access-list 100 deny udp any any eq 69
access-list 100 deny tcp any any eq 135
access-list 100 deny udp any any eq 135
access-list 100 deny tcp any any eq 139
access-list 100 deny udp any any eq 139
access-list 100 deny tcp any any eq 445
access-list 100 deny udp any any eq 445
access-list 101 deny udp any any eq 1433
access-list 101 deny udp any any eq 1434
access-list 100 deny tcp any any eq 4444
access-list 100 permit ip any any
Add another one to block ping (temporarily until the viruses fizzle out) and Bob's your uncle. No need to cut innocent users off, just drop the packets.
According to "The New Hacker's Dictionary" (third edition) by Eric S. Raymond:
====
spam vt., vi., n. [From "Monty Pythons Flying Circus"]
1. To crash a program by overrunning a fixed-size buffer with excessively large input data. See also buffer overflow, overrun screw, smash the stack.
2. To cause a newsgroup to be flooded with irrelevant or inappropriate messages. You can spam a newsgroup with as little as one well- (or ill-) planned message (e.g., asking "What do you think of abortion?" on soc.women). This is often done with cross-posting (e.g. any message which is crossposted to al.rush-limbaugh and alt.politics.homosexuality will almost inevitably spam both groups).
3. To send many identical or nearly-identical messages separately to a large number of Usenet newsgroups. This is one sure way to infuriate nearly everone on the Net.
The second and third definitions have become much more prevalent as the Internet has opened up to non-techies, and to many Usenetters sense 3 is now (1995) primary. In this sense the term has apparantly (sic) begun to go mainstream, though without its original sense of folkloric freight - there is apparently a widespread belief among lusers that "spamming" is what happens when you dump cans of Spam into a revolving fan.
====
Now if I could just stop sneezing from all the dust that was disturbed from opening that book.
Slashdot Mirror
access-list 100 deny udp any any eq 69
access-list 100 deny tcp any any eq 135
access-list 100 deny udp any any eq 135
access-list 100 deny tcp any any eq 139
access-list 100 deny udp any any eq 139
access-list 100 deny tcp any any eq 445
access-list 100 deny udp any any eq 445
access-list 101 deny udp any any eq 1433
access-list 101 deny udp any any eq 1434
access-list 100 deny tcp any any eq 4444
access-list 100 permit ip any any
Add another one to block ping (temporarily until the viruses fizzle out) and Bob's your uncle. No need to cut innocent users off, just drop the packets.
Here's a blast from the past from 1995:
According to "The New Hacker's Dictionary" (third edition) by Eric S. Raymond:
====
spam vt., vi., n. [From "Monty Pythons Flying Circus"]
1. To crash a program by overrunning a fixed-size buffer with excessively large input data. See also buffer overflow, overrun screw, smash the stack.
2. To cause a newsgroup to be flooded with irrelevant or inappropriate messages. You can spam a newsgroup with as little as one well- (or ill-) planned message (e.g., asking "What do you think of abortion?" on soc.women). This is often done with cross-posting (e.g. any message which is crossposted to al.rush-limbaugh and alt.politics.homosexuality will almost inevitably spam both groups).
3. To send many identical or nearly-identical messages separately to a large number of Usenet newsgroups. This is one sure way to infuriate nearly everone on the Net.
The second and third definitions have become much more prevalent as the Internet has opened up to non-techies, and to many Usenetters sense 3 is now (1995) primary. In this sense the term has apparantly (sic) begun to go mainstream, though without its original sense of folkloric freight - there is apparently a widespread belief among lusers that "spamming" is what happens when you dump cans of Spam into a revolving fan.
====
Now if I could just stop sneezing from all the dust that was disturbed from opening that book.