_ {0} | x in C right $ and $ V_1 = C-x_ {1} = left {x-x_ {1} | x in C right $
assume $ v_0 in V_0 $, I'm trying to show that $ v_0 + x_1 in C $but I do not know how to show it

A clue?

8 – Proximity Filter Geolocation & Views – Can you set proximity to 0 (zero) by default?

I'm trying to see if there is a way to set the default proximity filter of the views so that it enters zero for proximity values ​​when the filter is empty, so we can sort the data using a different default field.

What I currently have

A view that lists the location nodes (which use the geolocation module) using the "Content" view / rendering. The format parameters are defined to force the fields, so we can define the information of the proximity field. The view has an exposed proximity filter using Google Geocoding and the proximity field is set to center with respect to this proximity filter.

In addition, the view is sorted first by proximity and then by title.

Proximity filtering works

When users type an address, the view is sorted by proximity and works as expected.

Desired result

A user visits the page, the locations are sorted by title in alphabetical order, and if an address is entered in the filter, the locations are sorted by proximity then by title.

What's going on now

When the page is initially loaded and nothing has entered the filter, the locations appear to be sorted in an arbitrary / random order. If you display proximity, it's clear that sorting always happens by proximity, but I do not know what.

Are there any suggestions for configuring this differently? Are there any points I could access to replace the proximity value by zero if the filter is empty?

I have searched a lot on Google and have tried to look in the queue for problems, but I have not found any guidance yet. Thank you in advance to all those who are able to offer their help or direction.

Create a set of documents with pnp.js API

I want to create a set of documents using the pnp.js API.

How are you doing this?

co.combinatorics – A transitive vertex graph has an almost perfect match missing from an independent set of vertices

Consider a graph of the power of the cycle $ C_n ^ k $, represented by a graph of Cayley with generator $ {1,2, ldots, k, n-k, ldots, n-1 } $ on the group $ mathbb {Z} _n $. Suppose I delete an independent set of vertices of the form $ {i, i + k + 1, ldots, lfloor frac {n} {k + 1} rfloor + i $ or a single vertex. Then, is it possible to get a perfect / nearly perfect match when I always delete the independent vertex set? If no, then is it possible in case the graph is equal cycle power?

I hope so, because we can couple the vertices between two independent sets of the form above or between the independent set and the single vertex to obtain a nearly perfect maximum match (in the case where the # The order of the induced subgraph is odd) or perfect (in case the order of the induced subgraph is even). We can also see by observing that when the maximal independent set of vertices (as indicated above) is suppressed, we have a Hamiltonian cycle in the induced subgraph (the proof of this point does not seem clear to me) . Counterexamples? Also, can we generalize this, if it is true, to any transitive vertex graph, that is, is there an independent set of vertices (non singleton), so that the removal of this set induces a perfect match / almost perfect? Thank you in advance.