1. closing the shutters on the windows of a building (old term, most don't have shutters in 2009) 2. nailing wooden panels over the windows and doors of a condemned building to keep people out 3. nailing wooden panels over the windows and doors of a foreclosed building to preserve resale value of the structure (i.e. prevent vandalism)
The term, in the context used, is perfectly applicable.
In neither case am I going to feel any more or less compelled to buy the movie instead.
Really? Because I'm the type of guy, when someone tries to push me around, I will do the opposite of what they want just to show them they shouldn't try to push people around. Screw these bozos, I'll put off buying any new movies until they quite this greedy behavior.
I don't care if they're greedy or not. I wait until the movies I want hit the $5 bin at WalMart anyway, so they ain't make'n much profit off me regardless of their retail release schedule.
BS? Really. Join spam-l and ask what the membership thinks of SMTP mail over IPv6, and why they feel that way. You'll get educated quickly.
Also, I'm not defending Cogent. They have a track record for signing up snowshoers as well, though not nearly as bad as HE. WRT 'tier' status, one must have a nation wide backbone to be considered tier 1. HE has never had a backbone, but always peered to get backbone access. HE is merely a regional player in the west.
Considering the amount of spam historically coming from HE's network, I can't really blame Cogent for not wanting to peer HE's IPv6 traffic. Fighting spam in IPv6 space in much much more difficult than the current state of affairs.
The link aggregation won't double the upstream bandwidth for any one user application. The max any one user will get is the data rate of a single upstream ADSL link. Multiple user session traffic is load balanced. Packets within a single user session are _not_. Thus, one user running site-site FTP transfer at 3am will still only get the max outbound data rate of only one of the ADSL lines.
I know linksys has a couple routers (both the RV042 and RV082) that supports 2 incoming broadband connections with link aggregation (or it can use it as failover) if you used two of these and set up a VPN it would be fairly cheap/easy (under $500 easy) I just looked on their site but since the Linksys business stuff is now buried in Cisco's crappy site, i was unable to find a link. I've seen them at Fry's plenty of times. I've used several of them and they tend to be fairly stable.
I looked into the RV082 a while ago and found that you can get reasonably close to doubling your _outbound_ bandwidth, but not inbound. Bonding the inbound links would require both WAN lines be provided by the same ISP, so they could configure round robin across your two links.
The RV082 is a great little SOHO router and does pretty good load balancing/aggregation of outbound traffic. The OP seems to be looking for true bi-directional link aggregation of dissimilar ISP WAN links (cable/dsl or two of one of these from different providers). This is simply not possible, because there must be intelligence on the other end of your links round robin'ing the traffic between them, just like your RV082 is doing in this case.
In short, this is a great inexpensive product to double your outbound and provide redundancy. Keep in mind you'll need to do some creative things in DNS and with port forwarding on the Linky as you'll have two different public IPs on those WAN links. WRT hosting a mail server, you'll need two MX and A records, one for each public IP on each WAN link. You'll also need duplicate records for all your servers, whether WWW, ftp, etc.
Setting up _inbound_ redundancy is not simply clicking a radio button as with outbound redundancy. Remote hosts have to be told how to reach you. This means advertising both routes. Since you aren't paying an ISP for this redundancy, and you're doing it on the cheap yourself, you'll have to mangle DNS to get the inbound redundancy.
If you're looking for merely link aggregated high bandwidth site-to-site, I'm not sure if this Linky will do so with the VPN feature. You can sure try it. You can also use the little brother RV042 for a little less money, although neither is terribly expensive.
General relativity predicts black holes, yet, we're unable to prove their existence. Thus, they aren't real. You state "Everything that is derived is based on reality". We have "derived" the possibility of black holes, yet they don't exist in reality, because we've not been able to prove their existence via measurement or pure observation. The same goes for string theory. At the "edge" of physics and cosmology, there is no current possibility for observation. Thus, the bleeding edge big theories always start in the human mind, through gedankenexperiment, _not_ observation of "reality".
You're dead wrong. Quantum theory has been around for over 50 years, and nothing observed in the universe sparked the idea of quantum theory. Its roots are purely mathematical. It was 'discovered' in the human mind and on paper. The first experimental observations of properties of quantum theory weren't made until the 2000s. You seem to be stuck in the realm of Newtonian physics, where everything can be seen, touched, tasted, and smelled. The great physicists come up with original shit in their own minds without influence from the physical world. Einstein and Hawking are in this group. With both men, the theories started in the mind, and were not influenced or guided by the physical world around them. If their theories had been, we'd not have ever had general relativity or Hawking radiation.
You really need to go read some basic history of physics and cosmology. No great theories are based on previous observation. This is why some people are called "Geniuses" and others aren't. One last note: can you point me to an experimental observation of string theory? [laughs]
Does this even need to be said? Einstein did it: he took some observations and extrapolated them to show that modern physics was not entirely correct (that is, what was modern physics at the time). Indeed, all scientific theory can only be based on what we've observed. Thus, new observations make for new theory, or corrections in old theory. As we continue to make more observations, for example with the LHC, theory will continue to evolve. Surely even someone of your eloquence can see this.
Theory drives observation, not the other way round, as you state. Some predictions that result from Einstein's theory of General Relativity sat gathering dust for decades before technology was sufficiently advanced to build machines capable of observing the predicted behavior.
The key is the mathematics. Once the equations of a theory are sufficiently refined, the results of these equations often predict things that couldn't possibly be imagined, let alone observed at the time.
Can't get any more serious or "real" a server than a mail firewall/gateway. Sure, there's more in the basket, little necessary stuff like ntpd, postgrey, perl, jwhois, and tons of other little net tools and scripts. But _every_ server has a little basket filled with applicable tools. They aren't applications in a real sense, which is what you're referring to.
For old hands, the _real_ servers are the single purpose boxen. Like guards at the gate, standing watch, turning away those who will do ill deeds.
And honestly, while APT is great for desktop systems, I really wouldn't use it much on a server.
"I'll rip off your head and shit down your neck!!" Pfft, fucking desktop pussies... APT was fucking _MADE_ _FOR_ _SERVERS_ you twit!
I've never, not once, installed desktop Debian, nor installed console Debian via anything but a floppy disk or CD boot net install from the mirrors. All from an 80x25 text only VGA console or a serial terminal. And, afterward, for years, installed all needed packages and updates via apt-get, ON AN 80x25 TEXT CONSOLE. And you're telling _ME_ that apt is for desktops? Fucking LOL! I don't have current numbers, but I'd bet real money that there are vastly more headless Debian servers around the world than GUI Debian desktops.
True, and I haven't found greylisting to be worthwhile enough yet to use myself. But it should also be noted that the problem you describe is a problem for the greylister, not the greylistee. It's problems for the greylistee that would cause most of the "we could lose business" issues, like the one to which I replied.
A good greylisting implementation creates at most a 3-5 minute delay, assuming the MTA on the sending end isn't broken (which is why you don't put MS Exchange on the network edge sending direct email to MX'en).
it is important to note that "longer than normal" can mean 24 or more hours for a surprisingly large number of mail servers. Forum registrations and the like are particularly frustrating.
This is what throw away freemail accounts are for.
And you're wrong too (mostly, see below). Jeez people. End users never see the 450 errors. The 450s are received and processed by the sending MTA. After the timeout period specified in the 450 message, the sending MTA sends again, and this time the mail is accepted at the greylisting destination MTA returning a 250. On extremely high volume servers greylisting does not scale mainly due to resource consumption.
When you talk about "bad reputation" I'm guessing you're actually referring to challenge/response. C/R is itself a spam generator.
You're obviously not a mail system op. Snowshoe is the _one_ form of spam that greylisting has little effect on. Most snowshoers are using real MTAs (i.e. qmail) on cheap VPS servers to send the spam. qmail, just like any real MTA, will retry upon temp failure (450). greylisting only stops bot spam and misconfigured/borken MTAs.
Now we've spent the last 10 years seeing every single new Itanium core delayed, underpowered and overpriced.
Delayed? yes. Overpriced? likely yes, depends on perspective. Underpowered, only Merced 733/800 with the crappy off die cache and turtle system bus. The Itanium 2 series with the large on die L3 caches and fast bus are phenomenal performers, especially on floating point code. To dispute this is to ignore the facts.
The single socket integer performance of Itanium 2 compared to any recent multi-core Xeon or Opteron is pretty abysmal and far pricier. However, there are only two vendors with 8+ socket x86-64 systems, IBM (16 socket) and Unisys (32 socket). There are at least 6 vendors offering 32 socket Itanium servers, and two going beyond that, HP at 128 sockets/256 cores, and SGI at 2048 sockets/4096 cores.
Much of the Itanium 'price' one pays for is vertical scalability. Another factor in that price is the extremely low Itanium production numbers compared to the Xeons/Opterons. One can only claim 'under performer' in the context of price. If price is removed, Itanium 2, overall, is not significantly slower than recent Xeons/Opterons. Its largest "lag" is in multicore development. Itanium maxes out at 2 cores/chip presently and Xeon is at 6 cores/chip. That's Intel economics for ya.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not an Itanium/Intel fanboy. Quite the contrary. I've been dreaming for some time that some vendor would release a 32/64 socket Opteron system. Considering there is a single vendor (Unisys) building a 32 socket Xeon, the market for such large x86-64 systems is almost non-existent, and thus the likelihood of a 64 socket Opteron is extremely low...
he shocked the gathered bigwigs by declaring that the industryâ(TM)s approach to hoarding patents was an abuse of intellectual-property rights and risked undermining its future
The fucking irony, Dr. Grove... You may be a great man, and deserve respect for your accomplishments, but you should also be excoriated for your truly underhanded and evil business practices. You single handedly put Intergraph out of the hardware business by stealing the Clipper chip's back side L2 cache technology, after making dozens of promises to Intergraph regarding access to the Pentium Pro, the first Intel chip to use the patent, and which as a result of the new L2 bus, more than doubled the performance of the Pentium on a per clock basis. This one patent you stole from Intergraph *_MADE_* Intel performance. Without the back side L2 cache bus, no Intel chip since the Pentium would have performance worth a damn. Same for all the others who adopted it--IBM, SUN, AMD, MIPS, Fujitsu, Hitachi, pretty much every CPU maker. The difference was, they all legally licensed the patent, and paid royalties. You, Dr. Grove, are a f--king thief.
Anyone that hasn't figured out that IBM is just plain evil by this time probably never will. This is not a company you want to turn your back on.
IBM is not 'evil'. IBM is focused, driven, well managed, and profitable. Microsoft is 'evil'. IBM doesn't get in bed with a startup, then steal its ideas, incorporating them into Windows, then putting said startup out of business. IBM is one of the most ethical, if not THE most ethical large technology company on the planet, not to mention the oldest.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really, the image is still in your head.
Time for the power drill...
The vacuum cleaner manufacturer is actually named Noiseless Sucking Appliances.
You mean No Such Appliance.
Shuttering -
1. closing the shutters on the windows of a building (old term, most don't have shutters in 2009)
2. nailing wooden panels over the windows and doors of a condemned building to keep people out
3. nailing wooden panels over the windows and doors of a foreclosed building to preserve resale value of the structure (i.e. prevent vandalism)
The term, in the context used, is perfectly applicable.
No, General Failure screwed up once too often...
No, it was really General Protection's fault.
In neither case am I going to feel any more or less compelled to buy the movie instead.
Really? Because I'm the type of guy, when someone tries to push me around, I will do the opposite of what they want just to show them they shouldn't try to push people around. Screw these bozos, I'll put off buying any new movies until they quite this greedy behavior.
I don't care if they're greedy or not. I wait until the movies I want hit the $5 bin at WalMart anyway, so they ain't make'n much profit off me regardless of their retail release schedule.
BS? Really. Join spam-l and ask what the membership thinks of SMTP mail over IPv6, and why they feel that way. You'll get educated quickly.
Also, I'm not defending Cogent. They have a track record for signing up snowshoers as well, though not nearly as bad as HE. WRT 'tier' status, one must have a nation wide backbone to be considered tier 1. HE has never had a backbone, but always peered to get backbone access. HE is merely a regional player in the west.
Considering the amount of spam historically coming from HE's network, I can't really blame Cogent for not wanting to peer HE's IPv6 traffic. Fighting spam in IPv6 space in much much more difficult than the current state of affairs.
The link aggregation won't double the upstream bandwidth for any one user application. The max any one user will get is the data rate of a single upstream ADSL link. Multiple user session traffic is load balanced. Packets within a single user session are _not_. Thus, one user running site-site FTP transfer at 3am will still only get the max outbound data rate of only one of the ADSL lines.
I know linksys has a couple routers (both the RV042 and RV082) that supports 2 incoming broadband connections with link aggregation (or it can use it as failover) if you used two of these and set up a VPN it would be fairly cheap/easy (under $500 easy) I just looked on their site but since the Linksys business stuff is now buried in Cisco's crappy site, i was unable to find a link. I've seen them at Fry's plenty of times. I've used several of them and they tend to be fairly stable.
I looked into the RV082 a while ago and found that you can get reasonably close to doubling your _outbound_ bandwidth, but not inbound. Bonding the inbound links would require both WAN lines be provided by the same ISP, so they could configure round robin across your two links.
The RV082 is a great little SOHO router and does pretty good load balancing/aggregation of outbound traffic. The OP seems to be looking for true bi-directional link aggregation of dissimilar ISP WAN links (cable/dsl or two of one of these from different providers). This is simply not possible, because there must be intelligence on the other end of your links round robin'ing the traffic between them, just like your RV082 is doing in this case.
In short, this is a great inexpensive product to double your outbound and provide redundancy. Keep in mind you'll need to do some creative things in DNS and with port forwarding on the Linky as you'll have two different public IPs on those WAN links. WRT hosting a mail server, you'll need two MX and A records, one for each public IP on each WAN link. You'll also need duplicate records for all your servers, whether WWW, ftp, etc.
Setting up _inbound_ redundancy is not simply clicking a radio button as with outbound redundancy. Remote hosts have to be told how to reach you. This means advertising both routes. Since you aren't paying an ISP for this redundancy, and you're doing it on the cheap yourself, you'll have to mangle DNS to get the inbound redundancy.
If you're looking for merely link aggregated high bandwidth site-to-site, I'm not sure if this Linky will do so with the VPN feature. You can sure try it. You can also use the little brother RV042 for a little less money, although neither is terribly expensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment
General relativity predicts black holes, yet, we're unable to prove their existence. Thus, they aren't real. You state "Everything that is derived is based on reality". We have "derived" the possibility of black holes, yet they don't exist in reality, because we've not been able to prove their existence via measurement or pure observation. The same goes for string theory. At the "edge" of physics and cosmology, there is no current possibility for observation. Thus, the bleeding edge big theories always start in the human mind, through gedankenexperiment, _not_ observation of "reality".
You're dead wrong. Quantum theory has been around for over 50 years, and nothing observed in the universe sparked the idea of quantum theory. Its roots are purely mathematical. It was 'discovered' in the human mind and on paper. The first experimental observations of properties of quantum theory weren't made until the 2000s. You seem to be stuck in the realm of Newtonian physics, where everything can be seen, touched, tasted, and smelled. The great physicists come up with original shit in their own minds without influence from the physical world. Einstein and Hawking are in this group. With both men, the theories started in the mind, and were not influenced or guided by the physical world around them. If their theories had been, we'd not have ever had general relativity or Hawking radiation.
You really need to go read some basic history of physics and cosmology. No great theories are based on previous observation. This is why some people are called "Geniuses" and others aren't. One last note: can you point me to an experimental observation of string theory? [laughs]
Does this even need to be said? Einstein did it: he took some observations and extrapolated them to show that modern physics was not entirely correct (that is, what was modern physics at the time). Indeed, all scientific theory can only be based on what we've observed. Thus, new observations make for new theory, or corrections in old theory. As we continue to make more observations, for example with the LHC, theory will continue to evolve. Surely even someone of your eloquence can see this.
Theory drives observation, not the other way round, as you state. Some predictions that result from Einstein's theory of General Relativity sat gathering dust for decades before technology was sufficiently advanced to build machines capable of observing the predicted behavior.
The key is the mathematics. Once the equations of a theory are sufficiently refined, the results of these equations often predict things that couldn't possibly be imagined, let alone observed at the time.
Lenny, Postfix, period. (and yes, racked/headless)
Can't get any more serious or "real" a server than a mail firewall/gateway. Sure, there's more in the basket, little necessary stuff like ntpd, postgrey, perl, jwhois, and tons of other little net tools and scripts. But _every_ server has a little basket filled with applicable tools. They aren't applications in a real sense, which is what you're referring to.
For old hands, the _real_ servers are the single purpose boxen. Like guards at the gate, standing watch, turning away those who will do ill deeds.
And honestly, while APT is great for desktop systems, I really wouldn't use it much on a server.
"I'll rip off your head and shit down your neck!!" Pfft, fucking desktop pussies... APT was fucking _MADE_ _FOR_ _SERVERS_ you twit!
I've never, not once, installed desktop Debian, nor installed console Debian via anything but a floppy disk or CD boot net install from the mirrors. All from an 80x25 text only VGA console or a serial terminal. And, afterward, for years, installed all needed packages and updates via apt-get, ON AN 80x25 TEXT CONSOLE. And you're telling _ME_ that apt is for desktops? Fucking LOL! I don't have current numbers, but I'd bet real money that there are vastly more headless Debian servers around the world than GUI Debian desktops.
True, and I haven't found greylisting to be worthwhile enough yet to use myself. But it should also be noted that the problem you describe is a problem for the greylister, not the greylistee. It's problems for the greylistee that would cause most of the "we could lose business" issues, like the one to which I replied.
A good greylisting implementation creates at most a 3-5 minute delay, assuming the MTA on the sending end isn't broken (which is why you don't put MS Exchange on the network edge sending direct email to MX'en).
it is important to note that "longer than normal" can mean 24 or more hours for a surprisingly large number of mail servers. Forum registrations and the like are particularly frustrating.
This is what throw away freemail accounts are for.
And you're wrong too (mostly, see below). Jeez people. End users never see the 450 errors. The 450s are received and processed by the sending MTA. After the timeout period specified in the 450 message, the sending MTA sends again, and this time the mail is accepted at the greylisting destination MTA returning a 250. On extremely high volume servers greylisting does not scale mainly due to resource consumption.
When you talk about "bad reputation" I'm guessing you're actually referring to challenge/response. C/R is itself a spam generator.
You're obviously not a mail system op. Snowshoe is the _one_ form of spam that greylisting has little effect on. Most snowshoers are using real MTAs (i.e. qmail) on cheap VPS servers to send the spam. qmail, just like any real MTA, will retry upon temp failure (450). greylisting only stops bot spam and misconfigured/borken MTAs.
Hey, you ride a missile, you don't pilot one. Didn't you ever see Dr. Strangelove?
Slim Pickens rode a bomb out of a B-52 bomb bay. It was a bomb, not a missile. A great movie moment nonetheless...loved that flick.
I like how Bryan Harley referred to the rider as the "pilot".
http://seven-streamliner.com/
Given this "motorcycle' has an enclosed cockpit and resembles a missile on two wheels, I'd say "pilot" is a more accurate description than "rider".
Even scarier would be Stallman, Ballmer, Gates, Jobs, and Torvalds all together in the same room planning to take over the world...
We would all be screwed.
Nah, Team America would come kick millionaire geek ass and save the day.
Now we've spent the last 10 years seeing every single new Itanium core delayed, underpowered and overpriced.
Delayed? yes. Overpriced? likely yes, depends on perspective. Underpowered, only Merced 733/800 with the crappy off die cache and turtle system bus. The Itanium 2 series with the large on die L3 caches and fast bus are phenomenal performers, especially on floating point code. To dispute this is to ignore the facts.
The single socket integer performance of Itanium 2 compared to any recent multi-core Xeon or Opteron is pretty abysmal and far pricier. However, there are only two vendors with 8+ socket x86-64 systems, IBM (16 socket) and Unisys (32 socket). There are at least 6 vendors offering 32 socket Itanium servers, and two going beyond that, HP at 128 sockets/256 cores, and SGI at 2048 sockets/4096 cores.
Much of the Itanium 'price' one pays for is vertical scalability. Another factor in that price is the extremely low Itanium production numbers compared to the Xeons/Opterons. One can only claim 'under performer' in the context of price. If price is removed, Itanium 2, overall, is not significantly slower than recent Xeons/Opterons. Its largest "lag" is in multicore development. Itanium maxes out at 2 cores/chip presently and Xeon is at 6 cores/chip. That's Intel economics for ya.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not an Itanium/Intel fanboy. Quite the contrary. I've been dreaming for some time that some vendor would release a 32/64 socket Opteron system. Considering there is a single vendor (Unisys) building a 32 socket Xeon, the market for such large x86-64 systems is almost non-existent, and thus the likelihood of a 64 socket Opteron is extremely low...
n00b
Fear my Trident TVGA8900C!
n00b. I'm actually using mine (albeit in a text console only mail gateway).
greer:/# lspci
00:00.0 Host bridge: Intel Corporation 440BX/ZX/DX - 82443BX/ZX/DX Host bridge (rev 03)
00:01.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 440BX/ZX/DX - 82443BX/ZX/DX AGP bridge (rev 03)
00:07.0 ISA bridge: Intel Corporation 82371AB/EB/MB PIIX4 ISA (rev 02)
00:07.1 IDE interface: Intel Corporation 82371AB/EB/MB PIIX4 IDE (rev 01)
00:07.2 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82371AB/EB/MB PIIX4 USB (rev 01)
00:07.3 Bridge: Intel Corporation 82371AB/EB/MB PIIX4 ACPI (rev 02)
00:0b.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82557/8/9 [Ethernet Pro 100] (rev 05)
00:0f.0 VGA compatible controller: Trident Microsystems TGUI 9660/938x/968x (rev d3)
00:13.0 Mass storage controller: Triones Technologies, Inc. HPT366/368/370/370A/372/372N (rev 01)
00:13.1 Mass storage controller: Triones Technologies, Inc. HPT366/368/370/370A/372/372N (rev 01)
greer:/# date
Thu Sep 10 23:15:40 CDT 2009
he shocked the gathered bigwigs by declaring that the industryâ(TM)s approach to hoarding patents was an abuse of intellectual-property rights and risked undermining its future
The fucking irony, Dr. Grove... You may be a great man, and deserve respect for your accomplishments, but you should also be excoriated for your truly underhanded and evil business practices. You single handedly put Intergraph out of the hardware business by stealing the Clipper chip's back side L2 cache technology, after making dozens of promises to Intergraph regarding access to the Pentium Pro, the first Intel chip to use the patent, and which as a result of the new L2 bus, more than doubled the performance of the Pentium on a per clock basis. This one patent you stole from Intergraph *_MADE_* Intel performance. Without the back side L2 cache bus, no Intel chip since the Pentium would have performance worth a damn. Same for all the others who adopted it--IBM, SUN, AMD, MIPS, Fujitsu, Hitachi, pretty much every CPU maker. The difference was, they all legally licensed the patent, and paid royalties. You, Dr. Grove, are a f--king thief.
http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/intergraph/Default.htm
Anyone that hasn't figured out that IBM is just plain evil by this time probably never will. This is not a company you want to turn your back on.
IBM is not 'evil'. IBM is focused, driven, well managed, and profitable. Microsoft is 'evil'. IBM doesn't get in bed with a startup, then steal its ideas, incorporating them into Windows, then putting said startup out of business. IBM is one of the most ethical, if not THE most ethical large technology company on the planet, not to mention the oldest.