Ask your supervisor for some more work because you obviously have too much damn time on your hands.
Generally speaking; places of employ in which employees work from 9 until 5 without taking any time away from the tedium are known as "salt mines" or "sweat shops".
Even in today's economy, a pay cheque isn't worth giving up your soul.
Seems you haven't got bored with installing:-). I got bored reinstalling - so now I use Norton ghost. Reinstall in just 18 minutes:-). Upgrade your motherboard and get norton ghost and and antivirus free.
Funny how you mentioned "Upgrade your motherboard" and "Ghost" in a thread discussing Windows XP. Ever tried to simply "Upgrade your motherboard" whilst running Windows XP? It's not pretty.:P
The fix, I must say, is as elegant as any Microsoft solution; "(R)epair" your installation (the second, not first "(R)epair" option) which brings you back to a fresh-installed, pre-SP1 level at which point you must re-download the SP and all security and critical updates that've been released since the inception of that dreadful XPerience.
Microsoft's answer? Windows 2000 and XP are so "optimized" that they store all your driver information in one file which needs to be re-initialized. The method of re-initializing same? Re-install or repair (essentially a full re-install, but your users, preferences, and applications remain (mostly) in-tact).
Boy, I love that company. Used to be a motherboard upgrade was 1 billable bench hour. Now we get to ding people for two; sometimes two and a half or even three! Woo!
That's nothing: when I reinstall Windows, I can (from a blank formatted hard drive) be up and running in less than 3 hours: fully patched - without any of those OpenSSH flaws which seems to plague Linux.
Oh sure. However the reality is you'll likely wind up plagued with one of the many dozen maladies that's presently afflicting said platform before you can run your second round of Windows Updates.
Quoth Homer; D'oh!
Seriously, though. It's called the Gentoo Reference Platform. I can download and install a fully-functional KDE system in a matter of hours. At that point I can add/remove functionality and re-compile (optimize++) apps at will.
(Sorry 'bout that. I see how firmly your tongue was planted in your cheek and I apologize for dislodging it.:P )
Say "I could care less" out loud. Listen to the intonation. It's a *sarcastic* statement, although subtly so.
It only sounds sarcastic because you think you're saying something you're not. If you "could" care less, you care to some degree. However if you "could not" care less, there is no degree of caring.
It's quite simple, really. It all reminds me of the person who argued strenuously that the phrase "I haven't (ain't) got no money" was a statement designed to envoke sympathy for the poor sap's financial position. However, if one is in a condition whereby they do not have a zero sum of money, it is obvious that they do, in fact, have a sum of money.
However Mr. Thorogood had to inform his landlady that he, in fact, had no money.
Verisign will not back down because there is money involved, the DNS admins will not back down because of the principle of the thing.
I'm not sure if you intended it that way or not, but you make it sound like this has become a corporate versus long-haired hippy DNS admins battle. I dare say it's much more severe than that. Even my small (by comparison) mail servers are churning like sum'bitches now that they've got all sorts of "hjkvashjklfasdhl.com"-esque domains to send bounce messages to. Imagine the hapless provider with millions of e-mail accounts and, correspondingly, millions of SPAM messages per day. Formerly, forged domains could be easily chucked to the virtual circular file. Now, however, they quite happily resolve to a server that answers to SMTP queries. (Also a black hole, I imagine, but it still has to traverse half the Internet to get there)
DNS/Sys Admins have to spend time troubleshooting this problem and attempting to work around it in several different arenas. This is definately a money versus money issue. It just so happens that we also have principals on our side.
This arguement strongly points out the 'I'm just like you only different' (if the prosecution's objection is not sustained that is).
Funny thing about humans; just because someone in a robe tells them to, they can't just erase something from their mind.
IANAL, of course, but I'm sure there are thousands of lawyers who've intentionally uttered an objectionable phrase for the sole purpose of the jury being able to hear it. If it causes them even a moment to ponder, that could mean the difference between guilty and not.
Okay, so you're telling me that 99% of the users in the world have no need for p2p, some online chat features, online games, and a few other things I'm too lazy to look up?
How many legitimate uses exist for Internet facing ports 135-139, 445?
if you set it up so that everyone is behind a big firewall in the sky (which is what this would be) then what you end up with is ISP's saying "why do you want to opt-out" Or that you can't opt-out at all and you get stuck with their shitty firewall rules.
That's the beauty of a capitalist society. Vote with your feet.
People badmouth PPPoE like it's an incantation of the devil himself, but it's allowed dozens, hundreds of "mom & pop" ISPs to form in Canada and compete directly with Bell. Don't like the (Bell) Sympatico port filtering policies? Look up an alternative and give them your money instead. I did, and I'm happy as a clam.
by saying it should be opt-out (in by default) then you put more power into the ISP's hands. and im sorry i already have enough issues with my ISP, the last thing i want to see is Time warner blocking port 53 incoming, or some other such cruft.
Sorry to say it bub, but the power is already in their hands. Read your TOS. You've probably got little more 'rights' on that service than to browse the WWW and receive your ISP e-mail account. The legal term for this is CYA.
Personally, I'd love to see more edge filtering where consumers are concerned. Their complete lack of understanding requires protection. That protection could save the economy literally billions of dollars which could be otherwise spent more productively (hell-oooo more IT jobs!).
It's bad enough people are permitted to drive without proper instruction; but there are safeguards in place to keep the dangerous, unsafe drivers off the road. Since there are very few such safeguards in place on the Internet, such users should be kept in check so the damage they can cause is contained.
Same goes for rocket fuel, super computer clusters, or anything. What you're describing is a way to allow only the rich to get richer.
Since presently the only people who can benefeit from patents are the ones with million-patent-portfolios and a peck of lawyers to defend them, it seems to me that the current system is merely a means by which the rich can get richer.
Also is there an open source problem here, for instance let us say that MSFT agrees to pay royalites to allow their web browser to continue to work correctly, then the company claims that browsers such as Mozillia must also pay royalities?
I for one commit to paying upwards of 25% of the purchase price of the Mozilla Web Browser to this upstanding Intellectual Property organization.
But how can ageing cause dyslexia? I thought people had it when they were young?
I didn't develop dyslexia until I hit my 20s. Thankfully it's relatively mild, but transposing numbers isn't a terribly good thing in my line of work.:/
most isps will not relay unless they host the site, so what happens when I host with company b and I want company a to let me relay from their mail server? Not going to happen, that's what...
That's pretty sweeping. I deal with dozens of ISPs; Cable, DSL, and Dial-Up in Ontario and I don't believe I've ever encountered one that wouldn't permit me to send e-mail from any domains in my control through their server. Generally their relay controls revolve around the source IP address or some form of authentication, not the From: address. In fact, it's such a rarity that I find myself amazed when I do encounter a provider who imposes such restrictions.
n.b. I am a web hosting provider, and my customers (business and personal clients alike) are scattered amongst a wide swath of ISPs and not a single one of them have ever had problems sending e-mail using their own domain(s) through their ISP's mail server, which is what mikeswi doesn't seem to quite grasp. If he's having difficulties in this regard, he should contact his ISP rather than spouting about stress relief on a web forum, me thinks.
Anyways, this is such a tired thread I do believe I'll put a stop to it here and now.
I connect to the mail server provided by my web host from my home. I do this by utilizing port 25, which is what the poster you replied to suggested be blocked. If my port 25 is blocked, I can't talk to my email server without circumventing the ISP's block.
You still haven't presented a valid reason to need to connect to said mail server. Mail would get there all of ten seconds slower if you used your ISP's mail server as a smart relay. It's ok if you don't understand the technical nuances of RFC822 et al. But wouldn't it be better if you did some reading rather than continue to stamp your feet needlessly?
If this is how you react to someone pointing out a mistake, you really should see someone about anger management. All that stress isn't healthy.
Sir, I dare say if you believe your posts have stressed me out then my original assessment about your ego stands case in point.
Had you paid attention to what I said, you would have noticed I mentioned a web host. I would be hard pressed to serve the site to my 15,000 visitors a day off a DSL line.
Then why were you comparing your situation to the criteria I set? Since it's obviously not a corporate desktop or home user Cable/DSL/Dial-up account; why did you feel the need to respond?
P.S. Your "juvenile" condescension has been duly noted. If you're going to take Slashdot this personally, perhaps it's not the forum for you. I suggest a healthy dose of NaCL and a nap.
That is incorrect. Web site owners often use the mail server associated with their domain(s) to send and receive email. When I send email to a business partner, I would prefer they see it come from my web site's domain, not my ISP's.
You'll note I said; "regular corporate workstations and home DSL/Cable/Dial-Up users". Why are you running a website on a home user service not intended for it?
Moreover, what's stopping you from sending an e-mail with your own domain via your ISP's mail server?
When/if they block that port also, I will ask them if the dubious benefit of blocking that port makes up for the $780 they would have made from my account that year when I choose another ISP.
Less than a week's wages for a technician to troubleshoot SPAM problems. Less than 25% the cost of a disk storage array to hold the SPAM that does get through to user mailboxes. Practically a sliver of a fraction of the bandwidth costs involved in transporting said SPAM. You might want to check that over-inflated feeling of self importance when dealing with your ISP.
I've been getting tons of bounces and antivirus messages that are a result of someone else with my e-mail address having the virus. Of course, the whole e-mail infrastructure is obsolete: What do you mean someone else can easily send an e-mail as me!
For the same reason someone can mail a letter as you or send a fax as you or communicate in any interpersonal forum as you.
Enter digital cryptography. Sign your messages and never worry again.
To those who admin Windows networks... Please put an exit filter for TCP port 25 on your firewall so only your mail server can send SMTP and not infected workstations.
That advice should be extended to all end-user networks. Realistically, regular corporate workstations and home DSL/Cable/Dial-Up users should have no reason to talk directly to a foreign SMTP server in the first place.
Call me paranoid (you're paranoid cshark), but this whole thing smacks of a terrorist attack. I know the media is making sure everyone does't freak out and go running for cover, but this is the kind of thing that was outlined in the Alkaita handbook we all heard about a couple of years ago.
That's just the "post Columbine", "post 9/11", "Why won't anybody think of the children?" political / major news media propagandist, "Let's Call It Homeland Security and Skip The Lubricant" fear talking. No, it's not paranoia, it's "hypermedia" induced irrational fear and far too many people suffer from it to be healthy. Used to be the power went out and we worried about our cheese. Today the power goes out and we start looking at dark-skinned folks with suspicion and fear. This isn't helping the xenophobic white-American image, I might add.
Long story short, no, it is not, nor could/would/should it be terrorism (Terrorist; the new Communist!). It's too well done. Too many variables came into play to create that perfect twice-in-a-lifetime (my grandmother recalls, vaguely, the last big'un) phenomenon.
A terrorist attack would have taken out a substation or twelve, perhaps left a nasty black scar on some reactor buildings, shaken up a significant number of people, perhaps killed a few (probably scads more than died as a direct result of last week's fun in the sun), and in a flash (pun intended) been over. Well, over in the physical sense, anyways (hellooooo CNN live 24x7 coverage!).
Nope. This was little more than a knee-slappin', head-scratchin' bout of good old fashioned "whodunnit" incompetence and obsolescence.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled "NO CARRIER" jokes and warm Jolt<tm> Cola.
The commercials replaced are usually things like drug ads (you aren't allowed to advertise prescription drugs here)
Are you sure about that? I frequently see ads that tell me to "ask [my] doctor about prescription..."
and ads for products that are only available in the US.
Actually, I frequently find myself frustrated by ads that don't specify "United States Only." Two such ads that bothered me in particular of late are Taco Bell's 7-Layer Nachos and Domino's Pizza's "Domino's Dots". To the best of my knowledge, these products have been advertised for upwards of 6 months and are still unavailable north of the border.
All those Gator like spyware pieces of software polute system. I don't care about the adds, but I'm seriously having problems with performance on machines that are condemed to be not knowingly used for advertising means more than anything else.
While at a friend's house, I noticed that he had an ad-agent of some sort installed (possibly, in fact, one that came from a pop-up blocker) which had the audacity to create a pop-up at a pace of about 1 every 3-5 minutes, possibly faster. While we sat away from the computer for about 10 minutes, there were no less than four adverts on the screen.
My question is this; how in the HELL do advertisers believe this will garner anything but a negative response?!?
When they illicit words like "I HATE those {expletive} pop-up ads!", and when they patronize users with "BLOCK those POP-UPs!" every 5 minutes, well, how do they expect people to react?
I've been under Linux/Mozilla as my web browsing desktop for so long, and I only see glimpses of this pop-up situation breifly before I eradicate them from customers' machines, but is that the current state of the pop-up problem? If so, I'm speechless.
No, but that is because your analogy is flawed. Like most analogies, this one is also stupid. Why do you feel the need to put it in a metaphor? Is the case not defined well enough to discuss rationally without the need to bring in irrelevant and poorly construed analogies? It is.
Actually, his analogy (not metaphor) was pretty bang-on.The ads are placed on top of existing ads. No, they are not identical situations, but sharing characteristics of one-another is the purpose of an analogy.
Gator advertises exactly what they do. Gator does exactly what they do. Users install Gator to get software for free.
Users more often than not do not install Gator. Users install software of an ever-increasing variety, one of several EULAs comprised of dozens of pages of small-point text appears on screen, and somehow buried in all the legaleese users "agree" to install subsidiary software packages. Often, the primary software package will be crippled and/or refuse to install or load if said user doesn't agree to the all-encompassing EULA.
Slashdot Mirror
Generally speaking; places of employ in which employees work from 9 until 5 without taking any time away from the tedium are known as "salt mines" or "sweat shops".
Even in today's economy, a pay cheque isn't worth giving up your soul.
Funny how you mentioned "Upgrade your motherboard" and "Ghost" in a thread discussing Windows XP. Ever tried to simply "Upgrade your motherboard" whilst running Windows XP? It's not pretty. :P
The fix, I must say, is as elegant as any Microsoft solution; "(R)epair" your installation (the second, not first "(R)epair" option) which brings you back to a fresh-installed, pre-SP1 level at which point you must re-download the SP and all security and critical updates that've been released since the inception of that dreadful XPerience.
Microsoft's answer? Windows 2000 and XP are so "optimized" that they store all your driver information in one file which needs to be re-initialized. The method of re-initializing same? Re-install or repair (essentially a full re-install, but your users, preferences, and applications remain (mostly) in-tact).
Boy, I love that company. Used to be a motherboard upgrade was 1 billable bench hour. Now we get to ding people for two; sometimes two and a half or even three! Woo!
Oh sure. However the reality is you'll likely wind up plagued with one of the many dozen maladies that's presently afflicting said platform before you can run your second round of Windows Updates.
Quoth Homer; D'oh!
Seriously, though. It's called the Gentoo Reference Platform. I can download and install a fully-functional KDE system in a matter of hours. At that point I can add/remove functionality and re-compile (optimize++) apps at will.
(Sorry 'bout that. I see how firmly your tongue was planted in your cheek and I apologize for dislodging it. :P )
Because it would taint the experiment, I'd wager.
It only sounds sarcastic because you think you're saying something you're not. If you "could" care less, you care to some degree. However if you "could not" care less, there is no degree of caring.
It's quite simple, really. It all reminds me of the person who argued strenuously that the phrase "I haven't (ain't) got no money" was a statement designed to envoke sympathy for the poor sap's financial position. However, if one is in a condition whereby they do not have a zero sum of money, it is obvious that they do, in fact, have a sum of money.
However Mr. Thorogood had to inform his landlady that he, in fact, had no money.
I'm not sure if you intended it that way or not, but you make it sound like this has become a corporate versus long-haired hippy DNS admins battle. I dare say it's much more severe than that. Even my small (by comparison) mail servers are churning like sum'bitches now that they've got all sorts of "hjkvashjklfasdhl.com"-esque domains to send bounce messages to. Imagine the hapless provider with millions of e-mail accounts and, correspondingly, millions of SPAM messages per day. Formerly, forged domains could be easily chucked to the virtual circular file. Now, however, they quite happily resolve to a server that answers to SMTP queries. (Also a black hole, I imagine, but it still has to traverse half the Internet to get there)
DNS/Sys Admins have to spend time troubleshooting this problem and attempting to work around it in several different arenas. This is definately a money versus money issue. It just so happens that we also have principals on our side.
Had you considered that Canadians just make better soldiers?
{duck}
Funny thing about humans; just because someone in a robe tells them to, they can't just erase something from their mind.
IANAL, of course, but I'm sure there are thousands of lawyers who've intentionally uttered an objectionable phrase for the sole purpose of the jury being able to hear it. If it causes them even a moment to ponder, that could mean the difference between guilty and not.
How many legitimate uses exist for Internet facing ports 135-139, 445?
How many worms/viruses have exploited same?
That's the beauty of a capitalist society. Vote with your feet.
People badmouth PPPoE like it's an incantation of the devil himself, but it's allowed dozens, hundreds of "mom & pop" ISPs to form in Canada and compete directly with Bell. Don't like the (Bell) Sympatico port filtering policies? Look up an alternative and give them your money instead. I did, and I'm happy as a clam.
Sorry to say it bub, but the power is already in their hands. Read your TOS. You've probably got little more 'rights' on that service than to browse the WWW and receive your ISP e-mail account. The legal term for this is CYA.
Personally, I'd love to see more edge filtering where consumers are concerned. Their complete lack of understanding requires protection. That protection could save the economy literally billions of dollars which could be otherwise spent more productively (hell-oooo more IT jobs!).
It's bad enough people are permitted to drive without proper instruction; but there are safeguards in place to keep the dangerous, unsafe drivers off the road. Since there are very few such safeguards in place on the Internet, such users should be kept in check so the damage they can cause is contained.
<ObGentoo>
Why no, it can't. My OS only requires one step;
# emerge bloodyhugeapplication
</ObGentoo>
Since presently the only people who can benefeit from patents are the ones with million-patent-portfolios and a peck of lawyers to defend them, it seems to me that the current system is merely a means by which the rich can get richer.
I for one commit to paying upwards of 25% of the purchase price of the Mozilla Web Browser to this upstanding Intellectual Property organization.
I didn't develop dyslexia until I hit my 20s. Thankfully it's relatively mild, but transposing numbers isn't a terribly good thing in my line of work. :/
That's pretty sweeping. I deal with dozens of ISPs; Cable, DSL, and Dial-Up in Ontario and I don't believe I've ever encountered one that wouldn't permit me to send e-mail from any domains in my control through their server. Generally their relay controls revolve around the source IP address or some form of authentication, not the From: address. In fact, it's such a rarity that I find myself amazed when I do encounter a provider who imposes such restrictions.
n.b. I am a web hosting provider, and my customers (business and personal clients alike) are scattered amongst a wide swath of ISPs and not a single one of them have ever had problems sending e-mail using their own domain(s) through their ISP's mail server, which is what mikeswi doesn't seem to quite grasp. If he's having difficulties in this regard, he should contact his ISP rather than spouting about stress relief on a web forum, me thinks.
Anyways, this is such a tired thread I do believe I'll put a stop to it here and now.
You still haven't presented a valid reason to need to connect to said mail server. Mail would get there all of ten seconds slower if you used your ISP's mail server as a smart relay. It's ok if you don't understand the technical nuances of RFC822 et al. But wouldn't it be better if you did some reading rather than continue to stamp your feet needlessly?
Sir, I dare say if you believe your posts have stressed me out then my original assessment about your ego stands case in point.
As the Usenetziens would say; {plonk!} ;)
Then why were you comparing your situation to the criteria I set? Since it's obviously not a corporate desktop or home user Cable/DSL/Dial-up account; why did you feel the need to respond?
P.S. Your "juvenile" condescension has been duly noted. If you're going to take Slashdot this personally, perhaps it's not the forum for you. I suggest a healthy dose of NaCL and a nap.
You'll note I said; "regular corporate workstations and home DSL/Cable/Dial-Up users". Why are you running a website on a home user service not intended for it?
Moreover, what's stopping you from sending an e-mail with your own domain via your ISP's mail server?
Less than a week's wages for a technician to troubleshoot SPAM problems. Less than 25% the cost of a disk storage array to hold the SPAM that does get through to user mailboxes. Practically a sliver of a fraction of the bandwidth costs involved in transporting said SPAM. You might want to check that over-inflated feeling of self importance when dealing with your ISP.
For the same reason someone can mail a letter as you or send a fax as you or communicate in any interpersonal forum as you.
Enter digital cryptography. Sign your messages and never worry again.
That advice should be extended to all end-user networks. Realistically, regular corporate workstations and home DSL/Cable/Dial-Up users should have no reason to talk directly to a foreign SMTP server in the first place.
That's just the "post Columbine", "post 9/11", "Why won't anybody think of the children?" political / major news media propagandist, "Let's Call It Homeland Security and Skip The Lubricant" fear talking. No, it's not paranoia, it's "hypermedia" induced irrational fear and far too many people suffer from it to be healthy. Used to be the power went out and we worried about our cheese. Today the power goes out and we start looking at dark-skinned folks with suspicion and fear. This isn't helping the xenophobic white-American image, I might add.
Long story short, no, it is not, nor could/would/should it be terrorism (Terrorist; the new Communist!). It's too well done. Too many variables came into play to create that perfect twice-in-a-lifetime (my grandmother recalls, vaguely, the last big'un) phenomenon.
A terrorist attack would have taken out a substation or twelve, perhaps left a nasty black scar on some reactor buildings, shaken up a significant number of people, perhaps killed a few (probably scads more than died as a direct result of last week's fun in the sun), and in a flash (pun intended) been over. Well, over in the physical sense, anyways (hellooooo CNN live 24x7 coverage!).
Nope. This was little more than a knee-slappin', head-scratchin' bout of good old fashioned "whodunnit" incompetence and obsolescence.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled "NO CARRIER" jokes and warm Jolt<tm> Cola.
I also notice a little place called "Canada" missing from the map.
Are you sure about that? I frequently see ads that tell me to "ask [my] doctor about prescription ..."
Actually, I frequently find myself frustrated by ads that don't specify "United States Only." Two such ads that bothered me in particular of late are Taco Bell's 7-Layer Nachos and Domino's Pizza's "Domino's Dots". To the best of my knowledge, these products have been advertised for upwards of 6 months and are still unavailable north of the border.
While at a friend's house, I noticed that he had an ad-agent of some sort installed (possibly, in fact, one that came from a pop-up blocker) which had the audacity to create a pop-up at a pace of about 1 every 3-5 minutes, possibly faster. While we sat away from the computer for about 10 minutes, there were no less than four adverts on the screen.
My question is this; how in the HELL do advertisers believe this will garner anything but a negative response?!?
When they illicit words like "I HATE those {expletive} pop-up ads!", and when they patronize users with "BLOCK those POP-UPs!" every 5 minutes, well, how do they expect people to react?
I've been under Linux/Mozilla as my web browsing desktop for so long, and I only see glimpses of this pop-up situation breifly before I eradicate them from customers' machines, but is that the current state of the pop-up problem? If so, I'm speechless.
Actually, his analogy (not metaphor) was pretty bang-on.The ads are placed on top of existing ads. No, they are not identical situations, but sharing characteristics of one-another is the purpose of an analogy.
Users more often than not do not install Gator. Users install software of an ever-increasing variety, one of several EULAs comprised of dozens of pages of small-point text appears on screen, and somehow buried in all the legaleese users "agree" to install subsidiary software packages. Often, the primary software package will be crippled and/or refuse to install or load if said user doesn't agree to the all-encompassing EULA.