and instead insist that every email connection comes from a listed MX
Huh? This has nothing to do with spam. A MX record has NOTHING to do with sending mail, it has to do with recieving it for a domain. It is frankly, STUPID to have the MX for a domain also be the relay in large organizations.
the thousands of folks, trying to study for their MCSE, who are not running a website, yet put NT server / IIS on their broadband connection or company network.
Do some research. the US excercises its veto on the security council more than anyone else. Aside from the tail end of Stalin's rule, the Soviet Union used their with far less frequency than the US.
The last thirty years are really telling, what with the US using their veto 64 times, the Soviets used their 8 times.
that houses are built like crap nowadays (planned obsolesence and all that).
Here in New Orleans we have thousands of home that and over a hundred years old and many of those are over two hundred.
One of the main things here is protecting yourselves from flooding. Old builders built the houses 4 or 5' off the ground - problem solved. New builders expect you to buy flood insurance. I have to laugh at all the surburbanites here whose 10 year old houses are sinking because they were built on slabs (the grounds' too soft) or who are wiped out by floods.
They built the houses off the ground here for a reason, ya know.
the problem is not "myopic democratic idealism". The problem is huge corporations which have made it all but impossible to do business on anything but a gargantuan scale, then having them export all the work overseas. The small businessman is an anachronism. I don't want to work for a corporation; I'd like to work for myself or with a small coop of like minded people. In the current environment, that is nearly impossible, in almost any industry.
I don't see a point to this article at all. Leaving my email client open lets people decide when they want to talk to me? Huh?
Turn your email client off? Are you kidding? Doesn't this guy realize that not all of us can use mutt or kmail or whatever at work, we're forced to use Outlook, which takes eons to startup, and even longer - oddly enough - to shut off (a feat only MS programmers could accomplish I think).
Nothing, I mean nothing breaks one's concentration like a fucking constantly ringing telephone, and having to log into voice mail and constantly check the messages that were left while you were talking on the phone. Or what about when you're trying to talk to someone about something important, but they're on the goddamn phone yapping and won't get off, because it lets them feel superior to you to make you wait to talk, and the phone is always more important than a face to face conversation. Telephones are the problem, I would gladly work without them at all.
Well I would have to disagree. Let's peel the onion back one layer - why on earth would anyone have to change the default filesystem permissions?
The reason is that windows has no concept, and never did, of paritioning user data from system data. In any unix, the filesystem is sensibly laid out such that removing write access to huge swathes of it do absolutely nothing to hinder it's usability. Not so in windows, everything's mixed together in one big steaming mess. Instead of simple read access, we have confusing messages from explorer telling users "OH MY GOD! You shouldn't look at the files in this directory, it can cause obesity, nausea, jet-like diarrhea and insanity - but click here if you really really want to see them..." or some other such nonsense. W2K isn't much better, but at least it's less obnoxious.
Secondly - and this is mroe of a cultural issue which flows naturally from the above situation - this isn't even realistic. I used to do this, locking users out of c:\ and \system32\ etc., but I would find that we had all these boneheaded programs we had to run which needed to write to various parts of the filesystem for no apparent reason other than ignorance. This problem is so rife with windows developers that locking users out of peices of the filesystem is almost useless, because you wind up not being able to do it anyway.
If only AOL expanded their instant messenger service. Sure you can type and they can type back, but what if you could actually hear the person you were chatting with? Maybe this could even be done in "Real Time." We could come up with a device so you could walk around the room and talk at the same time without tricky networking setup. We could take everyone's name and give it a number and put them in a big book so that if you wanted to chat with someone and didn't know their number you could look it up. It would even have their address!
Think of the possibilities!
DNS has nothing to do with the OS, there are many DNS implementations available on linux (BIND, djbdns, etc.). So compare MS-DNS to BIND, but not linux, please. All the things you mention can be configured to authenticate vs LDAP, but I agree it isn't easy. as for me, BIND is an awesome reference implementation and is more standards compliant than MS-DNS.
The media is anti-war? What planet are you living on? The media would not even cover the enormous anti war movement until it got so huge they couldn't ignore it.
If the war isn't about oil, then what is it about, hot shot? Saddam Hussein as a modern day Hitler? This argument is absolutely odious. That stuff about France having oil interests in Iraq, duh, only supports the idea that the whole thing is about oil. Major american oil companies were already carving up Iraq as of last summer. So it makes sense that France and Russia think they will lose considerable investment if the US invades, because, bingo! We're GONNA TAKE ALL THE OIL and destroy their investments, which are considerable.
So much for the "kick they ass and take they gas" crowd.
When I was a small business systems consultant I frequently encountered a problem with SMTP. The DSL lines for a certain baby bell would not pass outgoing email if the "from:" field did not contain the approved domain.
"DSL lines" don't "pass mail"
Why shouldn't the From: field contain the approved domain? It's an anti spam measure. Spammers forge mail headers. If you don't like it, run your own mail server.
I likened it to the post office refusing to deliver mail that was placed in a box with a return address not on the block where the box resides.
It isn't anything like that. Though I agree it's a pain in the ass.
If these companies can lock down these networks, then average users (those not interested/willing to manipulate email fields) are going to be "forced" to use the email domain of the provider as a return address.
Run your own MTA.
This is anti-competitive, un-American and anti-capitalist.
Not at all. Monopolies are very much in line with capitalism. You're confused. Not that it even matters. I wonder if "small business systems consultants" in Denmark are complaining that their ISP's are "un-danish". Sounds pretty damn stupid, doesn't it?
are you nuts? "just slap in some voice and you're done", huh?
Let's see, what about hiring an entire voice support infrastructure? These companies are geared to support data customers. Most of them don't know shit about voice, and taking that on is a major, major undertaking. Look how horrible the voice or cable oriented ISP's are at data services. Some of them are OK, but it's nothing like the old days.
Like Steve Jobs said in the future cities will be designed around these.
Spoken like a true monopolist, blithely ignoring the reality of massive changes to societal infrastructure... look at Jobs' track record for dumb statements like this.
It depends. At work I am forced to use Outlook 2000, and if there is a way to disable HTML mail, I can't find it anywhere, but then the administrators may have removed that option.
Some spams are purely for confirmation that your email address works. I repeatedly see spams which have 1x1 pixel gif's that link to a script to call the image and pass your email address off to that script. Biggest reason not to use HTML mail.
No linux vendor does anything like this; it's absolute insanity, and it's half the problem with MS admins (not) patching their software - they know better.
For years I was forced to run an IIS server which was outdated, unpatched, and very vulnerable. I couldn't update it because the service packs would break the software running on it - and the reason was that the service packs, while they fixed the vulnerabilities, also introduced all sorts of new features I did not need or want. So I was reduced to keeping a very watchful eye on it.
The entire infrastructure of Microsoft software distribution method is simply broken, and stupid.
As I said, there are no villains here. SBC probably came across this patent and realized that it could be the basis of an Internet tax, that the company had a good chance of getting license revenues from millions of web site owners and it is hard to blame them for that.
What? Not hard to blame them for patenting some twiddling thing and then charging other people for those people's creations? They're fucking assholes. What's sad and absurd is that it never occurs to anyone just how sleazy, reprehensible and disgusting practices like this are.
As I said, there are no villains here. SBC probably came across this patent and realized that it could be the basis of an Internet tax, that the company had a good chance of getting license revenues from millions of web site owners and it is hard to blame them for that.
What? Not hard to blame them for patenting some twiddling thing and then charging other people for those people's creations? They're fucking assholes. What's sad and absurd is that it never occurs to anyone just how sleazy, reprehensible and disgusting practices like this are.
Are you sure you want to DROP those packets, or do you want to send icmp-port-unreachable? Which will cause less traffic in the long run?
Of course the port unreachable adds traffic to this mess, but if the worm stops attacking you once it recieves that (and in my logs I've noticed I only have one attempt per host for this attack... I send port unreachable by default.) I thinking just discarding the packet may cause it to continually attack you...
Slashdot Mirror
Huh? This has nothing to do with spam. A MX record has NOTHING to do with sending mail, it has to do with recieving it for a domain. It is frankly, STUPID to have the MX for a domain also be the relay in large organizations.
the thousands of folks, trying to study for their MCSE, who are not running a website, yet put NT server / IIS on their broadband connection or company network.
Do some research. the US excercises its veto on the security council more than anyone else. Aside from the tail end of Stalin's rule, the Soviet Union used their with far less frequency than the US.
The last thirty years are really telling, what with the US using their veto 64 times, the Soviets used their 8 times.
Link here.
Wonder why both these initiative are coming from Texas? Hmmm ....
that houses are built like crap nowadays (planned obsolesence and all that).
Here in New Orleans we have thousands of home that and over a hundred years old and many of those are over two hundred.
One of the main things here is protecting yourselves from flooding. Old builders built the houses 4 or 5' off the ground - problem solved. New builders expect you to buy flood insurance. I have to laugh at all the surburbanites here whose 10 year old houses are sinking because they were built on slabs (the grounds' too soft) or who are wiped out by floods.
They built the houses off the ground here for a reason, ya know.
the problem is not "myopic democratic idealism". The problem is huge corporations which have made it all but impossible to do business on anything but a gargantuan scale, then having them export all the work overseas. The small businessman is an anachronism. I don't want to work for a corporation; I'd like to work for myself or with a small coop of like minded people. In the current environment, that is nearly impossible, in almost any industry.
I don't see a point to this article at all. Leaving my email client open lets people decide when they want to talk to me? Huh?
Turn your email client off? Are you kidding? Doesn't this guy realize that not all of us can use mutt or kmail or whatever at work, we're forced to use Outlook, which takes eons to startup, and even longer - oddly enough - to shut off (a feat only MS programmers could accomplish I think).
Nothing, I mean nothing breaks one's concentration like a fucking constantly ringing telephone, and having to log into voice mail and constantly check the messages that were left while you were talking on the phone. Or what about when you're trying to talk to someone about something important, but they're on the goddamn phone yapping and won't get off, because it lets them feel superior to you to make you wait to talk, and the phone is always more important than a face to face conversation. Telephones are the problem, I would gladly work without them at all.
Well I would have to disagree. Let's peel the onion back one layer - why on earth would anyone have to change the default filesystem permissions?
The reason is that windows has no concept, and never did, of paritioning user data from system data. In any unix, the filesystem is sensibly laid out such that removing write access to huge swathes of it do absolutely nothing to hinder it's usability. Not so in windows, everything's mixed together in one big steaming mess. Instead of simple read access, we have confusing messages from explorer telling users "OH MY GOD! You shouldn't look at the files in this directory, it can cause obesity, nausea, jet-like diarrhea and insanity - but click here if you really really want to see them ..." or some other such nonsense. W2K isn't much better, but at least it's less obnoxious.
Secondly - and this is mroe of a cultural issue which flows naturally from the above situation - this isn't even realistic. I used to do this, locking users out of c:\ and \system32\ etc., but I would find that we had all these boneheaded programs we had to run which needed to write to various parts of the filesystem for no apparent reason other than ignorance. This problem is so rife with windows developers that locking users out of peices of the filesystem is almost useless, because you wind up not being able to do it anyway.
Yeah! It would almost be like ... a telephone!
DNS has nothing to do with the OS, there are many DNS implementations available on linux (BIND, djbdns, etc.). So compare MS-DNS to BIND, but not linux, please. All the things you mention can be configured to authenticate vs LDAP, but I agree it isn't easy. as for me, BIND is an awesome reference implementation and is more standards compliant than MS-DNS.
As for printing, look into CUPS, LPR is ancient.
If the war isn't about oil, then what is it about, hot shot? Saddam Hussein as a modern day Hitler? This argument is absolutely odious. That stuff about France having oil interests in Iraq, duh, only supports the idea that the whole thing is about oil. Major american oil companies were already carving up Iraq as of last summer. So it makes sense that France and Russia think they will lose considerable investment if the US invades, because, bingo! We're GONNA TAKE ALL THE OIL and destroy their investments, which are considerable. So much for the "kick they ass and take they gas" crowd.
The intentions aren't honest, and it is a horrible idea. To see this concept implemented properly, see debian's apt-get tool.
lol. Ever wonder why you find yourself saying this to yourself every year?
The same is not true of KDE. There are themes that make is plain and elegant, and themes that are full of eye candy. It's whatever you want.
You are describing a problem endemic to windows devolpers more than anything having to do ith UI's in general. Skins are a good idea.
"DSL lines" don't "pass mail"
Why shouldn't the From: field contain the approved domain? It's an anti spam measure. Spammers forge mail headers. If you don't like it, run your own mail server.
I likened it to the post office refusing to deliver mail that was placed in a box with a return address not on the block where the box resides.
It isn't anything like that. Though I agree it's a pain in the ass.
If these companies can lock down these networks, then average users (those not interested/willing to manipulate email fields) are going to be "forced" to use the email domain of the provider as a return address.
Run your own MTA.
This is anti-competitive, un-American and anti-capitalist.
Not at all. Monopolies are very much in line with capitalism. You're confused. Not that it even matters. I wonder if "small business systems consultants" in Denmark are complaining that their ISP's are "un-danish". Sounds pretty damn stupid, doesn't it?
are you nuts? "just slap in some voice and you're done", huh?
Let's see, what about hiring an entire voice support infrastructure? These companies are geared to support data customers. Most of them don't know shit about voice, and taking that on is a major, major undertaking. Look how horrible the voice or cable oriented ISP's are at data services. Some of them are OK, but it's nothing like the old days.
Spoken like a true monopolist, blithely ignoring the reality of massive changes to societal infrastructure ... look at Jobs' track record for dumb statements like this.
How about the stupid name, and the gaffe of using the acronym "SHT"?
Dude, have you ever done shrooms? Obviously not. :-)
It depends. At work I am forced to use Outlook 2000, and if there is a way to disable HTML mail, I can't find it anywhere, but then the administrators may have removed that option.
Some spams are purely for confirmation that your email address works. I repeatedly see spams which have 1x1 pixel gif's that link to a script to call the image and pass your email address off to that script. Biggest reason not to use HTML mail.
No linux vendor does anything like this; it's absolute insanity, and it's half the problem with MS admins (not) patching their software - they know better.
For years I was forced to run an IIS server which was outdated, unpatched, and very vulnerable. I couldn't update it because the service packs would break the software running on it - and the reason was that the service packs, while they fixed the vulnerabilities, also introduced all sorts of new features I did not need or want. So I was reduced to keeping a very watchful eye on it.
The entire infrastructure of Microsoft software distribution method is simply broken, and stupid.
What? Not hard to blame them for patenting some twiddling thing and then charging other people for those people's creations? They're fucking assholes. What's sad and absurd is that it never occurs to anyone just how sleazy, reprehensible and disgusting practices like this are.
We don't need prior art. We need firebombs.
What? Not hard to blame them for patenting some twiddling thing and then charging other people for those people's creations? They're fucking assholes. What's sad and absurd is that it never occurs to anyone just how sleazy, reprehensible and disgusting practices like this are.
We don't need prior art. We need firebombs.
Are you sure you want to DROP those packets, or do you want to send icmp-port-unreachable? Which will cause less traffic in the long run?
... I send port unreachable by default.) I thinking just discarding the packet may cause it to continually attack you ...
Of course the port unreachable adds traffic to this mess, but if the worm stops attacking you once it recieves that (and in my logs I've noticed I only have one attempt per host for this attack