actually from my own experience, it's just the opposite, I've got bothered by quite a few "religious" people who came to my house (christian, mormon, etc) and insisting on talking to me for over 30 minutes, keep telling me I will go to hell if I dont believe in god.
Again, the problem is not their beliefs, it is with their actions. Substitute Christian for "pagan" or "agnostic" and it doesn't matter. Its their ACTIONS that are the problem, coming to your door arrogantly assuming you should be converted to their philosophy.
The vast majority of people do not participate in these type of door to door crapola sessions. Take your anger out on the individual, not the belief that they PROFESS to adhear to. Fuck with their minds. Open the door totally naked. When you see them coming up the walk, go grab a wax pencil and write "666" on your forehead and start screaming at how they interupted your prayers to Satan. Have fun with it, since they (the individuals) are assuming what they are saying is more important than what you were doing by virtue of knocking on your door.
I believe ideas should be tolorated, even if I find them offensive. Actions that force ME to be involved, that is another thing altogether. You have the right to believe anything you want. You have the right to stand in the street and profess it, or take out a newspaper ad explaining it. I have the right to NOT listen to it.
So, then by your definition, to add the proper spice to life, we need to salt the waters of truth with grains of half-truths and superstitions.
No. I am saying I have friends who are Pagans, Wiccans, Christians, Jews, Agnostics, etc. Their religious beliefs are but one aspect of them, and I am not going to be so arrogant as to exclude someone just because they have a different spiritual philosophy than I do. If they are trying to convert me, then perhaps, but then my problem is NOT with their beliefs, but with their actions.
Some people, myself included, prefer not to waste our lives playing religion with impulses from our pre-frontal lobes, and instead concentrate on finding truth in the universe.
Well, people are real. How they think, believe, act, love, contribute is truth. No matter how wrong I may think some of my friends are regarding religion, they are not idiots. I have learned much from them about many things, perhaps because I can look past one tiny aspect of their lives, such as where they hang out on Sunday morning.
I don't consider valueable friendships "Wasting time". I don't disqualify someone as a friend soley because they are different than me spiritually. More importantly, I don't think that I am the only person in the universe that understands "God" and that everyone else is wrong. With all due respect, I am pretty cocky, but not arrogant enough to think everyone is wrong except me.
but they shouldn't expect a free ride if they express those beliefs in public just because it's religion rather than politics/fashion/etc.
I would disagree in that I would insist that everyone have the ability to express their opinion publicly. As I stated earlier, I would rather see who the idiots are up front, than have to guess.
Passing laws that respect a particular religion IS a different matter. The 1st Amendment covers this, if judges would only read the damn thing a bit more literally.
Heh, it was a good Christian who said "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."
And I am not willing to let one idiot who thinks this way make ME less tolorant of anyone. My guess is that this person would be intolorant if he was Jewish, Muslim or Agnostic. The fact that he is a Christian is rather incedental.
Oh, and I can tolorate his opinion, even though I obviously disagree with it. What is not tolorable is a situation where an idiot like this was not free to express his opinion. I prefer that stupid people are able to express themselves freely, so at least you know who they are. Same with racists.
I do not feel threatened by the beliefs of any Muslim. I sometimes feel threatened by the ACTIONS of a limited number of Muslims who are intolorant of others who do not believe the way they do.
Thank you for replying better than I could have. I do NOT have to accept a behavior to tolorate it.
Just because I find some action offensive, does not mean I have a right to stop someone from doing it, assuming there is no victim.
Part of tolorance is that I am not arrogant enough to think I should be able to control someone else's activities just because I disagree with them. I should never be expected to accept something that I am willing to tolorate.
This is why I metamoderate, a few times daily. This is the only way to thin the herd of bad moderators.
I tend to let most +1's slide even if I don't agree, but 70% or more of the -1's I mark as UNFAIR.
It isn't Trolling, Offtopic, Redundent or Flamebait if someone is expressing an opinion that I disagree with. Please, everyone, metamoderate and click on the CID of messages that are modded down and see if they really are bad comments, in the full context of the conversation.
Ah, I should have known that. I am a part time physics wannabe, so I am ashamed that I did realize the orbit I was asking for was basically the event horizon of a black hole. Thank you for pointing out how dumb my question was, in a nice way;)
I understand, and have several friends who are Pagans and Wiccans. Same thing. If all my friends had the same beliefs as me, it would be a very boring life.
Orbit is dependent upon mass, gravity and velocity, this I sorta understand. I wonder how low an altitude you can orbit the earth at (theoretically) before you come up against the speed of light? (Not accounting for drag or such I suppose) Anyone smarter than me know this or how to calculate this?
Damn fine link, thank you! Lots of other good links on that page too, bookmarked for later reading. I had not thought about the whole "Lift vs. Centrifugal Force" reason for the boundry until I read that. Like others, I just assumed it was an arbitrary reason and it was an even number.
Contrary to the responses of others, I will join in on the prayers. Frankly, I am concerned for those that can't see the value of both science AND religion.
Speaking as someone who is not religious, I find it ironic that so many people are so intolorant of those that are religious. Actually, the real irony is that the people who are intolorant of religion are usually the same bunch that are preaching (no pun intended) that everyone should be tolorant of others.
I guess it's ok to be tolorant of pedophiles or Islamic extremists or cross-dressing 1st grade teachers, but its not ok to respect the personal beliefs of Christians who are not imposing it on anyone. Remember, it's not intolorance if it's against Christians, right? Just like it's not racism if it's against Caucasians.
So, I wish the best of luck to all those who are involved with the project, and hope for a safe return. I guess you could call that a prayer of sorts. Personally, I don't feel threatened by anyone that believes something different than myself.
If I wanted to limit BCC, I would not do it as a sendmail.cf hack. I would do it with MailScanner instead. Seems that you can easily add a filter to count the BCC's, assuming you are using MailScanner or similar for virus scanning and spam filtering outbound and incoming mail anyway. My bet is that you do. If not, you should.
I have never done this, but my understanding is that MailScanner is made to do this kind of filtering quite easy. Split the mail, parse out the line with BCC, count the @ symbols, if that number is greater than $x, redirect to/dev/null. Yes, a little overhead, but only if BCC is defined, which is in a minority of emails.
I dunno. I bet someone has made a filter for MailScanner that does this already.
I doubt many people or companies really choose GPL alternatives to MS software because of the open sourceness.
This is EXACTLY why we use it, as well as many others I know. I want to be able to use any software with any other software. I want to modify my software, even tho I am not much of a programmer. I want to be able to use the software any way I want, instead of having a license define for me HOW and WHERE I can use it.
I started using RedHat in the 4.x days, although not seriously until 6.1. It was quite raw back then. I didn't use it because it was easier or more powerful, I used it because it had more freedom, with the difficulty of use being the price I was willing to pay to have the freedom. It isn't about price either, since I have paid for support for Linux for years. The cost of the software and support is a very small portion of the actual cost of ANY software. In my experience, Linux and Linux applications can cost more to install and maintain, but allow easier expansion, so they can help create more profit for the company in the long run.
Part of the advantages, to me, was that it is easier to get different open source software packages to work together than closed source packages. Sometimes I can hack together some Perl to allow this. While I can do this with Windows applications (ironically, using Open Source apps like Perl...), it is easier on the Linux platform because of the documentation. How programs work is not hidden, whereas most Windows programs deliberately hide HOW they work, insisting that if you need extra functionality, you should buy X module or application. They force you to buy or install more crap than you really need or want.
So yes, Bill Gates HAS influenced me to seek open alternatives. I don't grudge him for it, since his actions have helped me personally, by causing the creation of even more open source programs than were even thinkable before 1991. And now several companies get my money for software and support, instead of just Microsoft.
Like I told the AC, search engines and spiders generally DO obey robots.txt. Spammers use Google to find formmail.pl using a simple search. They are not as likely to spider every freaking domain.
So yes, a proper robots.txt DOES help by keeping your Perl applications out of search engines, where they are easier to find.
From what I read of the article (just as the/.ing began...) its about influence, good OR bad. Keeping this in mind, BGates has certainly created influence in the industry. His draconian licensing terms has created a bigger interest in GPL and BSD licensing (and others). His insistance on a closed software model has created more interest in open source projects like Apache.
He did make it affordable to get a useable computer on mom's desktop, and easier to get it infected. Some of the most ingenious programming *IS* viruses and trojans, which Windows has provided a viable platform to run on. Try writing your own smtp server and remote control server, all in a few K of space, from scratch. Not child's play.
I don't mean to bash him, not everything he has done is bad. You don't become the most successful software company by doing everything wrong, after all. But he IS one of the most influential persons in the industry, if for no other reason than his methods inspiring others to provide an alternative to his products.
OSS *DID* exist before Linus, he is just a great posterboy. To be honest, if Linux had not come around, the Hurd would probably be much farther along. I don't think the Hurd would be as developed as Linux is now, but many of the same people that are spending time on Linux would have spent time on it instead. The Hurd does predate the Linux kernel (can't remember how long).
The biggest advantage Linus had at the beginning was the ability to get others to pitch in and help, building a very large network of contributors. It appears he was better organized back when Linux was less developed than the Hurd, and organization matters.
Part of this may be because (right or wrong) people see Linus as non-political, whereas RMS's views seem to be more political. My bet is this attracted people who were neutral about the GPL and Free software, as well as the zealots. A bigger tent attracts more contributors.
And this would stop spam from zombie Windows boxes, HOW, exactly? Since that is the source of most spam, even IF identd could not be spoofed (yea, right...) it would be useless.
Have you ever tried to send an email with 200 BCCs through Hotmail? My guess is that it would be rejected out of hand. Same with other major providers. I know several ISPs who do this, although I can not say that Hotmail does this.
I would bet my lunch money they do have a limit on BCCs per email, since this is an obvious way to prevent spam.
More importantly, have a robots.txt file that Disallows/cgi-bin/ and/perl/, which is how so many bots find them. Oh, and change the names of any common scripts anyway. Or just don't use them.
I had a honey pot setup for stuff like you suggest, but still the vast majority of hits were zombied boxes trying to attack unpatched IIS servers. I used to patch my own Apache source code to answer back with a version other than the correct version, just to limit these automated bot attacks, but have been using off the shelf binaries lately (lazy) that are updated often.
You are aware that you can run formmail.pl on an IIS server quite easily, right? Its just PERL, which has been ported to the Windows platform almost a decade ago. If you do not have PERL installed on your Windows server, you are missing out on some very powerful, very easy capabilities.
That said, I don't use a stock formmail form on any of my sites, instead modifying it to only allow sending to certain domains or to specific users only. Pretty easy to do with any text editor. Its also pretty easy to abuse formmail.pl if its used stock. Writing a remote script that will use it to send spam is fairly trivial.
Slashdot Mirror
actually from my own experience, it's just the opposite, I've got bothered by quite a few "religious" people who came to my house (christian, mormon, etc) and insisting on talking to me for over 30 minutes, keep telling me I will go to hell if I dont believe in god.
Again, the problem is not their beliefs, it is with their actions. Substitute Christian for "pagan" or "agnostic" and it doesn't matter. Its their ACTIONS that are the problem, coming to your door arrogantly assuming you should be converted to their philosophy.
The vast majority of people do not participate in these type of door to door crapola sessions. Take your anger out on the individual, not the belief that they PROFESS to adhear to. Fuck with their minds. Open the door totally naked. When you see them coming up the walk, go grab a wax pencil and write "666" on your forehead and start screaming at how they interupted your prayers to Satan. Have fun with it, since they (the individuals) are assuming what they are saying is more important than what you were doing by virtue of knocking on your door.
I believe ideas should be tolorated, even if I find them offensive. Actions that force ME to be involved, that is another thing altogether. You have the right to believe anything you want. You have the right to stand in the street and profess it, or take out a newspaper ad explaining it. I have the right to NOT listen to it.
Ok, this is a serious topic to me, but that was pretty damn funny. Thank you.
So, then by your definition, to add the proper spice to life, we need to salt the waters of truth with grains of half-truths and superstitions.
No. I am saying I have friends who are Pagans, Wiccans, Christians, Jews, Agnostics, etc. Their religious beliefs are but one aspect of them, and I am not going to be so arrogant as to exclude someone just because they have a different spiritual philosophy than I do. If they are trying to convert me, then perhaps, but then my problem is NOT with their beliefs, but with their actions.
Some people, myself included, prefer not to waste our lives playing religion with impulses from our pre-frontal lobes, and instead concentrate on finding truth in the universe.
Well, people are real. How they think, believe, act, love, contribute is truth. No matter how wrong I may think some of my friends are regarding religion, they are not idiots. I have learned much from them about many things, perhaps because I can look past one tiny aspect of their lives, such as where they hang out on Sunday morning.
I don't consider valueable friendships "Wasting time". I don't disqualify someone as a friend soley because they are different than me spiritually. More importantly, I don't think that I am the only person in the universe that understands "God" and that everyone else is wrong. With all due respect, I am pretty cocky, but not arrogant enough to think everyone is wrong except me.
but they shouldn't expect a free ride if they express those beliefs in public just because it's religion rather than politics/fashion/etc.
I would disagree in that I would insist that everyone have the ability to express their opinion publicly. As I stated earlier, I would rather see who the idiots are up front, than have to guess.
Passing laws that respect a particular religion IS a different matter. The 1st Amendment covers this, if judges would only read the damn thing a bit more literally.
Heh, it was a good Christian who said "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."
And I am not willing to let one idiot who thinks this way make ME less tolorant of anyone. My guess is that this person would be intolorant if he was Jewish, Muslim or Agnostic. The fact that he is a Christian is rather incedental.
Oh, and I can tolorate his opinion, even though I obviously disagree with it. What is not tolorable is a situation where an idiot like this was not free to express his opinion. I prefer that stupid people are able to express themselves freely, so at least you know who they are. Same with racists.
I do not feel threatened by the beliefs of any Muslim. I sometimes feel threatened by the ACTIONS of a limited number of Muslims who are intolorant of others who do not believe the way they do.
Thank you for replying better than I could have. I do NOT have to accept a behavior to tolorate it.
Just because I find some action offensive, does not mean I have a right to stop someone from doing it, assuming there is no victim.
Part of tolorance is that I am not arrogant enough to think I should be able to control someone else's activities just because I disagree with them. I should never be expected to accept something that I am willing to tolorate.
This is why I metamoderate, a few times daily. This is the only way to thin the herd of bad moderators.
I tend to let most +1's slide even if I don't agree, but 70% or more of the -1's I mark as UNFAIR.
It isn't Trolling, Offtopic, Redundent or Flamebait if someone is expressing an opinion that I disagree with. Please, everyone, metamoderate and click on the CID of messages that are modded down and see if they really are bad comments, in the full context of the conversation.
Ah, I should have known that. I am a part time physics wannabe, so I am ashamed that I did realize the orbit I was asking for was basically the event horizon of a black hole. Thank you for pointing out how dumb my question was, in a nice way ;)
(walks away with tail between legs...)
I understand, and have several friends who are Pagans and Wiccans. Same thing. If all my friends had the same beliefs as me, it would be a very boring life.
Orbit is dependent upon mass, gravity and velocity, this I sorta understand. I wonder how low an altitude you can orbit the earth at (theoretically) before you come up against the speed of light? (Not accounting for drag or such I suppose) Anyone smarter than me know this or how to calculate this?
Damn fine link, thank you! Lots of other good links on that page too, bookmarked for later reading. I had not thought about the whole "Lift vs. Centrifugal Force" reason for the boundry until I read that. Like others, I just assumed it was an arbitrary reason and it was an even number.
Contrary to the responses of others, I will join in on the prayers. Frankly, I am concerned for those that can't see the value of both science AND religion.
Speaking as someone who is not religious, I find it ironic that so many people are so intolorant of those that are religious. Actually, the real irony is that the people who are intolorant of religion are usually the same bunch that are preaching (no pun intended) that everyone should be tolorant of others.
I guess it's ok to be tolorant of pedophiles or Islamic extremists or cross-dressing 1st grade teachers, but its not ok to respect the personal beliefs of Christians who are not imposing it on anyone. Remember, it's not intolorance if it's against Christians, right? Just like it's not racism if it's against Caucasians.
So, I wish the best of luck to all those who are involved with the project, and hope for a safe return. I guess you could call that a prayer of sorts. Personally, I don't feel threatened by anyone that believes something different than myself.
The little I have used hotmail, I can say that google gmail is sooo much better.
;)
I don't doubt that at all. By the way, what was that link to sign up for gmail again? Oh yea....
If I wanted to limit BCC, I would not do it as a sendmail.cf hack. I would do it with MailScanner instead. Seems that you can easily add a filter to count the BCC's, assuming you are using MailScanner or similar for virus scanning and spam filtering outbound and incoming mail anyway. My bet is that you do. If not, you should.
/dev/null. Yes, a little overhead, but only if BCC is defined, which is in a minority of emails.
I have never done this, but my understanding is that MailScanner is made to do this kind of filtering quite easy. Split the mail, parse out the line with BCC, count the @ symbols, if that number is greater than $x, redirect to
I dunno. I bet someone has made a filter for MailScanner that does this already.
I doubt many people or companies really choose GPL alternatives to MS software because of the open sourceness.
This is EXACTLY why we use it, as well as many others I know. I want to be able to use any software with any other software. I want to modify my software, even tho I am not much of a programmer. I want to be able to use the software any way I want, instead of having a license define for me HOW and WHERE I can use it.
I started using RedHat in the 4.x days, although not seriously until 6.1. It was quite raw back then. I didn't use it because it was easier or more powerful, I used it because it had more freedom, with the difficulty of use being the price I was willing to pay to have the freedom. It isn't about price either, since I have paid for support for Linux for years. The cost of the software and support is a very small portion of the actual cost of ANY software. In my experience, Linux and Linux applications can cost more to install and maintain, but allow easier expansion, so they can help create more profit for the company in the long run.
Part of the advantages, to me, was that it is easier to get different open source software packages to work together than closed source packages. Sometimes I can hack together some Perl to allow this. While I can do this with Windows applications (ironically, using Open Source apps like Perl...), it is easier on the Linux platform because of the documentation. How programs work is not hidden, whereas most Windows programs deliberately hide HOW they work, insisting that if you need extra functionality, you should buy X module or application. They force you to buy or install more crap than you really need or want.
So yes, Bill Gates HAS influenced me to seek open alternatives. I don't grudge him for it, since his actions have helped me personally, by causing the creation of even more open source programs than were even thinkable before 1991. And now several companies get my money for software and support, instead of just Microsoft.
Like I told the AC, search engines and spiders generally DO obey robots.txt. Spammers use Google to find formmail.pl using a simple search. They are not as likely to spider every freaking domain.
So yes, a proper robots.txt DOES help by keeping your Perl applications out of search engines, where they are easier to find.
no fool, because spammers use Google and other search engines/spiders, which DO obey robots.txt
From what I read of the article (just as the /.ing began...) its about influence, good OR bad. Keeping this in mind, BGates has certainly created influence in the industry. His draconian licensing terms has created a bigger interest in GPL and BSD licensing (and others). His insistance on a closed software model has created more interest in open source projects like Apache.
He did make it affordable to get a useable computer on mom's desktop, and easier to get it infected. Some of the most ingenious programming *IS* viruses and trojans, which Windows has provided a viable platform to run on. Try writing your own smtp server and remote control server, all in a few K of space, from scratch. Not child's play.
I don't mean to bash him, not everything he has done is bad. You don't become the most successful software company by doing everything wrong, after all. But he IS one of the most influential persons in the industry, if for no other reason than his methods inspiring others to provide an alternative to his products.
OSS *DID* exist before Linus, he is just a great posterboy. To be honest, if Linux had not come around, the Hurd would probably be much farther along. I don't think the Hurd would be as developed as Linux is now, but many of the same people that are spending time on Linux would have spent time on it instead. The Hurd does predate the Linux kernel (can't remember how long).
The biggest advantage Linus had at the beginning was the ability to get others to pitch in and help, building a very large network of contributors. It appears he was better organized back when Linux was less developed than the Hurd, and organization matters.
Part of this may be because (right or wrong) people see Linus as non-political, whereas RMS's views seem to be more political. My bet is this attracted people who were neutral about the GPL and Free software, as well as the zealots. A bigger tent attracts more contributors.
You have been redirected to this page during a temporary period of planned downtime.
So they EXPECTED to get slashdotted?
And this would stop spam from zombie Windows boxes, HOW, exactly? Since that is the source of most spam, even IF identd could not be spoofed (yea, right...) it would be useless.
Have you ever tried to send an email with 200 BCCs through Hotmail? My guess is that it would be rejected out of hand. Same with other major providers. I know several ISPs who do this, although I can not say that Hotmail does this.
I would bet my lunch money they do have a limit on BCCs per email, since this is an obvious way to prevent spam.
More importantly, have a robots.txt file that Disallows /cgi-bin/ and /perl/, which is how so many bots find them. Oh, and change the names of any common scripts anyway. Or just don't use them.
I had a honey pot setup for stuff like you suggest, but still the vast majority of hits were zombied boxes trying to attack unpatched IIS servers. I used to patch my own Apache source code to answer back with a version other than the correct version, just to limit these automated bot attacks, but have been using off the shelf binaries lately (lazy) that are updated often.
You are aware that you can run formmail.pl on an IIS server quite easily, right? Its just PERL, which has been ported to the Windows platform almost a decade ago. If you do not have PERL installed on your Windows server, you are missing out on some very powerful, very easy capabilities.
That said, I don't use a stock formmail form on any of my sites, instead modifying it to only allow sending to certain domains or to specific users only. Pretty easy to do with any text editor. Its also pretty easy to abuse formmail.pl if its used stock. Writing a remote script that will use it to send spam is fairly trivial.