I've known MJR (Marcus J. Ranum) for quite a while-- he was already well into computer security back in 1990 when I first met him. He's not stupid; he wrote the TIS toolkit, set up whitehouse.gov originally, and other such stuff. He probably knows more about computer security than somewhere between 99 and 99.9 percent of the people that read slashdot.
When I read the article, I slapped my palm to my forehead-- "good grief, everyone's going to think he's advocating security through obscurity". He knows better, I know he knows better. What I'm guessing he's saying (I haven't read the text of his speech-- I'd love to see a URL to it rather than all these damn summaries) is that: full disclosure --> people writing tools --> script kiddies with tools causing problems. Now, the obvious culprit in this is the people in the middle writing the tools; note that if you read his words alone and not the article, that's his main target. However, full disclosure is making it much more possible for these people to write these tools. Very few things in this world are pure goodness in and of themselves; this is the bad side of full disclosure, and I agree with MJR that there are going to be circumstances where full disclosure is not always immediately appropriate. In many cases, all that needs to be said is that the bug is possible-- no need to actually provide the buffer overrun exploit code at the same time that you note the buffer overrun. That, I believe, is MJR's point: there is a bad side to full disclosure, and we need to accept responsibility for that instead of just mindlessly chanting "full disclosure is good, security through obscurity is bad, mkay".
---
Nice troll, ever heard of a company named Sequent?
on
The History of UNIX
·
· Score: 1
I guess Sequent's Symmetry that could have up to 24 processors (running 386s) in 1989 doesn't count as SMP support to folks in Redmond. Pity. They were 11 years behind the Mac on the UI front too (1995, 1984).
This is probably the most intelligent comment I've read in this whole discussion. As far as the window manager running as root, that wouldn't even be necessary-- the X server already has to run as root, why can't it just chown/dev/gui to the user that started it, then let the user processes like the window manager create and delete things in there as needed? Then allowing other users access to given windows is as simple as a chmod on/dev/gui/win42 or what have you. Subwindows could be dealt with by having/dev/gui/win42 actually being a directory with as many named pipes as needed to do what we need to do, and subwindows being a window directory inside that one. Borrow the NeXT philosophy where a directory can be seen as an object in and of itself, but still also seen as a directory when needed.
This is likely to be worse for Yesmail in the long run than any simple 'being added to the RBL' could be.
Here's why: even now, many sysadmins that use the RBL are reading this story, and are going in by hand and adding Yesmail to the list of domains they don't accept mail from. Even if Yesmail and MAPS come to an agreement where Yesmail follows MAPS's policy, all those sysadmins that added in Yesmail by hand aren't just going to take them out again overnight. While not as widespread as if they were on the RBL, they will be on many systems' blackhole list permanently.
This is why companies shouldn't gather this kind of information in the first place, and why even the most honest and trustworthy of companies are not to be trusted. Simply put, unless it's absolutely necessary for the company to do business, no company should be collecting data on people.
I'm reminded of the old Cold War scenario where the US has negotiated some critical arms agreement with the USSR, and thanks to the good leader of the USSR at the time, they are abiding by the arms agreement even though it's hurting them drastically-- until one of the top lieutenants puts a bullet in the leader's head, becomes leader himself, and proceeds to shred the arms agreement and launch missiles/build the ultimate bomb/whatever.
I'm paraphrasing here, but Gene Spafford (co-author of Firewalls and Internet Security, and generally considered to be a security expert) has said many times "The only way to make a computer be totally secure is to power it off, lock it in a vault, post armed guards outside, and even then I'm still not entirely convinced."
Gee, I knew that Microsoft was taking over the world, and I figured they'd try to get their own top-level domain eventually, but I never anticipated that they'd make a grab for one of the existing ones...
Think of it this way: Gene Spafford (who I've known for a long time, back to the days when you got a Big 7 Usenet group created by sending him email) isn't slamming Open Source, he's merely playing devil's advocate. I don't think that any of us will claim that the current state of open source software is software perfection; he's just pointing out that in theory, a specification is easier to read and debug than source, so if you *really* want a secure bit of code, you write a secure spec, and then guarantee that the code meets the spec.
What doesn't work is having the source code *be* the spec, because if you run with that far enough, you end up with Microsoft Word, where the specification of Word's.DOC is defined as 'how Word displays and prints it' which leads to madness, wailing and gnashing of teeth, and many other bad things. Spaf has a very valid point; think of his point as a goal rather than a criticism.
Of course, if all you ever want is what MSVC gives you, then by all means use it. If, like all good programmers, you find yourself wanting to do more, well then you'll find it after a point to be limiting. But if you'll never reach that point, then MS is fine for you.
This is in a nutshell the basic philosophy difference between MS/Windows and Unix. MS tools try to give you everything you need, whereas Unix tools give you the power to build bigger and better tools.
If I could find one, I'd get one of those big foam-lined enclosures they used to make 15-20 years ago for putting printers in, back when laser printing hadn't been heard of and printers were these horribly noisy contraptions generally coming in two kinds: dot-matrix or daisy-wheel, both of which involved mechanical bits striking a carbon ribbon to deposit the ink onto the printed page. Enclosures were virtually manditory for any printer that got even moderate use that was in an area that people were expected to stay in. They'd hack off a good 30-40 decibels off the sound level, taking even the noisiest of printers down in volume to something you wouldn't mind standing next to for a couple of minutes while waiting for your printout to come out.
I would expect that probably 3 or even 4 systems could fit into an old printer enclosure; the biggest problem would probably be airflow. The slots for paper coming in and going out would probably work as long as they were positioned properly. Some experimentation definitely would be in order.
The old standby Nethack has more strange and bizarre messages in it than anything else I know. I can't even begin to list them here, but the most recent one that made me go 'buh' was watching a cockatrice hit a clay golem, turning it into: a stone golem.
Funny how this wasn't news 6 months ago
on
Is Pinball Dying?
·
· Score: 1
My article about how Williams and Sega (the last two US pinball companies) had both gotten out of the business last October was submitted to slashdot and rejected. Williams, holder of many fine pinball patents (they don't just restrict computer software, y'know) ceased production, and Sega/Data East sold their entire operation to Stern, who had made pinball machines in the 70s. Gottlieb, which had become Premiere/Gottlieb, gave up pinball in 1992 or 1994, and the Alvin G. company (Alvin Gottlieb, who couldn't use his own last name on his pinball company) made a couple of machines in the early 90s as well but didn't last long. Bally cashed out in 1989, selling their pinball division to WMS/Williams.
One of the lesser-talked-about problems in the pinball industry has been the competitiveness and use of patents. Williams had a trademark on the name 'multi-ball' for a while, which is why games like Jurassic Park (a Data East machine) had to use the silly name 'Tri-Ball'. Williams has patents outstanding on pinball features like software switch compensation (if the machine detects that a switch is dead, then it'll still credit the shot if a nearby switch or another on the same ramp is triggered), and use of magnets such as Magna-Save (Black Knight, Pharoah, Black Knight 2000) or the 'magnetic flippers' on Twilight Zone. Perhaps Stern could try to get away with using something like this on one of their games, but Williams is still doing quite well and has lawyers, so don't expect to see those features on another pinball machine for a long time, if ever.
As far as pinball in the future goes, if any of you have a little extra cash, I'd highly recommend getting a pinball machine of your own. Check out rec.games.pinball (it's still one of the best signal/noise ratio Usenet groups out there), or various webpages like Mr. Pinball, who is not only a good source of repair tips and general information, but also has an excellent pinball classifieds section, with over 1000 machines listed presently. Pinball machines aren't as hard to keep going as you'd might think-- many can be bought for $500-1000 (cheaper than a new gaming computer, and it holds its value!), and isn't that hard to maintain for home use-- remember that these machines are built to withstand drunk people in bars beating the crap out of them; home use is an easy life for them.
In short, if you like pinball, get involved-- either by owning a machine or checking out and playing the games out on the street now.
Of course, if he had fully explained everything he had done, everyone on this forum would be slamming him for publicizing how to break in and providing a road map to 31337 script kiddiez to do this kind of thing to naive people across the country and around the world. So either he's faking it if he gives too little information, or he's being a menace if he gives too much. Sorry, you've just squeezed the ratchet of logic a bit too far there. If you want information and detail, look at the two *years* worth of ICQ logs he provided. Who in their right mind would fake up something like that?
Here's Metallica's touring schedule-- maybe if they started seeing former fans of theirs protesting in favor of Napster at every tour stop, they'd perhaps start to Understand.
What would also be good is letting the other bands that are touring with Metallica know that you will not be seeing their show because they are with Metallica and that you support Napster.
EMP METALLICA, DR DRE,SNOOP DOG,RHCP,KID ROCK,FILTER Fri 06/23/00 6:00PM SEATTLE MEMORIAL STADIUM SEATTLE WA
METALLICA-KORN-KID ROCK-POWERMAN 5000 Fri 06/30/00 4:00PM FOXBORO STADIUM FOXBORO MA
METALLICA Sat 07/01/00 4:00PM ROCKINGHAM DRAGWAY ROCKINGHAM NC
METALLICA * KORN * KID ROCK Mon 07/03/00 4:00PM GATEWAY INTERNATIONAL RACEWAY ST LOUIS MO
Just login with username: cypherpunks and password: cypherpunks -- this trick works at a number of places. And if you find one where it doesn't, well then free-register it yourself, for the benefit of others:-)
Just think of it as an anti-registration meme. Not only is it less hassle for you, it also screws up their marketing statistics.
I've always wanted to track down who has UNIX as their license plate in all 50 states. I'm the person that has Georgia's, and I know that George Goble (aka GHG) has Indiana's. With Jon Hall having New Hampshire's (I presume, the article doesn't explicitly say), now I only have 47 more to track down!
The 'withered penis' virus of 1991
on
Sim Plague
·
· Score: 1
A much less harmful virus got around on an early muck named Brigadoon, which was up in late 1990 and early 1991.
It spread the same way; if you looked at an infected person, you got infected as well. However, its only effect was that it changed an attribute named 'appendage' that some code used so that your default appendage was: a withered penis. Hence messages like this became common:
A withered penis appears and pulls (person) up and over the edge of the floating island.
I haven't talked to anyone at my alma mater, Wabash College, in over 10 years, but without even checking, I know how it would be handled: a simple application of the Gentleman's Rule, which is the only code of conduct for students at Wabash College.
(Before you knee-jerk post that calling it the 'Gentleman's Rule' is sexist, let me point out that Wabash College is an all-male institution, thus the name is accurate.)
The Gentleman's Rule is easily stated, and I can probably even quote it verbatim just from memory: All students of Wabash College are expected to behave like a gentleman at all times.
That's it. No lengthy list of what constitutes proper conduct, what is verboten, etc. It's worked and worked well for over 150 years.
If a student or group of students were taking up a significant chunk of the college's bandwidth, what would likely happen is that they would end up meeting with the Dean of Students, where after some discussion it would doubtless be hashed out that using up that much bandwidth (thus denying bandwidth to other students and college professors) isn't in keeping with the Gentleman's Rule, and the students would be expected to find a way to make it so that their activities were not being detrimental to others.
Simple, effective, and no censorship involved.
I do find it amusing that DePauw University, arch-rival of Wabash, has found it necessary to ban napster. But then again, their most famous alumnus is Dan Quayle, enough said.:-)
I like the idea of puzzles (or has been suggested by many, a puzzle section). I'd just like to add in a plug for my favorite classic game, backgammon. The fun thing about backgammon problems is that there often is no one right answer, and hearing other people propose different solutions and justify them often makes me think about my own answer more.
While you're standardizing flags, I'd propose that -n be standardized like make does it: don't actually do anything but instead tell me what you'd do. Granted this would be meaningless for information-only utilities that don't actually change things, but it would be nice to have on all other utilities. That way you could run your find | rm -rfn and find out what all actually would be removed before rerunning sans -n, for example.
If someone really knew how to do this, they would do it. Since this hasn't been done it's but an un-tested theory and doesn't amount to jack. I say take down the Internet if you can, lets re-build it right!
Let's translate this into a real world analogy, and the absurdity will be evident.
Some group says "This bridge that is the main route into or out of this large city is hazardous; all it would take is a large truck to ram the right spot on it and the whole thing would collapse."
''If someone really knew how to do this, they would do it''
Wrong. Not all people who investigate security holes are malicious. In fact, probably very few are, which is why we don't have more break-ins and such than we already have.
''Since this hasn't been done it's but an un-tested theory and doesn't amount to jack. I say take down the Internet if you can, lets re-build it right!''
So you're going to blow up a perfectly usable bridge, causing another to be built at great expense, just because you can? I suppose you're going to volunteer your time to help re-build what you so carelessly destroyed? No? You don't know how to build bridges? Maybe you shouldn't be so eager to tear them down, then.
Safety groups in the real world are all the time pointing out how dangerous products are. Why is it when a group does the same about computer security, they get roundly flamed no matter what they say or how they say it?
Think about it: there are lots fewer people out there that know about routing protocols than know about, say, Unix. How would even your average slashdot reader know what their vulnerabilities are, much less the general public? It's easy to make fun of what you don't understand; most of us should understand that from experience. Given the track record of these guys, I tend to believe them when they say that something like this can be done. I just hope that the people responsible for the various pieces of the backbone listen and fix holes.
For those of you who want to complain to Fox but don't want to touch anything Microsoft (and there's no Mac around), here are all the email addresses I could find listed on their web page. None of these seem to be directly related to the web site, unfortunately. No offense intended to anyone not in the 18-49 age group, and I know that large numbers of Linux/BSD/etc users are not, but it might be interesting to point out to them how their web site policy is locking out many people in the 18-49 age demographic (the very demographic that Fox claims to target) who might be the most likely to use computer/OS combinations other than Microsoft or Mac. Just an idle thought.
Anyways, here are some email addresses. Most of them are pretty plain from them as to who they're directed towards.
foxmovies@fox.com foxkids@foxinc.com sportscomments@newscorp.com comments@foxnews.com TTVInt3@foxinc.com -- Fox Latin America and Fox International feedback@amw.com -- America's Most Wanted
Slashdot Mirror
I've known MJR (Marcus J. Ranum) for quite a while-- he was already well into computer security back in 1990 when I first met him. He's not stupid; he wrote the TIS toolkit, set up whitehouse.gov originally, and other such stuff. He probably knows more about computer security than somewhere between 99 and 99.9 percent of the people that read slashdot.
When I read the article, I slapped my palm to my forehead-- "good grief, everyone's going to think he's advocating security through obscurity". He knows better, I know he knows better. What I'm guessing he's saying (I haven't read the text of his speech-- I'd love to see a URL to it rather than all these damn summaries) is that: full disclosure --> people writing tools --> script kiddies with tools causing problems. Now, the obvious culprit in this is the people in the middle writing the tools; note that if you read his words alone and not the article, that's his main target. However, full disclosure is making it much more possible for these people to write these tools. Very few things in this world are pure goodness in and of themselves; this is the bad side of full disclosure, and I agree with MJR that there are going to be circumstances where full disclosure is not always immediately appropriate. In many cases, all that needs to be said is that the bug is possible-- no need to actually provide the buffer overrun exploit code at the same time that you note the buffer overrun. That, I believe, is MJR's point: there is a bad side to full disclosure, and we need to accept responsibility for that instead of just mindlessly chanting "full disclosure is good, security through obscurity is bad, mkay".
---
I guess Sequent's Symmetry that could have up to 24 processors (running 386s) in 1989 doesn't count as SMP support to folks in Redmond. Pity. They were 11 years behind the Mac on the UI front too (1995, 1984).
---
This is probably the most intelligent comment I've read in this whole discussion. As far as the window manager running as root, that wouldn't even be necessary-- the X server already has to run as root, why can't it just chown /dev/gui to the user that started it, then let the user processes like the window manager create and delete things in there as needed? Then allowing other users access to given windows is as simple as a chmod on /dev/gui/win42 or what have you. Subwindows could be dealt with by having /dev/gui/win42 actually being a directory with as many named pipes as needed to do what we need to do, and subwindows being a window directory inside that one. Borrow the NeXT philosophy where a directory can be seen as an object in and of itself, but still also seen as a directory when needed.
Anyone? Bueller?
---
Like eating bugs is something new. Purdue has been holding the Bug Bowl for 4 years now.
---
This is likely to be worse for Yesmail in the long run than any simple 'being added to the RBL' could be.
Here's why: even now, many sysadmins that use the RBL are reading this story, and are going in by hand and adding Yesmail to the list of domains they don't accept mail from. Even if Yesmail and MAPS come to an agreement where Yesmail follows MAPS's policy, all those sysadmins that added in Yesmail by hand aren't just going to take them out again overnight. While not as widespread as if they were on the RBL, they will be on many systems' blackhole list permanently.
---
Just tape their postage-paid card to a brick. Simple, doesn't inflate their numbers overly, plus their postage bill goes up a BUNCH.
---
I'm reminded of the old Cold War scenario where the US has negotiated some critical arms agreement with the USSR, and thanks to the good leader of the USSR at the time, they are abiding by the arms agreement even though it's hurting them drastically-- until one of the top lieutenants puts a bullet in the leader's head, becomes leader himself, and proceeds to shred the arms agreement and launch missiles/build the ultimate bomb/whatever.
---
I'm paraphrasing here, but Gene Spafford (co-author of Firewalls and Internet Security, and generally considered to be a security expert) has said many times "The only way to make a computer be totally secure is to power it off, lock it in a vault, post armed guards outside, and even then I'm still not entirely convinced."
---
---
What doesn't work is having the source code *be* the spec, because if you run with that far enough, you end up with Microsoft Word, where the specification of Word's
---
Of course, if all you ever want is what MSVC gives you, then by all means use it. If, like all good programmers, you find yourself wanting to do more, well then you'll find it after a point to be limiting. But if you'll never reach that point, then MS is fine for you.
This is in a nutshell the basic philosophy difference between MS/Windows and Unix. MS tools try to give you everything you need, whereas Unix tools give you the power to build bigger and better tools.
---
If I could find one, I'd get one of those big foam-lined enclosures they used to make 15-20 years ago for putting printers in, back when laser printing hadn't been heard of and printers were these horribly noisy contraptions generally coming in two kinds: dot-matrix or daisy-wheel, both of which involved mechanical bits striking a carbon ribbon to deposit the ink onto the printed page. Enclosures were virtually manditory for any printer that got even moderate use that was in an area that people were expected to stay in. They'd hack off a good 30-40 decibels off the sound level, taking even the noisiest of printers down in volume to something you wouldn't mind standing next to for a couple of minutes while waiting for your printout to come out.
I would expect that probably 3 or even 4 systems could fit into an old printer enclosure; the biggest problem would probably be airflow. The slots for paper coming in and going out would probably work as long as they were positioned properly. Some experimentation definitely would be in order.
The old standby Nethack has more strange and bizarre messages in it than anything else I know. I can't even begin to list them here, but the most recent one that made me go 'buh' was watching a cockatrice hit a clay golem, turning it into: a stone golem.
One of the lesser-talked-about problems in the pinball industry has been the competitiveness and use of patents. Williams had a trademark on the name 'multi-ball' for a while, which is why games like Jurassic Park (a Data East machine) had to use the silly name 'Tri-Ball'. Williams has patents outstanding on pinball features like software switch compensation (if the machine detects that a switch is dead, then it'll still credit the shot if a nearby switch or another on the same ramp is triggered), and use of magnets such as Magna-Save (Black Knight, Pharoah, Black Knight 2000) or the 'magnetic flippers' on Twilight Zone. Perhaps Stern could try to get away with using something like this on one of their games, but Williams is still doing quite well and has lawyers, so don't expect to see those features on another pinball machine for a long time, if ever.
As far as pinball in the future goes, if any of you have a little extra cash, I'd highly recommend getting a pinball machine of your own. Check out rec.games.pinball (it's still one of the best signal/noise ratio Usenet groups out there), or various webpages like Mr. Pinball, who is not only a good source of repair tips and general information, but also has an excellent pinball classifieds section, with over 1000 machines listed presently. Pinball machines aren't as hard to keep going as you'd might think-- many can be bought for $500-1000 (cheaper than a new gaming computer, and it holds its value!), and isn't that hard to maintain for home use-- remember that these machines are built to withstand drunk people in bars beating the crap out of them; home use is an easy life for them.
In short, if you like pinball, get involved-- either by owning a machine or checking out and playing the games out on the street now.
Of course, if he had fully explained everything he had done, everyone on this forum would be slamming him for publicizing how to break in and providing a road map to 31337 script kiddiez to do this kind of thing to naive people across the country and around the world. So either he's faking it if he gives too little information, or he's being a menace if he gives too much. Sorry, you've just squeezed the ratchet of logic a bit too far there. If you want information and detail, look at the two *years* worth of ICQ logs he provided. Who in their right mind would fake up something like that?
What would also be good is letting the other bands that are touring with Metallica know that you will not be seeing their show because they are with Metallica and that you support Napster.
Just login with username: cypherpunks and password: cypherpunks -- this trick works at a number of places. And if you find one where it doesn't, well then free-register it yourself, for the benefit of others :-)
Just think of it as an anti-registration meme. Not only is it less hassle for you, it also screws up their marketing statistics.
I've always wanted to track down who has UNIX as their license plate in all 50 states. I'm the person that has Georgia's, and I know that George Goble (aka GHG) has Indiana's. With Jon Hall having New Hampshire's (I presume, the article doesn't explicitly say), now I only have 47 more to track down!
A much less harmful virus got around on an early muck named Brigadoon, which was up in late 1990 and early 1991.
It spread the same way; if you looked at an infected person, you got infected as well. However, its only effect was that it changed an attribute named 'appendage' that some code used so that your default appendage was: a withered penis. Hence messages like this became common:
A withered penis appears and pulls (person) up and over the edge of the floating island.
I haven't talked to anyone at my alma mater, Wabash College, in over 10 years, but without even checking, I know how it would be handled: a simple application of the Gentleman's Rule, which is the only code of conduct for students at Wabash College.
:-)
(Before you knee-jerk post that calling it the 'Gentleman's Rule' is sexist, let me point out that Wabash College is an all-male institution, thus the name is accurate.)
The Gentleman's Rule is easily stated, and I can probably even quote it verbatim just from memory: All students of Wabash College are expected to behave like a gentleman at all times.
That's it. No lengthy list of what constitutes proper conduct, what is verboten, etc. It's worked and worked well for over 150 years.
If a student or group of students were taking up a significant chunk of the college's bandwidth, what would likely happen is that they would end up meeting with the Dean of Students, where after some discussion it would doubtless be hashed out that using up that much bandwidth (thus denying bandwidth to other students and college professors) isn't in keeping with the Gentleman's Rule, and the students would be expected to find a way to make it so that their activities were not being detrimental to others.
Simple, effective, and no censorship involved.
I do find it amusing that DePauw University, arch-rival of Wabash, has found it necessary to ban napster. But then again, their most famous alumnus is Dan Quayle, enough said.
Brad Elmore, Wabash '87
I like the idea of puzzles (or has been suggested by many, a puzzle section). I'd just like to add in a plug for my favorite classic game, backgammon. The fun thing about backgammon problems is that there often is no one right answer, and hearing other people propose different solutions and justify them often makes me think about my own answer more.
While you're standardizing flags, I'd propose that -n be standardized like make does it: don't actually do anything but instead tell me what you'd do. Granted this would be meaningless for information-only utilities that don't actually change things, but it would be nice to have on all other utilities. That way you could run your find | rm -rfn and find out what all actually would be removed before rerunning sans -n, for example.
If someone really knew how to do this, they would do it. Since this hasn't been done it's but an un-tested theory and doesn't amount to jack. I say take down the Internet if you can, lets re-build it right!
Let's translate this into a real world analogy, and the absurdity will be evident.
Some group says "This bridge that is the main route into or out of this large city is hazardous; all it would take is a large truck to ram the right spot on it and the whole thing would collapse."
''If someone really knew how to do this, they would do it''
Wrong. Not all people who investigate security holes are malicious. In fact, probably very few are, which is why we don't have more break-ins and such than we already have.
''Since this hasn't been done it's but an un-tested theory and doesn't amount to jack. I say take down the Internet if you can, lets re-build it right!''
So you're going to blow up a perfectly usable bridge, causing another to be built at great expense, just because you can? I suppose you're going to volunteer your time to help re-build what you so carelessly destroyed? No? You don't know how to build bridges? Maybe you shouldn't be so eager to tear them down, then.
Safety groups in the real world are all the time pointing out how dangerous products are. Why is it when a group does the same about computer security, they get roundly flamed no matter what they say or how they say it?
Think about it: there are lots fewer people out there that know about routing protocols than know about, say, Unix. How would even your average slashdot reader know what their vulnerabilities are, much less the general public? It's easy to make fun of what you don't understand; most of us should understand that from experience. Given the track record of these guys, I tend to believe them when they say that something like this can be done. I just hope that the people responsible for the various pieces of the backbone listen and fix holes.
For those of you who want to complain to Fox but don't want to touch anything Microsoft (and there's no Mac around), here are all the email addresses I could find listed on their web page. None of these seem to be directly related to the web site, unfortunately. No offense intended to anyone not in the 18-49 age group, and I know that large numbers of Linux/BSD/etc users are not, but it might be interesting to point out to them how their web site policy is locking out many people in the 18-49 age demographic (the very demographic that Fox claims to target) who might be the most likely to use computer/OS combinations other than Microsoft or Mac. Just an idle thought.
Anyways, here are some email addresses. Most of them are pretty plain from them as to who they're directed towards.
foxmovies@fox.com
foxkids@foxinc.com
sportscomments@newscorp.com
comments@foxnews.com
TTVInt3@foxinc.com -- Fox Latin America and Fox International
feedback@amw.com -- America's Most Wanted
Also:
'Privacy policy' address: askfox@foxinc.com
Publicity Department: publicity@foxinc.com
Jobs: resumes@fox.com