Yep, I gathered that - I was just wondering which mail programs could actually collect mail from both of those sources without any helpers? There has to be one that can do it in order for Thunderbird to come off badly, you see.:-)
You could always write extensions to query the mail servers... I doubt the Thunderbird authors would include Hotmail/Yahoo into the main code base, simply because it's going to be too fragile. (Disclaimer: I'm not a Thunderbird author.)
As the subject says, there are other chess servers. The other large one I know about is PlayChess, which is run by ChessBase (the same company who produce [Deep] Fritz and others).
I realise you probably know this, but I'm guessing other people probably wouldn't.:)
While this is true, it also means that to restore your mail you aren't relying on the past X backups all being good.:-)
It isn't something I personally regard as a big problem, anyway, although I guess if you're really short of space on a backup medium maybe it would be. But then, that's what bzip2 is for...;-)
I haven't used Mozilla mail in a while, but Thunderbird should be quite fast with only 1000 mails. There's a box at work with about 40,000 messages in it which I dump mail into now and again. As long as you let it generate an index for the mbox file, you're fine.
One message per file just seems like a huge step backwards. FidoNet had that, with the MSG format. It was unscalable, unworkable, and had big performance problems, which is why pretty much everyone migrated to another format, which kept all the messages in a single file. (There were other files which did indexing and so forth.)
For the maildir/mh stuff to be fast, you need a header cache of some kind. Once you have the cache, you might as well just use the mbox approach, which everything understands, is a lot easier on hard disks and filesystems, and is much easier to back up.
Obviously this is all just my opinion. But I'm right.;-)
One last thing though - when (if ever) will Mozilla mail change away from using.mbx/mailbox files and move to something like what Sylpheed uses (1 file per email).
Of course, it's possible you should also find something else to talk about.:)
Even if people do understand what you're talking about - which I do - it's not really something I find interesting enough to have a conversation about. There's more to life than computers.;-)
The computation was performed on TERA NOVA (a 256 Intel-Itanium2 system developped by BULL SA, installed in the CEA DAM open laboratory TERA TECH). It required approximatively 80 000 CPU hours.
So finding an SHA-0 collision is probably out of the range of most attackers, at least for a couple of years.
>A man who shot a violent robber was refused parole >because "he continues to pose a danger to >burglars."
Assuming you're talking about Tony Martin, I don't think it's quite that simple. Last I saw a report, there were doubts about whether the shooting was (effectively) in cold blood - that is, whether the burglar had turned to run when he was shot.
You're also making it sound like all muggers use guns, which is blatantly untrue.
Actual response from Katie T, not boilerplate...
on
The Saga of Katie.com
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I sent a mail asking that she clarify the boiler-plate response slightly, since it left some things ambiguous. I've just got this reply (fast response!):
== Paul, Thank you for your letter. Parry Aftab is not my lawyer and that is something that is not vague. Penguin and I have also worked very hard and I think this will come to end by the morning. I will say that much.
Best, Katie Tarbox ==
>I thought my server had died earlier today, the >amount of traffic it recieved was so large, and >all from Slashdot.
Unfortunately, we do tend to have that effect... hope your bandwidth charges aren't too bad!
Regarding the Paypal thing - sure, I'm in, as long as it's used for actually trying to get Penguin and/or Katie T to retitle the book and other stuff. As someone else has said, it might not be for much, but if sufficient people chip in then it might help. The first step would be to find a good barrister or solicitor, I guess.:) If you find a *really* useful one, they might do it cut-rate... (ha)
If there's a Paypal link up, we can also try to get the site featured on various other online places - I can think of several already. As long as it won't cause a problem server-wise, anyway.
You're assuming that their.NET implementation will implement the ECMA spec. It won't break their customer's apps if it's always been that way - and most customers will be writing to the actual API, not the language spec.
(Disclaimer - their implementation might well implement the spec perfectly at this time, I don't know. Just pointing out assumptions.;)
Looks interesting, and thanks for posting. The bit which I'm not sure about, however (since I'm not too familiar with.NET) - you show two stacks. Will people have to target their software at a particular stack, or are they interchangable (i.e. the underlying libraries are being used to implement the.NET API, but aren't exposed)?
If they're not interchangable, why would anybody target the second stack with the multitude of libraries, as opposed to Microsoft's simpler one? (This isn't a flame, I'm genuinely curious as to why you think that would happen.)
Also, as someone else has pointed out, having an ECMA spec doesn't necessarily mean that Microsoft will actually make their own implementation follow it, either by design or accident.
I must admit, C# and.NET do sound interesting in some ways. I'm seriously put off experimenting by the fact that Microsoft does have patents on parts of.NET, though, and I don't know whether all of them can be worked around. If Mono suddenly loses x% of it's API due to patent problems, I'd say people have a problem.;-)
Done already - for example Total Recorder, which as a user I've been very pleased with. However, that doesn't help you when the player refuses to play to an unsigned driver.
And, eventually, the various companies are looking to make the decryption be done in the sound card, or ideally the speaker, so that you can't get it in the clear until the last possible second.
Each to their own, I guess. Having tried Picasa I like it a lot. Nice interface, good functionality - the only thing it's missing that I wanted is zoom.
Regarding iMatch... 33MB download for an image manager? That seems excessively large. I was going to try it, but no thanks.
A lot of applications use embedded IE to render HTML etc. So even if you don't use IE for browsing, you're still vulnerable.
If you replace the IE backend, so that the applications make the same calls but everything's handled by Moz instead, you're not vulnerable to the IE holes.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, I gathered that - I was just wondering which mail programs could actually collect mail from both of those sources without any helpers? There has to be one that can do it in order for Thunderbird to come off badly, you see. :-)
You could always write extensions to query the mail servers... I doubt the Thunderbird authors would include Hotmail/Yahoo into the main code base, simply because it's going to be too fragile. (Disclaimer: I'm not a Thunderbird author.)
Are there other mail programs that check both Yahoo and MSN?
:-)
Not entirely sure what you meant by "no support for outlook".
As the subject says, there are other chess servers. The other large one I know about is PlayChess, which is run by ChessBase (the same company who produce [Deep] Fritz and others).
:)
I realise you probably know this, but I'm guessing other people probably wouldn't.
While this is true, it also means that to restore your mail you aren't relying on the past X backups all being good. :-)
;-)
It isn't something I personally regard as a big problem, anyway, although I guess if you're really short of space on a backup medium maybe it would be. But then, that's what bzip2 is for...
I haven't used Mozilla mail in a while, but Thunderbird should be quite fast with only 1000 mails. There's a box at work with about 40,000 messages in it which I dump mail into now and again. As long as you let it generate an index for the mbox file, you're fine.
;-)
One message per file just seems like a huge step backwards. FidoNet had that, with the MSG format. It was unscalable, unworkable, and had big performance problems, which is why pretty much everyone migrated to another format, which kept all the messages in a single file. (There were other files which did indexing and so forth.)
For the maildir/mh stuff to be fast, you need a header cache of some kind. Once you have the cache, you might as well just use the mbox approach, which everything understands, is a lot easier on hard disks and filesystems, and is much easier to back up.
Obviously this is all just my opinion. But I'm right.
One last thing though - when (if ever) will Mozilla mail change away from using .mbx/mailbox files and move to something like what Sylpheed uses (1 file per email).
Hopefully, never.
Of course, it's possible you should also find something else to talk about. :)
;-)
Even if people do understand what you're talking about - which I do - it's not really something I find interesting enough to have a conversation about. There's more to life than computers.
To quote from the French email about SHA-0:
The computation was performed on TERA NOVA (a 256 Intel-Itanium2 system developped by BULL SA, installed in the CEA DAM open laboratory TERA TECH). It required approximatively 80 000 CPU hours.
So finding an SHA-0 collision is probably out of the range of most attackers, at least for a couple of years.
>A man who shot a violent robber was refused parole >because "he continues to pose a danger to
>burglars."
Assuming you're talking about Tony Martin, I don't think it's quite that simple. Last I saw a report, there were doubts about whether the shooting was (effectively) in cold blood - that is, whether the burglar had turned to run when he was shot.
You're also making it sound like all muggers use guns, which is blatantly untrue.
I sent a mail asking that she clarify the boiler-plate response slightly, since it left some things ambiguous. I've just got this reply (fast response!):
==
Paul,
Thank you for your letter. Parry Aftab is not my lawyer and that is something that is not vague. Penguin and I have also worked very hard and I think this will come to end by the morning. I will say that much.
Best, Katie Tarbox
==
>I thought my server had died earlier today, the
:) If you find a *really* useful one, they might do it cut-rate... (ha)
>amount of traffic it recieved was so large, and
>all from Slashdot.
Unfortunately, we do tend to have that effect... hope your bandwidth charges aren't too bad!
Regarding the Paypal thing - sure, I'm in, as long as it's used for actually trying to get Penguin and/or Katie T to retitle the book and other stuff. As someone else has said, it might not be for much, but if sufficient people chip in then it might help. The first step would be to find a good barrister or solicitor, I guess.
If there's a Paypal link up, we can also try to get the site featured on various other online places - I can think of several already. As long as it won't cause a problem server-wise, anyway.
You're assuming that their .NET implementation will implement the ECMA spec. It won't break their customer's apps if it's always been that way - and most customers will be writing to the actual API, not the language spec.
;)
(Disclaimer - their implementation might well implement the spec perfectly at this time, I don't know. Just pointing out assumptions.
Looks interesting, and thanks for posting. The bit which I'm not sure about, however (since I'm not too familiar with .NET) - you show two stacks. Will people have to target their software at a particular stack, or are they interchangable (i.e. the underlying libraries are being used to implement the .NET API, but aren't exposed)?
.NET do sound interesting in some ways. I'm seriously put off experimenting by the fact that Microsoft does have patents on parts of .NET, though, and I don't know whether all of them can be worked around. If Mono suddenly loses x% of it's API due to patent problems, I'd say people have a problem. ;-)
If they're not interchangable, why would anybody target the second stack with the multitude of libraries, as opposed to Microsoft's simpler one? (This isn't a flame, I'm genuinely curious as to why you think that would happen.)
Also, as someone else has pointed out, having an ECMA spec doesn't necessarily mean that Microsoft will actually make their own implementation follow it, either by design or accident.
I must admit, C# and
Forgive the ignorance, but it doesn't exactly sound particularly innovative...
This whole thread would be slightly more useful if you actually said what else WinFS is useful for.
Particularly for you, actually. What does it give *you* that other filesystems don't?
Done already - for example Total Recorder, which as a user I've been very pleased with. However, that doesn't help you when the player refuses to play to an unsigned driver.
And, eventually, the various companies are looking to make the decryption be done in the sound card, or ideally the speaker, so that you can't get it in the clear until the last possible second.
>in some instance that problem might just be that
>you need to resume processing once either a mutex
>is available or a socket is readable.
An example situation being...?
True. Somehow I parsed it differently earlier, although reading it again I'm not quite sure how. Oops... sorry all.
> If the Patriot Act were invoked in this case, it
> is a clear abuse that should be quickly corrected.
That depends. Is copyright infringement a criminal offense in the USA?
Under the Patriot Act, the definition of "domestic terrorism" is limited to conduct that (1) violates federal or state criminal law
Remind me never to employ you...
Each to their own, I guess. Having tried Picasa I like it a lot. Nice interface, good functionality - the only thing it's missing that I wanted is zoom.
Regarding iMatch... 33MB download for an image manager? That seems excessively large. I was going to try it, but no thanks.
Why is it you never have mod points when you want them? :)
I always like this one:
Blue screen of Aaaaaaaiiiiiigggggghhhhh!
-- Jamie Bowden
A lot of applications use embedded IE to render HTML etc. So even if you don't use IE for browsing, you're still vulnerable.
If you replace the IE backend, so that the applications make the same calls but everything's handled by Moz instead, you're not vulnerable to the IE holes.
STMicroelectronics, for one. Another large company you don't generally hear anything about (which is the way they like it).