If anyone here is looking for something similar -- just chopping up incoming mails so they don't hit the 160-character limit -- I've hacked up a perl script to do it.
It doesn't do the "request-and-send-on" functionality that the parent has (kudos to the original poster, very clever) but if you're just looking for chopping up e-mails it's useful. I use it as the recipient of my cron monitoring jobs.
I've had a lot of problems with GoDaddy's braindead interface. Every now and then I get hit with some stupid database inconsistency. The latest was when I was updating nameservers: it somehow duplicated one of my nameserver entries so that whenever I tried to remove the dupe or change *any* entry it would fail complaining about a duplicate. A smarter system would have looked at the data it was about to enter and wouldn't have allowed the duplicate in the first place.
I do enjoy their mail forwarding, though, so I'll keep my primary domain with them. It's nice to have in case I lose hosting or something stupid happens.
I've taken the domains that don't matter so much to EV1's cheap registration. It's barebones and just like every other idiot TUCOWS resellers' interface but that's all I need.
There's a dangerous precedent with making people pay for privacy. Andrew Shapiro's The Control Revolution has many chapters about privacy and our mistaken approaches to it (including P3P).
It boils down to this: is privacy a right or a privilege?
On the one domain where I have a valid physical office address, I receive snail mail crap from domain registraion places asking me to renew with them. The forms they send are as deceptive as ever.
I called the Dipshit Registry of America after they sent mail to my WHOIS address. They told me that they don't do that (even though the name, "Network Administrator" matched exactly) and that it must have been one of their "marketing partners." They advised me to write to president@droa.com. So I did, copied to ICANN, and received no response.
I wonder how many complaints ICANN gets about registries abusing this data? I'm not budging until they do something about it.
Gigabit ethernet is a kludge -- the 1500-octet MTU was great back when 10mbits/sec was fast; it scales horribly.
In practice, gig ether (even over fiber) achieves only 400 to 600 megabits/sec. SCL tested some of the first gigE cards and got terrible performance. Their cluster cookbook is rather dated, but compares some of the popular interconnects (Myrinet, Fast Ethernet, and FDDI).
Few cards that I have seen support jumbo frames; even then, I've only seen cards that go up to 9000-octet frames. Face it: Ethernet doesn't scale well past 100mbits/sec.
Thanks for purchasing DOOM II. We hope you have as
much fun playing it as we had making it. If you don't, then something is really wrong with you and you're different and strange. All your friends think DOOM II is great.
Of course, DOOM II is a trademark of id Software,
copyright 1994-95, so don't mess with it. Remember, if you
are playing a pirated copy of DOOM II you are going to HELL.
Buy it and avoid an eternity with all the other freeloaders.
Hi, son! I've talked to you about the Evil Internet before, but I still don't trust your judgement. I'm just going to install this wonderful parenting software...
On this plus side, learning how to defeat one of those is *really* fun. He'll probably learn something, good or bad.
...the problem is not the medium.
The problem is not the medium.
The problem is not the medium.
Some kids can handle it well. Others...simply can't. I'm an administrator on a large IRC network, and I've received only a few (three at most that I can think of) complaints about online {stalkings,pedophiles,unwelcome advances} in the two years that I've been an operator.
I think a much more prevalant problem are kiddiots with WinNuke and friends that have abused the medium by {flooding,hax0ring,cloning}. They're not mature enough to understand that their actions have consequences, and that they *will* be held responsible for them -- both on IRC and the real world. I can't count the number of times I've had some idiot constantly abuse, only to sulk back and beg for forgiveness once they realize that it's easier for me to remove them than they previously thought.
Many are ranting about how they'd love to watch ads if the commercials were "interesting".
I personally find it hard to find any commercial 'interesting', because I know its purpose. It's just nice, flavorful wrapping on a rather old objective.
If a piece of software *is* malicious spyware, it would be counterintuitive to ask the user to authorize its use and consent to a license agreement.
So -- let's assume that the software exploits the hole and, in the process, causes damage to your machine. Because you did not agree to the usual clickwrap, (software is AS IS, etc etc) could you hold the company liable for this?
To: Vuln-Dev
Subject: Wlan @ bestbuy is cleartext?
Date: May 1 2002 3:57PM
Author: Blue Boar
I was asked to anonymously proxy this question to the list. Here ya go.
BB
This past week I went to bestbuy to purchase a D-link wlan card... egar to
get my laptop up and running while in the car I put my card in and
installed the driver. I noticed the traffic light was lit up as if I had a
connection. Out of curriosity I fired up kismet and sure enough there were
packets flying through the air right infront of BestBuy. Well I decided to
run in an try to make a Credit Card purchase real quick to verify that my
info was not going all over the parking lot in the clear. Well after
sorting out my logs I noticed what looked to be like SQL queries and table
headers in my logs... things such as CUSTOMER_ROUTEID, BANKNAME,
REGISTER_ID and things of that nature... luckily no where in that data did
I find my own credit card. Non the less I decided to run to the store next
to BestBuy while I left me PC on grabbing packets. Well yesterday I sorted
through the data collected and this time I did indeed find a RAW clear text
credit card number....not mine... but definately a credit card number.
Heres my delima... I checked out a few of the other best buy stores for
"beacon packets" and everyone I drove by was sending them out...so I assume
all BestBuy's are wlan enabled. What I need to find out is... are
BestBuys's Cash register terminals indeed using wlan and are they indeed
sending out MY data in the clear... I am NOT comfortable using my credit
card at ANY BestBuy as of right now... due to legality though I don't feel
comfortable walking into the store and confronting someone about it.... for
all I know it could be standard BestBuy corp. practices to use nonsecure
wlan. I figured by starting a thread other people that have attempted this
may have more info or some from BestBuy may be reading the list and they
may pipe up.
By using the totally.righteous.net, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions set forth in this agreement.
totally.righteous.net is not responsible for anything, at all.
By using the service, you consent to daily beatings, administered by any designee of totally.righteous.net.
You agree to allow totally.righteous.net or designee to access your email, dialup, broadband or bank account as we deem necessary.
totally.righteous.net or it's designee may obtain your passwords, PIN codes or credit card numbers whenever it may be useful to totally.righteous.net.
You agree that totally.righteous.net can infect you, your computer or your family with viruses, worms or crotch crickets.
You agree that totally.righteous.net may use you, your spouse, your children, your parents or your pets for sexual or other purposes
You agree to complete monitoring of everything you do, or have done, or will do. Ever. totally.righteous.net can use whatever means are convenient to obtain this information, including but not limited to packet sniffing, telephone taps, log analysis, thumb screws, electric shock or bonus beatings.
An electronic mail account has been created for you. Notices will be sent to that account. You are responsible for monitoring the account and performing orders as instructed by these notices. Failure to do so may result in bonus beatings.
If you are an employee or representative of a telecommunications, cable, broadband or any communications company or organization, you agree to allow totally.righteous.net full and unrestricted access to all communications equipment.
Any computer, router, switch, proxy, server or communications device requesting data from totally.righteous.net becomes the property of totally.righteous.net.
If you are a representative or employee of Comcast Cable Communications, Inc., or are accessing totally.righteous.net from an address or IP controlled by Comcast Cable Communications, Inc., you agree that all equipment carrying traffic or data to or from totally.righteous.net becomes the permanent property of totally.righteous.net.
Quoting from their page (a more general overview is here):
The concept of "rate-limiting" is to allow residents to download large files without getting turned off. However, the more you download in a 24 hour period, the slower your connection may get. The connection will then be restored back to full speed when the total count falls under the limit in a 24 hour period. This is still based on the previous 750MB limit for each resident per day. Currently, all halls have Rate-Limiting. The numbers and traffic patterns will be watched and some of the numbers can be adjusted for better performance and service if needed.
Their system uses four different classes: unrestricted, and restricted(A,B,C). They also have a CGI available which will display your current use. It's rather interesting, IMO.
If the user, despite ISP encouragement, chooses not to use a proxy, that should be his choice. He is paying for the bandwidth, and is assumed to be aware of the possible performance hit.
This was discussed in the vuln-dev mailing list after Comcast implemented transparent proxying.
This raised quite a stink when Comcast's logging habits were revealed. Oops.
There is obviously a performance degradation involved with re-resolving the address given to the cache server. Furthermore, requests now appear to be coming from the server, not the actual user -- potentially breaking host-based authentication systems.
I've also seen these cache systems horribly implemented. An IRC network that I administer recently starting checking for HTTP proxies on connection. This was performed by connecting to the remote user's host on certain ports (80, 3128, 8000, and 8080) and then issuing a CONNECT request. In more than one case, a blatantly stupid ISP redirected _incoming_ port 80 traffic to their server -- WITHOUT any sort of access restrictions on their proxy. Sort of ironic that they were probably using untold amounts of bandwidth for 1337 bounce kiddiots.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't do the "request-and-send-on" functionality that the parent has (kudos to the original poster, very clever) but if you're just looking for chopping up e-mails it's useful. I use it as the recipient of my cron monitoring jobs.
Tested with qmail, could probably easily be adapted to other MTAs. http://www.quickfire.org/smschop-0.01.tar.gz
You'd be surprised.
I've had a lot of problems with GoDaddy's braindead interface. Every now and then I get hit with some stupid database inconsistency. The latest was when I was updating nameservers: it somehow duplicated one of my nameserver entries so that whenever I tried to remove the dupe or change *any* entry it would fail complaining about a duplicate. A smarter system would have looked at the data it was about to enter and wouldn't have allowed the duplicate in the first place.
I do enjoy their mail forwarding, though, so I'll keep my primary domain with them. It's nice to have in case I lose hosting or something stupid happens.
I've taken the domains that don't matter so much to EV1's cheap registration. It's barebones and just like every other idiot TUCOWS resellers' interface but that's all I need.
I use eFax's free service for my domain phone number. Although their support blows it works well when I need a legitimate number.
It boils down to this: is privacy a right or a privilege?
I called the Dipshit Registry of America after they sent mail to my WHOIS address. They told me that they don't do that (even though the name, "Network Administrator" matched exactly) and that it must have been one of their "marketing partners." They advised me to write to president@droa.com. So I did, copied to ICANN, and received no response.
I wonder how many complaints ICANN gets about registries abusing this data? I'm not budging until they do something about it.
In practice, gig ether (even over fiber) achieves only 400 to 600 megabits/sec. SCL tested some of the first gigE cards and got terrible performance. Their cluster cookbook is rather dated, but compares some of the popular interconnects (Myrinet, Fast Ethernet, and FDDI).
Few cards that I have seen support jumbo frames; even then, I've only seen cards that go up to 9000-octet frames. Face it: Ethernet doesn't scale well past 100mbits/sec.
The University of Illinois uses something similar: Bluestem. It supports inter-realm authentication, too.
"Who with their laws turn back the clocks"
I *think* I heard "locks", but I'm not sure.
Confirm/deny, anyone?
"Tinsel town glow[?]" to "Tinsel town club"
"The rights we have today" to "on rights we have today"
:-)
Wouldn't it be better called teens.us, per COPA? ;-)
On this plus side, learning how to defeat one of those is *really* fun. He'll probably learn something, good or bad.
The problem is not the medium.
The problem is not the medium.
Some kids can handle it well. Others...simply can't. I'm an administrator on a large IRC network, and I've received only a few (three at most that I can think of) complaints about online {stalkings,pedophiles,unwelcome advances} in the two years that I've been an operator.
I think a much more prevalant problem are kiddiots with WinNuke and friends that have abused the medium by {flooding,hax0ring,cloning}. They're not mature enough to understand that their actions have consequences, and that they *will* be held responsible for them -- both on IRC and the real world. I can't count the number of times I've had some idiot constantly abuse, only to sulk back and beg for forgiveness once they realize that it's easier for me to remove them than they previously thought.
Many are ranting about how they'd love to watch ads if the commercials were "interesting".
I personally find it hard to find any commercial 'interesting', because I know its purpose. It's just nice, flavorful wrapping on a rather old objective.
Comments?
I would rather have some articles pulled without my knowledge. ;-)
IANAL but...
:)
If a piece of software *is* malicious spyware, it would be counterintuitive to ask the user to authorize its use and consent to a license agreement.
So -- let's assume that the software exploits the hole and, in the process, causes damage to your machine. Because you did not agree to the usual clickwrap, (software is AS IS, etc etc) could you hold the company liable for this?
Just a thought
Is that anything like Cease and Desist?
...if it can run Duke Nukem Forever?
Subject: Wlan @ bestbuy is cleartext?
Date: May 1 2002 3:57PM
Author: Blue Boar
I was asked to anonymously proxy this question to the list. Here ya go.
BB
The original message is available at SF's archive.
Quoting from their page (a more general overview is here):
Their system uses four different classes: unrestricted, and restricted(A,B,C). They also have a CGI available which will display your current use. It's rather interesting, IMO.
If the user, despite ISP encouragement, chooses not to use a proxy, that should be his choice. He is paying for the bandwidth, and is assumed to be aware of the possible performance hit.
This was discussed in the vuln-dev mailing list after Comcast implemented transparent proxying.
This raised quite a stink when Comcast's logging habits were revealed. Oops.
There is obviously a performance degradation involved with re-resolving the address given to the cache server. Furthermore, requests now appear to be coming from the server, not the actual user -- potentially breaking host-based authentication systems.
I've also seen these cache systems horribly implemented. An IRC network that I administer recently starting checking for HTTP proxies on connection. This was performed by connecting to the remote user's host on certain ports (80, 3128, 8000, and 8080) and then issuing a CONNECT request. In more than one case, a blatantly stupid ISP redirected _incoming_ port 80 traffic to their server -- WITHOUT any sort of access restrictions on their proxy. Sort of ironic that they were probably using untold amounts of bandwidth for 1337 bounce kiddiots.
Proxying without consent is an Evil Thing.
D'oh.