I kind of agree with you about having something in DNS to tell the client that it must use SSL. When I read through the Powerpoint, I was wondering about using TXT records, or SRV records or some other type of DNS records to tell the client that it must connect using SSL.
I wonder how practical this would be? I think it would be easier to "bolt-on" than using a new TLD, but would it be more vulnerable to DNS spoofing than using a new TLD?
Not sure about their consumer oriented stuff, but their business products and support is great. I wouldn't buy a consumer type laptop from anyone, consumer stuff is garbage.
Really? So what company created OS X then? Regardless of whether they consider it their primary product or not, Apple makes software - and purchasing that software makes you their customer.
I'm not saying I'm a big fan of PayPal or eBay, but changing the feedback stuff was pretty legitimate. A lot (most?) sellers wouldn't leave feedback for the buyer until the buyer left positive feedback for them. There is *a lot* more risk to the buyer than there is to the seller on eBay. The seller always has either the product or the money (or both); the buyer has to give up their money before they get the product, so they have neither the product or the money for a period of time. It would be much easier to scam a buyer than it would be to scam a seller.
I tried a newer version of Pidgin a few weeks ago, but ended up going back to the older version that I'm currently using (2.2). I'm glad I'm not the only one that doesn't like the non-resizable text-box. I don't know why, but it just annoys the hell out of me. Their stubbornness on this sounds sounds kind of similar to their staunch position that Pidgin should never support voice or video chat (I probably wouldn't use it often, but it would still be nice if it was there). Hopefully this fork will gain some traction.
I am not a rocket scientist but I think there would be some problems with using sats orbiting the moon for GPS type stuff. My understanding is that lunar orbits are not stable long term because of the gravitational effects of the earth and sun.
That may be true, but personally I like having control over the server (and the ability to easily do backups/restores if I accidentally were to delete a message or something). Also, AFAIK, I can't have Gmail push mail to my Windows Mobile phone (I can w/ direct push in Exchange 2003 SP2), or sync my contacts/calendar/tasks from Outlook, and from my phone. I have no doubt whatsoever that Gmail would be more than sufficient for most individuals (I have a Gmail account that I use for subscribing to stuff so I don't get annoying newsletters that I don't read on my real email account), but for a business environment, something along the lines of Exchange (or Groupwise, or Zimbra, or Notes if you must) is many times a better solution. Because they do more than just email.
That is *completely* incorrect. In Exchange 2003 prior to SP2, the limit for the mailbox store was 16 GB. In SP2 they upped that limit to 75 GB, which really is probably enough for most of the small organizations that probably just have a single server running Exchange Standard.
Its also mentioned on the Microsoft Exchange page on wikipedia.
I'm not saying that Exchange is a perfect mailserver for (or worth the cost in) every situation, or denying that Microsoft does some really annoying things, but please try to get your facts straight before you complain about a piece of software.
OK, then use DNS/IP blacklists have your mail server's not accept the mail and report a 500-something error to the SMTP client that's trying to send it. That would block a substantial amount of the spam. Then the rest could be put in the user's spam folders based on content filtering, which can be very unreliable. I just noticed a legitimate message that spam assassin marked as an 8.1 (I've tuned it to put it in my spam folder at 3.3). If need be, the spam folder could be deleted every week. There's no need to send NDR's if you didn't accept the mail in the first place, and the blacklists would be applied before the actual message was sent, so it wouldn't be taking a massive amount of bandwidth. And if you're currently accepting the mail from the client and then just sending it to/dev/null, you're already using more bandwidth by accepting the mail.
I'm not saying that your mail server should accept and deliver every email it receives, but if your server claims to have accepted it w/ a 200 code, then I think its reasonable to expect that your server is going to attempt to deliver it. The different SMTP error codes are there for a reason.
My opinion on spam is this: ten pieces of spam getting through is a (relatively) minor annoyance; one legitimate email being sent to/dev/null (especially if the sender has no way of knowing that it was blocked) could be a disaster depending on the situation.
Wow, if you're having that many problems with Exchange, your sysadmins need to do a better job. Exchange is generally a pretty good mail/groupware server for corporate environments. If you throw an Exchange server together in five minutes, then yeah, you might have some problems, but as long as you think it through beforehand (and like with anything computer related, have a good backup strategy) it should work pretty well unless you have some really unusual requirements.
I definitely agree with you, if a mail server accepts my mail with a 200 code, then the mail *should* be delivered. Even if its put in someone's spam folder, the message should get there. That's one of my pet peeves. That being said, from my experiences when setting up my mail server, Gmail was probably one of the best about not blocking legit mail (I've had an SPF record since the beginning though). I had lots of problems with Hotmail, and I think my mail was usually marked as spam by Yahoo until I enabled DKIM signing. With SPF records and DKIM, I don't think I have any major problems (though my mail server handles a pitifully small amount of mail, so its not like we're going to get marked as a bulk sender).
Interesting, and IANAL, but it seems like that wouldn't necessarily work real well. If mean, if you get a warrant for someone "pirating" music, the only things that they can really look at/take would be the computers, maybe some CD's, etc, right? I was under the impression, that (as some example I read put it), the police could not get a warrant to search a home for a stolen piano, and then arrest the owner because they found drugs in a cabinet, because they could not have reasonably expected to find the piano in the cabinet. Does anyone know more about this sort of thing?
Yeah, but I really have my doubts as to whether consumer ISP's will actually give their customers anything more address wise than they have now. Just because its recommended doesn't mean that ISP's will stop being dicks about it.
The third issue with the new spec, is that it is still VGA output instead of DVI output. Pretty much all modern monitors have DVI inputs, so I don't see the point of going with the old standard.
Yes, almost all monitors now have DVI input, but a lot of projectors still do not. Eventually, I'm sure that they will, but considering that Thinkpads are targeted towards business users, going with VGA is a no-brainer. People don't want to have to bring adapters and crap with them, and don't want to have to worry if their laptop will work with the projector wherever they are going.
I actually did skim the article, but I didn't see anything pertaining to when these attacks/outages happened or where (other than outside the US). Does anyone have an idea about what power outages they are refering to?
I don't think you have to use a 64 bit box for ZFS. It may help performance, but its not a requirement (unless its changed very recently). I have ran Solaris with ZFS in VMware on a 32 bit box before.
The CentOS people have added some RPM's in their centosplus repository with newer version of some of the popular software on it. For CentOS 4, they have PHP 5.1, PostgreSQL 8.1, MySQL 5, and some kernels with support for other file systems (like XFS/ReiserFS I think, though I've not used them). RHEL 4 comes with PHP and MySQL 4.something, and PostgreSQL 7. That makes it easier for people running CentOS (or RHEL - though RedHat obviously wouldn't support it) to run more modern versions of a few popular applications. Its not exactly a cure for cancer type contribution, but it is certainly helpful to many people (including myself).
Just because bandwidth is cheaper doesn't mean that its suddenly a good idea to access everything over the WAN when its not really necessary. Hosting email servers isn't that hard. People spend more time worrying about how they can save $10 by switching to a webmail service hosted by a third party than they would spend if they just got off their ass and implemented a proper mail environment.
Yeah, same here. With Active Directory and Group Policy you can even push down the settings so that the user doesn't have to do anything - the notebook will transparently connect to the SSID using their account. I can't believe that so many people still have trouble with securing wifi.
Slashdot Mirror
I kind of agree with you about having something in DNS to tell the client that it must use SSL. When I read through the Powerpoint, I was wondering about using TXT records, or SRV records or some other type of DNS records to tell the client that it must connect using SSL.
I wonder how practical this would be? I think it would be easier to "bolt-on" than using a new TLD, but would it be more vulnerable to DNS spoofing than using a new TLD?
I believe that MS actually does provide security updates for systems that do not pass WGA.
Not sure about their consumer oriented stuff, but their business products and support is great. I wouldn't buy a consumer type laptop from anyone, consumer stuff is garbage.
Really? So what company created OS X then? Regardless of whether they consider it their primary product or not, Apple makes software - and purchasing that software makes you their customer.
I'm not saying I'm a big fan of PayPal or eBay, but changing the feedback stuff was pretty legitimate. A lot (most?) sellers wouldn't leave feedback for the buyer until the buyer left positive feedback for them. There is *a lot* more risk to the buyer than there is to the seller on eBay. The seller always has either the product or the money (or both); the buyer has to give up their money before they get the product, so they have neither the product or the money for a period of time. It would be much easier to scam a buyer than it would be to scam a seller.
I tried a newer version of Pidgin a few weeks ago, but ended up going back to the older version that I'm currently using (2.2). I'm glad I'm not the only one that doesn't like the non-resizable text-box. I don't know why, but it just annoys the hell out of me. Their stubbornness on this sounds sounds kind of similar to their staunch position that Pidgin should never support voice or video chat (I probably wouldn't use it often, but it would still be nice if it was there). Hopefully this fork will gain some traction.
I am not a rocket scientist but I think there would be some problems with using sats orbiting the moon for GPS type stuff. My understanding is that lunar orbits are not stable long term because of the gravitational effects of the earth and sun.
That may be true, but personally I like having control over the server (and the ability to easily do backups/restores if I accidentally were to delete a message or something). Also, AFAIK, I can't have Gmail push mail to my Windows Mobile phone (I can w/ direct push in Exchange 2003 SP2), or sync my contacts/calendar/tasks from Outlook, and from my phone. I have no doubt whatsoever that Gmail would be more than sufficient for most individuals (I have a Gmail account that I use for subscribing to stuff so I don't get annoying newsletters that I don't read on my real email account), but for a business environment, something along the lines of Exchange (or Groupwise, or Zimbra, or Notes if you must) is many times a better solution. Because they do more than just email.
That is *completely* incorrect. In Exchange 2003 prior to SP2, the limit for the mailbox store was 16 GB. In SP2 they upped that limit to 75 GB, which really is probably enough for most of the small organizations that probably just have a single server running Exchange Standard.
Here is a document about it, scroll down to the part where it says Licensed Database Size Limit. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa998066.aspx
In Exchange 2007, Standard Edition can have up to five mailbox stores in each of five storage groups. And there is no limit on size. http://www.msexchange.org/tutorials/Exchange-2007-Store-Related-Changes-Improvements.html
Its also mentioned on the Microsoft Exchange page on wikipedia.
I'm not saying that Exchange is a perfect mailserver for (or worth the cost in) every situation, or denying that Microsoft does some really annoying things, but please try to get your facts straight before you complain about a piece of software.
OK, then use DNS/IP blacklists have your mail server's not accept the mail and report a 500-something error to the SMTP client that's trying to send it. That would block a substantial amount of the spam. Then the rest could be put in the user's spam folders based on content filtering, which can be very unreliable. I just noticed a legitimate message that spam assassin marked as an 8.1 (I've tuned it to put it in my spam folder at 3.3). If need be, the spam folder could be deleted every week. There's no need to send NDR's if you didn't accept the mail in the first place, and the blacklists would be applied before the actual message was sent, so it wouldn't be taking a massive amount of bandwidth. And if you're currently accepting the mail from the client and then just sending it to /dev/null, you're already using more bandwidth by accepting the mail.
/dev/null (especially if the sender has no way of knowing that it was blocked) could be a disaster depending on the situation.
I'm not saying that your mail server should accept and deliver every email it receives, but if your server claims to have accepted it w/ a 200 code, then I think its reasonable to expect that your server is going to attempt to deliver it. The different SMTP error codes are there for a reason.
My opinion on spam is this: ten pieces of spam getting through is a (relatively) minor annoyance; one legitimate email being sent to
Wow, if you're having that many problems with Exchange, your sysadmins need to do a better job. Exchange is generally a pretty good mail/groupware server for corporate environments. If you throw an Exchange server together in five minutes, then yeah, you might have some problems, but as long as you think it through beforehand (and like with anything computer related, have a good backup strategy) it should work pretty well unless you have some really unusual requirements.
I definitely agree with you, if a mail server accepts my mail with a 200 code, then the mail *should* be delivered. Even if its put in someone's spam folder, the message should get there. That's one of my pet peeves. That being said, from my experiences when setting up my mail server, Gmail was probably one of the best about not blocking legit mail (I've had an SPF record since the beginning though). I had lots of problems with Hotmail, and I think my mail was usually marked as spam by Yahoo until I enabled DKIM signing. With SPF records and DKIM, I don't think I have any major problems (though my mail server handles a pitifully small amount of mail, so its not like we're going to get marked as a bulk sender).
You should see what Oracle charges...
Interesting, and IANAL, but it seems like that wouldn't necessarily work real well. If mean, if you get a warrant for someone "pirating" music, the only things that they can really look at/take would be the computers, maybe some CD's, etc, right? I was under the impression, that (as some example I read put it), the police could not get a warrant to search a home for a stolen piano, and then arrest the owner because they found drugs in a cabinet, because they could not have reasonably expected to find the piano in the cabinet. Does anyone know more about this sort of thing?
If they just wanted it gone they could tell the thrusters to crash it into the middle of the ocean.
My understanding is that they have no control over it because of a computer/communications problem.
Yeah, but I really have my doubts as to whether consumer ISP's will actually give their customers anything more address wise than they have now. Just because its recommended doesn't mean that ISP's will stop being dicks about it.
Yeah, I agree with you. I was replying to the AC that said "Two Words: hosts file".
Why do it 500 times in host files on every computer when you can just kill it at the firewall or edge router?
The third issue with the new spec, is that it is still VGA output instead of DVI output. Pretty much all modern monitors have DVI inputs, so I don't see the point of going with the old standard.
Yes, almost all monitors now have DVI input, but a lot of projectors still do not. Eventually, I'm sure that they will, but considering that Thinkpads are targeted towards business users, going with VGA is a no-brainer. People don't want to have to bring adapters and crap with them, and don't want to have to worry if their laptop will work with the projector wherever they are going.
I actually did skim the article, but I didn't see anything pertaining to when these attacks/outages happened or where (other than outside the US). Does anyone have an idea about what power outages they are refering to?
I don't think you have to use a 64 bit box for ZFS. It may help performance, but its not a requirement (unless its changed very recently). I have ran Solaris with ZFS in VMware on a 32 bit box before.
The CentOS people have added some RPM's in their centosplus repository with newer version of some of the popular software on it. For CentOS 4, they have PHP 5.1, PostgreSQL 8.1, MySQL 5, and some kernels with support for other file systems (like XFS/ReiserFS I think, though I've not used them). RHEL 4 comes with PHP and MySQL 4.something, and PostgreSQL 7. That makes it easier for people running CentOS (or RHEL - though RedHat obviously wouldn't support it) to run more modern versions of a few popular applications. Its not exactly a cure for cancer type contribution, but it is certainly helpful to many people (including myself).
Here's a link: http://mirror.centos.org/centos/4/centosplus/i386/RPMS/
I don't think they clearly show the actual lightning strike, but here are a couple videos about the Apollo 12 launch (Apollo 12 was hit by lightning shortly after launch). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33NnEZMS5RY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWQIryll8y8
Just because bandwidth is cheaper doesn't mean that its suddenly a good idea to access everything over the WAN when its not really necessary. Hosting email servers isn't that hard. People spend more time worrying about how they can save $10 by switching to a webmail service hosted by a third party than they would spend if they just got off their ass and implemented a proper mail environment.
Yeah, same here. With Active Directory and Group Policy you can even push down the settings so that the user doesn't have to do anything - the notebook will transparently connect to the SSID using their account. I can't believe that so many people still have trouble with securing wifi.