Available for Maya 6 on the Windows® 2000/XP Professional and Mac® OS X operating systems.
When last I contacted them they refused to believe you might want to learn their product on Linux and thus if you want Maya on Linux be prepared to shell out the $$...
Uhmm... you do understand that Mozilla and other E-mail client do actually have read receipts and that this isn't a "MS" standard?
The only difference in clients abilities with regards to read receipts is how they present you the uninformed user the dialog box saying "Sender has requested you inform them that you have read this message".
Uh you did know that the seperate add to apache and build mod_ssl is only for 1.3.X variants right? The same functionality is found included with Apache 2.0 see Apache 2.0 Docs
Yeah your comparisons link is seriously outdated (cicra 2001) and only compares mta descriptions. It is neither indepth nor does it touch on the features that existed at the time. With statements like "Add to this sendmail's renowned inefficiency" or "Postfix is quite flexible in its configuration file, but not to the extent of Exim" this document can't be anything more then a abstract draft written up for basic filler in attempt to sell a book idea to publishers.
rsync is a program that behaves in much the same way that rcp does, but has many more options and uses the rsync remote-update protocol to greatly speed up file transfers when the destination file already exists.
Excerpted from the rsh man file:
rsh, remsh, remote_shell - remote shell
rsh connects to the specified hostname and executes the specified command. rsh copies its standard input to the remote command, the standard output of the remote command to its standard output, and the standard error of the remote command to its standard error. Interrupt, quit, and terminate signals are propagated to the remote command; rsh normally terminates when the remote command does.
That said you clearly don't understand what place rsync has within gentoo so your idle speculation is pretty pointless.
Arbitrary restrictions on burning a playlist (10 burns, then you have to mess with it to burn more) seems a bit silly.
Good God, look we are never going to get what we want completely. If you think you are, your either pirating music now or will be later. Does iTunes give me everything I want? No, but then again name one for pay music service (on the web) that allows you to buy the song once and burn it with the same track list to 10 cd's? Heck so I have to munge the track list a little, be honest if your burning more than ten cd's your either selling them to friends or you should be.
So you get a little lossy on the cd, big deal, while we consumers do have the power we have to understand that we also have to compromise. I'd rather compromise on having to deal with AAC then be stuck waiting for Microsoft to decide that in order to play my WMA tracks I have to register that I own the cd when I rip them from the original cd.
To quote the itunes website:
You can burn songs onto an unlimited number of CDs for your personal use, listen to songs on an unlimited number of iPods and play songs on up to three Macintosh computers or Windows PCs.
Yeah having restrictions suck, but on the whole iTunes suck much less then Napster 2.0 or anything else I've seen so far. Its definitely much more open with what you can do with your "purchased" music and for me thats all that matters. Regardless of OS or manufacturer.
To date, I've gotten ZERO soBig or other new and currently hot virus's/trojans. On the otherhand I have gotten no less than 8 bogus bounce messages (averaging 50 percent aol related) every 30-40 minutes.
I don't know whats worse the actual messages that we are getting or having to explain to scared, confused, or otherwise ignorant users why they keep getting messages regarding e-mails they never sent. I really wonder...
Which consumes more time, cleaning a infected users computer? Or explaining to a user (so that they understand) why they continue to get this "new" spam?
I've used all the major distros at one point or another, my last distro for my linux server was debian. My Server is a BP6 400 megahertz system with 256 MB ram.
I decided to try switching to linux on all my system which ran windows (mainly cause I wanted to play games) in late september, this a direct result of MS's heavy handed XP SP1 debacle. A friend had mentioned gentoo and I switched to it.
Gentoo didn't take more than a day to install, installing KDE/Gnome took longer when I wanted to do it but since I use enlightenment that was a much later day/time.
I enjoy compiling my own software and while optimization was cool, that is not the reason I use it. On by BP6 it took less than 24 hours to install, going from a clean install to fulling functioning web/mail, etc server took an additional 30 minutes.
I'll not argue that I spent a day installing something that other distro's could have done in minutes, my statement is while it took "forever" to install. Admining this server has been a piece of cake.
For example, the previous openssl vulnerablities. I had to download 5 redhat packages to "fix" my distro, these packages were entitled "openssl-0.9.6b-36" or something similar. Now on that same system when I do a "openssl version" check I get 0.9.6b, it takes a couple more steps for me to easily figure out if I've patched the system or not. Using tools which aren't always intutitive and certaintly aren't part of the openssl software itself.
In gentoo, you aren't backporting fixes to old software your using the software that is the most uptodate and recommended by the developers. If the openssl group just released a patch then all I have to do is read the gentoo forums and look for the security announcement (or bugtraq which I do anyways). This announcement interestingly says "to update your software, do: emerge sync, emerge openssl). Plus, I also know that everything that was linked to the previous OpenSSL version is now linked to the new OpenSSL version as well. Yes Gentoo does have its own "versions" ie "openssl-0.9.6i-r2" but all I have to do is look at the changelog to see why its at "-r2" and not "openssl-0.9.6i".
Hell, the really scary thing was when those security vulnerability's hit patching solaris boxes was a pain but since gentoo already had the patches available and they were not specific to the distro. All you had to do was copy the relevant patches, to your solaris system and then patch. BINGO I've suddenly used Gentoo as a tool to make my administration duties on a totally different arch/os easier.
Gentoo may not have all the features you want, it doesn't have a nice easy to use installer, heck it may take forever to install but for me it has not only the potential for a very interesting future both on the desktop sector and the server sector. The philosophy of Gentoo users and the community itself has made it my OS of choice with desktops or servers.
Course this is all IMHO, but when I can spend more time developing services for my users and less time on patching my job becomes easier. It also gives me more time to have fun. Ladies and gentlemen, patching servers just ain't fun and I don't want to be a patch monkey all my life.
While some people and companies can, are willing and do throw their weight around by blocking net offenders. Very often those people/organizations are in the extreme minority. That form of blocking is also very much the last resort tactic hurting both the person being blocked and the blocker equally.
Truthfully while blocking @hotmail and @yahoo and @aol has a certain appeal as a admin of a site. If we were to do that, I can't think of any user which would not be irate with us rather than their own ISP. Regardless of how explaintory we were, today's joe average user (and almost every user who's not joe average) doesn't care how they get it, they want their e-mail and all hell breaks loose if they don't get it.
Secondly when your a site that does business with customers, mention of today's economy assumed, you just can't say "screw this set of customers they use XYZ, since XYZ doesn't play nice we won't do business with you."
So how can we, "punish the wicked" but "spare the innocent?"
Until there is a universal or at the very least "good" way of getting small and large internet users to understand why they aren't just a island unto themselves the internet will continue to have problems like this.
I don't blame AOL for what they are doing, at our site we've seen an uptic in spam of more than 100 percent in the last 8 months and at least 20 percent just this month alone. What AOL will ultimately have to discover though, is that in the end their goal is not acheivable, since spammers don't care and have never cared that a recipient does or does not get their e-mail. For that reason I'd rather see them and others work together to develope a solution which we all can support.
Commentor says: "Apparantly the flow only affects webmail and not banking or credit card payments and took less than an hour (160 attempts) to crack."
The actual linked article says: "TLS/SSL are used in other secure Internet applications such as e-banking and e-commerce meaning that an attacker could potentially intercept banking transactions, credit card numbers, etc."
Nobody should dismiss a vulnerability just because the exploit was used againest something that "doesnt'" matter. SSL use with IMAP, POP, FTP or any other protocol all relates to each other. Thus a vulnerability in one can lead to more understanding and discovery of more vulnerabilities.
Read through the article and quite frankly this was a sad attempt which should never have gotten beyound the editor stage. First off, since when did IMAP-DEVEL become a required library? Since when did half those libraries become required?
I guess what ticks me off most is what is not mentioned. How many times does the PHP list have to explain to people that Apache2 DOES NOT work well with PHP. This is a a topic the php support/users lists rehash constantly.
While some users have been successful in migrating to PHP and Apache2 it is not an easy process by far. One clear issue is that the more 3rd party libraries you include the greater the chances of failure between PHP and Apache2 due to threadsafe issues in 3rd party libraries within PHP. PHP has made clear that this incompatibility is likely to be a long time in the fixing as every library used with PHP needs to be threadsafe. Given that the article asks users to install lots of 3rd party libraries I can't wait to see the list of problems this article creates.
Slashdot Mirror
Available for Maya 6 on the Windows® 2000/XP Professional and Mac® OS X operating systems.
When last I contacted them they refused to believe you might want to learn their product on Linux and thus if you want Maya on Linux be prepared to shell out the $$...
Looks like SOE or someone deleted that board post as well. Interesting tactic.....
Uhmm... you do understand that Mozilla and other E-mail client do actually have read receipts and that this isn't a "MS" standard?
The only difference in clients abilities with regards to read receipts is how they present you the uninformed user the dialog box saying "Sender has requested you inform them that you have read this message".
Uh you did know that the seperate add to apache and build mod_ssl is only for 1.3.X variants right? The same functionality is found included with Apache 2.0 see Apache 2.0 Docs
Yeah your comparisons link is seriously outdated (cicra 2001) and only compares mta descriptions. It is neither indepth nor does it touch on the features that existed at the time. With statements like "Add to this sendmail's renowned inefficiency" or "Postfix is quite flexible in its configuration file, but not to the extent of Exim" this document can't be anything more then a abstract draft written up for basic filler in attempt to sell a book idea to publishers.
This wouldn't have been a good comparison at the time it was written let alone now. Next time try googling a little harder perhaps you would have found this link: http://www.geocities.com/mailsoftware42/ or heck google it for yourself here http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF -8&q=MTA+comparison&btnG=Google+Search
RSH != Rsync
Exerpted from the rsync man file:
rsync - faster, flexible replacement for rcp
rsync is a program that behaves in much the same way that rcp does, but has many more options and uses the rsync remote-update protocol to greatly speed up file transfers when the destination file already exists.
Excerpted from the rsh man file:
rsh, remsh, remote_shell - remote shell
rsh connects to the specified hostname and executes the specified command. rsh copies its standard input to the remote command, the standard output of the remote command to its standard output, and the standard error of the remote command to its standard error. Interrupt, quit, and terminate signals are propagated to the remote command; rsh normally terminates when the remote command does.
That said you clearly don't understand what place rsync has within gentoo so your idle speculation is pretty pointless.
Arbitrary restrictions on burning a playlist (10 burns, then you have to mess with it to burn more) seems a bit silly.
Good God, look we are never going to get what we want completely. If you think you are, your either pirating music now or will be later. Does iTunes give me everything I want? No, but then again name one for pay music service (on the web) that allows you to buy the song once and burn it with the same track list to 10 cd's? Heck so I have to munge the track list a little, be honest if your burning more than ten cd's your either selling them to friends or you should be.
So you get a little lossy on the cd, big deal, while we consumers do have the power we have to understand that we also have to compromise. I'd rather compromise on having to deal with AAC then be stuck waiting for Microsoft to decide that in order to play my WMA tracks I have to register that I own the cd when I rip them from the original cd.
To quote the itunes website:
You can burn songs onto an unlimited number of CDs for your personal use, listen to songs on an unlimited number of iPods and play songs on up to three Macintosh computers or Windows PCs.
Yeah having restrictions suck, but on the whole iTunes suck much less then Napster 2.0 or anything else I've seen so far. Its definitely much more open with what you can do with your "purchased" music and for me thats all that matters. Regardless of OS or manufacturer.
To date, I've gotten ZERO soBig or other new and currently hot virus's/trojans. On the otherhand I have gotten no less than 8 bogus bounce messages (averaging 50 percent aol related) every 30-40 minutes.
I don't know whats worse the actual messages that we are getting or having to explain to scared, confused, or otherwise ignorant users why they keep getting messages regarding e-mails they never sent. I really wonder...
Which consumes more time, cleaning a infected users computer? Or explaining to a user (so that they understand) why they continue to get this "new" spam?
I've used all the major distros at one point or another, my last distro for my linux server was debian. My Server is a BP6 400 megahertz system with 256 MB ram.
I decided to try switching to linux on all my system which ran windows (mainly cause I wanted to play games) in late september, this a direct result of MS's heavy handed XP SP1 debacle. A friend had mentioned gentoo and I switched to it.
Gentoo didn't take more than a day to install, installing KDE/Gnome took longer when I wanted to do it but since I use enlightenment that was a much later day/time.
I enjoy compiling my own software and while optimization was cool, that is not the reason I use it. On by BP6 it took less than 24 hours to install, going from a clean install to fulling functioning web/mail, etc server took an additional 30 minutes.
I'll not argue that I spent a day installing something that other distro's could have done in minutes, my statement is while it took "forever" to install. Admining this server has been a piece of cake.
For example, the previous openssl vulnerablities. I had to download 5 redhat packages to "fix" my distro, these packages were entitled "openssl-0.9.6b-36" or something similar. Now on that same system when I do a "openssl version" check I get 0.9.6b, it takes a couple more steps for me to easily figure out if I've patched the system or not. Using tools which aren't always intutitive and certaintly aren't part of the openssl software itself.
In gentoo, you aren't backporting fixes to old software your using the software that is the most uptodate and recommended by the developers. If the openssl group just released a patch then all I have to do is read the gentoo forums and look for the security announcement (or bugtraq which I do anyways). This announcement interestingly says "to update your software, do: emerge sync, emerge openssl). Plus, I also know that everything that was linked to the previous OpenSSL version is now linked to the new OpenSSL version as well. Yes Gentoo does have its own "versions" ie "openssl-0.9.6i-r2" but all I have to do is look at the changelog to see why its at "-r2" and not "openssl-0.9.6i".
Hell, the really scary thing was when those security vulnerability's hit patching solaris boxes was a pain but since gentoo already had the patches available and they were not specific to the distro. All you had to do was copy the relevant patches, to your solaris system and then patch. BINGO I've suddenly used Gentoo as a tool to make my administration duties on a totally different arch/os easier.
Gentoo may not have all the features you want, it doesn't have a nice easy to use installer, heck it may take forever to install but for me it has not only the potential for a very interesting future both on the desktop sector and the server sector. The philosophy of Gentoo users and the community itself has made it my OS of choice with desktops or servers.
Course this is all IMHO, but when I can spend more time developing services for my users and less time on patching my job becomes easier. It also gives me more time to have fun. Ladies and gentlemen, patching servers just ain't fun and I don't want to be a patch monkey all my life.
While some people and companies can, are willing and do throw their weight around by blocking net offenders. Very often those people/organizations are in the extreme minority. That form of blocking is also very much the last resort tactic hurting both the person being blocked and the blocker equally.
Truthfully while blocking @hotmail and @yahoo and @aol has a certain appeal as a admin of a site. If we were to do that, I can't think of any user which would not be irate with us rather than their own ISP. Regardless of how explaintory we were, today's joe average user (and almost every user who's not joe average) doesn't care how they get it, they want their e-mail and all hell breaks loose if they don't get it.
Secondly when your a site that does business with customers, mention of today's economy assumed, you just can't say "screw this set of customers they use XYZ, since XYZ doesn't play nice we won't do business with you."
So how can we, "punish the wicked" but "spare the innocent?"
Until there is a universal or at the very least "good" way of getting small and large internet users to understand why they aren't just a island unto themselves the internet will continue to have problems like this.
I don't blame AOL for what they are doing, at our site we've seen an uptic in spam of more than 100 percent in the last 8 months and at least 20 percent just this month alone. What AOL will ultimately have to discover though, is that in the end their goal is not acheivable, since spammers don't care and have never cared that a recipient does or does not get their e-mail. For that reason I'd rather see them and others work together to develope a solution which we all can support.
Commentor says: "Apparantly the flow only affects webmail and not banking or credit card payments and took less than an hour (160 attempts) to crack."
The actual linked article says: "TLS/SSL are used in other secure Internet applications such as e-banking and e-commerce meaning that an attacker could potentially intercept banking transactions, credit card numbers, etc."
Nobody should dismiss a vulnerability just because the exploit was used againest something that "doesnt'" matter. SSL use with IMAP, POP, FTP or any other protocol all relates to each other. Thus a vulnerability in one can lead to more understanding and discovery of more vulnerabilities.
Read through the article and quite frankly this was a sad attempt which should never have gotten beyound the editor stage. First off, since when did IMAP-DEVEL become a required library? Since when did half those libraries become required?
I guess what ticks me off most is what is not mentioned. How many times does the PHP list have to explain to people that Apache2 DOES NOT work well with PHP. This is a a topic the php support/users lists rehash constantly.
While some users have been successful in migrating to PHP and Apache2 it is not an easy process by far. One clear issue is that the more 3rd party libraries you include the greater the chances of failure between PHP and Apache2 due to threadsafe issues in 3rd party libraries within PHP. PHP has made clear that this incompatibility is likely to be a long time in the fixing as every library used with PHP needs to be threadsafe. Given that the article asks users to install lots of 3rd party libraries I can't wait to see the list of problems this article creates.