enable or disable all these features at compile time.
No, that's the wrong solution. First, because out of respect for djb, we shouldn't be adding features to his code. Second, you really, really, really, oh so painfully, oh the pain, make it stop, NO, NO, not at compile time, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
It is ineffably painful to have a program which has to be recompiled to change the way it operates. We left that behind, oh, about the time 1GB hard drives appeared, I'd say. Instead, the proper way to add features to qmail, or indeed any program, is to put them into separate programs. If you want smtp-auth, you run qmail-smtpd-auth.
And if we add smtp-auth to netqmail, it will be in qmail-smtpd-auth. qmail-smtpd will remain as djb wrote it. Ought else will happen over my twitching corpse. -russ
If you have process limits in place that prevent processes LARGER THAN 2 GIGAfuckingBYTES, then you have no reason to worry. All of Guninski's "vulnerabilities" require similar misconfiguration. -russ
Oh, yeah, Guninski. He's a crank. Sure, if the sysadmin doesn't apply any process limits, an attacker can deny himself service. That's like saying that if you have a gun you can shoot yourself in the foot. -russ
Sigh. My RH4 server has never crashed. It's had two cpu fans go bad, been unplugged three times, and suffered through 28 hours of no power because of the Ice Storm of 1998. It's been installed since 6 Feb 1996, so in another few months it WOULD have had 10 years of uptime, if you count all the eggs that didn't hatch. -russ
qmail can't handle multiple domains?? Sonny, qmail was handling multiple domains when postfix was just a gleam in its father's eye. -russ p.s. Hmph, kids these days.
Yer blowin' smoke, of course. Everybody loves to claim that they've found a vulnerability in djb's code, but when it comes down to details, there are none. -russ
you can bet that a dumb administration like Bush's, or any likely to follow (we've been on the same path for years regardless of who is at the helm) will do NOTHING to prepare in advance.
Where in the Constitution does it give permission to the federal government to do ANYTHING about oil?
4%-5% growth are easily eaten by the net value loss of the dollar.
At least you didn't get modded up for being 'Insightful'. The rest of your posting is laughable; this is the only part that is out and out moronic. -russ
Government is good at only a few things. Disaster recovery is not one of them. It would be MUCH, MUCH better if the government got out of the way and let the free market take care of this problem, thankyouverymuch.
This disaster has been caused by excessive reliance on government. Don't blame FEMA. Blame yourself. -russ
Just because there are poor reasons to claim that somebody is not a "true whatever" doesn't mean that there aren't good reasons.
You should have stopped at this first sentence. "'Tis better to be wrong succinctly than wrong at length" --me, now.
Do you see that, for every good reason to say that somebody else is not a "true whatever", there is also a good reason for someone you accept as a "true whatever" to deny that you are a "true whatever"? Philosophically, the idea is bankrupt, because eventually, you get down to one person being the *only* "true whatever" because nobody else is true enough.
The problem here is that some Christians feel that they can say that other people are not Christians. That doesn't work for me. -russ
You're confusing what you thought I said with what I really said. You're talking about a state transition and I'm talking about the state. You're saying that because the Bible describes a certain thing, that all Christians believe that thing. Sorry, but that's just nonsense. First, it begs the question of who decides what the Bible said (hermenutics). Second, the Bible says a lot of truly strange things. Who decides which of those things are requirements, which are suggestions, and which are not requirements anymore? Third, there is nothing preventing me from claiming that I'm a prophet of God, and starting Nelsonism which is Yet Another Branch of Christianity using my own holy book, the book of Russ.
"tempting", yes. Correct, no. The problem with the entire "true whatever" idea is that anybody who denies that somebody else is not a true whatever is equally subject to claims that they are not a true whatever. It's meaningless, intellectually.
I mean, I could claim that you're not a true Slashdot poster because you didn't mention Natalie Portman. Somebody else could claim that I'm not a true Slashdot poster because I didn't mention grits. -russ
I'm sure the law around this is reasonably well settled, but it seems like there has to be a balancing act between muzzling of free speech, and protection of a claimed trade secret. If I was going to design a rational law, I would force the secret holder to put up a bond before muzzling the publisher, payable to the publisher if no trade secret is found.
Reading the wikipedia article on trade secrets, it seems that you can defend yourself against a trade secret by showing that it's no secret, that it is of no economic value, or that the holder didn't adequately protect it.
There also seems to be a risk in identifying the secret. If only certain parts of the SEObook website disappear, you can presume those were the secrets. But it seems completely unfair to require the SEObook folks to take everything down. -russ
But you're *supposed* to judge people. Jesus wants you not to consort with disbelievers. How would you know they're disbelievers unless you judge them as such?
The basic problem is that you're trying to impose your own definition of Christian on everyone. I'm a true Christian and I don't believe the same things as you, and you can't make me stop calling myself a Christian.
The real metric of whether someone is a Christian or not is their actions, not their claims. Ye shall know them by their fruits.
That's also not true. Christians used to say that slavery was okay because God didn't condemn it, but instead spoke approvingly of slave holders who treated their slaves fairly. Now just try to find a Christian who thinks that.
We don't need a more efficient patent system for software! We need NO patents for software! Purely intellectual processes (possibly using pencil and paper for scratchpad results) should not be patentable! Die Gedanken sint frei! -russ
Slashdot Mirror
enable or disable all these features at compile time.
No, that's the wrong solution. First, because out of respect for djb, we shouldn't be adding features to his code. Second, you really, really, really, oh so painfully, oh the pain, make it stop, NO, NO, not at compile time, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
It is ineffably painful to have a program which has to be recompiled to change the way it operates. We left that behind, oh, about the time 1GB hard drives appeared, I'd say. Instead, the proper way to add features to qmail, or indeed any program, is to put them into separate programs. If you want smtp-auth, you run qmail-smtpd-auth.
And if we add smtp-auth to netqmail, it will be in qmail-smtpd-auth. qmail-smtpd will remain as djb wrote it. Ought else will happen over my twitching corpse.
-russ
If you have process limits in place that prevent processes LARGER THAN 2 GIGAfuckingBYTES, then you have no reason to worry. All of Guninski's "vulnerabilities" require similar misconfiguration.
-russ
Oh, yeah, Guninski. He's a crank. Sure, if the sysadmin doesn't apply any process limits, an attacker can deny himself service. That's like saying that if you have a gun you can shoot yourself in the foot.
-russ
Sigh. My RH4 server has never crashed. It's had two cpu fans go bad, been unplugged three times, and suffered through 28 hours of no power because of the Ice Storm of 1998. It's been installed since 6 Feb 1996, so in another few months it WOULD have had 10 years of uptime, if you count all the eggs that didn't hatch.
-russ
qmail can't handle multiple domains?? Sonny, qmail was handling multiple domains when postfix was just a gleam in its father's eye.
-russ
p.s. Hmph, kids these days.
So, do you think smtpd-auth should be in netqmail? So far we've only fixed real bugs and compatibility problems. We could start adding features.
-russ
Rediffmail uses qmail, and they have upwards of 30 million users. But I wouldn't dare to contract your rhetoric with facts.
-russ
Yer blowin' smoke, of course. Everybody loves to claim that they've found a vulnerability in djb's code, but when it comes down to details, there are none.
-russ
Nope. I have trouble saying "asterisk" once much less four times in a row.
-russ
Where in the Constitution does it give permission to the federal government to do ANYTHING about oil?
4%-5% growth are easily eaten by the net value loss of the dollar.
At least you didn't get modded up for being 'Insightful'. The rest of your posting is laughable; this is the only part that is out and out moronic.
-russ
Government is good at only a few things. Disaster recovery is not one of them. It would be MUCH, MUCH better if the government got out of the way and let the free market take care of this problem, thankyouverymuch.
This disaster has been caused by excessive reliance on government. Don't blame FEMA. Blame yourself.
-russ
Just because there are poor reasons to claim that somebody is not a "true whatever" doesn't mean that there aren't good reasons.
You should have stopped at this first sentence. "'Tis better to be wrong succinctly than wrong at length" --me, now.
Do you see that, for every good reason to say that somebody else is not a "true whatever", there is also a good reason for someone you accept as a "true whatever" to deny that you are a "true whatever"? Philosophically, the idea is bankrupt, because eventually, you get down to one person being the *only* "true whatever" because nobody else is true enough.
The problem here is that some Christians feel that they can say that other people are not Christians. That doesn't work for me.
-russ
You're confusing what you thought I said with what I really said. You're talking about a state transition and I'm talking about the state. You're saying that because the Bible describes a certain thing, that all Christians believe that thing. Sorry, but that's just nonsense. First, it begs the question of who decides what the Bible said (hermenutics). Second, the Bible says a lot of truly strange things. Who decides which of those things are requirements, which are suggestions, and which are not requirements anymore? Third, there is nothing preventing me from claiming that I'm a prophet of God, and starting Nelsonism which is Yet Another Branch of Christianity using my own holy book, the book of Russ.
"tempting", yes. Correct, no. The problem with the entire "true whatever" idea is that anybody who denies that somebody else is not a true whatever is equally subject to claims that they are not a true whatever. It's meaningless, intellectually.
I mean, I could claim that you're not a true Slashdot poster because you didn't mention Natalie Portman. Somebody else could claim that I'm not a true Slashdot poster because I didn't mention grits.
-russ
You're presuming that everyone agrees on exactly what the Bible says. The evidence goes against that presumption.
-russ
I'm sure the law around this is reasonably well settled, but it seems like there has to be a balancing act between muzzling of free speech, and protection of a claimed trade secret. If I was going to design a rational law, I would force the secret holder to put up a bond before muzzling the publisher, payable to the publisher if no trade secret is found.
Reading the wikipedia article on trade secrets, it seems that you can defend yourself against a trade secret by showing that it's no secret, that it is of no economic value, or that the holder didn't adequately protect it.
There also seems to be a risk in identifying the secret. If only certain parts of the SEObook website disappear, you can presume those were the secrets. But it seems completely unfair to require the SEObook folks to take everything down.
-russ
The person being lied about should have recourse,
They do. They can post the truth to the Internet.
-russ
Not trying to judge anyone,
But you're *supposed* to judge people. Jesus wants you not to consort with disbelievers. How would you know they're disbelievers unless you judge them as such?
The basic problem is that you're trying to impose your own definition of Christian on everyone. I'm a true Christian and I don't believe the same things as you, and you can't make me stop calling myself a Christian.
The real metric of whether someone is a Christian or not is their actions, not their claims. Ye shall know them by their fruits.
science and religion need a bit of faith from their believers.
No. Religion requires faith. Science requires trust.
Also, religion doesn't evolve, science does.
That's also not true. Christians used to say that slavery was okay because God didn't condemn it, but instead spoke approvingly of slave holders who treated their slaves fairly. Now just try to find a Christian who thinks that.
You're right. No true Christian believes in evolution, because by your definition of Christianity, he couldn't believe in evolution.
-russ
s/sint/sind/, so I can't spel in German iether.
-russ
We don't need a more efficient patent system for software! We need NO patents for software! Purely intellectual processes (possibly using pencil and paper for scratchpad results) should not be patentable! Die Gedanken sint frei!
-russ
So it has a bozo filter, eh? Does that mean that r0ml can't attend?
Haha, loser! It's speled "spel", not "spell". You need to get a speling checkre.
-russ