Outlook supports some kind of "secure authentication" but for the life of me, I can't figure out what. I use Cyrus IMAP behind the firewall, and cannot make use of any of its secure authentication methods because of the population of Outlook. Hell, I use Outlook. I like its support for multiple IMAP accounts. You can choose your sender address at send time. Netscape mail makes you logout and login to switch sender addresses, last I checked. Ugh.
Anybody know a IMAP client that supports the following:
tree-view of IMAP folders
three-window layout (like Agent)
multiple account support
choose sender address at send time
login as needed, whenever a folder is opened, without switching accounts.
Of course, it also integrates well with the rest of Windows (ducking). You just gotta watch those attachments.
I've tried Simeon^H^H^H^H^H^HExecmail, and didn't like it much.
You know Dan Berstein as the author of Qmail. Perhaps you did not know that he has also written a secure alternative to BIND, which is quite capable of handling the largest and most active domains on the net. See cr.yp.to.
Important security features in its design:
Client resolver is a separate process from the authoritative NS. Reduces damage potential should cache poisoning occur.
Client resolver does not cache out-of-zone additionals. For a dot-com domain, it only believes answers from the root servers, the com servers and the auth NS for the dot-com domain, and only if those answers are in the zone it's asking about. More proof against poisoning.
Client resolver sets TTL in responses to zero. Helps prevent client mischief. Does not return additionals or authorities to clients.
All programs run chrooted as a non-priv uid.
Discards all queries in classes other than IN. No CHAOS or HS classes. No "version.bind" stupidity.
Its "hints" file is not really taken as "hints". It believes you when you tell it who the roots are, it does not go ask the servers in the hints file who the real roots are.
Design features that are admin-friendly:
Authoritative server gives immediate feedback in the event of typos or syntax errors. No grepping log files looking for problems.
Erroneous data is rejected. Previous data is used until the error is corrected.
Reads zone info directly from a fast database, memory requirements are very small compared to BIND.
All zone data is contained in a single database file, which is easily rsync'd to slaves. Zone transfers are supported for compatibility with BIND, but it's not necessary to use it.
Client resolver can be set to ask certain servers about certain domains, ignoring the roots. This is great for split DNS setups.
I can hardly say enough good things about Dan's suite of DNS servers and client programs. I will be BIND-free very soon.
Linix, FreeBSD, Solaris, NT - all are supported by the open development kit for the ACEnic 10/100/1000 adapters, which has a fairly liberal license. Linux drivers developed by CERN are available there (source included, of course).
They work in layer 2 failover by configuring two ACEnics in the same machine, with one IP address. It's supposed to work with the Cisco gear, as well as Extreme and some other vendors (and Alteon's gear, naturally!:).
But if you have an Alteon load balancing switch, it's overkill, really. The ACEnic do have other things to recommend them, such as dedicated ingress and egress processors (MIPS R4400) and the ability to offload interrupt handling from the host. These are high performance NICs, and Alteon is eager to allow developers to support them on whatever platform is desired.
The dual ACEnic setup intended to guard against an actual failure of the NIC itself.
Slapping Microsoft for having a monopoly on the browser is about as relevant as punishing a company for having a monopoly on hood ornaments at a time when the state of the art is a Model A Ford.
The US is the laughing stock of the world. We took one of the most successful companies in the history of commerce to court, to punish them for being too successful.
The browser is irrelevant. By the time this case finishes the appeals process, and a final judgment is rendered, the irrelevance of this suit will be evident. Yet the damage will already have been done, and there will be no benefit to consumers, to the industry, to the economy, or to the US in general.
You do not have to trust NSOL. Your new registrar is able to make the changes, and NSOL can't do a thing about it. That's what the shared regiatration system enables. The new registrar doesn't even have to interact with NSOL - only the database. They have rights to change the registrar fields in the SRS database, without a by-your-leave or kiss-my-ass from NSOL.
Your domain will continue to operate during and after the transfer.
With Register.com, all it took was to open a service request ticket on their website to start the process. It takes day or so after they verify your identity (the usual notarized letter and photocopy of identification) to complete the change. If you already have a domain at Register.com, it's even easier, because they already know who you are. Your domain will continue to operate while the transfer takes place. The NS listed by the roots do not get changed - in fact, this is part of the process. Until your new Registrar becomes the new registrar, they can't change anything else about your domain. Each registrar has access to the SRS using software supplied by NSOL. Each registrar has rights to make changes to the registrar fields in the SRS database. Their accreditation with ICANN is their pledge not to change anything without authorization, though technically, they have the capability to transfer any domain at any time.
All a Registrar transfer is, is changing a couple fields in the SRS. That's it. Your NS are not changed during the process. The roots continue to hand out the referrals. There are in fact, only a few pieces of information in SRS: the domain name, the registrar's name, the registrar's whois server domain name, the registrar's web site URL, and the nameservers. Only the fields having to do with the registrar are changed during a transfer. The roots continue to delegate to the NS listed in the SRS, because those fields are not changed.
THERE IS NOTHING TO FEAR
(though some registrars charge a new registration fee to do the transfer - small price to pay, especially if your domain is nearing renewal time anyway)
People who work with me know just how much I hate them. Managing 4000+ customer domains is already like herding cats, NSOL makes it even more difficult with their stupid "one bill per domain" BS. It's been an absolute nightmare. They can't credit our payments properly, our customer;'s domains get put on hold for non-payment, and to top it off, they don't send the final notice to the billing contact, they send it to the Registrant - our customer, who then calls us up wanting to know if we've got a cash-flow problem.
You may quote me on this (everyone at work does) -
I Hate NSOL more than the entire readership of Slashdot hates Microsoft, combined. If I stood outside their offices, and hated them as much as I could, I would burn a hole in the wall.
The reflected sunlight was never a major concern among astronomers. They are predictable, and can only happen near sunset and sunrise, so they are easily avoided.
Much more upsetting is the radio interference. Motorola promised and promised and repeated their promises throughout all phases of the project, that their amplifiers were nearly perfectly linear, and would not cause interference in sidebands. An adjacent sideband is used by radio astronomers to observe OH radicals in molecular clouds.
When the first satellites went up, the ugly truth was revealed. The amps were NOT "nearly perfectly linear" after all, and leaked significant interference into adjacent bands, including the OH band. This threatened at one time to basically put an end to observation of the OH band altogether. Negotiations with Motorola and appeals by the IAU managed to get Iridium's signals curtailed or eliminated during certain times of day over important radio observatories. Because of Motorola's false promises, and the resulting limitations they were forced to accept, Iridium could never have fulfilled its potential anyway; at certain times of day, near certain regions all over the world, the satellites were simply out of service. Also, in the meantime, advances in signal processing allowed radio astronomers to better filter Iridum's interference. If Iridium had continued to operate, radio astronomy would have been able to adapt to most of the interference, and conduct observations. On the other hand, the presense of Iridum underscored the value of a radio observatory on the far side of the moon. A side effect of Iridium's demise is that this need is not as pressing - for now.
In any case, good riddance. I will enjoy watching them fall into the ocean.
What bugs me most is that by the time this is all sorted out, the solution will be irrelevant, yet the damage done to the industry will persist.
The FoF talks about barriers to entry in the market place. It mentions middleware, citing Java and browser APIs as an example of how to develop applications that do not rely on a particular OS.
By the time this is all sorted out, Java may have grown up and made NC's viable, or something no one has seen before could come along and sweep into the marketplace. It's happened before - that's how MS got where they are. The PC revolution itself is an example of a new platform for applications taking over the market, or creating a new one. That was a mere 15 years ago when it started, and only in this decade has it become the dominant force in the computer marketplace.
I just hope the Court understands that despite the juggernaut, revolutions in computing technology have a way of taking out the biggest and the baddest almost overnight. Remember Pr1me? I hope we don't get stuck with a decision that makes everyone jump through hoops 20 years from now to avoid running afoul of rules that came from the ruling against the former software giant known as Microsoft, who has gone the way of Digital in the intervening years. The cure could end up being worse than the disease.
The biggest thorn in my side regarding NSI is the billing policy. We have now hundreds of domains, and NSI insists that we get billed individually for each one of them, on the anniversary. They have flatly refused to consolidate the billing into a monthly statement covering the previous month's registrations. This costs us a LOT of money because we have had to hire temps just to handle the billing with NSI. This is ludicrous. This is not customer service, this policy is for NSI's benefit, not their customer's. I can't say who we are because the deal has not been finalized, but I am in negotiation with Register.com to handle our future registrations. They are very cooperative, customer-focused, will grant us a credit line, and will base our fees on the volume - the more domains we register the smaller the fee - and most important of all, they will present us with one monthly bill for all the previous month's registrations. Even if there were no volume discount, this move saves us a ton of money over NSI, because our usual accounts payable process can easily handle one extra bill per month from one additional vendor without hiring temps. If everything goes smoothly and I can get my PR people on the bandwagon, you may see a press release from us announcing the partnership with Register.com in the next week or so. If I have any say in how the release is worded, there will be mention of how NEW dot com registrations have diminished value for our customers, because of the scarcity of memorable names, and that Register.com's 20 additional top levels gives our customers a lot more choice in finding a memorable domain name. Take that, you cheesy dot com people!! Register.com is a slam-dunk no-brainer as far as I'm concerned.
I lost it completely reading just the first line from this article. Microsoft advising people to "step back from the hype"? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!! OOOHOOHOOHOOHOOOOWOOOHOWOOOOO!!! HEEHEEEEEEHEEEEE!!!!! It hurts. Ouch. But too funny. They are running scared, it would seem.
Slashdot Mirror
But U guess that means they'll be forking over another hundred grand to the CoS to get clear again. So maybe it's not a good thing.
I would say it is now impossible for Napster to look like anything else.
Read this before deciding to use postfix.
Anybody know a IMAP client that supports the following:
- tree-view of IMAP folders
- three-window layout (like Agent)
- multiple account support
- choose sender address at send time
- login as needed, whenever a folder is opened, without switching accounts.
Of course, it also integrates well with the rest of Windows (ducking). You just gotta watch those attachments.I've tried Simeon^H^H^H^H^H^HExecmail, and didn't like it much.
Important security features in its design:
- Client resolver is a separate process from the authoritative NS. Reduces damage potential should cache poisoning occur.
- Client resolver does not cache out-of-zone additionals. For a dot-com domain, it only believes answers from the root servers, the com servers and the auth NS for the dot-com domain, and only if those answers are in the zone it's asking about. More proof against poisoning.
- Client resolver sets TTL in responses to zero. Helps prevent client mischief. Does not return additionals or authorities to clients.
- All programs run chrooted as a non-priv uid.
- Discards all queries in classes other than IN. No CHAOS or HS classes. No "version.bind" stupidity.
- Its "hints" file is not really taken as "hints". It believes you when you tell it who the roots are, it does not go ask the servers in the hints file who the real roots are.
Design features that are admin-friendly:- Authoritative server gives immediate feedback in the event of typos or syntax errors. No grepping log files looking for problems.
- Erroneous data is rejected. Previous data is used until the error is corrected.
- Reads zone info directly from a fast database, memory requirements are very small compared to BIND.
- All zone data is contained in a single database file, which is easily rsync'd to slaves. Zone transfers are supported for compatibility with BIND, but it's not necessary to use it.
- Client resolver can be set to ask certain servers about certain domains, ignoring the roots. This is great for split DNS setups.
I can hardly say enough good things about Dan's suite of DNS servers and client programs. I will be BIND-free very soon.It's a very simple concept: without seams, smooth, continuous. Has nothing to do with the word "seem" or its derivatives.
Oh, and "irregardless" really is a word, by the way.
Linix, FreeBSD, Solaris, NT - all are supported by the open development kit for the ACEnic 10/100/1000 adapters, which has a fairly liberal license. Linux drivers developed by CERN are available there (source included, of course).
They work in layer 2 failover by configuring two ACEnics in the same machine, with one IP address. It's supposed to work with the Cisco gear, as well as Extreme and some other vendors (and Alteon's gear, naturally! :).
But if you have an Alteon load balancing switch, it's overkill, really. The ACEnic do have other things to recommend them, such as dedicated ingress and egress processors (MIPS R4400) and the ability to offload interrupt handling from the host. These are high performance NICs, and Alteon is eager to allow developers to support them on whatever platform is desired.
The dual ACEnic setup intended to guard against an actual failure of the NIC itself.
Slapping Microsoft for having a monopoly on the browser is about as relevant as punishing a company for having a monopoly on hood ornaments at a time when the state of the art is a Model A Ford.
The US is the laughing stock of the world. We took one of the most successful companies in the history of commerce to court, to punish them for being too successful.
The browser is irrelevant. By the time this case finishes the appeals process, and a final judgment is rendered, the irrelevance of this suit will be evident. Yet the damage will already have been done, and there will be no benefit to consumers, to the industry, to the economy, or to the US in general.
Let the new registrar do it.
You don't owe NSOL a bye-your-leave or kiss-my-ass. You don't need their permission, or their cooperation to transfer registrars.
Your new registrar can then take care of the registrant name change in a jiffy.
Ask them to do it (they will want a fee, most likely).
That's all.
There will be no outage.
Your domain will operate during and after the transfer, just as it did before.
NSOL isn't even involved in the transfer - they cannot stop it, they cannot protest it.
THERE IS NOTHING TO FEAR -- SO DO IT
Your domain will continue to operate during and after the transfer.
THERE IS NOTHING TO FEAR -- DO IT
All a Registrar transfer is, is changing a couple fields in the SRS. That's it. Your NS are not changed during the process. The roots continue to hand out the referrals. There are in fact, only a few pieces of information in SRS: the domain name, the registrar's name, the registrar's whois server domain name, the registrar's web site URL, and the nameservers. Only the fields having to do with the registrar are changed during a transfer. The roots continue to delegate to the NS listed in the SRS, because those fields are not changed.
THERE IS NOTHING TO FEAR
(though some registrars charge a new registration fee to do the transfer - small price to pay, especially if your domain is nearing renewal time anyway)
You may quote me on this (everyone at work does) -
I Hate NSOL more than the entire readership of Slashdot hates Microsoft, combined. If I stood outside their offices, and hated them as much as I could, I would burn a hole in the wall.
So there. :P
Much more upsetting is the radio interference. Motorola promised and promised and repeated their promises throughout all phases of the project, that their amplifiers were nearly perfectly linear, and would not cause interference in sidebands. An adjacent sideband is used by radio astronomers to observe OH radicals in molecular clouds.
When the first satellites went up, the ugly truth was revealed. The amps were NOT "nearly perfectly linear" after all, and leaked significant interference into adjacent bands, including the OH band. This threatened at one time to basically put an end to observation of the OH band altogether. Negotiations with Motorola and appeals by the IAU managed to get Iridium's signals curtailed or eliminated during certain times of day over important radio observatories. Because of Motorola's false promises, and the resulting limitations they were forced to accept, Iridium could never have fulfilled its potential anyway; at certain times of day, near certain regions all over the world, the satellites were simply out of service. Also, in the meantime, advances in signal processing allowed radio astronomers to better filter Iridum's interference. If Iridium had continued to operate, radio astronomy would have been able to adapt to most of the interference, and conduct observations. On the other hand, the presense of Iridum underscored the value of a radio observatory on the far side of the moon. A side effect of Iridium's demise is that this need is not as pressing - for now.
In any case, good riddance. I will enjoy watching them fall into the ocean.
Coke IS a generic term for carbonated soft drinks in some parts.
Didn't Hercules finish his tasks? I think you meant Sisyphean task.
What bugs me most is that by the time this is all sorted out, the solution will be irrelevant, yet the damage done to the industry will persist.
The FoF talks about barriers to entry in the market place. It mentions middleware, citing Java and browser APIs as an example of how to develop applications that do not rely on a particular OS.
By the time this is all sorted out, Java may have grown up and made NC's viable, or something no one has seen before could come along and sweep into the marketplace. It's happened before - that's how MS got where they are. The PC revolution itself is an example of a new platform for applications taking over the market, or creating a new one. That was a mere 15 years ago when it started, and only in this decade has it become the dominant force in the computer marketplace.
I just hope the Court understands that despite the juggernaut, revolutions in computing technology have a way of taking out the biggest and the baddest almost overnight. Remember Pr1me? I hope we don't get stuck with a decision that makes everyone jump through hoops 20 years from now to avoid running afoul of rules that came from the ruling against the former software giant known as Microsoft, who has gone the way of Digital in the intervening years. The cure could end up being worse than the disease.
The biggest thorn in my side regarding NSI is the billing policy. We have now hundreds of domains, and NSI insists that we get billed individually for each one of them, on the anniversary. They have flatly refused to consolidate the billing into a monthly statement covering the previous month's registrations. This costs us a LOT of money because we have had to hire temps just to handle the billing with NSI. This is ludicrous. This is not customer service, this policy is for NSI's benefit, not their customer's. I can't say who we are because the deal has not been finalized, but I am in negotiation with Register.com to handle our future registrations. They are very cooperative, customer-focused, will grant us a credit line, and will base our fees on the volume - the more domains we register the smaller the fee - and most important of all, they will present us with one monthly bill for all the previous month's registrations. Even if there were no volume discount, this move saves us a ton of money over NSI, because our usual accounts payable process can easily handle one extra bill per month from one additional vendor without hiring temps. If everything goes smoothly and I can get my PR people on the bandwagon, you may see a press release from us announcing the partnership with Register.com in the next week or so. If I have any say in how the release is worded, there will be mention of how NEW dot com registrations have diminished value for our customers, because of the scarcity of memorable names, and that Register.com's 20 additional top levels gives our customers a lot more choice in finding a memorable domain name. Take that, you cheesy dot com people!! Register.com is a slam-dunk no-brainer as far as I'm concerned.
I lost it completely reading just the first line from this article. Microsoft advising people to "step back from the hype"? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!! OOOHOOHOOHOOHOOOOWOOOHOWOOOOO!!! HEEHEEEEEEHEEEEE!!!!! It hurts. Ouch. But too funny. They are running scared, it would seem.
Itchium and Scratchium are next?