Is it possible (well, I know it is, I guess I mean how difficult is it -IANAC-), to build a reasonably simple programme that would just sit in the background requesting web pages.
Gazillions of them.
Constantly...
Surely the weight of data would flood ISP's.
Okay, problems with this:
Bandwidth - I am on DSL, so not such a problem, but do we need to retrieve all the data? No, just pull the text. And have the thing running in the background. If you have a permanent connection (a la DSL), then run it constantly, whilst you aren't surfing / downloading et cetera. The bandwidth cost to ISP's would rocket, and thus cause fiscal issues for them.
Other problems: None that I can think of - enlighten me.
As for e-mail: Get a pgp key, and send random emails. If you had a key that was specifically used for this then somehow the receiving party could know to just delete all mails sent with that key. Rotate the key every couple of weeks, and voila (oops - wrote viola, thank heavens for preview), the mail can't even be filtered by key.
Seems viable. The big issue is bandwidth usage, both locally and as an issue to the community as a whole. But it puts such a strain on the system (i.e. the monitoring) that monitoring becomes non viable.
Actually, little known fact, but Windows (whenever using ntfs, I believe), does have hard links. They are undocumented, and not easy to work with (so shoot me, I didn't implement them) - Technet article
You can also add whatever meta data you want to any ntfs file. I think sysinternals havve a utility to add & read info.
You are almost right, in that neither of these are particularly well supported or documented. Maybe a cool project to write a gooey front end that integrates into win explorer though...
Just thought I'd say.
No longer an admin, so maybe it is different nowadays, but I was there to help users, they paid my wages. The possibility of knowing one of them had a virus (presumably that I may not yet be aware of, or I'd have already blocked it), seems a damn good idea to me.
I don't disagree with the bounces being bad, I say send them all to dev/null, I just don't get how you think dev/null is unaceptable, but blacklisting isn't. Blacklisting seems a far more drastic step to take.
Meant to say previously, e-mail is NOT reliable, it should never be counted on, if you need to know someone got a message you need to phone them anyway. Having some form of recorded delivery (a la Lotus or Outlook/Exchange), is kind of useful, but until there is a ubiquitous system for this, e-mail is just postcards.
Usenet can be a cess-pool, a quagmire, a nasty dirty place. As can the net, as can a moderately sized book shop, if you know how to look. Sorry you feel it's not worth the bother, and I hope you come round to changing your mind on that one.
Sorry, I just don't get what you are trying to say here:
1. Sending mail to dev/null is wrong, because people need to be able to use e-mail.
2. If an admin tries to be helpful (maybe misguidedly), you blacklist them, thus no more mail.
This seems to be a contradiction, at least to me.
Oh, and btw, usenet rocks.
Quote from article "At that Q&A session, SCO Senior Vice President Chris Sontag said there are millions of lines of offending code"
So it (appears), that it was SCO making the claim.
Kust thought I'd say.
not really a whinge but...
Arabic is really wuite easy to learn. I am not so good with languages, but thought arabic script looked cool, so thought I'd see if I could learn a little. And guess what, it was really quite easy to pick up (yeah, I speak a little french, a little german, but I had so much trouble learning that little).
Now, I am not fluent is arabic, I can speak a little, and can read more, but it is easy. Their spelling is phonetic, so basically if you can read it you can speak it (I can read more than I can speak because of grammar rules, just like I can read and understand RPG, but couldn't really code it).
Anyway, the point of this is... arabic does have vowels, they just tend to be dropped in script, as they really aren't that necessary. No idea of the historic reasoning behind that, but, being cynical, I would say the script looks nicer and cleaner, if you drop the vowels.
Just thought I'd say.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it possible (well, I know it is, I guess I mean how difficult is it -IANAC-), to build a reasonably simple programme that would just sit in the background requesting web pages.
Gazillions of them.
Constantly...
Surely the weight of data would flood ISP's.
Okay, problems with this:
Bandwidth - I am on DSL, so not such a problem, but do we need to retrieve all the data? No, just pull the text. And have the thing running in the background. If you have a permanent connection (a la DSL), then run it constantly, whilst you aren't surfing / downloading et cetera. The bandwidth cost to ISP's would rocket, and thus cause fiscal issues for them.
Other problems: None that I can think of - enlighten me.
As for e-mail: Get a pgp key, and send random emails. If you had a key that was specifically used for this then somehow the receiving party could know to just delete all mails sent with that key. Rotate the key every couple of weeks, and voila (oops - wrote viola, thank heavens for preview), the mail can't even be filtered by key.
Seems viable. The big issue is bandwidth usage, both locally and as an issue to the community as a whole. But it puts such a strain on the system (i.e. the monitoring) that monitoring becomes non viable.
Comments?
Actually, little known fact, but Windows (whenever using ntfs, I believe), does have hard links. They are undocumented, and not easy to work with (so shoot me, I didn't implement them) - Technet article
You can also add whatever meta data you want to any ntfs file. I think sysinternals havve a utility to add & read info. You are almost right, in that neither of these are particularly well supported or documented. Maybe a cool project to write a gooey front end that integrates into win explorer though... Just thought I'd say.
No longer an admin, so maybe it is different nowadays, but I was there to help users, they paid my wages. The possibility of knowing one of them had a virus (presumably that I may not yet be aware of, or I'd have already blocked it), seems a damn good idea to me.
I don't disagree with the bounces being bad, I say send them all to dev/null, I just don't get how you think dev/null is unaceptable, but blacklisting isn't. Blacklisting seems a far more drastic step to take.
Meant to say previously, e-mail is NOT reliable, it should never be counted on, if you need to know someone got a message you need to phone them anyway. Having some form of recorded delivery (a la Lotus or Outlook/Exchange), is kind of useful, but until there is a ubiquitous system for this, e-mail is just postcards.
Usenet can be a cess-pool, a quagmire, a nasty dirty place. As can the net, as can a moderately sized book shop, if you know how to look. Sorry you feel it's not worth the bother, and I hope you come round to changing your mind on that one.
Sorry, I just don't get what you are trying to say here: 1. Sending mail to dev/null is wrong, because people need to be able to use e-mail. 2. If an admin tries to be helpful (maybe misguidedly), you blacklist them, thus no more mail. This seems to be a contradiction, at least to me. Oh, and btw, usenet rocks.
Quote from article "At that Q&A session, SCO Senior Vice President Chris Sontag said there are millions of lines of offending code" So it (appears), that it was SCO making the claim. Kust thought I'd say.
not really a whinge but... Arabic is really wuite easy to learn. I am not so good with languages, but thought arabic script looked cool, so thought I'd see if I could learn a little. And guess what, it was really quite easy to pick up (yeah, I speak a little french, a little german, but I had so much trouble learning that little). Now, I am not fluent is arabic, I can speak a little, and can read more, but it is easy. Their spelling is phonetic, so basically if you can read it you can speak it (I can read more than I can speak because of grammar rules, just like I can read and understand RPG, but couldn't really code it). Anyway, the point of this is... arabic does have vowels, they just tend to be dropped in script, as they really aren't that necessary. No idea of the historic reasoning behind that, but, being cynical, I would say the script looks nicer and cleaner, if you drop the vowels. Just thought I'd say.