Unfortunately, this script has a flaw. It sends an http header identifying it as a script instead of a legitimate browser. I will fix this and resubmit.
If you want to butcher your LWP::Simple, look for a line that says:
$ua->agent("LWP::Simple/$LWP::VERSION");
and make it say something like:
$ua->agent("Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16 i686; en-US; 0.7) Gecko/20010105
");
that last is all one line. LWP::UserAgent is the way to go to fix this for real.
This DOESN'T work! YOu have to go into the page this gets and go to the individual URLs to cost the spammers money. See the scripts submitted by interiot or me at various points in the thread.
for my $line ( @initial )
{
next unless $line =~/^<li><b>/;
$line =~/href=(\S*?)\s/;
my $url = "$baseurl$1";
my $discard = get("$url");
if ( defined $discard) { print "Got OK\n"; }
else { print "Get FAILED\n"; }
}
# this uses the URL Lenny provided, but does
# all the damage automagically
# Also, since it does no cookie processing
# it gets a new session ID each time it runs
# so you can probably run it over and over
# and defeat the protections built in against
# repeat requests.
# you'll need to install LWP::Simple and
# it's requirements to run this
# see www.cpan.org
# perl rules!
Drudge Clueless, was Re:This is a real hack...
on
Microsoft's DNS Down
·
· Score: 1
These entries say nothing about the state of MS's DNS - they are whimsical entries at OTHER DNS servers. Examplr:
MICROSOFT.COM.SHOULD.GIVE.UP.BECAUSE.LINUXISGOD.CO M
is a silly entry in the domain LINUXISGOD.COM
Re:whois.internic.net response is totally differen
on
Microsoft's DNS Down
·
· Score: 1
These names (except the very last one) mean NOTHING. The microsoft.com is at the beginning, not the end, meaning that, for example, MICROSOFT.COM.SHOULD.GIVE.UP.BECAUSE.LINUXISGOD.CO M is a nonsense entry in the zone file for LINUXISGOD.COM.
Big businesses like accountability,
someone they can point a finger at and say 'Make it work'.
I don't have a copy handy, but every EULA I've ever seen conatains langauge to the effect that "this software is not warranted for suitability for any task". So, unless you pay extra and negotiate carefully, you're on your own even if you pay for proprietary software.
Can someone please explain what his motives are? He is espousing free, but non-open source software. Under this scheme, the ideal Stallman
software is something like MS-Office, only given away for free. It seems that under his philosophy, open source but pay-for-it software would
be bad.
What are you talking about? Have you read ANYTHING Stallman has said? Can you read? Stallman wants software that is totally unencumbered. Merely costing $0.00 does not meet his standard of Freedom, so your example of MS Office for free is idiotic, as it is totally incorrect to everything he has said for 15 years.
From the article:
Intel was then confronted by the problem of chips that would allow cheaper memories to be used with its Rambus-only microprocessors. This led to the recall of about 1m PC boards earlier this year, and a profits warning related to the costs involved.
Hope Intel hurt good. They actually went out of their way to stop users from using less expensive chips? Assholes. Time to start looking hard at AMD.
Dude, if a browser can lock up your Linux box that hard, you must have some serious system-level issues going on.
I have to agree with this. Netscape had this effect on me. It went away when I changed video cards. Netscape still kinda blows, but it no longer locks the machine. I went from rebooting several times per week to 32 and 62 days without a reboot. (Still don't know whetehr the problem was the ATI Xpert98 or the Mach64 Xserver, as both were changed out at the same time.)
what if AppSoft decided to release a graphical shell for Linux? You'd have the power of Linux with the familiarity of Windows for all those people who want plug-and-play operation. It could happen...
I don't disagree with your main points, but the material above is confused. Plug-and-play is in the OS and installer, not the GUI - and for an awful lot of hardware, Linux is there. And as far as I'm concerned, most of the GUI is there, too. Some things are missing, and I wouldn't turn my Mom loose on KDE without allocating a day or 2 of my time to get her going, (probably not a good example, my Mom is fairly computer-savvy) but what's really missing is apps, especially a reliable, full-featured browser (which netscrape is not if you count Java as part of full-functioned.)
Finally, and I get marked as a troll every time I say this, I wouldn't trust Microsoft s/w on my Linux machine. (Maybe it would be different from AppSoft.) I just expect too much underhanded spyware or crashware techniques.
MS put this up in hopes of distracting some talent from the linux/*bsd front. Not likely, but they're probably desperate.
Seriously, though, for all the reasons the poster stated, it's a lousy idea, plus, it's a known fact that there are secret API calls the MS apps use that aren't documented and therefore the MS aps would never work on the clone.
Yes they are. Look at UCITA sometime, then remember that one of their paid flunkies had a key role in its drafting. A supporter of UCITA is by definition the enemy of all consumers of software and data services.
View the WWW in something other than Internet Exploiter and see how their tools are intentionally botching webpages, to lock in their browser.
THey spent 2billion dollars a year on research. that has to result in something good, plus in some environments their products are better than other products.
I'm to the point where I don't care. Everything they do is to lock-in users. I decline to enslave my future for the sake of temporary, current convenience.
I just make a note that this is a 'webmaster' (what a pathetic lie that one is!) who thinks my time is less important than... whatever, and I never go back (if I can remember). I sometimes drop said webmasturbator a note letting him know what a twit he is.
Why do they call them 'webmasters'? Most of them are fools and parrots.
- They can't patent the file format, there's plenty of prior art
Which the patent office is totally incapable/unwilling to understand. They grant all kinds of bogus patents regardless
- If they use encryption, that's their choice. 90% of the market is Office anyway. - The DMCA does not outlaw reverse engineering. DeCSS was preliminarily banned because the judge felt it was a tool designed for the sole purpose of cracking encryption, which the DMCA *does* outlaw.
Which makes it the same as against reverse engineering the file format if the file is encrypted.
- ASF ain't too popular, is it?
No, but it's a classic example of how the patent system is used to close a proprietary file format and keep it that way. You know, you can keep intentionally missing the point as much as you want, but it is still there. Go ahead and make your choice, but don't try and pretend that it's not leaving open at least the potential loss of control. UCITA, DMCA, the brain-dead patent office and vendors' willingness to leverage these make a new world of shit for software users.
For a closed, proprietary format, there sure are a lot of word processors out there that support it.
You missed the point. Those word processors support that format by reverse engineering. What happens if MS applies some nonsense encryption to the files, then uses DMCA to outlaw reverse engineering, the exact scheme used against DeCSS? What happens if MS patents the file format, then uses that patent to bully all 3rd party developers who might attempt to reverse engineer it, the exact way they did with ASF? What happens if UCITA passes enough states that MS can use it against reverse engineering? These are perilous times for the users of software with proprietary file formats.
If MS (or any vendor) can use a closed file format and, at will, with little notification or recourse, can turn off your ability to use their app, then you no longer own your data. And they own your butt.
If you can run MS Office on your Linux box, what have you accomplished?
You have put YOUR data in THEIR propietary file format. They have proven (witness the recent flap over their use of the patent for ASF to suppress 3rd party apps) that they intend to defend these file formats. It's only a matter of time before all their file formats are closed using DMCA and/or UCITA (both of which they supported big-time) and/or the patent office.
You have invited their electronic self-help software onto your machine. Remeber, they hired one of the hacks that wrote UCITA. They intend to use this. If they haven't written it in yet, they will soon.
By combining closed, proprietary file formats with the ability to turn off the apps at will, you have given them ownership of your data.
Stallman may be extreme, but he has a definite point when he decries the use on non-free apps on free OSes. I'm not simon pure in this regard, but the more I see big business in action, the more I think that free (as in speech) software and open file formats and protocols are the only responsible way to go.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, the bit about printing the title of each URL as it's gotten I stole from another /. post.
Oops, was using the other browser. That's me.
Enjoy.
Get off ORBS.
Block inbound port 25. to everything except your approved MTA hosts. Be sure to reject (icmp port unreachable) rather than deny (no response).
Block outbound port 25 from everything except approved MTA hosts.
Should keep you off ORBS. Maybe.
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
/\n/,
l ');
/xargs/, ($page =~ /<a href=(\S+)/g);
/<TITLE>\s*(.*?)<\/TITLE>/i)[0], "\n";
use LWP::UserAgent;
$ua = new LWP::UserAgent;
@agents = split
'Mozilla/4.74 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16 i686)
Mozilla/4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16 i686)
Mozilla/4.73 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16 i686)
Mozilla/4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16 i686)
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16 i686; en-US; 0.7) Gecko/20010105
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5 i686; en-US; 0.7) Gecko/20010105
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5 i686; en-US; 0.6) Gecko/20001206
Mozilla/4.51 [en] (WinNT; U)
Mozilla/4.72 [en] (WinNT; U)
Mozilla/4.74 [en] (WinNT; U)
Mozilla/4.08 [en] (WinNT; U)
Mozilla/4.08 [en] (WinNT; U)';
srand( time() ^ ($$ + ($$ << 15)) );
$agent = $agents[int(rand(scalar(@agents)))];
warn "$agent\n";
$ua->agent($agent);
$request =new HTTP::Request('GET', 'http://www.goto.com/d/search/?Keywords=bulk+emai
$response = $ua->request($request); # or
$page = $response->content;
@urls = grep
$maxpulls = int(5 + rand(10));
warn "$maxpulls\n";
foreach (@urls)
{
$request = new HTTP::Request('GET', "http://www.goto.com$_");
$ua->agent($agent);
$response = $ua->request($request); # or
$subpage = $response->content;
print "-- ", ($subpage =~
last if $i++ > $maxpulls;
$sleep = int(16 + rand(16));
warn "sleeping $sleep seconds\n";
sleep $sleep;
}
Unfortunately, this script has a flaw. It sends an http header identifying it as a script instead of a legitimate browser. I will fix this and resubmit.
If you want to butcher your LWP::Simple, look for a line that says:
$ua->agent("LWP::Simple/$LWP::VERSION");
and make it say something like:
$ua->agent("Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16 i686; en-US; 0.7) Gecko/20010105
");
that last is all one line. LWP::UserAgent is the way to go to fix this for real.
spam has nothing to do with free speech. spam is qualified not by its content but by:
- the number of recipients.
- the forged headers
- the fact that it is unsolicited
Simply outlawing forged headers and Unsolicited email does nothing to impede free speech.Since you included your sessionID in the link you provided, this probably won't work. Nice thought though.
This DOESN'T work! YOu have to go into the page this gets and go to the individual URLs to cost the spammers money. See the scripts submitted by interiot or me at various points in the thread.
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
/^<li><b>/;
/href=(\S*?)\s/;
use LWP::Simple;
my $baseurl = 'http://www.goto.com';
$origurl =
$baseurl . '/d/search/' .
'?type=home&Keywords=bulk+email';
my @initial = split(/\n/, get($origurl));
for my $line ( @initial )
{
next unless $line =~
$line =~
my $url = "$baseurl$1";
my $discard = get("$url");
if ( defined $discard) { print "Got OK\n"; }
else { print "Get FAILED\n"; }
}
# this uses the URL Lenny provided, but does
# all the damage automagically
# Also, since it does no cookie processing
# it gets a new session ID each time it runs
# so you can probably run it over and over
# and defeat the protections built in against
# repeat requests.
# you'll need to install LWP::Simple and
# it's requirements to run this
# see www.cpan.org
# perl rules!
These entries say nothing about the state of MS's DNS - they are whimsical entries at OTHER DNS servers. Examplr: MICROSOFT.COM.SHOULD.GIVE.UP.BECAUSE.LINUXISGOD.CO M
is a silly entry in the domain LINUXISGOD.COM
These names (except the very last one) mean NOTHING. The microsoft.com is at the beginning, not the end, meaning that, for example, MICROSOFT.COM.SHOULD.GIVE.UP.BECAUSE.LINUXISGOD.CO M is a nonsense entry in the zone file for LINUXISGOD.COM.
Big businesses like accountability, someone they can point a finger at and say 'Make it work'.
I don't have a copy handy, but every EULA I've ever seen conatains langauge to the effect that "this software is not warranted for suitability for any task". So, unless you pay extra and negotiate carefully, you're on your own even if you pay for proprietary software.
Can someone please explain what his motives are? He is espousing free, but non-open source software. Under this scheme, the ideal Stallman software is something like MS-Office, only given away for free. It seems that under his philosophy, open source but pay-for-it software would be bad.
What are you talking about? Have you read ANYTHING Stallman has said? Can you read? Stallman wants software that is totally unencumbered. Merely costing $0.00 does not meet his standard of Freedom, so your example of MS Office for free is idiotic, as it is totally incorrect to everything he has said for 15 years.
From the article:
Intel was then confronted by the problem of chips that would allow cheaper memories to be used with its Rambus-only microprocessors. This led to the recall of about 1m PC boards earlier this year, and a profits warning related to the costs involved.
Hope Intel hurt good. They actually went out of their way to stop users from using less expensive chips? Assholes. Time to start looking hard at AMD.
Dude, if a browser can lock up your Linux box that hard, you must have some serious system-level issues going on.
I have to agree with this. Netscape had this effect on me. It went away when I changed video cards. Netscape still kinda blows, but it no longer locks the machine. I went from rebooting several times per week to 32 and 62 days without a reboot. (Still don't know whetehr the problem was the ATI Xpert98 or the Mach64 Xserver, as both were changed out at the same time.)
what if AppSoft decided to release a graphical shell for Linux? You'd have the power of Linux with the familiarity of Windows for all those people who want plug-and-play operation. It could happen...
I don't disagree with your main points, but the material above is confused. Plug-and-play is in the OS and installer, not the GUI - and for an awful lot of hardware, Linux is there. And as far as I'm concerned, most of the GUI is there, too. Some things are missing, and I wouldn't turn my Mom loose on KDE without allocating a day or 2 of my time to get her going, (probably not a good example, my Mom is fairly computer-savvy) but what's really missing is apps, especially a reliable, full-featured browser (which netscrape is not if you count Java as part of full-functioned.)
Finally, and I get marked as a troll every time I say this, I wouldn't trust Microsoft s/w on my Linux machine. (Maybe it would be different from AppSoft.) I just expect too much underhanded spyware or crashware techniques.
And they lie all the time. How about:
- Windows 95 will use less memory than windows 3.x
- We forgot to label the proprietary extensions in the Winsock doc.
- The NT workstation kernel is inherently different fro the NT server kernel (even tho binary compare says they're equal)
- Mindcraft was an independent benchmark
- Bill Gates: "I forgot.. I don't remember.." while disucssing his own emails.
- "This video shows.." describing an obviously faked video. (And this in Federal court!)
This is an outfit that doesn't know how to do anything BUT lie, no reason for their shills to do anything else.Note to moderators: please don't call this a troll unless you can refute even one of my points.
Sorry, guy, it's IIS 5 on Win2K now. Too bad, I was looking forward to a giggle.
MS put this up in hopes of distracting some talent from the linux/*bsd front. Not likely, but they're probably desperate.
Seriously, though, for all the reasons the poster stated, it's a lousy idea, plus, it's a known fact that there are secret API calls the MS apps use that aren't documented and therefore the MS aps would never work on the clone.
I'm busy nuking all my posts from Deja because of the ad issue
How do you do this, please?
They are not your enemy.
Yes they are. Look at UCITA sometime, then remember that one of their paid flunkies had a key role in its drafting. A supporter of UCITA is by definition the enemy of all consumers of software and data services.
View the WWW in something other than Internet Exploiter and see how their tools are intentionally botching webpages, to lock in their browser.
THey spent 2billion dollars a year on research. that has to result in something good, plus in some environments their products are better than other products.
I'm to the point where I don't care. Everything they do is to lock-in users. I decline to enslave my future for the sake of temporary, current convenience.
I just make a note that this is a 'webmaster' (what a pathetic lie that one is!) who thinks my time is less important than ... whatever, and I never go back (if I can remember). I sometimes drop said webmasturbator a note letting him know what a twit he is.
Why do they call them 'webmasters'? Most of them are fools and parrots.
- They can't patent the file format, there's plenty of prior art
Which the patent office is totally incapable/unwilling to understand. They grant all kinds of bogus patents regardless
- If they use encryption, that's their choice. 90% of the market is Office anyway.
- The DMCA does not outlaw reverse engineering. DeCSS was preliminarily banned because the judge felt it was a tool designed for the sole purpose of cracking encryption, which the DMCA *does* outlaw.
Which makes it the same as against reverse engineering the file format if the file is encrypted.
- ASF ain't too popular, is it?
No, but it's a classic example of how the patent system is used to close a proprietary file format and keep it that way. You know, you can keep intentionally missing the point as much as you want, but it is still there. Go ahead and make your choice, but don't try and pretend that it's not leaving open at least the potential loss of control. UCITA, DMCA, the brain-dead patent office and vendors' willingness to leverage these make a new world of shit for software users.
For a closed, proprietary format, there sure are a lot of word processors out there that support it.
You missed the point. Those word processors support that format by reverse engineering. What happens if MS applies some nonsense encryption to the files, then uses DMCA to outlaw reverse engineering, the exact scheme used against DeCSS? What happens if MS patents the file format, then uses that patent to bully all 3rd party developers who might attempt to reverse engineer it, the exact way they did with ASF? What happens if UCITA passes enough states that MS can use it against reverse engineering? These are perilous times for the users of software with proprietary file formats.
If MS (or any vendor) can use a closed file format and, at will, with little notification or recourse, can turn off your ability to use their app, then you no longer own your data. And they own your butt.
- You have put YOUR data in THEIR propietary file format. They have proven (witness the recent flap over their use of the patent for ASF to suppress 3rd party apps) that they intend to defend these file formats. It's only a matter of time before all their file formats are closed using DMCA and/or UCITA (both of which they supported big-time) and/or the patent office.
- You have invited their electronic self-help software onto your machine. Remeber, they hired one of the hacks that wrote UCITA. They intend to use this. If they haven't written it in yet, they will soon.
By combining closed, proprietary file formats with the ability to turn off the apps at will, you have given them ownership of your data.Stallman may be extreme, but he has a definite point when he decries the use on non-free apps on free OSes. I'm not simon pure in this regard, but the more I see big business in action, the more I think that free (as in speech) software and open file formats and protocols are the only responsible way to go.