CAT5 is excellent and well worth all the crawling under the floorspace, sawing and drilling you haveta do. Especially for in-house applications where you may not be moving computers around all that much
However, wireless has its advantages too. It's nice to be able to carry a laptop around with you, setting it up here or there without having to run 50ft of cable around. Nice for if you want to sit outside and do some work too. It's just a convenience thing. It's the computer equivalent of having a cordless phone in many ways.
Point is though, you have to make the decision regarding whether it is right for you. But your basic facts seem pretty much in order.
Set up your network so that all MX DNS requests return the IP of a blackhole machine. Course, if the spammers have their own list of IPs, they can get around that but you can always block those too. Only your mail server (if you have one) needs to be able to access outside your network on port 25. Unless you use a smarthost setup or the clients on your network talk to your ISPs server but then all that means is that you only need to let that address through.
Course, you then still have the issue of the spammer being able to access your ISP's server (or your own local one).
Personally, my eventual intention is to put the WAP on a separate physical network with only SSH access to my main network. Maybe I'll open up a port through a squid proxy with known HTTP vulnerabilities blocked.
I would love to be able to offer thru-SMTP access but as others have said, this is a case of the few ruining things for the many. Maybe some sort of throttling system or perhaps even store-and-hold (with the bonus advantage I get to snoop others e-mails before I let them go):)
Way to reduce the "Total Cost of Ownership"? Easy, increase the "Total Cost of Non-Ownership". Pretty soon, you won't be able to afford to not run Microsoft products. Literally*
I agree. For exmaple, using stored procedures in MSSQL can give orders of magnitude speedups.
When I was creating web applications, we found that moving as much of the business logic as possible back into the database resulted in the fastest and most reusable code. Older code, where selects were built on the fly were slow and a nightmare to maintain.
Handy fact: If you use a [local] proxy (like squid or junkbuster), when the page load fails, you get the proxy error message in the window and the URL stays in the location bar. Perfect for reloads.
3. The average annual cost of a meteorite premium for "Earth insurance" should be about 50,000,000,000,000,000/60,000,000, or $833,333,333.33 in today's dollars.
Actual cost of Jews flood insurance policy: Surgical removal of parts of their sexual organs.
I'm walking away from that deal.
Rich
Re:Here comes the old "leveling the field" argumen
on
Cheating Online Gamers
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Agree absolutely. I moved to this system about a year ago now and couldn't be happier. Fire up my web client and the e-mail has already been downloaded to the local network and filtered. Wife using the computer? Go upstairs and use another. Away from home? No problem. Course, this is nothing that couldn't be done with a CLI but...
Though I could be happier actually. My e-mail client of choice (Eudora) is somewhat sucky when it comes to imap. I am tempted to write an e-mail client that is absolutely stripped to the bone for IMAP access. It seems all the others out there are prone to creeping featuritis.
Pause is great. Especially since my wife often wants to talk to me during important pieces of dialog. Of course, the downside is that she has come to view this as acceptable wheras before, I would probably have shushed her down and conditioned her against it. This has led to unfortunate hertalk-pause-listen-silence-backup-play-hertalk-p ause-listen-silence-backup-play-hertalk-pause-list en-silence-backup-play loops which are *very* annoying.
OK. Clearly as you are descending to personal attacks, there's not much point in taking this any further. You're not going to get it. I do have to respond to a couple of things though.
That's code for "I made it up," right?
No. Not at all.
it's not possible to reason your way to a natural or divine right.
Oh absolutely it is. You have to start with a few premises to get to natural rights (my own is that "all men are created equal") and you can argue that the rights I claim for myself are not rights and that's fine because my point is not that anything in particular is a right or not, just that rights do not descend from laws, Sparky.
If you want to argue that the law should recognize a right to privacy
I didn't. Please don't make things up in an attempt to bolster your argument.
Since your conception of rights is neither influenced by nor an influence on the law, you're kind of wasting your breath
No, I am not. If people think that rights come from the law, there is no way to demand that laws recognise rights and thus no basis for reform. If the consensus is that there is a right to privacy then pressure can be brought to change the law accordingly.
I simply said that the law does not recognize a right to privacy
If only that were the case. For that I could agree with. However, your actual words were "Rights are binding guarantees". Which implies that the laws do not recognise rights but that they *are* the rights.
Fine. I say that there is no right to privacy. Poof. Done.
No, not "Poof done" , that opens the discussion as to whether privacy is a right and therefore whether it should be protected by law. By claiming that rights only come from law, you are closing the argument with circular logic. That rights exist external to law, allows that there be discussion.
And that's it from me for this thread. I don't like flogging a dead horse and hopefully a few out there at least can realise that just cause something is law does not make it right. You hawever are a hopeless cause. Please enjoy your statism.
That is, in fact, exactly what it means. If it's not guaranteed, it's merely an assertion.
Again, I refer you to the 9th where the Bill of Rights explicitly asserts that there are more rights than just those that are guaranteed by it.
You can contend that privacy is not a right but that is not the discussion I was getting into.
Where do you get the idea that the "right" to bear arms is a natural or divine right?
From logic and inductional thinking. I won't debate it here as there are plenty of other forums where it has been done to death. You may claim that it is not a right and that is fine because, as I say, rights are orthogonal to the law. Just as a right does not haev to be guaranteed by law, something that is not a right could actually be guaranteed by law.
And no, I'm not particularly fixated by this but I believe that for these kinds of discussions, the language frames the debate. If the only rights we have are guaranteed by law then how can we argue that the law should be changed to protect our rights? How can one call for an end to slavery if the slaves do not have a right to be free men?
By claiming that privacy is only a right if guaranteed by law, is to use circular logic that laws should not be changed to protect privacy because it is not a right because the laws do not protect it. The right to privacy must stand or fall on its own merits and the laws (ideally) be adjusted accordingly.
Slashdot Mirror
But copying is not stealing.
Your reading comprehension needs a little brushing up.
Rich
Rich
Rich
Will September never end?
Rich
Rich
CAT5 is excellent and well worth all the crawling under the floorspace, sawing and drilling you haveta do. Especially for in-house applications where you may not be moving computers around all that much
However, wireless has its advantages too. It's nice to be able to carry a laptop around with you, setting it up here or there without having to run 50ft of cable around. Nice for if you want to sit outside and do some work too. It's just a convenience thing. It's the computer equivalent of having a cordless phone in many ways.
Point is though, you have to make the decision regarding whether it is right for you. But your basic facts seem pretty much in order.
Rich
Set up your network so that all MX DNS requests return the IP of a blackhole machine. Course, if the spammers have their own list of IPs, they can get around that but you can always block those too. Only your mail server (if you have one) needs to be able to access outside your network on port 25. Unless you use a smarthost setup or the clients on your network talk to your ISPs server but then all that means is that you only need to let that address through.
Course, you then still have the issue of the spammer being able to access your ISP's server (or your own local one).
Personally, my eventual intention is to put the WAP on a separate physical network with only SSH access to my main network. Maybe I'll open up a port through a squid proxy with known HTTP vulnerabilities blocked.
I would love to be able to offer thru-SMTP access but as others have said, this is a case of the few ruining things for the many. Maybe some sort of throttling system or perhaps even store-and-hold (with the bonus advantage I get to snoop others e-mails before I let them go) :)
Rich
Rich
*That's using the correct meaning of literally
OvenBSD of course.
Rich
Because it can't use a spoon?
Rich
Well, I guess that's what heppens when you try to use human bodies as batteries.
Rich
When I was creating web applications, we found that moving as much of the business logic as possible back into the database resulted in the fastest and most reusable code. Older code, where selects were built on the fly were slow and a nightmare to maintain.
Rich
Rich
Or is that gonna be Iraq?
Rich
Y'know, it's really beyond me how that whole internet bubble thing occurred.
Rich
Haveta think about it.
Rich
Actual cost of Jews flood insurance policy: Surgical removal of parts of their sexual organs.
I'm walking away from that deal.
Rich
Rich
Though I could be happier actually. My e-mail client of choice (Eudora) is somewhat sucky when it comes to imap. I am tempted to write an e-mail client that is absolutely stripped to the bone for IMAP access. It seems all the others out there are prone to creeping featuritis.
Rich
gcc -O2 -Wall -Read_Email foo.cpp
yet?
Rich
Rich
char buffer[VERY_BIG_NUMBER];
like everyone else and the problem just goes away.
VBG
Rich
loops which are *very* annoying.
Rich
That's code for "I made it up," right?
No. Not at all.
it's not possible to reason your way to a natural or divine right.
Oh absolutely it is. You have to start with a few premises to get to natural rights (my own is that "all men are created equal") and you can argue that the rights I claim for myself are not rights and that's fine because my point is not that anything in particular is a right or not, just that rights do not descend from laws, Sparky.
If you want to argue that the law should recognize a right to privacy
I didn't. Please don't make things up in an attempt to bolster your argument.
Since your conception of rights is neither influenced by nor an influence on the law, you're kind of wasting your breath
No, I am not. If people think that rights come from the law, there is no way to demand that laws recognise rights and thus no basis for reform. If the consensus is that there is a right to privacy then pressure can be brought to change the law accordingly.
I simply said that the law does not recognize a right to privacy
If only that were the case. For that I could agree with. However, your actual words were "Rights are binding guarantees". Which implies that the laws do not recognise rights but that they *are* the rights.
Fine. I say that there is no right to privacy. Poof. Done.
No, not "Poof done" , that opens the discussion as to whether privacy is a right and therefore whether it should be protected by law. By claiming that rights only come from law, you are closing the argument with circular logic. That rights exist external to law, allows that there be discussion.
And that's it from me for this thread. I don't like flogging a dead horse and hopefully a few out there at least can realise that just cause something is law does not make it right. You hawever are a hopeless cause. Please enjoy your statism.
Rich
Again, I refer you to the 9th where the Bill of Rights explicitly asserts that there are more rights than just those that are guaranteed by it.
You can contend that privacy is not a right but that is not the discussion I was getting into.
Where do you get the idea that the "right" to bear arms is a natural or divine right?
From logic and inductional thinking. I won't debate it here as there are plenty of other forums where it has been done to death. You may claim that it is not a right and that is fine because, as I say, rights are orthogonal to the law. Just as a right does not haev to be guaranteed by law, something that is not a right could actually be guaranteed by law.
And no, I'm not particularly fixated by this but I believe that for these kinds of discussions, the language frames the debate. If the only rights we have are guaranteed by law then how can we argue that the law should be changed to protect our rights? How can one call for an end to slavery if the slaves do not have a right to be free men?
By claiming that privacy is only a right if guaranteed by law, is to use circular logic that laws should not be changed to protect privacy because it is not a right because the laws do not protect it. The right to privacy must stand or fall on its own merits and the laws (ideally) be adjusted accordingly.
Rich