The latest 2.3.x releases of Cyrus also support replication. You can have a Cyrus Murder plus replication on the backends for redundancy. This stuff works very well with very large installations. Fastmail.fm runs on Cyrus, for example, as well as a ton of university email systems.
On the other hand, MS *really* wants the university to continue using and buying the Campus Agreement licenses of Windows and Office, so it's not like OSU doesn't have their own leverage with MS as well.
MS got a lot of bad press a year ago when they tried to make a Portland, OR school pay up for their licensing scheme. I doubt they want the bad press that would come from trying to enforce an anti-benchmark clause.
Which just goes to show that current copyright laws are out of sync with the beliefs of society. They may think sharing copyrighted material is illegal, but obviously don't think it is immoral. I would extend this argument to include all "Intellectual Property".
There are few things in this world easier to share than an idea.
On the topic of blocking ports, has anyone else on @Home's network noticed that outbound connections on port 139 (used for windows networking) are being blocked? Inbound connections on port 139 work fine, but outbound packets on port 139 are dropped.
One thing I've noticed, which I think coincides with blocking port 139, is that the performance of my @Home connection has been significantly better for the last two weeks or so.
Has anyone else noticed this, or is it only happening in Portland (where they are being asked to open their networks, hmmm....).
Annoying, I'm sure. But no access to your hard drive, no access to your bookmarks, no access to your address book, and it didn't replicate or send copies of itself, right? Just SPAM with pictures, in effect.
I don't think you should expose an E-mail client to any scripting "engine" that doesn't implement some kind of sandbox concept. HTML and JavaScript do all that is needed. I am not really into Netscape vs. Outlook. Outlook is fine if they would make a version that could never be configured to do anything beyond HTML and Javascript. In fact, no Javascript would be fine too.
W3C HTML by itself is not all that "active". Shouldn't we lay the blame on VBscript in E-mail, not HTML. My Netscape E-mail seems to ignore VBscript, ActiveX, and all that as long as I don't do something stupid like opening an attachment named Happy99.exe or such!
Is the problem HTML and JavaScript in E-mail or is it really the insecure Visual Basic Script, Windows Scripting Host, and ActiveX? These are proprietary, Microsoft technologies.
I suppose there are exploits in HTML, but what are they? Does Netscape's implementation of JavaScript currently have any security problems? These are open standards, so are they more secure by design?
I find HTML useful in E-mail. I commonly put in tables, do bullited lists, colored text for emphasis, etc. I find it easy and productive. This is mostly on our internal LAN. I use more plain text on the internet unless I know the recipient.
Slashdot Mirror
The latest 2.3.x releases of Cyrus also support replication. You can have a Cyrus Murder plus replication on the backends for redundancy. This stuff works very well with very large installations. Fastmail.fm runs on Cyrus, for example, as well as a ton of university email systems.
To see a current list of mirrors and bandwidth usage for the mirrors, go to:
http://oregonstate.edu/net/services/ftp/
On the other hand, MS *really* wants the university to continue using and buying the Campus Agreement licenses of Windows and Office, so it's not like OSU doesn't have their own leverage with MS as well.
MS got a lot of bad press a year ago when they tried to make a Portland, OR school pay up for their licensing scheme. I doubt they want the bad press that would come from trying to enforce an anti-benchmark clause.
Maybe they could make pci-express slots half-height as well...
If anyone has bought a pci ethernet card lately, you'll see that they could be much smaller except for the huge pci connector required!
Which just goes to show that current copyright laws are out of sync with the beliefs of society. They may think sharing copyrighted material is illegal, but obviously don't think it is immoral. I would extend this argument to include all "Intellectual Property".
There are few things in this world easier to share than an idea.
On the topic of blocking ports, has anyone else on @Home's network noticed that outbound connections on port 139 (used for windows networking) are being blocked? Inbound connections on port 139 work fine, but outbound packets on port 139 are dropped.
One thing I've noticed, which I think coincides with blocking port 139, is that the performance of my @Home connection has been significantly better for the last two weeks or so.
Has anyone else noticed this, or is it only happening in Portland (where they are being asked to open their networks, hmmm....).
Annoying, I'm sure. But no access to your hard drive, no access to your bookmarks, no access to your address book, and it didn't replicate or send copies of itself, right? Just SPAM with pictures, in effect.
I don't think you should expose an E-mail client to any scripting "engine" that doesn't implement some kind of sandbox concept. HTML and JavaScript do all that is needed. I am not really into Netscape vs. Outlook. Outlook is fine if they would make a version that could never be configured to do anything beyond HTML and Javascript. In fact, no Javascript would be fine too.
W3C HTML by itself is not all that "active". Shouldn't we lay the blame on VBscript in E-mail, not HTML. My Netscape E-mail seems to ignore VBscript, ActiveX, and all that as long as I don't do something stupid like opening an attachment named Happy99.exe or such!
Allen
Is the problem HTML and JavaScript in E-mail or is it really the insecure Visual Basic Script, Windows Scripting Host, and ActiveX? These are proprietary, Microsoft technologies.
I suppose there are exploits in HTML, but what are they? Does Netscape's implementation of JavaScript currently have any security problems? These are open standards, so are they more secure by design?
I find HTML useful in E-mail. I commonly put in tables, do bullited lists, colored text for emphasis, etc. I find it easy and productive. This is mostly on our internal LAN. I use more plain text on the internet unless I know the recipient.
Allen