Huh? Care to back this up? I haven't found any evidence of an intentional attack against anti-spam sites. Yes, they're having problems. But that's to be expected when the overall volume of email goes up, right?
1. Mimail (all variants) is a DDOS tool, which targets anti-spam sites. Had you read the article (or known anything about this family of worms in general) you would know that.
2. This version of Mimail contains links to anti-spam sites in the email it uses to spread itself. Here's an excerpt:
Are you ready for all types of underage porn? We have the best selection for every taste!
Just click the secret links below and have fun: http://www.spamhaus.org http://www.spews.org http://www.register.com http://www.cardcops.com http://www.carderplanet.net http://www.spamcop.net http://disney.go.com http://www.authorizenet.com
Is that enough evidence for you, or do you want more?
Just something to think about: This article talks about spammers along with references to not only spam, but destruction of anti-spam, virii, pornography, theft, identity theft, and child pornography. The only way they could really make spammers look any worse is if they labeled them as baby rapists.
While it could be true, it's beginning to sound like propaganda, intending to make these guys look more Evil than life. Think about the article's motivation, author, and target audience. Be careful, there may be something more going on than what we see on the surface.
You DON'T HAVE TO make this kind of stuff up--the spammers are more than happy to provide the real thing!
The virus in question (mimail.L) offers porn, claims to be sending you child porn, attacks anti-spam sites, and tries to associate those anti-spam domains AS CRIMINALS in the minds of the target.
What do you WANT the article to say? That these spammers/virus writers are misunderstood, because they had poor childhoods and their mothers didn't like them?
The master slave argument is bound to elicit pretty strong feeling in many subgroups, just because the majority of readers on slashdot are white males, does not mean that everyone shares the same ambivilence or distance from such issues as apartheid and racism.
You might not believe this, but white males have been slaves, too.
I doubt calling an interface a trade center jack, because it contains 2 collapsable cicuits triggered, by a fast moving taliban controler, would receive the ambivilence that the master/slave connector does.
Now you've proven that you're nothing more than a troll.
Saying exchange servers may be relaying because of this 'bug' is like saying linux is insecure because you can set a blank root password and enable sshd to accept connections as root.
Err, RTFA.
Even if the AUTHENTICATION FAILS for the guest account, exchange still relays the mail.
I am really amazed at how many people are actually complaining about the price! I really should collect all of your names so that I can have a really fun first of April...
And even if you did get the joke, it is hardly worth the bandwidth. I would complain that/. has gone down the tubes, but hasn't it always been like this?
The thing is, I"m not convinced that this IS a joke. It's a publicity stunt, to be sure, but from reading the other items available in the site (such as Birdman's 1971 Plymouth Roadrunner, Powerpuff girls and Dexters lab bedrooms, etc) that all of the ridiculous looking items are possibly the real thing. Most of them are limited in quantity to 1-3, and the million dollar treehouse listed actually references California building codes, site permit fees, etc.
That said, I agree with you that this isn't quite "news for nerds," and it CERTAINLY isn't "stuff that matters."
I assumed that you suggested looking through the proxy cache at the end of the month, like some other posts mentioning squid had suggested.
That is indeed what I was suggesting.
Nevertheless, the phone call list anology is not entirely accurate, either, since a URL inherently carries more information than a phone number (consider "http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/opiates/opiates.s html" versus "212-555-8942"). The internet is also a far more diverse medium than the phone network; your analogy would have to include a listing of every book, magazine and pamphlet your child reads. Actually, make that every chapter, article and paragraph; due to the request-response nature of the internet, if a page is in the logs, it is reasonable to assume that the user has read (or at least expressed interest in) it -- which is far more than one could say about the contents of a magazine, for example.
I see your point and agree that it is more intrusive than a simple list of phone numbers. Whether or not it is OVERLY intrusive is up for debate. Again, the facts at issue here are that there are house rules, and the kids are not abiding by them. IMHO, it is acceptable to engage in proxy logging in this instance, and, if the behavior keeps up, to go further. This is part of the punishment--having proven that they cannot be trusted, closer tabs will be kept on them.
This particular situation isn't very clear, but a desire of privacy on the net is only rational. I know of several cases where a person does not wish the parents to know the url of his or her blog (you must admit, a parent logging urls would not hesitate to read through it), for instance. Collapsing my work whenever someone walks by is only natural for me, and many others I know, because we are (or I am, at least) embarassed of our spaghetti code and poor writing. Perhaps it is a general teenage paranoia, but being uncomfortable about one's surfing, even if it's perfectly legitimate, seems fairly normal to me.
This conversation is really driving home to me the point that, at 29, I'm not a kid anymore--another poster referred to this by saying something along the lines of "When I was younger, I had the same opinions my children do now--but my perspective is different now" or something to that effect.
The simple fact is that I completely understand your point, and part of me strongly agrees with it. Indeed, were someone to keep tabs on me to this extent I would be at the least outraged, take action to stop the logging, and probably retaliate to drive the point home to them.
The difference is, of course, that parents have a responsibility to both set and enforce boundaries for their children, while adults are expected to set their own. You noted that you are 16, so you're probably going to blow that statement off... but that's really what it comes down to. At your age, you don't have that RIGHT to privacy that you cherish unless your parents choose to grant it to you (and if they do, I'm happy for both you and them--them for trusting you enough to give it to you, and you for being worthy of it.)
Isn't this something that Slashdot should not be attempting to answer? How many of the slashdot readers can say that they are successfully raising a child? How many can say to this parent what they did correctly?
Personally, I wouldn't consult slashdot for anything family related. I think it's just plain silly to ask a bunch of nerds and geeks like me about how to raise your kid. It's like asking your kids what you should do with their computer.
Yes, it's a well known fact that since nerds and geeks never have sex, they can't be parents.
Seriously though, there's a few hundred thousand people (maybe a few million at the point, I don't keep up and the number of registrants) that read and post to this site. You don't think at least SOME of them are currently or in the past have raised children? Even successfully?
Assuming the kids are at all computer savvy, this will last roughly five minutes before the kid realizes he can just plug the ethernet cable from the computer directly into the cable modem and bypass the firewall altogether.
I disagree with the above. Most broadband ISPs allow a single DHCP lease per subscriber account. In order to go directly from the cable/dsl modem, the kid would have to disconnect the firewall, plus the switch directly into the cable modem, and unplug every other device that was connected to the switch.
This would probably be noticed by the parent, or at least the siblings who could not get online.
1) ssh quux@any_freely_availible_shell -L 1337:some_open_proxy:3128 (you can do the same with puTTY under windows, I believe) 2) Set browser's proxy to localhost:1337 3) Profit!
I have to say that an ssh tunnel didn't occur to me, and the above is downright clever. Of course, the obvious response to this would be to lock down port 22 at the firewall.
Installing it without their consent is even worse; your kid will NEVER trust you again if you do that. It's akin to putting a camera in his room, or listening in on his phone conversations.
I disagree with this--it's more like having the phone company send you a full list of all calls made from your number in a given month. A closer analogy to what you suggest would be keystroke logging software, VNC, etc, which I wouldn't suggest at this point, unless things are REALLY bad.
Additionally, his kids have shown by their actions that they are untrustworthy in this matter. Suggesting your kids will not trust you because you will not allow them to abuse your trust seems like a dodge. You can't always be your child's friend, sometimes you have to step up and be the parent.
Since you've got three machines connected to what I assume is a broadband connection of some kind, I'm also going to assume you have some kind of router/firewall in place already.
Rip it out and replace it with an old pentium running some flavor of linux, BSD, whatever you're comfortable with, and set up Squid on the box as a transparent proxy.
Your kids will not be able to bypass this--at least at the workstation level (I'm not going to speculate on the ability of your children to hack your firewall) and you'll have a log of EVERY URL visited from any machine on your network.
Add something like Webalizer to make the log files more friendly, and you're done.
We also brought in an instructor with a resume listing five years of.NET experience.
My first assumption would have to be that he is lying--MS didn't even announce an alpha of dotnet until July 2000.
That said, it's possible he's telling the truth--or something close to the truth, anyway, since dotnet has an ancestor named Omniware, which has existed since 1995.
That's why they can get away with doing almost anything they want. 70% of all companies that do business with walmart either go bankrupt or get purchased by walmart.
If that's true, those companies have poor management and SHOULD go under. Sears used to do the same thing--give a huge contract to a small manufacturer with favorable terms, get them hooked on Sears' business until it became THE core customer (think 90-100% of your bookings being a single customer) and then when the contract was up, offer FAR less favorable terms, to the point of break-even or even a loss.
ANYBODY who bases their business on a single customer will eventually face the above, and any "manager" that doesn't know that deserves what he gets.
What if it is MY prerelease for MY movie that I'm trying to get into the hands of critics so that it sees the light of day despite my not being part and parcel of the MPAA?
Err, seeing as how you OWN THE COPYRIGHT ON *YOUR* MOVIE how exactly would you fall afoul of the law?
The Scouring of the Shire will not appear in the movie, despite being hinted at in Fellowship. As much as I dislike that fact (the Scouring is alot more important to the series than most would give it credit for) the removal really takes away the need for Saruman at this point.
I didn't need to see it to understand what was going on; it was very fitting that he was destroyed by the Ents, when he had destroyed so much of the forest.
Therefore, I was quite surprised when I first heard that Saruman was going to be in the third movie--that meant somehow he had escaped the poetic fate that seemed so obvious.
Except, of course, that Saruman has a larger part to play then simply being squished by Ents. While the movie will not show it, he is still important to the story, and his end is even more terrible and fitting than what you assume.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the drives cant be larger than 7.8GB, how many people does this really affect?
FAT32 can support drives much, much larger than that.
1. Mimail (all variants) is a DDOS tool, which targets anti-spam sites. Had you read the article (or known anything about this family of worms in general) you would know that.
2. This version of Mimail contains links to anti-spam sites in the email it uses to spread itself. Here's an excerpt:
Is that enough evidence for you, or do you want more?
Just something to think about: This article talks about spammers along with references to not only spam, but destruction of anti-spam, virii, pornography, theft, identity theft, and child pornography. The only way they could really make spammers look any worse is if they labeled them as baby rapists.
While it could be true, it's beginning to sound like propaganda, intending to make these guys look more Evil than life. Think about the article's motivation, author, and target audience. Be careful, there may be something more going on than what we see on the surface.
You DON'T HAVE TO make this kind of stuff up--the spammers are more than happy to provide the real thing!
The virus in question (mimail.L) offers porn, claims to be sending you child porn, attacks anti-spam sites, and tries to associate those anti-spam domains AS CRIMINALS in the minds of the target.
What do you WANT the article to say? That these spammers/virus writers are misunderstood, because they had poor childhoods and their mothers didn't like them?
Take off the tinfoil and open your damn eyes.
On what basis are you saying that they are "thugs"?
I think this is a pretty good indication that a government consists of thugs.
Orrin Hatch, he went to congress, DUM DUM DUM DUM DUM
</singing>
The master slave argument is bound to elicit pretty strong feeling in many subgroups, just because the majority of readers on slashdot are white males, does not mean that everyone shares the same ambivilence or distance from such issues as apartheid and racism.
You might not believe this, but white males have been slaves, too.
I doubt calling an interface a trade center jack, because it contains 2 collapsable cicuits triggered, by a fast moving taliban controler, would receive the ambivilence that the master/slave connector does.
Now you've proven that you're nothing more than a troll.
1,600 Servers............. $640,000
:)
10GB network.............. $378,000
35 IT staffers............ $140/hr
40 Visual f/x staffers... $9,800,000.28
Wow, looks like they outsourced the IT to India.
I'm not amused. Clearly, Red Hat isn't doing enough to accommodate educational facilities with discounted volume licensing.
:)
If by "not enough" you mean offering discounted volume licensing I'd agree with you.
But you probably don't mean that.
FYI, Slashdot covered this a week or so ago.
Saying exchange servers may be relaying because of this 'bug' is like saying linux is insecure because you can set a blank root password and enable sshd to accept connections as root.
Err, RTFA.
Even if the AUTHENTICATION FAILS for the guest account, exchange still relays the mail.
According to the JWST Website, the next generation space telescope will cost "$824.8 million".
A government project that came in one time and under budget? With NASA's name on it? Riiiight.
Maybe more like 8.248 Billion instead of 824.8 Million.
Does Fritz learn from today's defeat... or could Kasparov repeat today's win simply by repeating today's move sequence on Tuesday?
:)
Your two questions are not actually related--on Tuesday, Kasparov will play the black pieces, so will not be able to reproduce his moves today.
I am really amazed at how many people are actually complaining about the price! I really should collect all of your names so that I can have a really fun first of April...
/. has gone down the tubes, but hasn't it always been like this?
And even if you did get the joke, it is hardly worth the bandwidth. I would complain that
The thing is, I"m not convinced that this IS a joke. It's a publicity stunt, to be sure, but from reading the other items available in the site (such as Birdman's 1971 Plymouth Roadrunner, Powerpuff girls and Dexters lab bedrooms, etc) that all of the ridiculous looking items are possibly the real thing. Most of them are limited in quantity to 1-3, and the million dollar treehouse listed actually references California building codes, site permit fees, etc.
That said, I agree with you that this isn't quite "news for nerds," and it CERTAINLY isn't "stuff that matters."
I assumed that you suggested looking through the proxy cache at the end of the month, like some other posts mentioning squid had suggested.
s html" versus "212-555-8942").
That is indeed what I was suggesting.
Nevertheless, the phone call list anology is not entirely accurate, either, since a URL inherently carries more information than a phone number (consider "http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/opiates/opiates.
The internet is also a far more diverse medium than the phone network; your analogy would have to include a listing of every book, magazine and pamphlet your child reads. Actually, make that every chapter, article and paragraph; due to the request-response nature of the internet, if a page is in the logs, it is reasonable to assume that the user has read (or at least expressed interest in) it -- which is far more than one could say about the contents of a magazine, for example.
I see your point and agree that it is more intrusive than a simple list of phone numbers. Whether or not it is OVERLY intrusive is up for debate. Again, the facts at issue here are that there are house rules, and the kids are not abiding by them. IMHO, it is acceptable to engage in proxy logging in this instance, and, if the behavior keeps up, to go further. This is part of the punishment--having proven that they cannot be trusted, closer tabs will be kept on them.
This particular situation isn't very clear, but a desire of privacy on the net is only rational. I know of several cases where a person does not wish the parents to know the url of his or her blog (you must admit, a parent logging urls would not hesitate to read through it), for instance. Collapsing my work whenever someone walks by is only natural for me, and many others I know, because we are (or I am, at least) embarassed of our spaghetti code and poor writing. Perhaps it is a general teenage paranoia, but being uncomfortable about one's surfing, even if it's perfectly legitimate, seems fairly normal to me.
This conversation is really driving home to me the point that, at 29, I'm not a kid anymore--another poster referred to this by saying something along the lines of "When I was younger, I had the same opinions my children do now--but my perspective is different now" or something to that effect.
The simple fact is that I completely understand your point, and part of me strongly agrees with it. Indeed, were someone to keep tabs on me to this extent I would be at the least outraged, take action to stop the logging, and probably retaliate to drive the point home to them.
The difference is, of course, that parents have a responsibility to both set and enforce boundaries for their children, while adults are expected to set their own. You noted that you are 16, so you're probably going to blow that statement off... but that's really what it comes down to. At your age, you don't have that RIGHT to privacy that you cherish unless your parents choose to grant it to you (and if they do, I'm happy for both you and them--them for trusting you enough to give it to you, and you for being worthy of it.)
Isn't this something that Slashdot should not be attempting to answer? How many of the slashdot readers can say that they are successfully raising a child? How many can say to this parent what they did correctly?
Personally, I wouldn't consult slashdot for anything family related. I think it's just plain silly to ask a bunch of nerds and geeks like me about how to raise your kid. It's like asking your kids what you should do with their computer.
Yes, it's a well known fact that since nerds and geeks never have sex, they can't be parents.
Seriously though, there's a few hundred thousand people (maybe a few million at the point, I don't keep up and the number of registrants) that read and post to this site. You don't think at least SOME of them are currently or in the past have raised children? Even successfully?
Assuming the kids are at all computer savvy, this will last roughly five minutes before the kid realizes he can just plug the ethernet cable from the computer directly into the cable modem and bypass the firewall altogether.
I disagree with the above. Most broadband ISPs allow a single DHCP lease per subscriber account. In order to go directly from the cable/dsl modem, the kid would have to disconnect the firewall, plus the switch directly into the cable modem, and unplug every other device that was connected to the switch.
This would probably be noticed by the parent, or at least the siblings who could not get online.
1) ssh quux@any_freely_availible_shell -L 1337:some_open_proxy:3128 (you can do the same with puTTY under windows, I believe)
2) Set browser's proxy to localhost:1337
3) Profit!
I have to say that an ssh tunnel didn't occur to me, and the above is downright clever. Of course, the obvious response to this would be to lock down port 22 at the firewall.
Installing it without their consent is even worse; your kid will NEVER trust you again if you do that. It's akin to putting a camera in his room, or listening in on his phone conversations.
I disagree with this--it's more like having the phone company send you a full list of all calls made from your number in a given month. A closer analogy to what you suggest would be keystroke logging software, VNC, etc, which I wouldn't suggest at this point, unless things are REALLY bad.
Additionally, his kids have shown by their actions that they are untrustworthy in this matter. Suggesting your kids will not trust you because you will not allow them to abuse your trust seems like a dodge. You can't always be your child's friend, sometimes you have to step up and be the parent.
Since you've got three machines connected to what I assume is a broadband connection of some kind, I'm also going to assume you have some kind of router/firewall in place already.
Rip it out and replace it with an old pentium running some flavor of linux, BSD, whatever you're comfortable with, and set up Squid on the box as a transparent proxy.
Your kids will not be able to bypass this--at least at the workstation level (I'm not going to speculate on the ability of your children to hack your firewall) and you'll have a log of EVERY URL visited from any machine on your network.
Add something like Webalizer to make the log files more friendly, and you're done.
We also brought in an instructor with a resume listing five years of .NET experience.
My first assumption would have to be that he is lying--MS didn't even announce an alpha of dotnet until July 2000.
That said, it's possible he's telling the truth--or something close to the truth, anyway, since dotnet has an ancestor named Omniware, which has existed since 1995.
Your post fails to take into account that it is possible to contact more than one host at a given time.
That's why they can get away with doing almost anything they want. 70% of all companies that do business with walmart either go bankrupt or get purchased by walmart.
If that's true, those companies have poor management and SHOULD go under. Sears used to do the same thing--give a huge contract to a small manufacturer with favorable terms, get them hooked on Sears' business until it became THE core customer (think 90-100% of your bookings being a single customer) and then when the contract was up, offer FAR less favorable terms, to the point of break-even or even a loss.
ANYBODY who bases their business on a single customer will eventually face the above, and any "manager" that doesn't know that deserves what he gets.
What if it is MY prerelease for MY movie that I'm trying to get into the hands of critics so that it sees the light of day despite my not being part and parcel of the MPAA?
Err, seeing as how you OWN THE COPYRIGHT ON *YOUR* MOVIE how exactly would you fall afoul of the law?
1GB per cubic centimeter? a 5GB rod is 5x1x1 centimeters...doesn't make a dvd seem enormous to me.
Comparing a DVD to something smaller than a USB keychain drive seems a heck of alot more compact to me!
The Scouring of the Shire will not appear in the movie, despite being hinted at in Fellowship. As much as I dislike that fact (the Scouring is alot more important to the series than most would give it credit for) the removal really takes away the need for Saruman at this point.
I didn't need to see it to understand what was going on; it was very fitting that he was destroyed by the Ents, when he had destroyed so much of the forest.
Therefore, I was quite surprised when I first heard that Saruman was going to be in the third movie--that meant somehow he had escaped the poetic fate that seemed so obvious.
Except, of course, that Saruman has a larger part to play then simply being squished by Ents. While the movie will not show it, he is still important to the story, and his end is even more terrible and fitting than what you assume.
Does the DMCA apply outside the US? How can this guy be breaking US and Federal law while carrying out his research in Milan, Italy?
Ask Dimitri Sklyarov.