Nope. Routing over one network to get to another is called *transit*. Cogent refused to pay for transit to get to L3. So they still had plenty of peering arangements with other networks, but none of those peering arangements allowed Cogent to reach L3. (And the same could be said in reverse.)
PHP used to be called an ASF project. But that was back when being an ASF project didn't really have any formal meaning. When the ASF started to put more structure on its oversight process in order to assure that it could protect its code and committers, it was decided that the PHP project didn't want ASF oversight, and there was an amicable separation.
If you want more complete information about apache security issues, a better source is http://www.apacheweek.com/features/security-20 and http://www.apacheweek.com/features/security -13
No. The Apache License revokes only your patent rights. Since the GPL doesn't give you any patent rights in the first place, the Apache License does not impose further restrictions.
It's just that the front page is in pure xhtml because it has completely different requirements than the rest of the docs. Rather than hack up a one-time format and transformation I just did a five-minute xhtml hack.
The only way to tell that is to checkout the docs tree and note that there isn't an index.xml correspoding to the index.html.en.
There are also times when, to portray a more professional look, you don't WANT mail being routed through your ISP, rather you want mail being routed through your own server.
That doesn't even come close to qualifying as a legitimate reason for not having port 25 blocking because 1) All decent SMTP servers are going to mark your mail with the dialup ip address anyway; and 2) Anyone who looks into mail headers would certainly be knowledgable enough to realize the necessity of having ISPs involved in mail transmission.
Saying that the only people who use mail servers other than their own ISPs are spammers is simply wrong and asking for a "legitimate" reason does not negate the fact that I'm paying for unrestricted access. That is reason enough in my opinion.
I never said that only spammers use other mail servers. I said there is no reason why people other than spammers need to use other mail servers.
If the ISP calls their access unrestriced, then does port 25 blocking without telling anyone, then yes, they have an ethics problem with their advertising. However, I don't see any technical problem with their service.
I have yet to see one person give a legitmate explanation of how port 25 blocking prevents them from doing anything other than spamming.
By the nature of SMTP, it makes no difference which server you relay through. It certainly does not prevent you from picking up mail from other accounts (via POP, IMAP, or whatever), and it does not prevent you from setting whatever "From:" address you want.
If you are concerned about security, you shouldn't be using plain SMTP anyway. You should be setting up a VPN or some other encrypted tunnel which certainly wouldn't be on port 25.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. Routing over one network to get to another is called *transit*. Cogent refused to pay for transit to get to L3. So they still had plenty of peering arangements with other networks, but none of those peering arangements allowed Cogent to reach L3. (And the same could be said in reverse.)
PHP used to be called an ASF project. But that was back when being an ASF project didn't really have any formal meaning. When the ASF started to put more structure on its oversight process in order to assure that it could protect its code and committers, it was decided that the PHP project didn't want ASF oversight, and there was an amicable separation.
Well, since Apache is distributed as part of OSX, it is their problem to make sure OSX gets the fix.
But the problem that they allude to in Apache is really trivial and not dangerous at all in the vast majority of cases.
If the other problems are of similar severity, then Apple is entirely correct to down-play them.
These are both rather old.
0 y -13
If you want more complete information about
apache security issues, a better source is
http://www.apacheweek.com/features/security-2
and
http://www.apacheweek.com/features/securit
No. The Apache License revokes only your patent rights. Since the GPL doesn't give you any patent rights in the first place, the Apache License does not impose further restrictions.
It's just that the front page is in pure xhtml because it has completely different requirements than the rest of the docs. Rather than hack up a one-time format and transformation I just did a five-minute xhtml hack.
The only way to tell that is to checkout the docs tree and note that there isn't an index.xml correspoding to the index.html.en.
He probably only tried the main page, which
is quick hack and doesn't validate as xhtml
for a couple little reasons.
The vast majority of the xml generated pages
do validate as correct.
Wrong. Apache uses APR, not NSPR:
http://apr.apache.org/
If dressing in a "deliberately confrontational manner" or pissing off a cop is grounds for arrest, then something has gone seriously wrong.
There are also times when, to portray a more professional look, you don't WANT mail being routed through your ISP, rather you want mail being routed through your own server.
That doesn't even come close to qualifying as a legitimate reason for not having port 25 blocking because 1) All decent SMTP servers are going to mark your mail with the dialup ip address anyway; and 2) Anyone who looks into mail headers would certainly be knowledgable enough to realize the necessity of having ISPs involved in mail transmission.
Saying that the only people who use mail servers other than their own ISPs are spammers is simply wrong and asking for a "legitimate" reason does not negate the fact that I'm paying for unrestricted access. That is reason enough in my opinion.
I never said that only spammers use other mail servers. I said there is no reason why people other than spammers need to use other mail servers.
If the ISP calls their access unrestriced, then does port 25 blocking without telling anyone, then yes, they have an ethics problem with their advertising. However, I don't see any technical problem with their service.
I have yet to see one person give a legitmate explanation of how port 25 blocking prevents them from doing anything other than spamming.
By the nature of SMTP, it makes no difference which server you relay through. It certainly does not prevent you from picking up mail from other accounts (via POP, IMAP, or whatever), and it does not prevent you from setting whatever "From:" address you want.
If you are concerned about security, you shouldn't be using plain SMTP anyway. You should be setting up a VPN or some other encrypted tunnel which certainly wouldn't be on port 25.