> Brilliant. That's mentioned in the article, of course. But what the > outcome is that any fraudsters can continue (though no evidence was > offered of such), but the average home user will be stymied.
I blacklist only Romania on my servers. It has cut down the number of probes by a good percentage.
Sure, they can use a proxy and a hacked system elsewhere. But the last three rooted boxes I have seen have had log entries that show them download their cracking tools from Romanian sites. Complaints about these cretins to the abuse entities at their providers are completely ignored -- not even acknowledged.
In contrast, any report of probe from a real US ISP (rare these days) is replied to and I believe these boxes are taken offline right away. That is why it is now relatively rare to see probes from US-based boxen.
> Don't you just love "FACTS" being presented without any back u.
> Islam has at least as diverse and wide ranging views as any other > religion.
This is completely bogus. The "diverse and wide ranging views" you will find are shown -- where? Any pointers to that? Any place YOU have sources for your ridiculous contention?
If you are going to come back and talk about abstruse Koran interpretation, don't even bother.
Where are the practicing Muslims speaking out and questioning Islam? You needn't bother looking -- you won't find any references where the speakers are not totally shunned/excommunicated by their fellows.
> Islam had their Renaissance centuries before the "West" got > in on the act.
They had their Renaissance? When might that have been? Arabs may have had a Renaissance *before* Islam got hold of them, but once they started following it they have stayed in the same rut for century after century.
> Why not try researching your topic - better still - moderators, why not > try thinking before your moderate?
I have done my research, bud. Everything I stated is a fact.
FACT: 40% of people in Islamic countries favor Sharia law. This is illustrated in a number of polls you can find just as easily as I by googling "sharia law poll".
FACT: The penalty for apostasy (renouncing or expressing doubt about Islam) is death under Sharia law. While not all Sharia proponents favor this, almost all Muslims shun apostates. That is why you don't see religious movements springing up in Islamic countries.
FACT: You can't speak your mind if you are a Muslim in an majority Muslim country.
A: (Ulil) The main obstacle to reinterpreting issues like womens and
minority rights is that once you open a discussion of Islam to
interpretation and apply rational choices, you are susceptible to
the charge that you are anti-Islam. A rational approach is
considered anti-Islam.
Islam is perverted at the center. It NEEDS a Renaissance. It certainly hasn't had one....
> All things considered, spam isn't the only problem out there. The ratio > of junk to legitimate mail is about the same in my postal mailbox. I > may get one letter or bill in, and the rest is junk.. Why aren't people > screaming "We need to make laws.." "they need to be in jail.." etc, > etc.. That won't happen because the post office turns a profit on it.
You just don't get the point.
Junk email is self-limiting because it actually costs money to send. In addition, it arrives once a day in a known place -- you don't get it 24x7 masquerading as something else.
I will admit the deceptive type pisses me off (DATED MATERIAL, OPEN IMMEDIATELY, CONFIDENTIAL etc.) but those tricks don't work when a bulk postage rate is on it. If it comes at less than $0.33 cents postage, I don't have to open it and I don't.
Junk mail is a trivial annoyance compared to spam and telemarketing calls. It doesn't interrupt you while you are doing something else.
> In today's America, there are a few who seem to have the idea of EWI: > Existing While Islamic. Well, sorry, but Islam is not the problem here, > it is extremism. Extremists are the dangeous ones. But hey, let's forget > about that and find ways to trash the Constitution, shall we?...sigh...
When over 40% of the world's Muslims support Sharia law (which features the death penalty for apostasy) it isn't extremism, it is the norm.
Fact: Muslims shun any of themselves who professes doubt in their belief system, and this shunning is extreme and cruel within a society that is majority Islamic.
That is an entire religion that is dead-set against individual rights. It is perverted, and not at the extremes -- at the center.
> Microsoft Sells 210 Million Copies of Windows XP The number mostly > based on new OEM system installs, currently running about 10 million a > month, up from 9 million a month last July. Figure in corporate > licensing, academic distributions, etc., and the number of legit, > licensed, XP installs alone must be over 300-350 million.
Microsoft has sold me ~100 copies of their software. Do you know how many of those computers ended up running Windows? Two.
Selling new OEM installs does not equal an operating system win. If 90% of queries from the web are Windows, that means something on the order of 90% of desktops run Windows. Apple has a measurable market share of 5%. Where does the other 5% come from?
Linux is gaining market share that is transparent to sales figures.
> > The patch was available, yes. But unfortunately as with most > > Windows patches, they release an omnibus that changes library code > > that can affect virtually any other application and service on the > > system. This one did, too; it was very buggy. > > > > Most *nix-based software doesn't have this problem. Unless it is > > something like the kernel or glibc being fixed, a patch to one > > service has almost no chance of causing problems in other services. > > > > That is the downside of the "seamless integration" that Microsoft so > > often trumpets, and that is why Windows sucks for maintainability. > > It is also the reason that no one should listen to Microsoft patch- > > whiners (like you?).
> Oh, come on. Look, if you're in a business running custom apps and you > find a security advisory with a patch that you don't have time to test > before you apply -- most security advisories have information for > workarounds. Any admin worth their salt will be able to read these and > plan for the worst. That's why they're paid the big bucks. How long > have you been doing this for? Can anyone accept responsibility for > anything anymore?
What are you even talking about? I have been a system administrator for over 20 years. I have patched hundreds of systems thousands of times. The current state of Linux update management is far and away better than what ever used to be on Unix, and it is miles ahead of Windows update which is an opaque, reboot-on-general-principles mess.
When you update on Linux, you have a reasonable chance of divining which subsystems will be affected, and you can easily restart services with a great deal of confidence that is all it will take. If something doesn't work, it is an extremely quick back-out.
On Windows, it is reboot and hope. Literally.
> And seamless integration? This integration is between Microsoft apps and > the OS
That is not what Microsoft claims. They claim that other applications should be able to link in seamlessly.
> -- and Microsoft patches don't usually break Microsoft apps.
They break them frequently.
> These apps are either third-party, or custom. You're whining about > somethign that isn't necessarily Microsoft's problem.
I'm not whining about anything. I am replying to the whiners who claim "all you have to do is patch". Their last patch broke Citrix, certainly one of the most mainstream of corporate apps on Windows.
> Furthermore, I've > had first-hand experience with RedHat's Glibc breaking stuff (which you > did mention).
It is only common sense to restart daemons when you update something that basic. You don't need to reboot like on Windows.
> A patch to any shared library has an equal chance of > breaking something that uses it...regardless of the operating system.
Only if the granularity of the libraries is the same. And it certainly is not. Microsoft has huge shared libraries with everything lumped together, therefore it will break much more often. And does.
> However, for this to work on a Linbox, there are two requirements: 1) > the user must save the binary and make it executable and 2) the user > must then run it. Now, once that happens, there's really not much going > to go differently on a Linbox than a Winbox. The thing can still bind > to a high port and zombify the machine for spammers, which is what the > majority of viruses do as of late.
Excuse me? Even assuming a Linux desktop like Gnome or KDE is stupid enough to run an attachment when you click on it (or the mailcap file is so set up with a stupid application), with the default firewall in place on most Linux distributions, there is no way that this theoretical high- port server is going to get any connections from outside...
> OK, one more topic to rant over then I'll STFU. I see alot of Slashdotters > blaming Microsoft for this problem -- saying that running Linux or xBSD > would solve this problem. Bullshit, fanboys. I am a Linux/Free software > advocate and that argument is absolute bullshit. Every once in a while, > remote exploits are discovered for these Free products. Most of the time, > patches for these apps are released right away -- faster than their > commercial counterparts are able to react. The users will still need > to be smart enough to apply the patch. Well, in this case, Microsoft's > patch was available before an exploit was in the wild.
The patch was available, yes. But unfortunately as with most Windows patches, they release an omnibus that changes library code that can affect virtually any other application and service on the system. This one did, too; it was very buggy.
Most *nix-based software doesn't have this problem. Unless it is something like the kernel or glibc being fixed, a patch to one service has almost no chance of causing problems in other services.
That is the downside of the "seamless integration" that Microsoft so often trumpets, and that is why Windows sucks for maintainability. It is also the reason that no one should listen to Microsoft patch-whiners (like you?).
> It is quite simple and has been done many times. A buffer overflow on > a daemon process is all that is needed for a worm to get in. Once the > worm is in, it is able to run its code with the same privaledges of > that daemon, which may be root!
More and more often today, Linux daemons don't run as root. It is hard to find a remote-exploitable process nowadays -- the usual method of rooting is to gain local access and elevate privileges. That is certainly possible, but exceedingly hard to mass-produce.
I can see how the first two or three or ten times you hear this shit from Microsoft you want to scream from the mountaintops how wrong it is. What I utterly will never ever understand is how you can get off, get this big rhetorical hard on, four and five times a day week in and week out over the SAME BULLSHIT. It's FUD now just like it was FUD last year and FUD the year before that and, as far as the slashdot crowd is concerned at least, FUD in 1976 when Bill Gates wrote an Open Letter to Hobbyists.
Perhaps you assume that everyone has read Slashdot exactly as long as you have and monitored the exact same content as you have...I will continue to believe there are people leaving and. joining the discussion every day. FUD left uncontradicted becomes accepted as fact.
I'm sick of it, so what, everyone seems to love it, I'll just go now and click a preference and never look at the borg crap again. I just hope in time there is enough other content to read.
Last time I checked, there were 569 protocols defined as well-known services on my machine. The ONLY one that could have any benefit from the Verisign land grab is HTTP.
Breaking 568 protocols to deliver a marginally useful, if at all useful, service is technical idiocy of the highest degree.
The only thing innovative about it is driving stupidity to new heights.
> FreeBSD, for example, has relied on Perl being available in the past. > Gentoo relies on Python. Relying on a scripting language to provide > extensibility is not a bad thing.
Yes, it is. When you do that, you lock the scripting language to a particular revision level, thereby stagnating its use.
If it was all standardized on a/usr/vendor/lib and/usr/vendor/bin scheme, where the scripting langauage version comes with the OS and stays that way, with another version installed for apps development, it might approach usability.
Red Hat uses both Perl and Python, and their hacks, contortions, and customizations to make that work for Anaconda and redhat-config-* make the version of the language unusuable for any real application development. Red Hat routinely ships Python several revs back from the latest, and routinely ships a Perl with major bugs in it due to hacked modules and merging from the devel tree. I use Red Hat Linux, and like it, but they do a *terrible* job of providing Python and Perl. All because they do use it for that type of stuff.
Wow, what a revenge! This has all the exciting hallmarks of the most boring story in the world. He shut down a single ISP account. I'm stunned!
You think Eddy Marin fools around with a single ISP account like a dialup? I believe WCG had him signed up for a dozen class C networks...encompassing a couple thousand IP addresses.
If Eddy Marin wants a single account, he just rapes a proxy. He needs the class Cs to do the sinultaneous raping of thousands of them.
If you are a Windows-head, which it sounds like you may be from your 'tude, he may be raping *your* machine.
There are filters and blocklists, but they have nothing to do with routers. Long ago particularly egregious spammers were blackholed at the router level, but that hasn't happened for years.
No ISP can stop all spam, but given enough resources we can stop most of it. The problem is usually somewhat like you allude to, that there is a certain set of people with an absolute horror of a non-spam message being bounced. They claim "loss of email", and thereupon close their ears.
But there is a more insidious foe, the scan-and-delete error.
Most admins today have two basic ways to stop spam -- blocking and user- based filtering. Blocking rejects spam detected (via filter or blocklist) and puts the onus on the sender to re-establish the communication. User-based filtering puts the onus on the recipient to review their spam folder and look for "false positives".
And there are three ways to play your two tools.
1. Little or weak filtering or blocking means communications are lost as
people have scan-and-delete errors due to battle fatigue from their
daily fight with spam in their mailbox. Much legitimate email is
lost, and it is lost and *neither party knows it was never read*.
This collateral damage is spread over every part of the net,
spam-friendly or no.
2. Aggressive filtering and tagging for dropping in the user's "spam"
folder means that legitimate communications are tagged as false-
positives. People usually don't scan their spam folders carefully,
because such a high percentage is spam. Again, legitimate email is
lost and *neither party knows it was never read*. This collateral
damage is spread over every part of the net, spam-friendly or no.
3. Aggressive rejection of email via blocklisting causes some legitimate
email to be rejected. However, that collateral damage is limited to
spam-friendly parts of the Internet. The sender knows full well it
was not read and can re-send the message via another channel if it is
important. This knowledge also allows them to take action to correct
blocking errors; and heightens awareness of who is not doing their
part to fight spam.
To me, selecting #3 is a no-brainer. When legitimate email gets lost, the sender knows it was not received. And it is almost all lost from networks participating in the massive denial of service attack on the Internet at large that is spam.
AOL, for example, does a simply outstanding job of making sure spam is not sourced from their network. They don't allow spam hosting of any kind. I *never* want to lose mail from them. Same with Earthlink, MSN, and Hotmail. They deserve that consideration due to their effort. If my users lose mail from them due to scan and delete errors, I have not done my job. I would much rather have them lose email from the people who pay the spam-friendly providers. (And no, folks, those fake hotmail.com addresses in the From line don't mean they source spam.)
You can do filtering at the MTA level too with rejections, but I don't do that except with filter settings that have a near-zero false- positive rate.
This is correct, since a fair proportion of those Windows 2003 installations will be new installations. If only 10% of these installations were previously hosted by a shared-hosting provider, the vast majority of whom use Linux or UNIX, then you would expect 5% of new installations to be coming from Linux.
Companies who bring their functions in house with a new system have to have been on *something* before. Most would have been on a virtual/shared hosting facility, which are dominated by Linux. So if only 8% were new company web server installations, it would seem to make sense that 5% "switched" from Linux.
> > Unless you're running a root, 99% of Linux users have nothing to > > worry about from viruses. The viruses cannot effectively spread > > themselves. > > I've heard that argument before, but it's still wrong. A program > running as you has the ability to delete your email and data files and > the ability to send out email to propagate itself. Who cares if it can > mangle/bin/ls? I care much more that it can mangle >/home/patrick/important_document.tex. Being root has nothing to do > with anything.
A well-designed system accounts even for that, via backup. In any case,
unless you can trick the user into entering the root password you can't
do things that will destabilize the system.
And most importantly nowadays, you can't manipulate the firewall which
prevents you from setting up a proxy drone used to spam or contribute to
DDoS attacks.
I'm trying to switch over from Mozilla to Firebird and Thunderbird, but I've run into a few niggles. On the Thunderbird side, for instance, is there any way to open links in a new Firebird tab? In Mozilla's MailNews, I like being able to middle-click to open URLs in a new browser tab:).
>>Now that you've done so, please move out of the way and let some >>*real* programmers write things up in SQL.
>I know both platforms well, and, I'm sorry to admit (since I'm >supportive of Linux) that there are no Linux tools that can replace >Access except through an extreamly difficult development process. There >are NO open source Linux developemnt tools that can even remotely >approach the ease of developing a relational database with GUI front-end >that Access can accomplish. I wish to h*ll that there were! You don't >have a clue about how easily difficult problems are solved in Access. >The more ridiculous thing is that M$ has been trying to kill it for the >past 5 years. They even removed it from the certification process!
What types of applications are you talking about? All I have ever seen are toy front-ends on simple non-transactional databases. Every one I have seen ends up being a maintenance nightmare that doesn't scale. Sure there are some complex systems built on Access, but all of them I have seen are fragile and temperamental.
HTML forms end up being a better method for most simple applications, and template scriptiong via PHP, Cold Fusion, Interchange, or the like end up replacing those these days. Even Microsoft sees that, which is probably why they are de-emphasizing Access and placing their emphasis on their XML form integration with SQL Server.
Slashdot Mirror
Best Buy has always had the snottiest employees. They act like they are doing you a favor taking your money, and they never say "thank you".
I avoid the place. If a business can't thank me for doing business with them, I don't want to go there.
So if a thief steals $50,000,000 you would let him keep $25,000,000?
Spamming is theft of my and everyone else's resources. If someone can steal from me and is supported by the legal system, something is wrong.
Sue him to bare metal.
>> use a proxy located somewhere else
> Brilliant. That's mentioned in the article, of course. But what the
> outcome is that any fraudsters can continue (though no evidence was
> offered of such), but the average home user will be stymied.
I blacklist only Romania on my servers. It has cut down the number of probes
by a good percentage.
Sure, they can use a proxy and a hacked system elsewhere. But the last
three rooted boxes I have seen have had log entries that show them
download their cracking tools from Romanian sites. Complaints about these
cretins to the abuse entities at their providers are completely ignored
-- not even acknowledged.
In contrast, any report of probe from a real US ISP (rare these days) is
replied to and I believe these boxes are taken offline right away. That
is why it is now relatively rare to see probes from US-based boxen.
> Don't you just love "FACTS" being presented without any back u.
f %20Islamic%20Identity.htm
> Islam has at least as diverse and wide ranging views as any other
> religion.
This is completely bogus. The "diverse and wide ranging views" you
will find are shown -- where? Any pointers to that? Any place YOU
have sources for your ridiculous contention?
If you are going to come back and talk about abstruse Koran
interpretation, don't even bother.
Where are the practicing Muslims speaking out and questioning Islam? You
needn't bother looking -- you won't find any references where the
speakers are not totally shunned/excommunicated by their fellows.
> Islam had their Renaissance centuries before the "West" got
> in on the act.
They had their Renaissance? When might that have been? Arabs may have had a
Renaissance *before* Islam got hold of them, but once they started following
it they have stayed in the same rut for century after century.
> Why not try researching your topic - better still - moderators, why not
> try thinking before your moderate?
I have done my research, bud. Everything I stated is a fact.
FACT: 40% of people in Islamic countries favor Sharia law. This is
illustrated in a number of polls you can find just as easily as I by
googling "sharia law poll".
FACT: The penalty for apostasy (renouncing or expressing doubt about
Islam) is death under Sharia law. While not all Sharia proponents
favor this, almost all Muslims shun apostates. That is why you
don't see religious movements springing up in Islamic countries.
FACT: You can't speak your mind if you are a Muslim in an majority
Muslim country.
http://www.usindo.org/Briefs/2003/In%20Search%20o
Q: Why havent the moderates spoken out more?
A: (Ulil) The main obstacle to reinterpreting issues like womens and
minority rights is that once you open a discussion of Islam to
interpretation and apply rational choices, you are susceptible to
the charge that you are anti-Islam. A rational approach is
considered anti-Islam.
Islam is perverted at the center. It NEEDS a Renaissance. It certainly
hasn't had one....
> All things considered, spam isn't the only problem out there. The ratio
> of junk to legitimate mail is about the same in my postal mailbox. I
> may get one letter or bill in, and the rest is junk.. Why aren't people
> screaming "We need to make laws.." "they need to be in jail.." etc,
> etc.. That won't happen because the post office turns a profit on it.
You just don't get the point.
Junk email is self-limiting because it actually costs money to send. In
addition, it arrives once a day in a known place -- you don't get it 24x7
masquerading as something else.
I will admit the deceptive type pisses me off (DATED MATERIAL, OPEN
IMMEDIATELY, CONFIDENTIAL etc.) but those tricks don't work when a bulk
postage rate is on it. If it comes at less than $0.33 cents postage, I
don't have to open it and I don't.
Junk mail is a trivial annoyance compared to spam and telemarketing calls.
It doesn't interrupt you while you are doing something else.
I notice this was modded as flamebait -- undoubtedly a Muslim, for whom the truth is flamebait. 8-)
> In today's America, there are a few who seem to have the idea of EWI: ...sigh...
> Existing While Islamic. Well, sorry, but Islam is not the problem here,
> it is extremism. Extremists are the dangeous ones. But hey, let's forget
> about that and find ways to trash the Constitution, shall we?
When over 40% of the world's Muslims support Sharia law (which features the
death penalty for apostasy) it isn't extremism, it is the norm.
Fact: Muslims shun any of themselves who professes doubt in their belief
system, and this shunning is extreme and cruel within a society that is
majority Islamic.
That is an entire religion that is dead-set against individual rights.
It is perverted, and not at the extremes -- at the center.
> Microsoft Sells 210 Million Copies of Windows XP The number mostly
> based on new OEM system installs, currently running about 10 million a
> month, up from 9 million a month last July. Figure in corporate
> licensing, academic distributions, etc., and the number of legit,
> licensed, XP installs alone must be over 300-350 million.
Microsoft has sold me ~100 copies of their software. Do you know how many of
those computers ended up running Windows? Two.
Selling new OEM installs does not equal an operating system win. If 90% of
queries from the web are Windows, that means something on the order of 90%
of desktops run Windows. Apple has a measurable market share of 5%. Where
does the other 5% come from?
Linux is gaining market share that is transparent to sales figures.
> > The patch was available, yes. But unfortunately as with most
> > Windows patches, they release an omnibus that changes library code
> > that can affect virtually any other application and service on the
> > system. This one did, too; it was very buggy.
> >
> > Most *nix-based software doesn't have this problem. Unless it is
> > something like the kernel or glibc being fixed, a patch to one
> > service has almost no chance of causing problems in other services.
> >
> > That is the downside of the "seamless integration" that Microsoft so
> > often trumpets, and that is why Windows sucks for maintainability.
> > It is also the reason that no one should listen to Microsoft patch-
> > whiners (like you?).
> Oh, come on. Look, if you're in a business running custom apps and you
> find a security advisory with a patch that you don't have time to test
> before you apply -- most security advisories have information for
> workarounds. Any admin worth their salt will be able to read these and
> plan for the worst. That's why they're paid the big bucks. How long
> have you been doing this for? Can anyone accept responsibility for
> anything anymore?
What are you even talking about? I have been a system administrator for
over 20 years. I have patched hundreds of systems thousands of times.
The current state of Linux update management is far and away better
than what ever used to be on Unix, and it is miles ahead of Windows update
which is an opaque, reboot-on-general-principles mess.
When you update on Linux, you have a reasonable chance of divining which
subsystems will be affected, and you can easily restart services with a
great deal of confidence that is all it will take. If something doesn't
work, it is an extremely quick back-out.
On Windows, it is reboot and hope. Literally.
> And seamless integration? This integration is between Microsoft apps and
> the OS
That is not what Microsoft claims. They claim that other applications
should be able to link in seamlessly.
> -- and Microsoft patches don't usually break Microsoft apps.
They break them frequently.
> These apps are either third-party, or custom. You're whining about
> somethign that isn't necessarily Microsoft's problem.
I'm not whining about anything. I am replying to the whiners who
claim "all you have to do is patch". Their last patch broke Citrix,
certainly one of the most mainstream of corporate apps on Windows.
> Furthermore, I've
> had first-hand experience with RedHat's Glibc breaking stuff (which you
> did mention).
It is only common sense to restart daemons when you update something
that basic. You don't need to reboot like on Windows.
> A patch to any shared library has an equal chance of
> breaking something that uses it...regardless of the operating system.
Only if the granularity of the libraries is the same. And it certainly
is not. Microsoft has huge shared libraries with everything lumped together,
therefore it will break much more often. And does.
> However, for this to work on a Linbox, there are two requirements: 1)
> the user must save the binary and make it executable and 2) the user
> must then run it. Now, once that happens, there's really not much going
> to go differently on a Linbox than a Winbox. The thing can still bind
> to a high port and zombify the machine for spammers, which is what the
> majority of viruses do as of late.
Excuse me? Even assuming a Linux desktop like Gnome or KDE is stupid
enough to run an attachment when you click on it (or the mailcap file is
so set up with a stupid application), with the default firewall in place
on most Linux distributions, there is no way that this theoretical high-
port server is going to get any connections from outside...
> OK, one more topic to rant over then I'll STFU. I see alot of Slashdotters
> blaming Microsoft for this problem -- saying that running Linux or xBSD
> would solve this problem. Bullshit, fanboys. I am a Linux/Free software
> advocate and that argument is absolute bullshit. Every once in a while,
> remote exploits are discovered for these Free products. Most of the time,
> patches for these apps are released right away -- faster than their
> commercial counterparts are able to react. The users will still need
> to be smart enough to apply the patch. Well, in this case, Microsoft's
> patch was available before an exploit was in the wild.
The patch was available, yes. But unfortunately as with most Windows patches,
they release an omnibus that changes library code that can affect virtually
any other application and service on the system. This one did,
too; it was very buggy.
Most *nix-based software doesn't have this problem. Unless it is something
like the kernel or glibc being fixed, a patch to one service has almost
no chance of causing problems in other services.
That is the downside of the "seamless integration" that Microsoft
so often trumpets, and that is why Windows sucks for maintainability.
It is also the reason that no one should listen to Microsoft patch-whiners
(like you?).
> It is quite simple and has been done many times. A buffer overflow on
> a daemon process is all that is needed for a worm to get in. Once the
> worm is in, it is able to run its code with the same privaledges of
> that daemon, which may be root!
More and more often today, Linux daemons don't run as root.
It is hard to find a remote-exploitable process nowadays -- the usual
method of rooting is to gain local access and elevate privileges. That
is certainly possible, but exceedingly hard to mass-produce.
...if they enforce it on all of the Florida spammers first.
I can see how the first two or three or ten times you hear this shit from
Microsoft you want to scream from the mountaintops how wrong it is. What
I utterly will never ever understand is how you can get off, get this big
rhetorical hard on, four and five times a day week in and week out over
the SAME BULLSHIT. It's FUD now just like it was FUD last year and FUD the
year before that and, as far as the slashdot crowd is concerned at least,
FUD in 1976 when Bill Gates wrote an Open Letter to Hobbyists.
Perhaps you assume that everyone has read Slashdot exactly as long as
you have and monitored the exact same content as you have...I will
continue to believe there are people leaving and. joining the discussion
every day. FUD left uncontradicted becomes accepted as fact.
I'm sick of it, so what, everyone seems to love it, I'll just go now and
click a preference and never look at the borg crap again. I just hope in
time there is enough other content to read.
That is what you should do.
Last time I checked, there were 569 protocols defined as well-known services on my machine. The ONLY one that could have any benefit from the Verisign land grab is HTTP.
Breaking 568 protocols to deliver a marginally useful, if at all useful, service is technical idiocy of the highest degree.
The only thing innovative about it is driving stupidity to new heights.
Are the people here history-challenged, or what? A bigger bunch of baloney has never been posted.
There may have been a territory called "Palestine" for years, but there were no "Palestinians". There are Arabs happening to live in that territory.
WRT the "ethnic cleansing", I note that no evidence is provided. That would indeed be hard, since there cannot be any as none occurred.
> FreeBSD, for example, has relied on Perl being available in the past.
/usr/vendor/lib and /usr/vendor/bin
> Gentoo relies on Python. Relying on a scripting language to provide
> extensibility is not a bad thing.
Yes, it is. When you do that, you lock the scripting language to a
particular revision level, thereby stagnating its use.
If it was all standardized on a
scheme, where the scripting langauage version comes with the OS and
stays that way, with another version installed for apps development, it
might approach usability.
Red Hat uses both Perl and Python, and their hacks, contortions, and
customizations to make that work for Anaconda and redhat-config-* make
the version of the language unusuable for any real application development.
Red Hat routinely ships Python several revs back from the latest, and
routinely ships a Perl with major bugs in it due to hacked modules and
merging from the devel tree. I use Red Hat Linux, and like it, but they
do a *terrible* job of providing Python and Perl. All because they
do use it for that type of stuff.
Wow, what a revenge! This has all the exciting hallmarks of the most boring story in the world. He shut down a single ISP account. I'm stunned!
You think Eddy Marin fools around with a single ISP account like a dialup? I believe WCG had him signed up for a dozen class C networks...encompassing a couple thousand IP addresses.
If Eddy Marin wants a single account, he just rapes a proxy. He needs the class Cs to do the sinultaneous raping of thousands of them.
If you are a Windows-head, which it sounds like you may be from your 'tude, he may be raping *your* machine.
No one does spam filtering at routers.
There are filters and blocklists, but they have nothing to do with
routers. Long ago particularly egregious spammers were blackholed at the
router level, but that hasn't happened for years.
No ISP can stop all spam, but given enough resources we can stop most
of it. The problem is usually somewhat like you allude to, that there
is a certain set of people with an absolute horror of a non-spam
message being bounced. They claim "loss of email", and thereupon close
their ears.
But there is a more insidious foe, the scan-and-delete error.
Most admins today have two basic ways to stop spam -- blocking and user-
based filtering. Blocking rejects spam detected (via filter or
blocklist) and puts the onus on the sender to re-establish the
communication. User-based filtering puts the onus on the recipient to
review their spam folder and look for "false positives".
And there are three ways to play your two tools.
1. Little or weak filtering or blocking means communications are lost as
people have scan-and-delete errors due to battle fatigue from their
daily fight with spam in their mailbox. Much legitimate email is
lost, and it is lost and *neither party knows it was never read*.
This collateral damage is spread over every part of the net,
spam-friendly or no.
2. Aggressive filtering and tagging for dropping in the user's "spam"
folder means that legitimate communications are tagged as false-
positives. People usually don't scan their spam folders carefully,
because such a high percentage is spam. Again, legitimate email is
lost and *neither party knows it was never read*. This collateral
damage is spread over every part of the net, spam-friendly or no.
3. Aggressive rejection of email via blocklisting causes some legitimate
email to be rejected. However, that collateral damage is limited to
spam-friendly parts of the Internet. The sender knows full well it
was not read and can re-send the message via another channel if it is
important. This knowledge also allows them to take action to correct
blocking errors; and heightens awareness of who is not doing their
part to fight spam.
To me, selecting #3 is a no-brainer. When legitimate email gets lost,
the sender knows it was not received. And it is almost all lost from
networks participating in the massive denial of service attack on the
Internet at large that is spam.
AOL, for example, does a simply outstanding job of making sure spam is
not sourced from their network. They don't allow spam hosting of any
kind. I *never* want to lose mail from them. Same with Earthlink, MSN,
and Hotmail. They deserve that consideration due to their effort. If my
users lose mail from them due to scan and delete errors, I have not done
my job. I would much rather have them lose email from the people who pay
the spam-friendly providers. (And no, folks, those fake hotmail.com
addresses in the From line don't mean they source spam.)
You can do filtering at the MTA level too with rejections, but I don't
do that except with filter settings that have a near-zero false-
positive rate.
This is correct, since a fair proportion of those Windows 2003 installations will be new installations. If only 10% of these installations were previously hosted by a shared-hosting provider, the vast majority of whom use Linux or UNIX, then you would expect 5% of new installations to be coming from Linux.
Companies who bring their functions in house with a new system have to have been on *something* before. Most would have been on a virtual/shared hosting facility, which are dominated by Linux. So if only 8% were new company web server installations, it would seem to make sense that 5% "switched" from Linux.
A well-designed system accounts even for that, via backup. In any case, unless you can trick the user into entering the root password you can't do things that will destabilize the system.
And most importantly nowadays, you can't manipulate the firewall which prevents you from setting up a proxy drone used to spam or contribute to DDoS attacks.
I sincerely doubt that will be a factor. Remember the inverse square dropoff in radiation intensity. Cell phones are held right to your head...
I'm trying to switch over from Mozilla to Firebird and Thunderbird, but I've run into a few niggles. On the Thunderbird side, for instance, is there any way to open links in a new Firebird tab? In Mozilla's MailNews, I like being able to middle-click to open URLs in a new browser tab :).
You can always drag'n'drop onto the tab area...
>>Now that you've done so, please move out of the way and let some
>>*real* programmers write things up in SQL.
>I know both platforms well, and, I'm sorry to admit (since I'm
>supportive of Linux) that there are no Linux tools that can replace
>Access except through an extreamly difficult development process. There
>are NO open source Linux developemnt tools that can even remotely
>approach the ease of developing a relational database with GUI front-end
>that Access can accomplish. I wish to h*ll that there were! You don't
>have a clue about how easily difficult problems are solved in Access.
>The more ridiculous thing is that M$ has been trying to kill it for the
>past 5 years. They even removed it from the certification process!
What types of applications are you talking about? All I have ever seen
are toy front-ends on simple non-transactional databases. Every one I have
seen ends up being a maintenance nightmare that doesn't scale. Sure there
are some complex systems built on Access, but all of them I have seen
are fragile and temperamental.
HTML forms end up being a better method for most simple applications,
and template scriptiong via PHP, Cold Fusion, Interchange, or the like
end up replacing those these days. Even Microsoft sees that, which is
probably why they are de-emphasizing Access and placing their emphasis
on their XML form integration with SQL Server.