Slashdot Mirror

Setting up UUCP on Xenix
Setting up UUCP on Linux

If you really want to try to read the disk it is probably UFS which you can read from Linux.

Hope this helps.

USENET was about creating communities, /b/ is about breaking down communities. You must have been to young to appreciate USENET for what it was, and it was great.

"Come, let us retract the foreskin of misconception and apply the wirebrush of enlightenment."
- Geoff Miller.

By Glub, it's been half a lifetime, but you must have been too young to remember alt.tasteless and the invasion of rec.pets.cats.

He’s a total idiot:

Dennis Chamberland: "I'd lose my patent if I told you."

All patents are by definition published openly! Or else nobody could check if it’s patented. Here’s one I found in a 5 second Google search: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090054763

Agreed. Novell has been disfunctional since Netware version 3, in my opinion.

"It bought Wordperfect about the time it tanked, then couldn't make a go of it."

Novell buying WordPerfect for $885 million was an amazing decision. What amazed me most was that apparently Novell top managers apparently had no serious intention of being in the business of selling word processing software.

In 1996, 2 years later, Novell sold WordPerfect to Corel.

I spent 3 years a God followed by 7 years in the omniscience industry followed next by 4 years understanding everything.
Given the level of general knowledge you've displayed this claim is about as credible as yours.

So anyway, would you like some sources since you seem too arrogant to simply type a few terms into google:

The internet has no central authority

http://www.isoc.org/briefings/020/
If you're too lazy to read they spend pages and pages saying this over and over in different ways:
"There is no central authority that controls the operation of all root name servers"

Email:
go nuts:
find anything in here about a king of email and I'll withdraw all slurs on your knowledge of the field.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2821.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2045.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2046.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2047.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2048.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2049.html

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/archived_content/people/reagle/regulation-19990326.html
This rambles on a bit but the general gist of it is that the Internet is based on decentralisation and consensus.

Any single central authority is also a single point of failure.
Far better is rough consensus and running code.

The closest is IP addresses and yet it's still only by consensus, you are utterly free to resolve any given IP address however you wish on your own network(assuming the intent is not to defraud).
we've seen this when certain carriers get into conflicts with each other.

There are certainly groups which have influence on protocols etc on the net but they offer suggestions, not commands.

"The IETF process is interesting in that it is descriptive, not prescriptive. An IETF Standard is not a statement that all must abide by the technical specification unlike much law and some of the standards of government sanctioned standards bodies. Rather, it is a descriptive statement to say that (1) the policies specified by the document are desirable and (2) that the quality is high enough to permit developers to create independent implementations."

I can send a mail to any given IP without the slightest need for any kind of DNS service.

Since you seem too inept to write a simple bash script heres a quick tutorial.

Most basic possible script for sending an email.
Tested on an SMTP server picked at random from one of my email headers and it works fine.

echo "HELO myhostname\nMAIL FROM:$2\nRCPT TO:$3\nDATA\n$4\n.\nQUIT\n" | netcat $1 25

usage:
ScriptName.sh [SMTP server name or IP address] [from] [to] [message body]

Note that from and to must have angle brackets around them.

A lot of servers don't accept these connections from random machines simply because of the spam problem but this is the basics.
Anyone can do this.
You don't need to go near your ISP's email servers unless they're blocking port 25.
You don't need to touch the DNS system if you feed and IP in instead of a host name.

So.
If you think my sources are wrong all you have to provide is some links to some decent sources yourself.
using ALL CAPS doesn't count as providing sources by the way.
It just makes you sound like a 12 year old AOLer.

I spent 3 years a God followed by 7 years in the omniscience industry followed next by 4 years understanding everything.
Given the level of general knowledge you've displayed this claim is about as credible as yours.

So anyway, would you like some sources since you seem too arrogant to simply type a few terms into google:

The internet has no central authority

http://www.isoc.org/briefings/020/
If you're too lazy to read they spend pages and pages saying this over and over in different ways:
"There is no central authority that controls the operation of all root name servers"

Email:
go nuts:
find anything in here about a king of email and I'll withdraw all slurs on your knowledge of the field.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2821.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2045.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2046.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2047.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2048.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2049.html

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/archived_content/people/reagle/regulation-19990326.html
This rambles on a bit but the general gist of it is that the Internet is based on decentralisation and consensus.

Any single central authority is also a single point of failure.
Far better is rough consensus and running code.

The closest is IP addresses and yet it's still only by consensus, you are utterly free to resolve any given IP address however you wish on your own network(assuming the intent is not to defraud).
we've seen this when certain carriers get into conflicts with each other.

There are certainly groups which have influence on protocols etc on the net but they offer suggestions, not commands.

"The IETF process is interesting in that it is descriptive, not prescriptive. An IETF Standard is not a statement that all must abide by the technical specification unlike much law and some of the standards of government sanctioned standards bodies. Rather, it is a descriptive statement to say that (1) the policies specified by the document are desirable and (2) that the quality is high enough to permit developers to create independent implementations."

I can send a mail to any given IP without the slightest need for any kind of DNS service.

Since you seem too inept to write a simple bash script heres a quick tutorial.

Most basic possible script for sending an email.
Tested on an SMTP server picked at random from one of my email headers and it works fine.

echo "HELO myhostname\nMAIL FROM:$2\nRCPT TO:$3\nDATA\n$4\n.\nQUIT\n" | netcat $1 25

usage:
ScriptName.sh [SMTP server name or IP address] [from] [to] [message body]

Note that from and to must have angle brackets around them.

A lot of servers don't accept these connections from random machines simply because of the spam problem but this is the basics.
Anyone can do this.
You don't need to go near your ISP's email servers unless they're blocking port 25.
You don't need to touch the DNS system if you feed and IP in instead of a host name.

So.
If you think my sources are wrong all you have to provide is some links to some decent sources yourself.
using ALL CAPS doesn't count as providing sources by the way.
It just makes you sound like a 12 year old AOLer.

I spent 3 years a God followed by 7 years in the omniscience industry followed next by 4 years understanding everything.
Given the level of general knowledge you've displayed this claim is about as credible as yours.

So anyway, would you like some sources since you seem too arrogant to simply type a few terms into google:

The internet has no central authority

http://www.isoc.org/briefings/020/
If you're too lazy to read they spend pages and pages saying this over and over in different ways:
"There is no central authority that controls the operation of all root name servers"

Email:
go nuts:
find anything in here about a king of email and I'll withdraw all slurs on your knowledge of the field.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2821.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2045.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2046.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2047.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2048.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2049.html

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/archived_content/people/reagle/regulation-19990326.html
This rambles on a bit but the general gist of it is that the Internet is based on decentralisation and consensus.

Any single central authority is also a single point of failure.
Far better is rough consensus and running code.

The closest is IP addresses and yet it's still only by consensus, you are utterly free to resolve any given IP address however you wish on your own network(assuming the intent is not to defraud).
we've seen this when certain carriers get into conflicts with each other.

There are certainly groups which have influence on protocols etc on the net but they offer suggestions, not commands.

"The IETF process is interesting in that it is descriptive, not prescriptive. An IETF Standard is not a statement that all must abide by the technical specification unlike much law and some of the standards of government sanctioned standards bodies. Rather, it is a descriptive statement to say that (1) the policies specified by the document are desirable and (2) that the quality is high enough to permit developers to create independent implementations."

I can send a mail to any given IP without the slightest need for any kind of DNS service.

Since you seem too inept to write a simple bash script heres a quick tutorial.

Most basic possible script for sending an email.
Tested on an SMTP server picked at random from one of my email headers and it works fine.

echo "HELO myhostname\nMAIL FROM:$2\nRCPT TO:$3\nDATA\n$4\n.\nQUIT\n" | netcat $1 25

usage:
ScriptName.sh [SMTP server name or IP address] [from] [to] [message body]

Note that from and to must have angle brackets around them.

A lot of servers don't accept these connections from random machines simply because of the spam problem but this is the basics.
Anyone can do this.
You don't need to go near your ISP's email servers unless they're blocking port 25.
You don't need to touch the DNS system if you feed and IP in instead of a host name.

So.
If you think my sources are wrong all you have to provide is some links to some decent sources yourself.
using ALL CAPS doesn't count as providing sources by the way.
It just makes you sound like a 12 year old AOLer.

I spent 3 years a God followed by 7 years in the omniscience industry followed next by 4 years understanding everything.
Given the level of general knowledge you've displayed this claim is about as credible as yours.

So anyway, would you like some sources since you seem too arrogant to simply type a few terms into google:

The internet has no central authority

http://www.isoc.org/briefings/020/
If you're too lazy to read they spend pages and pages saying this over and over in different ways:
"There is no central authority that controls the operation of all root name servers"

Email:
go nuts:
find anything in here about a king of email and I'll withdraw all slurs on your knowledge of the field.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2821.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2045.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2046.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2047.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2048.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2049.html

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/archived_content/people/reagle/regulation-19990326.html
This rambles on a bit but the general gist of it is that the Internet is based on decentralisation and consensus.

Any single central authority is also a single point of failure.
Far better is rough consensus and running code.

The closest is IP addresses and yet it's still only by consensus, you are utterly free to resolve any given IP address however you wish on your own network(assuming the intent is not to defraud).
we've seen this when certain carriers get into conflicts with each other.

There are certainly groups which have influence on protocols etc on the net but they offer suggestions, not commands.

"The IETF process is interesting in that it is descriptive, not prescriptive. An IETF Standard is not a statement that all must abide by the technical specification unlike much law and some of the standards of government sanctioned standards bodies. Rather, it is a descriptive statement to say that (1) the policies specified by the document are desirable and (2) that the quality is high enough to permit developers to create independent implementations."

I can send a mail to any given IP without the slightest need for any kind of DNS service.

Since you seem too inept to write a simple bash script heres a quick tutorial.

Most basic possible script for sending an email.
Tested on an SMTP server picked at random from one of my email headers and it works fine.

echo "HELO myhostname\nMAIL FROM:$2\nRCPT TO:$3\nDATA\n$4\n.\nQUIT\n" | netcat $1 25

usage:
ScriptName.sh [SMTP server name or IP address] [from] [to] [message body]

Note that from and to must have angle brackets around them.

A lot of servers don't accept these connections from random machines simply because of the spam problem but this is the basics.
Anyone can do this.
You don't need to go near your ISP's email servers unless they're blocking port 25.
You don't need to touch the DNS system if you feed and IP in instead of a host name.

So.
If you think my sources are wrong all you have to provide is some links to some decent sources yourself.
using ALL CAPS doesn't count as providing sources by the way.
It just makes you sound like a 12 year old AOLer.

I spent 3 years a God followed by 7 years in the omniscience industry followed next by 4 years understanding everything.
Given the level of general knowledge you've displayed this claim is about as credible as yours.

So anyway, would you like some sources since you seem too arrogant to simply type a few terms into google:

The internet has no central authority

http://www.isoc.org/briefings/020/
If you're too lazy to read they spend pages and pages saying this over and over in different ways:
"There is no central authority that controls the operation of all root name servers"

Email:
go nuts:
find anything in here about a king of email and I'll withdraw all slurs on your knowledge of the field.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2821.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2045.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2046.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2047.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2048.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2049.html

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/archived_content/people/reagle/regulation-19990326.html
This rambles on a bit but the general gist of it is that the Internet is based on decentralisation and consensus.

Any single central authority is also a single point of failure.
Far better is rough consensus and running code.

The closest is IP addresses and yet it's still only by consensus, you are utterly free to resolve any given IP address however you wish on your own network(assuming the intent is not to defraud).
we've seen this when certain carriers get into conflicts with each other.

There are certainly groups which have influence on protocols etc on the net but they offer suggestions, not commands.

"The IETF process is interesting in that it is descriptive, not prescriptive. An IETF Standard is not a statement that all must abide by the technical specification unlike much law and some of the standards of government sanctioned standards bodies. Rather, it is a descriptive statement to say that (1) the policies specified by the document are desirable and (2) that the quality is high enough to permit developers to create independent implementations."

I can send a mail to any given IP without the slightest need for any kind of DNS service.

Since you seem too inept to write a simple bash script heres a quick tutorial.

Most basic possible script for sending an email.
Tested on an SMTP server picked at random from one of my email headers and it works fine.

echo "HELO myhostname\nMAIL FROM:$2\nRCPT TO:$3\nDATA\n$4\n.\nQUIT\n" | netcat $1 25

usage:
ScriptName.sh [SMTP server name or IP address] [from] [to] [message body]

Note that from and to must have angle brackets around them.

A lot of servers don't accept these connections from random machines simply because of the spam problem but this is the basics.
Anyone can do this.
You don't need to go near your ISP's email servers unless they're blocking port 25.
You don't need to touch the DNS system if you feed and IP in instead of a host name.

So.
If you think my sources are wrong all you have to provide is some links to some decent sources yourself.
using ALL CAPS doesn't count as providing sources by the way.
It just makes you sound like a 12 year old AOLer.

I spent 3 years a God followed by 7 years in the omniscience industry followed next by 4 years understanding everything.
Given the level of general knowledge you've displayed this claim is about as credible as yours.

So anyway, would you like some sources since you seem too arrogant to simply type a few terms into google:

The internet has no central authority

http://www.isoc.org/briefings/020/
If you're too lazy to read they spend pages and pages saying this over and over in different ways:
"There is no central authority that controls the operation of all root name servers"

Email:
go nuts:
find anything in here about a king of email and I'll withdraw all slurs on your knowledge of the field.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2821.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2045.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2046.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2047.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2048.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2049.html

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/archived_content/people/reagle/regulation-19990326.html
This rambles on a bit but the general gist of it is that the Internet is based on decentralisation and consensus.

Any single central authority is also a single point of failure.
Far better is rough consensus and running code.

The closest is IP addresses and yet it's still only by consensus, you are utterly free to resolve any given IP address however you wish on your own network(assuming the intent is not to defraud).
we've seen this when certain carriers get into conflicts with each other.

There are certainly groups which have influence on protocols etc on the net but they offer suggestions, not commands.

"The IETF process is interesting in that it is descriptive, not prescriptive. An IETF Standard is not a statement that all must abide by the technical specification unlike much law and some of the standards of government sanctioned standards bodies. Rather, it is a descriptive statement to say that (1) the policies specified by the document are desirable and (2) that the quality is high enough to permit developers to create independent implementations."

I can send a mail to any given IP without the slightest need for any kind of DNS service.

Since you seem too inept to write a simple bash script heres a quick tutorial.

Most basic possible script for sending an email.
Tested on an SMTP server picked at random from one of my email headers and it works fine.

echo "HELO myhostname\nMAIL FROM:$2\nRCPT TO:$3\nDATA\n$4\n.\nQUIT\n" | netcat $1 25

usage:
ScriptName.sh [SMTP server name or IP address] [from] [to] [message body]

Note that from and to must have angle brackets around them.

A lot of servers don't accept these connections from random machines simply because of the spam problem but this is the basics.
Anyone can do this.
You don't need to go near your ISP's email servers unless they're blocking port 25.
You don't need to touch the DNS system if you feed and IP in instead of a host name.

So.
If you think my sources are wrong all you have to provide is some links to some decent sources yourself.
using ALL CAPS doesn't count as providing sources by the way.
It just makes you sound like a 12 year old AOLer.

I spent 3 years a God followed by 7 years in the omniscience industry followed next by 4 years understanding everything.
Given the level of general knowledge you've displayed this claim is about as credible as yours.

So anyway, would you like some sources since you seem too arrogant to simply type a few terms into google:

The internet has no central authority

http://www.isoc.org/briefings/020/
If you're too lazy to read they spend pages and pages saying this over and over in different ways:
"There is no central authority that controls the operation of all root name servers"

Email:
go nuts:
find anything in here about a king of email and I'll withdraw all slurs on your knowledge of the field.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2821.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2045.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2046.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2047.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2048.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2049.html

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/archived_content/people/reagle/regulation-19990326.html
This rambles on a bit but the general gist of it is that the Internet is based on decentralisation and consensus.

Any single central authority is also a single point of failure.
Far better is rough consensus and running code.

The closest is IP addresses and yet it's still only by consensus, you are utterly free to resolve any given IP address however you wish on your own network(assuming the intent is not to defraud).
we've seen this when certain carriers get into conflicts with each other.

There are certainly groups which have influence on protocols etc on the net but they offer suggestions, not commands.

"The IETF process is interesting in that it is descriptive, not prescriptive. An IETF Standard is not a statement that all must abide by the technical specification unlike much law and some of the standards of government sanctioned standards bodies. Rather, it is a descriptive statement to say that (1) the policies specified by the document are desirable and (2) that the quality is high enough to permit developers to create independent implementations."

I can send a mail to any given IP without the slightest need for any kind of DNS service.

Since you seem too inept to write a simple bash script heres a quick tutorial.

Most basic possible script for sending an email.
Tested on an SMTP server picked at random from one of my email headers and it works fine.

echo "HELO myhostname\nMAIL FROM:$2\nRCPT TO:$3\nDATA\n$4\n.\nQUIT\n" | netcat $1 25

usage:
ScriptName.sh [SMTP server name or IP address] [from] [to] [message body]

Note that from and to must have angle brackets around them.

A lot of servers don't accept these connections from random machines simply because of the spam problem but this is the basics.
Anyone can do this.
You don't need to go near your ISP's email servers unless they're blocking port 25.
You don't need to touch the DNS system if you feed and IP in instead of a host name.

So.
If you think my sources are wrong all you have to provide is some links to some decent sources yourself.
using ALL CAPS doesn't count as providing sources by the way.
It just makes you sound like a 12 year old AOLer.

Two of the pairs are simply unused. There were some gigabit ethernet standards that used all four pairs, but I'm not sure if that is the standard that is in common use today.

There was also a really neat 100Mbps standard called 100BASE-T4 which used 4 pairs of Cat3: 2 pairs switching directions (half duplex only) and 1 pair each dedicated TX/RX. It also used a trinary (3 state) carrier wave. I believe it's also covered under RFC 1925 section 2.3, "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine."

At least not in the strictest technical sense. It doesn't understand html, etc. ..."just" it's own, highly compressed format; sent to it from Opera servers.

Not that it'll make a difference to Apple.

At least it should support File Uploading, unlike the cut-down browser from Apple.

I honestly can't see any logic behind disabling this really simple feature - other than it forces developers to write stupid applications which could be better written in a web-browser.

"Naw. Returning to the moon, while feasible, is pointless, and the chances that you were going to get to Mars were pretty close to nil."

It's clearly this inept kind of thinking that's going to keep spacetech from ever developing, one way or another the universe is out to get us the idea we should put it off just because the sun's death is far away is moronic.

The Sun is a yellow, G2 V main sequence dwarf. Yellow dwarfs live about 10 billion years (from zero-age main sequence to white dwarf formation), and our Sun is already about 5 billion years old.

Read more: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part5/section-7.html#ixzz0ePfpTNW4

It looks like there's a need for an approach along the lines of RFC 2549, but using chiropteran rather than avian carriers. Assuming that they can be trained, the bandwidth will be higher and the weight and volume to be carried by both cavers and rescuers considerably less.

It's the evil bit http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3514.html

Can't wait to see people implement this RFC!

Just to be clear: 10.0.0.0/8, 192.168.0.0/16, 172.16.0.0/12 are officially assigned for use by private networks. They cannot be allocated for use on the internet.

And "192.0.0.0/24" has been allocated for use in documentation, so those 256 addresses won't be allocated for use on the internet, either.

Did YOU even read RFC 1178?

You've made the classical mistake of mistaking the name of a thing with the thing itself.

It's 2 decades out of date, and more importantly, specifically states It does not specify any standard.

So don't quote an obsolete non-standard that doesn't even have anything to do with the current situation, which is getting rid of an anachronism.

Re-defined entrenched URL standards (you cannot specify username/password in an Internet Explorer URL but this is a legal standard form of URL)?

HTTP URLs never supported username and password in the URL, according to the actual standards. RFC 1738 was the original URL specification. Section 3.1 said that some schemes supported username (and/or password) in the URL, giving the example of ftp urls. However, http was not one of the schemes supporting usernames or passwords, as you can see from the syntax description in section 3.3. None of the followup RFCs added user or password support to http URLs. In fact, RFC2396 noted in section 3.2.2 that the feature was not recommended even when it was supported. RFC3986 then deprecated the feature, even for ftp URLs. So user and password in http URLs was a non-standard feature Microsoft should never have implemented in the first place, and they were right to remove it. As far as I know, the only URL scheme which still officially supports username and password without deprecation is telnet, presumably on the grounds that anyone still using telnet doesn't care about the username and password being hacked anyway.

I think TLD's should be used to organize fraud to make it easier to manage. We just ask all tricksters use the .con TLD. similarly, people with intent to bomb should be steered towards a .terror TLD. or perhaps a more generic .violence. Also, TLD's should be translated, so that in French the TLD is http://alqaeda.terreur/ if your language setting is FR. regardless of wether the URL is .con, .fraude, .terreur, .terror, .violence, .violencia, etc... We would then have a simple means of implementing http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3514.html RFC 3514, just set the evil bit on all traffic coming from these domains.

Thus, these guys are setting most of the major network standards, as well as implementing them.

Thus, these guys are setting most of the major network standards, as well as implementing them.

Thus, these guys are setting most of the major network standards, as well as implementing them.

Thus, these guys are setting most of the major network standards, as well as implementing them.

and the occasional twit who forgot that email is a *text* medium.

Not since 1996 (and probably earlier) when RFC 2045 was written.

The last century called, they want their Mutt-grasping curmudgeon back.

You're using NAT as a method of access control, which is not what it was designed for.

Sure, originally. But it turns out that it's useful for other things, too. E.g., RFC 2663, the updated NAT RFC, specifically talks about access control:

Funny, I read that RFC quite differently. Quoting from that RFC (emphasis mine):

The NAT function cannot by itself support all applications transparently and often must co-exist with application level gateways (ALGs) for this reason

IPsec techniques which are intended to preserve the endpoint addresses of an IP packet will not work with NAT enroute for most applications in practice.

There are two areas, however, where NAT devices often cause difficulties: 1) when an application payload includes an IP address, and 2) when end-to-end security is needed.

NAT is compute intensive even with the help of a clever checksum adjustment algorithm

Could you please quote the part where that RFC specifically mentions/endorses/recommends using NAT for access control, because I couldn't find it...

In short, the control NAT gives you is illusory and meaningless.

Then it is as illusory and meaningless as paging. After all, you can accomplish the same thing with segmented memory. But as time has shown, the properties inherent in paging make using a computer (for a programmer) much easier. You don't have to worry about bounds-checking; the bounds are built-in by virtue of addresses not being meaningful outside of a particular process, and your addressing model is simple.

NAT gives you the same thing: addresses that are non-routable outside of your network. Using it becomes simpler. You argue that this other fellow is not competent, but you yourself clearly do not understand the complexities of large private networks. E.g., where I work, we have a global private address space. Now, we're talking hundreds of IT people working in this domain, with probably a dozen or so engineers. When I expose one of my subnets to one of my colleague's over a point-to-point link, I don't need to worry if he's been careful to set up the correct IT policy on his edge devices, because my address space is NOT ROUTABLE on the Internet. Exposing it is possible of course, but now someone has to jump through some hoops to make it happen. Hopefully they get hit with the clue stick before they get that far.

Your anti-NAT argument is equivalent to the following: we don't need technology X because person Y should be better at his job. Yeah, sure, but X rules out an entire class of human error. We've heard the same thing over and over again about, e.g., garbage collection, object-orientation, strong typing, language-level support for parallelism, high-level programming, DHCP, network management software, W XOR X, automatic bounds checking, etc, etc, etc.

You're using NAT as a method of access control, which is not what it was designed for.

Sure, originally. But it turns out that it's useful for other things, too. E.g., RFC 2663, the updated NAT RFC, specifically talks about access control:

The need for IP Address translation arises when a network's internal IP addresses cannot be used outside the network either because they are invalid for use outside, or because the internal addressing must be kept private from the external network.

So while NAT may not have been designed to function as access control, it does. Dismissing it because it "wasn't designed" to work that way is like complaining that aspirin should only be used for headaches while ignoring that it might also prevent people from dying of heart attacks.

I think most people hate NAT because traversing it is annoying. Doing this is supposed to be annoying!

Well, the section of interest is 5.2.6 of RFC1123, which killed section 3.6 of RFC 822 with the stated goal of abolishing source-routing of the destination or of the return path.

Basically, the baby was accidentally thrown out with the bathwater, and it is unfortunately way too late to do anything about it..

5.2.6 Mail Relay: RFC-821 Section 3.6
....
the relay function defined in section 3.6 of RFC-821 should not be used.

Now, if you go lookup that section you will find:

... The mailbox is an absolute address, and the route is information about how to get there. The two concepts should not be confused.

Conceptually the elements of the forward-path are moved to the reverse-path as the message is relayed from one server-SMTP to another. The reverse-path is a reverse source route When a server-SMTP deletes its identifier from the forward-path and inserts it into the reverse-path, it must use the name it is known by in the environment it is sending into, not the environment the mail came from ...
If when the message arrives at an SMTP the first element of the forward-path is not the identifier of that SMTP the element is not deleted from the forward-path and is used to determine the next SMTP to send the message to. In any case, the SMTP adds its own identifier to the reverse-path. ...

"how Arab culture subsumed Islam and turned it into a political empire" ... you do realize that it's the (paedophile) prophet who did that. This statement of you is akin to saying that what Jesus Christ did has nothing to do with Christianity. That Krishna's actions do not have anything to do with Hinduism. That Marx and communism are totally unrelated, and anyone implying connection between Hitler and Nazism is just babbling racist nonsense meant to "hurt nazi feelings".

Which part, exactly, of islam does not support the political empire ? I am very interested in your opinion. And please, refrain from naming tiny sects that are persecuted and massacred in the muslim world. It may very well be true that Bahai islam, Sufi islam and Ahmadiyya islam have different ideas about this, but let's get real here.

Your points, when you're attacking the political culture of Islam as defined by a state, are mostly valid. But you are making an error in combining Islam as political culture and Islam as religion. Unfortunately, I will concede to you that most people, many Muslims (and Christians, and Jews) make the same mistake. We are only human after all, and definitely not perfect

Yes where would I get the idea that islam is only a totalitarian political system, literally encompassing every last action one ever takes, from being born to wiping one's ass, sitting down only in the allowed manner ? From killing any dissenters, to cleaning sandals, ... everything. Joseph Stalin would find these rules suffocating.

Feel free, in any rebuttal, to include the reason that you think you know better than all "schools" of islam. Not just one, but all of them. Furthermore, I seriously doubt you've ever even talked to a muslim. I seriously doubt you've ever even touched that most boring of books (seriously it takes all one's willpower to read even a single chapter, it's that convoluted and boring. Okay there are 2 or 3 pages that are weak versions of biblical stories at the end, and they color it just a little bit, but if you actually read it up to that point either you're studying it, or there is something wrong with you. Seriously. Reading the bible is hard, for it's a very long book indeed. But I guarantee there are a whole lot more Christians that have read the bible cover to cover than there are muslims that have read even one of the longer chapters of the quran)

Also feel free to explain how having a 9 year old girl dragged into your bedroom, an action that according to muslim texts required several slaves to accomplish, and then "having sex" with her as a 53 year old man (note that the text conspicuously doesn't say that those slaves left before the act. One that reads between the lines might think that physical restraint was required for the act, and that the actual man was incapable to provide it) is comparable to marriages between 14 year old boys and 12 year old girls. You'd even be right in pointing out that the paedophile prophet's actions weren't that strange for a man that probably had visited brothels of the Roman empire, and that he was probably not the only guy in the Roman empire doing it. However, it is, was, and always will be a vile, reprehensible action and any religion that condones it is equally vile and repr

http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch01s06.html

quantum physics... which also has a large number of people (spending money) that believe in something that can not be seen or proven.

FAIL - [...] there is no doubt that quantum physics is the most successful theory of physical phenomena yet invented by the human mind. Why is it successful? Because it predicts physical phenomena, phenomenally accurately.

Physicists around the world a dedicating a large amount of their lives to theories many of which ARE MUTALLY EXCLUSIVE meaning someone is going to be wrong.

Perhaps you don't understand the scientific process. That's OK if they are mutually exclusive. One day somebody will make a prediction and do an experiment which falsifies one or other of the theories. Then the false theory will be amended or discarded, perhaps both (since investigation of theories is not a process limited to a single person). Science is a quest to find the truth, and false starts and back-tracking is part of the process.

Not at all like Religion, which is: Get an idea. Ignore contradicting evidence. Keep idea forever. (thanks to WellingtonGrey for that).

RFC 2549 has to be my all time favorite though

Dude, I know that this is probably a result of me being in college full time right now, but don't ever, ever cite Wikipedia... you have no idea what that page says right now. The page could say 'Unix is like ponies: best ridden bareback.' Or something.

If you have to cite a WIkipedia article at least cite an older page from Wikipedia's history that you're pretty sure is accurate...

You're correct however:
"The original Unix operating system was written in assembler, and the applications in a mix of assembler and an interpreted language called B, which had the virtue that it was small enough to run on the PDP-7. But B was not powerful enough for systems programming, so Dennis Ritchie added data types and structures to it. The resulting C language evolved from B beginning in 1971; in 1973 Thompson and Ritchie finally succeeded in rewriting Unix in their new language."

- from The Origins and History of Unix at faqs.org

There is only One True CSV (character separated value) format.

One separator. One escape char. One record end char. None of the ridiculous rules about quoting.

I thought people were already trying to do this sort of thing using electroactive polymers. Certainly there seems to be a couple patents on the idea, not to mention someone who thinks the technology could be used to make braille-capable touchscreens.

Ever not get a link right? Sometimes it's a nuisance that you can't edit a posted slashdot post. <sigh> I wouldn't change it though.

handwaving.

As long as I'm following up to fix the link, I might as well point out that this absurd article tries to tar Google's cloud services with Microsoft's T-Mobile Danger brush - as if the two were related in some way other than as polar opposites. That link works better if you're tying Microsoft's cloud services since they're the ones to fire the footgun in that case. They try and say that if you paid for Photoshop on your PC, you're licensed to use it on your netbook. They point out that this alpha OS that's a year from initial release hasn't signed a single cellular provider and doesn't yet support cellular wireless data - even though it was Google that made any-app-you-want any-device-you-want data-only wireless possible. They even quote an analyst from some thinktank I've never heard of (Interpret?). The only way to describe this article is "hit piece". Later let's examine why this author would do this, and who he's trying to help. For now I want to talk about the extremely disruptive nature of this change, in the context of stuff many of you don't konw.

Long ago there was this guy who wanted to make phone calls over radio. He was a bright guy and rigged up the radios to talk to the phone through an acoustic coupler, only to find that "The Phone Company" (at the time there was only one, AT&T) would not permit him to connect his device to a phone on their network. Like any stubborn geek he persisted in his insistence that his equipment could not harm their network. Unlike your common geek he sued all the way to the Supreme Court, gaining fame and support along the way. Ultimately his efforts resulted in the Carterfone decision, and all of the advanced telephony changes we enjoy today including dialup, wireless phones, cellular phones and the Internet, and propelled him to ignonimy. Somebody needs to find this man and reward him for what he's done for us. It is because of his persistence and efforts that the AT&T monopoly was broken and we enjoy the advancements we have today.

Kids today (lawn, get off) are going to have trouble grasping this idea, so let's walk it back and forget some things: Forget tweeting your various stages of pooping. Forget SMS'ing pics of the dead squirrel you found. Forget texting. Forget even calling Mom from the corner that you're going over to Tommy's house to play the latest online game, because none of that is possible. You're like the poor kids who have no cel, except nobody has one so it's NBD. Now forget wandering around the house with the wireless phone, because that wasn't possible either. Now you've got a phone or two in your house if you're not poor but you can only talk on them when you're withing a few feet because there's this coiled wire that connects you to the phone which is either mounted on the wall or attached to the wall with a wire so Mom can hear everything you say - but it gets worse! Mom can't even own this phone - she can't upgrade it to a new model from the store because it doesn't belong to her. She only leases it from the phone company. They don't even have to make new models of phone, because what is she going to do if they don't? The phone company can cut off even this limited access any time they like or charge her anything they like (and they liked a LOT) because they're not just the phone company - they're the phone company. They don't have to care -- that was actually their motto. "We don't have to care: We're the phone company." Oh, the horror! I wanted to rip the onion from my belt and throw it at them to express my disgust.

Three years to deploy RFC 4956 is not "technical reasons"

Maybe it's time that the Internet standards get a few clauses added that express these concepts explicitly. Like what Paul said about DNS. A clause like "a nameserver MUST responde truthfully, if technically possible. DNS responses MUST NOT be modified in any way for political, economic or business reasons."

I invite you to write the RFC. It's easy to do, and basically, anybody can write an RFC. There's the infamous evil bit for example. But here's the thing... RFCs are just that: Requests For Ccomment. They don't have any teeth, even if they are frequently referred to. For example, I looked directly at the RFCs in order to develop an SMTP handler a few years back...

There IS an "Internet Standards Organization" or three, and they do often "adopt" an RFC to be an "Internet Standard", but if you look, you'll find that there's no enforcement arm whatsoever! It's up to you, the Internet participant, to require/enforce these standards. And just like the explosion in unregulated 802.11 networking, the Internet's power comes from this completely open, unregulated nature.

Sure, there's a wart or ten. Sorry, that's just how it is. I can name a few others:

1) Large ISPs often ignore the TTL values in name servers and set them to as long as 48 hours. This makes moving servers from location A to location B fraught with hacks, such as putting in a NAT router at the old location to forward traffic to the old "wrong" address to the new "right" one.

2) Mail servers that often don't bounce undeliverable messages, just passing them to /dev/null.

3) "Tricks" played by IE to make it seem "faster" by not negotiating a proper connection to the webserver.

Yes, all of these, (and more!) are highly annoying, but the truth is that violations of standards can't be all that flagrant, or the system breaks and people get upset. So overall, the system works remarkably well.

Can you imagine what would have happened if the Internet didn't happen and we ended up going with AOL's proprietary network?

(shudder)

What? Binary or ASCII, it makes no difference. Unix programs tend to use ASCII because it makes the communication transparent; humans can see what's going on, interact with the program for debugging or testing without learning specialized tools, etc. That, however, is orthogonal to the modularity aspect.

Please, just read the book: The Art of Unix Programming. It explains all these issues. I don't have the time or the inclination to teach you every lesson learned during the development of Unix in a comment thread. Suffice it to say that to someone used to working with applications designed with the Unix design philosophy in mind, working with Mac OS or Windows applications often feels like putting on a straitjacket.

Thee current RFC 1738 http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1738.html Only allows URLs to be composed of

" Within those parts, an octet may be represented by the chararacter which has that octet as its code within the US-ASCII [20] coded character set. In addition, octets may be encoded by a character triplet consisting of the character "%" followed by the two hexadecimal digits (from "0123456789ABCDEF") which forming the hexadecimal value of the octet. (The characters "abcdef" may also be used in hexadecimal encodings.)"

So A-Z and %ddd Just ain't gonna cut it.

Currently URLs are in the ASCII subset of utf-8. What are they going to be in in the future?

What about languages that go from right to left like Hebrew and Arabic?

They can.

The significant difference is that we know that the Co$ was started with express intention of fleecing money from its drones. With the others, we just have to use common sense to infer it.

I was about to post a comment on this article complaining that "TCP doesn't work unless routers drop packets" is oversimplifying how TCP works at best, partly by citing RFC 896, then I come and see the author of the damn RFC beat me to it. This discussion in the article of buffers so large that they never fill (so can in effect be considered infinite) makes RFC 970 seem relevant, also.

TCP measures round trip time, and doesn't need packet loss to tell it that the round trip time is long. The retransmit interval will go up appropriately. TCP will behave reasonably with a long round trip time. If you're trying to do a bulk transfer, there's nothing wrong with this. The problem comes when short messages and bulk transfers are sharing the same channel. The short messages can spend too much time in the queue.

The solution is reordering the packets, not dropping them. That's what "fair queuing" is about. It may be worthwhile to implement fairness at the port-pair level, rather than the IP address level, at entry to the air link. Then low-traffic connections will get through faster.

"Quality of service" can help, but it's not a panacea. The network layer can't tell which of the TCP connections on port 80 is highly interactive and which is a bulk download, other than by traffic volume.

(I used to do this stuff.)

Do you honestly believe that more than 50% of all germans felt it was right and proper to cart off a couple of million Jews to to concentration camps?

Might I suggest that you learn a little bit of history. Start with "Ordinary Men" by Christopher R Browning and then maybe "The SS, Alibi of a nation 1922-1945". After that read up how Hitler managed to come to power and exactly what he told people before he did. Then, ignorant little fuck that you are, maybe you'll deserve the "darwin award" you asked for. As it you're lucky to escape with a proper Godwinning (note clause II.5) and a realisation that you're really lucky to escape with just unanswerable insults. You little toe cheese.

I've read the article (yeah sue me), and I really liked this link: http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-HOWTO/Encourage-Women-Linux-HOWTO.html
If anything just read the bit "1.2. What problem? Sexism is dead!"
If you don't see what the problem is, and just think the two guys are making a funny comment, then you're probably oblivious to a lot of sexism going on in the world.

Once you open your eyes, you'll see that there is a lot of sexism (and racism) in the world still. Some of it so ingrained that even some women don't notice it, especially if they grew up with it.

It's a really hard thing to see part your own culture and put things in perspective.

I think the article makes a good point that often people don't have bad intentions, and get defensive when accused. I do think that there still is a lot of unintentional sexism in our society.

It's as simple as assuming the male is the person in charge when meeting a man and a woman in a business environment, like for example a job interview.
It's assuming the girl wants to be a nurse and the boy a doctor when you see some children playing with some toy hospital equipment.
It's simple comments like: "You silly girl", or "I wouldn't have expected that of a woman".
It's also that men are more expected to work late then women.

All of the high-tech companies that I've worked for have many more men than women. Most of the applications for positions are from men.

In over 20 years in the industry, I only remember observing one sexist incident.

I expect RFC 3041 will make that somewhat difficult.

I read the linked article, and don't see anything exciting. How is this any different from the shared libraries that have been used in the Unix world for 23 years? "Private assemblies" can be achieved with rpath or a simple manipulation of LD_LOAD_PATH (see Mozilla). And what does the asymmetric cryptography buy you over simply using the appropriate soname?