It offers:
Secure IMAP
Secure SMTP
Secure Web Based
POP3
Forwarding
POP3 Collection
Auto Replying
No Ads--at all (it's run by Novell, they make their money showing off what their product can do, I think)
Pretty much everything. I've been using it's IMAP for several months now, and so far it's been teriffic.
There has been a CGI script called wpoison that has been around since 1997 which feeds spambots articial e-mail addresses.
From what it seems, the only two things this does that wpoison doesn't, is spams spammers and crashes the spammer's machine with denial of service attacks.
Having spammers spam other spammers seems okay, but attacking spammers with denial of service attacks? Sorry, but it my opinion, performing denial of service attacks on people you don't like makes you almost as bad as a spammer.
Aside from all that, if CmdrTaco hasn't noticed, this is Slashdot, not Freshmeat.
> I'm continually surprised at how slowly things move in the computer world. There are performance improvements on the hardware side, yes.
To make up for the performance improvements in hardware, programmers continue to get lazier, add more bloat to your software, making the current software today run no faster on today's computer, than the current software yesterday running on yesterday's computer.
Of course this is not always the case, but it's very common with both Windows and _GUI_ Linux software (but mostly Windows:-)).
This makes absolutely no sense. If it's a piece of plastic that I'm buying, and I have no more rights to listen to the music than before I had the CD, then why is it not legal (in the U.S.) to download and listen to a song that I did not buy the piece of plastic it's most commonly on? Or is it legal, and I'm just very confused?
> Have you ever had the experience of trying to reinstall the latest version of Office when you're running an upgrade of an upgrade of an upgrade...? What a nightmare. You've got to install all the old stuff, first, THEN upgrade them all...
Actually usually you can just supply the CD-ROM of the previous version. At least in Office 2000 you can (I'm pretty sure).
Not that it's really relevent, but in fact, I've encountered an Office 2000 Upgrade CD, where when it requests the location of a previous version of office, it will proceed with the install if you provide the location of the CD you're installing from. I don't know if this is the same with all Office 2000 Upgrade CDs, as I've only installed 1.
In my opinion, the people who spend $34 on a video card which does not work any better for their desired purpose (running X at fairly high resolutions) than a cheap video card they already have, are the ones who are lacking sense.
I tried XFree86 4.x a few days ago, and found that it barely worked with my 4MB S3 Virge card. I was able to get only 800x600 at 15-bit. XFree86 3.x worked flawlessly at 16-bit and 1152x864.
And don't tell me S3 sucks. It's not an excuse. Even if it does suck, supporting it fully in one version but barely supporting it at all in the next version is a very big step downhill.
Anyways my point is, if you're using an S3 Virge video card, you probably shouldn't even bother until XFree86 4.x is considered "stable".
> Get this: Drug sales are big global business of the slimiest kind! There's no quality assurance of any kind. Ever read Ralph Nader's "Unsafe in any Quantity"? No you didn't because you can't sue the bastard that burns you.
Get it through your thick skull. Lack of quality assurance and association with crime in the illegal drug trade, is a result of the drug trade being illegal.
> So the DARE people are right. Smoking that joint might not kill you, but it might just be your ticket to utter looserdom. How do you know it's not full of heroine?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but heroine is a lot more expensive than marijuana, so it doesn't seem to make sense that this would happen. I don't know though.
> Most drug use is related to other crime, and most criminals are also drug users. It's an attitude problem, "I'm going to have a good time at your expense." Woohoo! fun loving criminals. If you don't think that the decline in US crime rates was related to putting crimals in jail, just wait until the criminals get back out.
Saying "most criminals are also drug users" is a very generalized statement. But let's say it is true. Doesn't it make sense to you that someone who, for instance, robs a store, isn't going to care whether or not Uncle Sam wants him to be smoking pot or not? Are you suggesting that illegalizing drugs stops people from robbing stores?
> Bribery, intimidation and murder will go on with or without this product to fight over, but they are less likely to happen among people who are gainfully employed.
Like I said before, this is all a result of drugs being illegal. Drugs don't cause people to commit (other) crimes. Making drugs illegal causes them to be associated with other crimes.
> Education and enforcement are the answers. Education first.
> First things first, there is no such thing as casually medicating yourself with illegal drugs. You never know what your really have, and always run the risk of being exposed to something far more serious than you bargained for.
That's a result of it being illegal.
> Smoking dope is just as bad for you or worse than smoking tobacco as far as your heart and lungs care.
I believe this is somewhat debatable, but in any case, smoking tobacco is physically addictive while smoking marijuana is not.
Also, there are other ways of consuming marijuana other than smoking it.
> People smoking dope can be just as judgement impared as drunks.
This is also debatable.
> Not addictive as physical add it's an airborn intoxicant! You drinking a beer in a bar won't make me drunk. You smoking dope in a public place effects veryone around you.
That's what "No Smoking" signs are for.
> The problem is neither a medical nor law enforcement, it's an attitude problem. Why do so many people think that you need anything more than friends and or novel situations to have a good time? It's crap!
Not everyone is like you. Some people enjoy smoking/consuming marijuana. Nobody's saying people should be encouraged to smoke marijuana. People should have the right to choose.
In any case, are you also saying that cigarretes and alcohol should be illegal?
> Blaming the police for drug violence is like blaming shippers for piracy. You might as well blame law enforcement for rape, murder, arson and every other illegal activity.
Your analogies do not seem to make any sense. The reason why "drug violence" exists is because it's illegal. Have you ever heard of "cigarrete violence" or "alcohol violence", recently in the United States?
That doesn't mean the violence they committed against animals drove them to commit violence against humans. It just means that people who are violent toward humans are likely also violent toward animals. In other words, it means nothing.
> On a slightly different topic, how is it that everyone's getting along so well on unstable? I tried 'apt-get dist-upgrade' on unstable (after installing a fresh Debian system) and the next time I rebooted, my system was so screwed that I decided to wipe the drive and start over.
Well, I'd imagine upgrading from stable to unstable is likely to require a lot of reconfigurations. To maintain a system running unstable is no big deal though.
> I was somewhat wondering how safe it was that it was installing IPv6 stuff in netbase as I saw it scroll by, and sure enough, after the reboot, the network didn't work. And not having access to the network somewhat left me stranded.
Yikes.:-) Never tried IPv6 in Debian. I personally don't think I've ever ran into a problem from installing a new unstable package that I wasn't able to repair, though.
Because it would be very difficult for Redhat to switch their entire distribution to dpkg. It would be much easier for them to add the additional functionality, and just update the packages to support it, rather than remaking them from scratch.
Of course, I'd *much* rather see everyone switch to dpkg (I'm a Debian user myself), but I just don't think that's going to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
... is http://www.myrealbox.com.
It offers:
Secure IMAP
Secure SMTP
Secure Web Based
POP3
Forwarding
POP3 Collection
Auto Replying
No Ads--at all (it's run by Novell, they make their money showing off what their product can do, I think)
Pretty much everything. I've been using it's IMAP for several months now, and so far it's been teriffic.
Legally, yes. But notice how it was a few Intel hackers who politely asked Tom not to redistribute it, and not a few Intel lawyers demanding it.
Sorry, the URL for wpoison is http://www.monkeys.com/wpoison/.
There has been a CGI script called wpoison that has been around since 1997 which feeds spambots articial e-mail addresses.
From what it seems, the only two things this does that wpoison doesn't, is spams spammers and crashes the spammer's machine with denial of service attacks.
Having spammers spam other spammers seems okay, but attacking spammers with denial of service attacks? Sorry, but it my opinion, performing denial of service attacks on people you don't like makes you almost as bad as a spammer.
Aside from all that, if CmdrTaco hasn't noticed, this is Slashdot, not Freshmeat.
> I'm continually surprised at how slowly things move in the computer world. There are performance improvements on the hardware side, yes.
:-)).
To make up for the performance improvements in hardware, programmers continue to get lazier, add more bloat to your software, making the current software today run no faster on today's computer, than the current software yesterday running on yesterday's computer.
Of course this is not always the case, but it's very common with both Windows and _GUI_ Linux software (but mostly Windows
Intel has always been way ahead of AMD though.
Until recently.
This makes absolutely no sense. If it's a piece of plastic that I'm buying, and I have no more rights to listen to the music than before I had the CD, then why is it not legal (in the U.S.) to download and listen to a song that I did not buy the piece of plastic it's most commonly on? Or is it legal, and I'm just very confused?
> Have you ever had the experience of trying to reinstall the latest version of Office when you're running an upgrade of an upgrade of an upgrade...? What a nightmare. You've got to install all the old stuff, first, THEN upgrade them all...
Actually usually you can just supply the CD-ROM of the previous version. At least in Office 2000 you can (I'm pretty sure).
Not that it's really relevent, but in fact, I've encountered an Office 2000 Upgrade CD, where when it requests the location of a previous version of office, it will proceed with the install if you provide the location of the CD you're installing from. I don't know if this is the same with all Office 2000 Upgrade CDs, as I've only installed 1.
All the l33t h4xx0rz use Windows though.
> Anyone who couldn't manage to vote correctly with that ballot should be declared mentally incompetent.
Mentally incompetent adults are allowed to vote. Until that changes (and I don't think it should), ballots like that are a problem.
It's Debian stable releases that are slow as molasses. Unstable is updated daily.
In my opinion, the people who spend $34 on a video card which does not work any better for their desired purpose (running X at fairly high resolutions) than a cheap video card they already have, are the ones who are lacking sense.
I tried XFree86 4.x a few days ago, and found that it barely worked with my 4MB S3 Virge card. I was able to get only 800x600 at 15-bit. XFree86 3.x worked flawlessly at 16-bit and 1152x864.
And don't tell me S3 sucks. It's not an excuse. Even if it does suck, supporting it fully in one version but barely supporting it at all in the next version is a very big step downhill.
Anyways my point is, if you're using an S3 Virge video card, you probably shouldn't even bother until XFree86 4.x is considered "stable".
Exactly my point.
> Get this: Drug sales are big global business of the slimiest kind! There's no quality assurance of any kind. Ever read Ralph Nader's "Unsafe in any Quantity"? No you didn't because you can't sue the bastard that burns you.
Get it through your thick skull. Lack of quality assurance and association with crime in the illegal drug trade, is a result of the drug trade being illegal.
> So the DARE people are right. Smoking that joint might not kill you, but it might just be your ticket to utter looserdom. How do you know it's not full of heroine?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but heroine is a lot more expensive than marijuana, so it doesn't seem to make sense that this would happen. I don't know though.
> Most drug use is related to other crime, and most criminals are also drug users. It's an attitude problem, "I'm going to have a good time at your expense." Woohoo! fun loving criminals. If you don't think that the decline in US crime rates was related to putting crimals in jail, just wait until the criminals get back out.
Saying "most criminals are also drug users" is a very generalized statement. But let's say it is true. Doesn't it make sense to you that someone who, for instance, robs a store, isn't going to care whether or not Uncle Sam wants him to be smoking pot or not? Are you suggesting that illegalizing drugs stops people from robbing stores?
> Bribery, intimidation and murder will go on with or without this product to fight over, but they are less likely to happen among people who are gainfully employed.
Like I said before, this is all a result of drugs being illegal. Drugs don't cause people to commit (other) crimes. Making drugs illegal causes them to be associated with other crimes.
> Education and enforcement are the answers. Education first.
Best to educate with rational arguments, though.
> First things first, there is no such thing as casually medicating yourself with illegal drugs. You never know what your really have, and always run the risk of being exposed to something far more serious than you bargained for.
That's a result of it being illegal.
> Smoking dope is just as bad for you or worse than smoking tobacco as far as your heart and lungs care.
I believe this is somewhat debatable, but in any case, smoking tobacco is physically addictive while smoking marijuana is not.
Also, there are other ways of consuming marijuana other than smoking it.
> People smoking dope can be just as judgement impared as drunks.
This is also debatable.
> Not addictive as physical add it's an airborn intoxicant! You drinking a beer in a bar won't make me drunk. You smoking dope in a public place effects veryone around you.
That's what "No Smoking" signs are for.
> The problem is neither a medical nor law enforcement, it's an attitude problem. Why do so many people think that you need anything more than friends and or novel situations to have a good time? It's crap!
Not everyone is like you. Some people enjoy smoking/consuming marijuana. Nobody's saying people should be encouraged to smoke marijuana. People should have the right to choose.
In any case, are you also saying that cigarretes and alcohol should be illegal?
> Blaming the police for drug violence is like blaming shippers for piracy. You might as well blame law enforcement for rape, murder, arson and every other illegal activity.
Your analogies do not seem to make any sense. The reason why "drug violence" exists is because it's illegal. Have you ever heard of "cigarrete violence" or "alcohol violence", recently in the United States?
Or if they had held him in prison for life.
That doesn't mean the violence they committed against animals drove them to commit violence against humans. It just means that people who are violent toward humans are likely also violent toward animals. In other words, it means nothing.
Pick the guy who you hate most and then flip a coin to choose which one of the other guys to vote for.
Linux is not Redhat. What other distributions have you use to come to this conclusion?
> On a slightly different topic, how is it that everyone's getting along so well on unstable? I tried 'apt-get dist-upgrade' on unstable (after installing a fresh Debian system) and the next time I rebooted, my system was so screwed that I decided to wipe the drive and start over.
:-) Never tried IPv6 in Debian. I personally don't think I've ever ran into a problem from installing a new unstable package that I wasn't able to repair, though.
Well, I'd imagine upgrading from stable to unstable is likely to require a lot of reconfigurations. To maintain a system running unstable is no big deal though.
> I was somewhat wondering how safe it was that it was installing IPv6 stuff in netbase as I saw it scroll by, and sure enough, after the reboot, the network didn't work. And not having access to the network somewhat left me stranded.
Yikes.
Because it would be very difficult for Redhat to switch their entire distribution to dpkg. It would be much easier for them to add the additional functionality, and just update the packages to support it, rather than remaking them from scratch.
Of course, I'd *much* rather see everyone switch to dpkg (I'm a Debian user myself), but I just don't think that's going to happen.
Oops. My mistake. :-)
No problem. :-)