From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 26 0:17:56 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (GndRsh.dnsmgr.net [198.145.92.4])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2EF514C89
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 00:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net)
Received: (from freebsd@localhost)
by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA09184;
Sun, 26 Sep 1999 00:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from freebsd)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Message-Id: <199909260717.AAA09184@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups)
In-Reply-To: <19990926030048.A2441@lithium.scientia.demon.co.uk> from Ben Smithurst at "Sep 26, 1999 03:00:48 am"
To: ben@scientia.demon.co.uk (Ben Smithurst)
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 00:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
>
> >> I have no objection to web caches, no. I *do* have an objection to
> >> having all traffic out of my machine *forced* to go through the ISP's
> >> web cache. If I want to use it, I know how to configure my software to
> >> use it (and I do use it), I don't need the ISP doing that for me.
> >
> > They already are, and you don't even know it. It may be at a major
> > provider near you soon too.
>
> I'm pretty sure it won't be at my ISP.
>
> >> I suppose you configure your web servers to deny all requests from dial
> >> up hosts. If not, why not? After all, under your policy all users should
> >> be using their ISP's web cache.
> >
> > You've twisted it a bit far. Nothing in our policy says what another ISP's
> > users can do, only what our customers can do.
>
> So why do you stop other ISP's dialup users from sending mail direct to your
> incoming SMTP servers?
We don't presently, unless they happen to be on the RBL, I think you
have twisted this view around and are looking at several aspects of it
backwards.
We stop _our_ dialup users, infact we stop all _our_ users, dial or dedicated,
from creating direct outbound port 25 connections, unless other arrangements
have been made via policy amendments and filter changes.
Why, well, it prevents us from ending up on the RBL due to some luser
that buys a dial up for the intent of spamming.
Now I did mention we intend to add DUL to this suit of anti-spam work,
and that would prevent other ISP's dialup users from sending mail
directly to our SMTP servers. Now, why would we do that, well, because
the other ISP has asked us to do it by submitting his dial up IP block
to the DUL. We like doing things that stop spam, especially when another
ISP indirectly asked us to do it by submitting his Dial Up ip List to
DUL.
From my reading of your questions so far to date I can tell you don't
have a real understanding of what RBL, DUL and my IP filter rules are
really doing. And I can further extract that you probably have never
tried to run an ISP's mail server, or had to deal with large amounts
of spam.
>
> > SMTP deserves very special attention due to the fact that the number 1
> > complaint of users of the internet is *SPAM*. SPAM is propogated via
> > smtp. Do I need to say more? I can if I do.
>
> What about NNTP? I think quite a bit of Usenet spam (and rogue cancels,
> and other crap on Usenet) are injected through open news servers,
> not necessarily those of the abuser's ISP. This would cause problems
> if customers wanted to use an external news service like Giganews or
> Altopia though, so I guess it's not as simple as "block all NNTP to
> remote sites".
Especially since we have decided that we are not experts at news and
outsourced that to another company who are experts at news. We do monitor
inbound NNTP attempts, mostly caused by port or ip space scans, and we
monitor all outbound NNTP connections not to the outsourced news provider,
but we do not presently block them as UseNet _is_ spam, or atleast 80%
of the traffic seems that way now a days. We also don't have users
complaining and asking us what _we_ can do about reducing the spam in
the usenet news groups. We have never taken any action due to outbound
NNTP connections that trip the filter logging, as they are very infrequent.
We do have several of the major open nnrp servers listed beyond our
supplier due to them being common for people to use.
There are several organizations that work on doing usenet cleanup by
rapidly sending out cancels to bogus crap that should have never gone
to certain groups which is someone effective.
The other big difference with NNTP and usenet is that it is opt-in for
the consumer. It don't end up on their screen unless they requested
the news group, smtp is quite different, it is shoved into their mailbox
and the only way to get it out is to delete it.
--
Rod Grimes - KD7CAX - (RWG25) rgrimes@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 26 1:27:12 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from sasami.jurai.net (sasami.jurai.net [63.67.141.99])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C94715383
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 01:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from winter@jurai.net)
Received: from localhost (winter@localhost)
by sasami.jurai.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA01706;
Sun, 26 Sep 1999 04:27:00 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 04:27:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net>
To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Cc: jack <jack@germanium.xtalwind.net>,
Gary Palmer <gjp@in-addr.com>, Jacques Vidrine <n@nectar.com>,
chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk
to dialups)
In-Reply-To: <199909252337.QAA08637@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909260426430.1659-100000@sasami.jurai.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> Keyword is ``resold'', it wont be from *.uu.net.
I'm sure you know all about how UUNET is setup. :)
--
| Matthew N. Dodd | '78 Datsun 280Z | '75 Volvo 164E | FreeBSD/NetBSD |
| winter@jurai.net | 2 x '84 Volvo 245DL | ix86,sparc,pmax |
| http://www.jurai.net/~winter | This Space For Rent | ISO8802.5 4ever |
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 26 2:32:23 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from bigdaddy.lanminds.com (bigdaddy.lanminds.com [208.25.68.250])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 391A214C92
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 02:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from todd@bigdaddy.lanminds.com)
Received: (from todd@localhost)
by bigdaddy.lanminds.com (8.8.8/8.8.7) id CAA23081;
Sun, 26 Sep 1999 02:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 02:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Todd Meister <todd@LanMinds.Com>
To: Mark Ovens <mark@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: [slightly OT] Win 95 upgrade CD & bochs
In-Reply-To: <19990926013323.F2759@marder-1>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.990926022611.23077A-100000@bigdaddy>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
If you have the first Windows 3.1 floppy, you can put that
in, and tell the setup program to look for the file in the
A: drive. I used to know which file the setup program was looking
for, but I've long since forgotten.
Todd Meister
On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, Mark Ovens wrote:
> Does anyone know how Win95 determines whether you have a valid OS
> installed before it will "upgrade" to 95
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 26 2:37:24 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from tuminfo2.informatik.tu-muenchen.de (tuminfo2.informatik.tu-muenchen.de [131.159.0.81])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B6DC14C92
for <chat@freebsd.org>; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 02:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from senior@qdrei.de)
Received: from dialc150.ppp.lrz-muenchen.de ([129.187.26.150] EHLO qdrei.de ident: TIMEDOUT [port 1036]) by tuminfo2.informatik.tu-muenchen.de with ESMTP id <113081-221>; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 11:37:19 +0000
Message-ID: <37ECE128.E33DF26B@qdrei.de>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 16:50:17 +0200
From: Stephan Lichtenauer <senior@qdrei.de>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: chat@freebsd.org
Subject: german fortune cookies
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
hi,
since i do not know who is currently maintaining fortune i am posting my
question here: i have some english and loads of german cookies (some kb)
(already formatted with '%', nonoffensive and offensive ones), so if YOU
(the "fortuner") should be interested please contact me and i could
email them
to you.
stephan
+++ +++ +++
Peeping Tom:
A window fan.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 26 8:20:53 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC59114C2B
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 08:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from brett@lariat.org)
Received: from mustang (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2])
by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA20215;
Sun, 26 Sep 1999 09:19:29 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19990926091648.04455b20@localhost>
X-Sender: brett@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 09:19:21 -0600
To: Todd Meister <todd@LanMinds.Com>,
Mark Ovens <mark@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
Subject: Re: [slightly OT] Win 95 upgrade CD & bochs
Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.990926022611.23077A-100000@bigdaddy>
References: <19990926013323.F2759@marder-1>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
I keep my old OS/2 Warp install disk around for just this
purpose. In fact, just for spite, Microsoft listed OS/2 as
an operating system from which the user could "upgrade"
when installing DOS 6.22! And said so, VERY prominently,
in their manual.
--Brett
At 02:28 AM 9/26/99 -0700, Todd Meister wrote:
>If you have the first Windows 3.1 floppy, you can put that
>in, and tell the setup program to look for the file in the
>A: drive. I used to know which file the setup program was looking
>for, but I've long since forgotten.
>
>Todd Meister
>
>
>On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, Mark Ovens wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know how Win95 determines whether you have a valid OS
> > installed before it will "upgrade" to 95
>
>
>To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
>with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 26 8:38:26 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from typhoon.mail.pipex.net (typhoon.mail.pipex.net [158.43.128.27])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4504614D55
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 08:38:19 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from mark@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org)
Received: (qmail 27063 invoked from network); 26 Sep 1999 15:38:18 -0000
Received: from useraa39.uk.uudial.com (HELO marder-1.) (62.188.130.39)
by smtp.dial.pipex.com with SMTP; 26 Sep 1999 15:38:18 -0000
Received: (from mark@localhost)
by marder-1. (8.9.2/8.8.8) id QAA00831;
Sun, 26 Sep 1999 16:29:21 +0100 (BST)
(envelope-from mark)
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 16:29:21 +0100
From: Mark Ovens <mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org>
To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
Cc: Todd Meister <todd@LanMinds.Com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: [slightly OT] Win 95 upgrade CD & bochs
Message-ID: <19990926162920.F282@marder-1>
References: <19990926013323.F2759@marder-1> <Pine.SOL.3.91.990926022611.23077A-100000@bigdaddy> <4.2.0.58.19990926091648.04455b20@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19990926091648.04455b20@localhost>
Organization: Total lack of
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 09:19:21AM -0600, Brett Glass wrote:
> I keep my old OS/2 Warp install disk around for just this
> purpose. In fact, just for spite, Microsoft listed OS/2 as
> an operating system from which the user could "upgrade"
> when installing DOS 6.22! And said so, VERY prominently,
> in their manual.
>
Damn, never thought of that. I too have a set of Warp floppies
(guess I don't think W95 is an "upgrade" from Warp ;-) ). Anyway,
someone kindly made a image file of a Win3.1 floppy with dd(1) and
put it on an ftp site for me. This did the trick. I now have Win95
running (albeit very slowly) as an application within FreeBSD. It's
rightful place some would say:)
> --Brett
>
> At 02:28 AM 9/26/99 -0700, Todd Meister wrote:
> >If you have the first Windows 3.1 floppy, you can put that
> >in, and tell the setup program to look for the file in the
> >A: drive. I used to know which file the setup program was looking
> >for, but I've long since forgotten.
> >
> >Todd Meister
> >
> >
> >On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, Mark Ovens wrote:
> >
> > > Does anyone know how Win95 determines whether you have a valid OS
> > > installed before it will "upgrade" to 95
> >
> >
> >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> >with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
>
--
STATE-OF-THE-ART: Any computer you can't afford.
OBSOLETE: Any computer you own.
________________________________________________________________
FreeBSD - The Power To Serve http://www.freebsd.org
My Webpage http://ukug.uk.freebsd.org/~mark/
mailto:mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org http://www.radan.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 26 9: 9:18 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 167E414C4F
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 09:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from brett@lariat.org)
Received: from mustang (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2])
by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA20566;
Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:07:51 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19990926100616.0472f400@localhost>
X-Sender: brett@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:07:43 -0600
To: Mark Ovens <mark@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
Subject: Re: [slightly OT] Win 95 upgrade CD & bochs
Cc: Todd Meister <todd@LanMinds.Com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <19990926162920.F282@marder-1>
References: <4.2.0.58.19990926091648.04455b20@localhost>
<19990926013323.F2759@marder-1>
<Pine.SOL.3.91.990926022611.23077A-100000@bigdaddy>
<4.2.0.58.19990926091648.04455b20@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
At 04:29 PM 9/26/99 +0100, Mark Ovens wrote:
>Damn, never thought of that. I too have a set of Warp floppies
>(guess I don't think W95 is an "upgrade" from Warp ;-) ).
I think Microsoft did it just to be insulting. But if you've
got an "upgrade" version of any Microsoft OS, you should keep
around at least one thing from which it is claimed to be
an upgrade. Otherwise, when Windows trashes your disk and you must
reinstall, you're stuck.
--Brett
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 26 10:28:38 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from scotty.masternet.it (scotty.masternet.it [194.184.65.2])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFB2815190
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from gmarco@scotty.masternet.it)
Received: from suzy (modem18.masternet.it [194.184.65.28])
by scotty.masternet.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA25149;
Sun, 26 Sep 1999 19:28:29 +0200 (CEST)
(envelope-from gmarco@scotty.masternet.it)
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19990926193136.0167fec0@194.184.65.4>
X-Sender: gmarco@scotty.masternet.it
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 19:32:57 +0200
To: Stephan Lichtenauer <senior@qdrei.de>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
From: Gianmarco Giovannelli <gmarco@scotty.masternet.it>
Subject: Re: german fortune cookies
In-Reply-To: <37ECE128.E33DF26B@qdrei.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
At 25/09/99, Stephan Lichtenauer wrote:
>hi,
>
>since i do not know who is currently maintaining fortune i am posting my
>
>question here: i have some english and loads of german cookies (some kb)
>
>(already formatted with '%', nonoffensive and offensive ones), so if YOU
>
>(the "fortuner") should be interested please contact me and i could
>email them
>to you.
I have made a port for Italian fortunes...
You can check it in misc/fortuneit if you are interested in make one for
german ones...
Hope it helps...
Best Regards,
Gianmarco Giovannelli , "Unix expert since yesterday"
http://www.giovannelli.it/~gmarco
http://www2.masternet.it
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 26 10:29:48 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (GndRsh.dnsmgr.net [198.145.92.4])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 3FFC815190; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net)
Received: (from freebsd@localhost)
by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10064;
Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from freebsd)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Message-Id: <199909261726.KAA10064@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net/nstreams - Imported sources
In-Reply-To: <19990926154411.41C871CA7@overcee.netplex.com.au> from Peter Wemm at "Sep 26, 1999 11:44:11 pm"
To: peter@netplex.com.au (Peter Wemm)
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: mike@smith.net.au (Mike Smith),
dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu (Doug White),
billf@jade.chc-chimes.com (Bill Fumerola),
cpiazza@FreeBSD.org (Chris Piazza), chat@FreeBSD.org
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
[FreeBSD-* CC's replaced by chat, users left intact]
> Mike Smith wrote:
> > > On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> > >
> > > > We have just removed BPF from all standard deployment kernel config files
> ,
> > > > Sigh :-(.
> > >
> > > What, did you just break DHCP again?
> >
> > No, Rod is just having another panic attack. Don't worry about it.
>
> IMHO, BPF is no more "illegal" than an Ethernet card that can be put in
> promiscuous mode. When they stop making promisc-capable Ethernet cards
> *THEN* (and only then) I'll worry about BPF.
From my reading of the code an Ethernet card with promiscuous mode features
does not qualify as a wire tapping device due to the fact that the primary
function of an Ethernet card is not to listen to everything on the
wire.
BPF on the other hand, or worse, a lanalyzer, is specifically designed
designed for this purpose.
The law speaks about ``primary purpose'', in the case of an Ethernet
card it is not the primary purpose. In the case of BPF/tcpdump
it is the primary purpose. Now one could expand the view that BPF
is a part of the kernel, and say that the primary purpose of the
kernel is not to listen to traffic and probably get away with it.
_But_, and this is a big _BUT_, something like net/nstreams is primary
designed to listen to conversations.
BPF still scares me quite a bit, but then we have a situation quite
different than most others, in that we are governed by 47 USC, and
many more Federal and State laws than most other businesses due to
being a licensed carrier. I know on our telco switching we have
to demonstrate that it requires a court order before a trap and
trace or pen register can be applied to a circuit, or in the case
of the same function performed by a switch under software it has
to have very stringent safe guards to insure that the software
is only activated under very stringent conditions.
The old days of using an inductive pickup handset are long gone,
to my knowledge it is now illegal for a lineman to carry such
a device. In fact the law has been amended to specifically allow
manufactures of such devices to send via certain means _advertisements_
of such devices to official law enforcement and government agencies.
[They screwed the law up at one point and it was technically illegal
to advertise these types of devices anyplace to anyone. So the law
enforcement folks had a bill introduced that changed the law so that
they could be sent advertisements. [If I recall correctly this was
done in public law 105-112, 1998 time frame]
Specifically 18 USC 2512 (3) was added:
It shall not be unlawful under this section to advertise for sale a
device described in subsection (1) of this section if the advertisement is
mailed, sent, or carried in interstate or foreign commerce solely to a
domestic provider of wire or electronic communication service or to an
agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof
which is duly authorized to use such device.
So another company can send _us_ BPF _advertisements_, as a ``domestic provider
of wire or electronic communication ... duly authorized to use such device''.
I don't know if all ISP qualify under this as I have not done the proper
set of cross references to get a definition of ``domestic provider'' and
the even harder search of ``duly authorized''.
Please don't come crashing down on the messenger on this one folks,
I don't like what I have read in the last 24 hours any more than any
of you like reading what I have said here. It's bad, bumming, bogus
law, that was poorly written. The original 1948 version of the code
was much more concise, was restricted to only governmental entities
and has now been hacked to death by amendments that it's so screwed up
little things like the above amendment are having to be done so that
even law enforcement hands are not tied by the letter of the law.
I suspect some crook got off in a court case some place by showing that
the police found out about the wire tapping device they used to catch
him via an advertisement sent by the manufacture to them via mail,
which was illegal until the 1998 amendment, causing the evidence so
collected to be inadmissible in court. Twisted, but then so is the
law.
I did find some good news... there was a Senate Bill introduced in
the 105th congress, 1998 S1, that would in effect make DES and lots
of other encryption code totally legal to export by the nature of
equivalent functional cryptography available outside the US. Unfortunately
this bill has been sitting in a sub-comity since shortly after it
was introduced :-(. If your interested in writing your Senator
about it, let me know and I'll find the it again and give you the
bill number to bend his ear over. There where 10 originating
Senators, so it has wide support, or at least more support than
most bills of this nature.
--
Rod Grimes - KD7CAX - (RWG25) rgrimes@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 26 10:45:56 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (GndRsh.dnsmgr.net [198.145.92.4])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E335815190
for <chat@freebsd.org>; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net)
Received: (from freebsd@localhost)
by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10098;
Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:43:51 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from freebsd)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Message-Id: <199909261743.KAA10098@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909261017060.367-100000@localhost> from Alex Zepeda at "Sep 26, 1999 10:22:45 am"
To: jazepeda@pacbell.net (Alex Zepeda)
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:43:51 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: gjp@in-addr.com (Gary Palmer), brian@Awfulhak.org (Brian Somers),
chat@freebsd.org
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
[CC redirected from -current to -chat, users left intact]
> On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, Gary Palmer wrote:
>
> > No, actually, there is absolutely nothing which says that you, as a
> > subscriber of good standing, *have* to be allowed to connect to
> > non-local port 25. I think it is perfectly reasonable that the ISP
> > require that you buy a static IP (with N months initially prepaid) or
> > something to get port 25 privs.
>
> Why?! The only ISP I've used at all that blocked port 25 was AT&T.
And that list has grown, and is growing on a daily basis. Every ISP
that brings me in under contract to clean up their spam problem now
implements the block 25 policy. This is becoming a default way of
life. AT&T was one of the first big boys to do it, others are following
rapid suite due to the situations outlined elsewhere.
> I think it's perfectly unreasonable. Luckily for me, the only PBI server
> that's been down for any serious amount of time (as far as I could tell)
> was the POP3 server farm.
>
> But back with GST/Wenet/Hooked, their OGM servers did go down and were
> slow enough to make me not want to use them. Even on the rare occasion
> when they did work (all two of them; and now one), I liked having the
> extra control over my mail. Now.. well I use PBI's "smarthost" merely
> because hub won't accept anything else.
Get use to that fact, your going to find this policy more and more.
> > If you want to go after the real source of the problem, then lobby
> > your local government to make spammers pay for the damage they do.
> > Otherwise the `freedom' of the old Internet will be worn away because
> > ISPs will have to protect themselves more and more.
>
> No, the real problem is the ISPs who can't fund decent servers and provide
> decent service. If they could take care of spam and provide a 99%
> reliable service, I'd have very few problems with using their mailservers.
Now, that is one thing we _have_ done that the other ISP's don't seem to
be so keen on. But then, we have an advantage in that we also happen to
run some very large opt-in bulk email services for our clients, and that
means we need to have very good, very fast, _and_ 99.9% reliability on
our email servers. (We are working towards the 99.99, but it gets really
hard to get that last 0.09% with a protocol that was not designed for
fault tolerance). We do have SLA's that we must meet for certain customers
that not only says we wont loose the mail, we also must deliver it within
a certain time period.
We have taken the knowledge we learned from doing the bulk mail and applied
partitions of it to our standard smarthost. Also if those ISP's are not
providing the ``descent servers and .. decent service'' they are not really
ISP's are they, they are simply ``IP's''. :-).
We aim to serve, not just to provide. No :-)
--
Rod Grimes - KD7CAX - (RWG25) rgrimes@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 26 10:54: 6 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from bytor.rush.net (bytor.rush.net [209.45.245.145])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28ECA15190
for <chat@freebsd.org>; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:54:02 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from lynch@bsdunix.net)
Received: from localhost (lynch@localhost)
by bytor.rush.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA28774;
Sun, 26 Sep 1999 13:53:58 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 13:53:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pat Lynch <lynch@bsdunix.net>
X-Sender: lynch@bytor.rush.net
To: Ruth Shanen <casandra@ix.netcom.com>
Cc: members@funy.org, chat@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: BSD misplaced on CompUSA shelves
In-Reply-To: <37ef5c14.2866535@smtp.ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9909261353010.13093-100000@bytor.rush.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Muhahahahaha! World Domination...oh um..... hold on, thats Linus' line.
-Pat
___________________________________________________________________________
Pat Lynch lynch@rush.net
lynch@bsdunix.net
Systems Administrator Rush Networking
___________________________________________________________________________
On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, Ruth Shanen wrote:
> If you haven't thrown out the Sunday Times yet, take a look
> at the CompUSA advertising insert. On page 10 of the insert
> they are offering the "FreeBSD Power Pack" right next to
> "SuSE Linux". Can fame and corruption be far behind ?
>
> Ruth
> casandra@ix.netcom.com
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 26 10:57:29 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from mail-gw2.pacbell.net (mail-gw2.pacbell.net [206.13.28.53])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB593152C7
for <chat@freebsd.org>; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from jazepeda@pacbell.net)
Received: from zippy.dyn.ml.org (ppp-207-214-149-13.snrf01.pacbell.net [207.214.149.13])
by mail-gw2.pacbell.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA03266;
Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:57:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by zippy.dyn.ml.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 77ABC91645; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alex Zepeda <jazepeda@pacbell.net>
To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Cc: Gary Palmer <gjp@in-addr.com>, chat@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
In-Reply-To: <199909261743.KAA10098@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909261051530.367-100000@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> Also if those ISP's are not providing the ``descent servers and ..
> decent service'' they are not really ISP's are they, they are simply
> ``IP's''. :-).
I just want to say that this wasn't true. Sure their QoS sucked donkey
testicles. But the staff on hand was (up until GST bought them out)
amazingly helpful (more so than tech support), knoweledgable, and pro BSD
(esp. FreeBSD). As long as I could provide my own mail server it was
worth putting up with subpar service.
The one worthwhile thing they did however, was rig up some sort of
authentication so that if the IP you were using (assuming it was a non
"native" IP), had logged into their POP3 server, for the next 30 mins that
IP could use their SMTP server.
- alex
Experience something different
With our new imported dolly
She's lovely, warm, inflatable
And we guarantee her joy
- The Police
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 26 10:58: 0 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (GndRsh.dnsmgr.net [198.145.92.4])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B36C152C7
for <chat@freebsd.org>; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net)
Received: (from freebsd@localhost)
by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10120;
Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from freebsd)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Message-Id: <199909261756.KAA10120@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
In-Reply-To: <64194.938367636@noop.colo.erols.net> from Gary Palmer at "Sep 26, 1999 01:40:36 pm"
To: gjp@in-addr.com (Gary Palmer)
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:56:30 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: jazepeda@pacbell.net (Alex Zepeda), chat@freebsd.org
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
[CC redirect to -chat, users left intact]
Should a BOF at BSDCon be asked for to discuss these issues? I think
it would make for a hot and heated BOF with lots of understanding
by both the ISP and user community about where the current state of the
art is headed with respect to filtering, redirection, and other tools
being applied to combat the spam problem.
I know there is one talk by jmb about spam, the past 5 years or something
along that line already. But this is such a hot topic that I am not sure
if he is going to get into what is currently being done, and what some of
the plans are.
I also think that the open forum of a BOF would allow the implementers,
people like Paul Vixie, jmb, you, myself, etc to get a lot of input from
the general user community at large.
> Alex Zepeda wrote in message ID
> <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909261017060.367-100000@localhost>:
> > No, the real problem is the ISPs who can't fund decent servers and provide
> > decent service. If they could take care of spam and provide a 99%
> > reliable service, I'd have very few problems with using their mailservers.
>
> If they can't provide a reliable OGM server, find a different ISP, no
> matter what else. And I fail to see how they can `take care of spam'
> if you won't let them close it at the source ... people doing direct
> injection of spam to the recipients MX and relay raping others to hide
> their tracks. ISPs blocking outbound port 25 from dynamic dialups and
> inbound port 25 to people who shouldn't be running servers (e.g. your
> average cablemodem customer, a fair number of whom run open relays,
> and most of whom have a TOS which doesn't allow them to run `servers'
> in the first place) will cure a lot of problems, whether you like it
> or not.
>
> More than 75% of ISP customers would like less spam ... but they
> *have* to be willing to accept that to stop the spammer they may have
> to jump through a new hoop.
Amen!!
>
> Heck, I believe a UK company (FreeServe?) uses a L4 switch (or some
> similar technology) to redirect >all< outbound port 25 traffic to
> their SMTP servers. US ISPs probably don't have that choice if they
> cover any territory at all (the cost of the switches becomes
> prohibitive as you need one per POP), but a Cisco ACL would work just
> as well at stopping the problem.
This is what I was alluding to when I wrote:
ipfw add 10251 divert ${SMARTRELAYHANDLER} tcp from any to any 25 out via lnc1
It's a layer 3 redirection of outbound SMTP attempts that would in effect
force the mail through our smart host without the customer even knowing
that we did it other than by header examination. At this point the
idea is just that, an idea. We will implement it if the current policy
does not solve the problem. This is one of the reasons we prefer running
a *BSD boarder router over a Cisco, we can do these things easily.
--
Rod Grimes - KD7CAX - (RWG25) rgrimes@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 26 11: 8:20 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from lucifier.dial-up.user.akula.net (lucifier.dial-up.user.akula.net [208.140.175.58])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F8FD152C7
for <chat@freebsd.org>; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 11:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from mickey@lucifier.dial-up.user.akula.net)
Received: (from mickey@localhost)
by lucifier.dial-up.user.akula.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) id OAA20083;
Sun, 26 Sep 1999 14:07:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Shalayeff <mickey@lucifier.dial-up.user.akula.net>
Message-Id: <199909261807.OAA20083@lucifier.dial-up.user.akula.net>
Subject: Re: BSD misplaced on CompUSA shelves
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9909261353010.13093-100000@bytor.rush.net> from Pat Lynch at "Sep 26, 99 01:53:58 pm"
To: lynch@bsdunix.net (Pat Lynch)
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 14:07:52 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: casandra@ix.netcom.com, members@funy.org, chat@freebsd.org
Reply-To: mickey@openbsd.org
X-Operating-System: OpenBSD 2k
X-Flames-To: /dev/null
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL32 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
re
it's all in your mind!
cu
Making, drinking tea and reading an opus magnum from Pat Lynch:
> Muhahahahaha! World Domination...oh um..... hold on, thats Linus' line.
>
> -Pat
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
> Pat Lynch lynch@rush.net
> lynch@bsdunix.net
> Systems Administrator Rush Networking
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
> On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, Ruth Shanen wrote:
>
> > If you haven't thrown out the Sunday Times yet, take a look
> > at the CompUSA advertising insert. On page 10 of the insert
> > they are offering the "FreeBSD Power Pack" right next to
> > "SuSE Linux". Can fame and corruption be far behind ?
> >
> > Ruth
> > casandra@ix.netcom.com
> >
>
--
paranoic mickey (my employers have changed but, the name has remained)
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 26 11:13:13 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from mail.ftf.dk (mail.ftf.net [129.142.64.2])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D2BF1531E
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 11:13:04 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from regnauld@ftf.net)
Received: from ns.int.ftf.net (fw2.ftf.dk [192.168.1.2] (may be forged))
by mail.ftf.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3/gw-ftf-1.2) with ESMTP id UAA14405;
Sun, 26 Sep 1999 20:11:31 +0200 (CEST)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.ftf.dk: Host fw2.ftf.dk [192.168.1.2] (may be forged) claimed to be ns.int.ftf.net
Received: (from regnauld@localhost)
by ns.int.ftf.net (8.9.2/8.9.3) id UAA25507;
Sun, 26 Sep 1999 20:18:21 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <19990926201820.39127@ns.int.ftf.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 20:18:20 +0200
From: Phil Regnauld <regnauld@ftf.net>
To: Mark Ovens <mark@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
Cc: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>, Todd Meister <todd@LanMinds.Com>,
chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: [slightly OT] Win 95 upgrade CD & bochs
References: <19990926013323.F2759@marder-1> <Pine.SOL.3.91.990926022611.23077A-100000@bigdaddy> <4.2.0.58.19990926091648.04455b20@localhost> <19990926162920.F282@marder-1>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88e
In-Reply-To: <19990926162920.F282@marder-1>; from Mark Ovens on Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 04:29:21PM +0100
X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE i386
Organization: FTFnet
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Mark Ovens writes:
> put it on an ftp site for me. This did the trick. I now have Win95
> running (albeit very slowly) as an application within FreeBSD. It's
> rightful place some would say:)
What's "slow" ? What system are you running ?
--
Division by Zero error -- multiplying by zero to recover.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 26 11:32:12 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from monsoon.mail.pipex.net (monsoon.mail.pipex.net [158.43.128.69])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3333E14CAB
for <chat@freebsd.org>; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 11:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from mark@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org)
Received: (qmail 8615 invoked from network); 26 Sep 1999 18:31:39 -0000
Received: from userca61.uk.uudial.com (HELO marder-1.) (62.188.150.129)
by smtp.dial.pipex.com with SMTP; 26 Sep 1999 18:31:39 -0000
Received: (from mark@localhost)
by marder-1. (8.9.2/8.8.8) id TAA01756;
Sun, 26 Sep 1999 19:31:38 +0100 (BST)
(envelope-from mark)
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 19:31:38 +0100
From: Mark Ovens <mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org>
To: Phil Regnauld <regnauld@ftf.net>
Cc: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>, Todd Meister <todd@LanMinds.Com>,
chat@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [slightly OT] Win 95 upgrade CD & bochs
Message-ID: <19990926193138.O282@marder-1>
References: <19990926013323.F2759@marder-1> <Pine.SOL.3.91.990926022611.23077A-100000@bigdaddy> <4.2.0.58.19990926091648.04455b20@localhost> <19990926162920.F282@marder-1> <19990926201820.39127@ns.int.ftf.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i
In-Reply-To: <19990926201820.39127@ns.int.ftf.net>
Organization: Total lack of
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 08:18:20PM +0200, Phil Regnauld wrote:
> Mark Ovens writes:
>
> > put it on an ftp site for me. This did the trick. I now have Win95
> > running (albeit very slowly) as an application within FreeBSD. It's
> > rightful place some would say:)
>
> What's "slow" ?
I'd guess it runs about the same speed as on a 386 with 4MB RAM
> What system are you running ?
K6-233/64MB/U-WSCSI disks
If you've any tips for speeding it up I'd like to hear them
> --
> Division by Zero error -- multiplying by zero to recover.
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
--
STATE-OF-THE-ART: Any computer you can't afford.
OBSOLETE: Any computer you own.
________________________________________________________________
FreeBSD - The Power To Serve http://www.freebsd.org
My Webpage http://ukug.uk.freebsd.org/~mark/
mailto:mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org http://www.radan.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 26 11:52: 3 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from noop.colo.erols.net (noop.colo.erols.net [207.96.1.150])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 927AC15092; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 11:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from gjp@noop.colo.erols.net)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=noop.colo.erols.net)
by noop.colo.erols.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1)
id 11VJPl-000GpC-00; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 14:52:49 -0400
To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Cc: jazepeda@pacbell.net (Alex Zepeda), chat@freebsd.org,
jkh@freebsd.org
From: gjp@in-addr.com (Gary Palmer)
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:56:30 PDT."
<199909261756.KAA10120@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 14:52:48 -0400
Message-ID: <64677.938371968@noop.colo.erols.net>
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
"Rodney W. Grimes" wrote in message ID
<199909261756.KAA10120@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>:
> [CC redirect to -chat, users left intact]
> Should a BOF at BSDCon be asked for to discuss these issues? I think
> it would make for a hot and heated BOF with lots of understanding
> by both the ISP and user community about where the current state of the
> art is headed with respect to filtering, redirection, and other tools
> being applied to combat the spam problem.
> I know there is one talk by jmb about spam, the past 5 years or something
> along that line already. But this is such a hot topic that I am not sure
> if he is going to get into what is currently being done, and what some of
> the plans are.
>
> I also think that the open forum of a BOF would allow the implementers,
> people like Paul Vixie, jmb, you, myself, etc to get a lot of input from
> the general user community at large.
I think an anti-spam BOF (or BOFH? :) ) would be a great idea. Its
clear that this is a very touchy subject (heh, yes, I read NANAE :) ),
and it would definately be illuminating for both customers and
providers.
Jordan, is there a BOF organizer for FreeBSD CON? Or is it just a
organize it as you go structure? Do we even have rooms reserved for
the evenings where BOFs could be held?
(And, no, I'm not volunteering :) )
> This is what I was alluding to when I wrote:
> ipfw add 10251 divert ${SMARTRELAYHANDLER} tcp from any to any 25 out via lnc
> 1
> It's a layer 3 redirection of outbound SMTP attempts that would in effect
> force the mail through our smart host without the customer even knowing
> that we did it other than by header examination. At this point the
> idea is just that, an idea. We will implement it if the current policy
> does not solve the problem. This is one of the reasons we prefer running
> a *BSD boarder router over a Cisco, we can do these things easily.
Unfortunately, I don't know a BSD box that can handle aggregating OC3
or higher :( You fast run into the PCI bus wall. That and our routing
ppl sorta like Cisco, for some unknown reason.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 26 12:14:18 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk (nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk [193.237.89.66])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA26D15396
for <chat@freebsd.org>; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 12:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from nik@nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk)
Received: (from nik@localhost)
by nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA88564;
Sun, 26 Sep 1999 20:06:58 +0100 (BST)
(envelope-from nik)
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 20:06:57 +0100
From: Nik Clayton <nik@freebsd.org>
To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Cc: Gary Palmer <gjp@in-addr.com>,
Alex Zepeda <jazepeda@pacbell.net>, chat@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
Message-ID: <19990926200657.A87841@catkin.nothing-going-on.org>
References: <64194.938367636@noop.colo.erols.net> <199909261756.KAA10120@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4i
In-Reply-To: <199909261756.KAA10120@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>; from Rodney W. Grimes on Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 10:56:30AM -0700
Organization: FreeBSD Project <URL:http://www.freebsd.org/>
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 10:56:30AM -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> Should a BOF at BSDCon be asked for to discuss these issues? I think
> it would make for a hot and heated BOF with lots of understanding
> by both the ISP and user community about where the current state of the
> art is headed with respect to filtering, redirection, and other tools
> being applied to combat the spam problem.
I'd be surprised if it's worthwhile. Those of us that are knowledgeable
enough to be complaining about automatic port 25 redirects are also smart
enough to configure our systems so that they're not open relays[1].
I don't think any of us have a problem with ISPs doing it as long as there
always remains a way to opt out. Any ISP that starts restricting the
host/port combinations that hosts on my side of the link can talk to on
the wider Internet will lose my custom very quickly.
N
[1] I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread yet.
http://www.abuse.net/relay.html is a useful tool to check whether or
not you have things configured correctly.
--
[intentional self-reference] can be easily accommodated using a blessed,
non-self-referential dummy head-node whose own object destructor severs
the links.
-- Tom Christiansen in <375143b5@cs.colorado.edu>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 26 14:49:26 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19E8014CC6
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 14:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from des@flood.ping.uio.no)
Received: (from des@localhost)
by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA98056;
Sun, 26 Sep 1999 23:48:05 +0200 (CEST)
(envelope-from des)
To: Mark Ovens <mark@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: [slightly OT] Win 95 upgrade CD & bochs
References: <19990926013323.F2759@marder-1>
From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no>
Date: 26 Sep 1999 23:48:04 +0200
In-Reply-To: Mark Ovens's message of "Sun, 26 Sep 1999 01:33:23 +0100"
Message-ID: <xzphfkhs5t7.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
Lines: 10
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 19.34
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Mark Ovens <mark@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> writes:
> Does anyone know how Win95 determines whether you have a valid OS
> installed before it will "upgrade" to 95?
No idea, but I used to put a Windows 3.1 install floppy in the disk
drive and it would accept that.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 26 16: 3: 3 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from monsoon.mail.pipex.net (monsoon.mail.pipex.net [158.43.128.69])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6F0EC15042
for <chat@freebsd.org>; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 16:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from mark@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org)
Received: (qmail 4278 invoked from network); 26 Sep 1999 23:02:57 -0000
Received: from userag19.uk.uudial.com (HELO marder-1.) (62.188.132.105)
by smtp.dial.pipex.com with SMTP; 26 Sep 1999 23:02:57 -0000
Received: (from mark@localhost)
by marder-1. (8.9.2/8.8.8) id AAA06488;
Mon, 27 Sep 1999 00:03:04 +0100 (BST)
(envelope-from mark)
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 00:03:04 +0100
From: Mark Ovens <mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org>
To: "Kevin S. Brackett" <ksb@abyss.net>
Cc: Brett Taylor <brett@peloton.runet.edu>,
Gianmarco Giovannelli <gmarco@scotty.masternet.it>, chat@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Compupic
Message-ID: <19990927000304.C5787@marder-1>
References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909231002030.42726-100000@peloton.runet.edu> <Pine.BSF.4.05.9909231104010.337-100000@nightmare.abyss.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9909231104010.337-100000@nightmare.abyss.net>
Organization: Total lack of
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 11:05:50AM -0400, Kevin S. Brackett wrote:
> Easy fix:
>
> ln -s /path/to/compupic/binary /usr/local/bin/compupic
>
> It seems to want to respawn the program so being in $PATH fixes the
> problem.
>
I e-mailed Photodex about this and they've promised to get on and
fix it:
> There is one minor problem I (and a few others)
> have found, it can't really be called a bug though.
>
> It appears that the icon directory is hard-coded.
> If you start compupic from any directory other than
> /usr/local/bin (where the symlink is) then you get
> the error:
>
> compupic:couldn't open file "../compupic/english/icons/if.rc"
>
> you have to start it with with the full path, i.e.
> ``/usr/local/bin/compupic''
>
Actually, this is a bug....compupic should be able to be
run from any directory. We'll get on this and fix it.
Thanks for the report.
> - kevin
>
> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Brett Taylor wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Gianmarco Giovannelli wrote:
> >
> > > I am not able to run it :
> > >
> > > gmarco:/usr/tmp/compupic# ./compupic [any options]
> > > compupic: abnormal termination: (null)
> >
> > > This is my env: FreeBSD gmarco.eclipse.org 4.0-CURRENT FreeBSD
> > > 4.0-CURRENT #0: Mon Sep 20 09:40:42 CEST
> >
> > I have the same problem here on my 3.2-STABLE machine.
> >
> > Brett
> > *****************************************************
> > Brett Taylor brett@peloton.runet.edu *
> > Dept of Chem and Physics *
> > Curie 39A (540) 831-6147 *
> > *****************************************************
> >
> >
> >
> > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> >
>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
--
STATE-OF-THE-ART: Any computer you can't afford.
OBSOLETE: Any computer you own.
________________________________________________________________
FreeBSD - The Power To Serve http://www.freebsd.org
My Webpage http://ukug.uk.freebsd.org/~mark/
mailto:mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org http://www.radan.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 26 19: 5:25 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 608)
id 32C3A15595; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 19:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb@hub.freebsd.org>
To: freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net
Cc: gjp@in-addr.com, jazepeda@pacbell.net, chat@freebsd.org
In-reply-to: <199909261756.KAA10120@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
(freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net)
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
Message-Id: <19990927020524.32C3A15595@hub.freebsd.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 19:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
>
> [CC redirect to -chat, users left intact]
>
> Should a BOF at BSDCon be asked for to discuss these issues? I think
> it would make for a hot and heated BOF with lots of understanding
> by both the ISP and user community about where the current state of the
> art is headed with respect to filtering, redirection, and other tools
> being applied to combat the spam problem.
>
> I know there is one talk by jmb about spam, the past 5 years or something
> along that line already. But this is such a hot topic that I am not sure
> if he is going to get into what is currently being done, and what some of
> the plans are.
>
> I also think that the open forum of a BOF would allow the implementers,
> people like Paul Vixie, jmb, you, myself, etc to get a lot of input from
> the general user community at large.
sounds very good to me. the more i look at the material for
my talk, the more it becomes evident to me that time will be short. i
imagine (hope) that there will be a number of questions and we will
easily use the full time slot.
allways interested in ways to make the FreeBSD mailing lists
more spam-free without losing real mail.
jmb
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 26 20:25:29 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from gw.nectar.com (gw.nectar.com [209.98.143.44])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 90F4E14F39; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 20:25:27 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from nectar@nectar.com)
Received: from spawn.nectar.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by gw.nectar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 531C6BE0A; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 22:26:51 -0500 (CDT)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98
X-PGP-RSAfprint: 00 F9 E6 A2 C5 4D 0A 76 26 8B 8B 57 73 D0 DE EE
X-PGP-RSAkey: http://www.nectar.com/nectar-rsa.txt
X-PGP-DSSfprint: AB2F 8D71 A4F4 467D 352E 8A41 5D79 22E4 71A2 8C73
X-PGP-DHfprint: 2D50 12E5 AB38 60BA AF4B 0778 7242 4460 1C32 F6B1
X-PGP-DH-DSSkey: http://www.nectar.com/nectar-dh-dss.txt
From: Jacques Vidrine <n@nectar.com>
To: gjp@in-addr.com (Gary Palmer)
Cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>,
jazepeda@pacbell.net (Alex Zepeda), chat@freebsd.org,
jkh@freebsd.org, nectar@nectar.com
In-reply-to: <64677.938371968@noop.colo.erols.net>
References: <64677.938371968@noop.colo.erols.net>
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 22:26:51 -0500
Message-Id: <19990927032651.531C6BE0A@gw.nectar.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
On 26 September 1999 at 14:52, gjp@in-addr.com (Gary Palmer) wrote:
> Unfortunately, I don't know a BSD box that can handle aggregating OC3
> or higher :(
See http://www.juniper.net for at least one.
Jacques Vidrine / n@nectar.com / nectar@FreeBSD.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 26 22:26:21 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from germanium.xtalwind.net (germanium.xtalwind.net [205.160.242.5])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E666214C1E
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 22:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from jack@germanium.xtalwind.net)
Received: from localhost (jack@localhost)
by germanium.xtalwind.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA59290;
Mon, 27 Sep 1999 01:26:12 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 01:26:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: jack <jack@germanium.xtalwind.net>
To: "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net>
Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk
to dialups)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909260426430.1659-100000@sasami.jurai.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909270116070.58691-100000@germanium.xtalwind.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
On Sep 26 Matthew N. Dodd wrote:
> I'm sure you know all about how UUNET is setup. :)
I learned all I ever want to know about that outfit after
enduring a few days of, sporadic, several hundreds per hour relay
attempts From: xxxx@aol.com To: xxxx@aol.com (where xxxx was
slang for various sexual acts and genitalia) from a few
.da.uu.net IPs.
Hours on the phone with their "abuse team" proved them to be
sympathetic, but totally ineffective. A few minutes with vi and
sendmail.cf provided the cure. :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack O'Neill Systems Administrator / Systems Analyst
jack@germanium.xtalwind.net Crystal Wind Communications, Inc.
Finger jack@germanium.xtalwind.net for my PGP key.
PGP Key fingerprint = F6 C4 E6 D4 2F 15 A7 67 FD 09 E9 3C 5F CC EB CD
enriched, vcard, HTML messages > /dev/null
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 27 8:25:54 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEECE14A00
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 08:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from brett@lariat.org)
Received: from mustang (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2])
by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA29817;
Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:25:08 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19990927083539.04759570@localhost>
X-Sender: brett@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 08:36:48 -0600
To: Gianmarco Giovannelli <gmarco@scotty.masternet.it>,
Stephan Lichtenauer <senior@qdrei.de>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
Subject: Re: german fortune cookies
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19990926193136.0167fec0@194.184.65.4>
References: <37ECE128.E33DF26B@qdrei.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
>At 25/09/99, Stephan Lichtenauer wrote:
>>hi,
>>
>>since i do not know who is currently maintaining fortune i am posting my
>>
>>question here: i have some english and loads of german cookies (some kb)
>>
>>(already formatted with '%', nonoffensive and offensive ones), so if YOU
>>
>>(the "fortuner") should be interested please contact me and i could
>>email them
>>to you.
I can see it now:
"Das fortuner is not fur gefingerpoken und mittengrabbben...." ;-)
--Brett
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 27 18:13:33 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from jade.chc-chimes.com (jade.chc-chimes.com [216.28.46.6])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
id AC035153C4; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 18:13:30 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from billf@jade.chc-chimes.com)
Received: by jade.chc-chimes.com (Postfix, from userid 1001)
id 8F5DA1C2B; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 20:17:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by jade.chc-chimes.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 8BFBB3817; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 20:17:07 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 20:17:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bill Fumerola <billf@jade.chc-chimes.com>
To: Andre Gironda <andre@sun4c.net>
Cc: "Scott I. Remick" <scott@computeralt.com>,
freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Help me win the MS-Proxy/ipfw war
In-Reply-To: <19990927181310.G24486@toaster.sun4c.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909272015480.35534-100000@jade.chc-chimes.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Andre Gironda wrote:
> So, tell them that they can use MS-Proxy as long as you buy a $14k
> PIX and block all incoming connections (especially to Netbios and IIS).
If you're paying $14k for a PIX firewall, you're paying too much. I paid
$8k for mine.
--
- bill fumerola - billf@chc-chimes.com - BF1560 - computer horizons corp -
- ph:(800) 252-2421 - bfumerol@computerhorizons.com - billf@FreeBSD.org -
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 27 21:29:45 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 758)
id E66D015760; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
id DC42D1CD473; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from kris@hub.freebsd.org)
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kris Kennaway <kris@hub.freebsd.org>
To: John Howie <JHowie@msn.com>
Cc: chat@freebsd.org, "Scott I. Remick" <scott@computeralt.com>
Subject: Re: Help me win the MS-Proxy/ipfw war
In-Reply-To: <014201bf095f$c1c50180$fd01a8c0@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909272127170.33972-100000@hub.freebsd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, John Howie wrote:
> BTW Common mistake: you do not necessarily get to use Microsoft products for
> free just because you are an MCSP. There are license restrictions that must
> be adhered to.
Good point - ISTR the license only allows you to deploy them for R&D
purposes. In practice, the temptation of having the CDs there is probably
too strong for many people. How Microsoft feel about this, given their
stance on software piracy, would be interesting to find out :-)
Kris
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 27 21:50:29 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from server.computeralt.com (server.computeralt.com [207.41.29.10])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
id E4BB414CCC; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:50:18 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from scott@computeralt.com)
Received: from scott (scott.computeralt.com [207.41.29.100])
by server.computeralt.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA03547;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 00:50:03 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.2.1.4.19990928004516.00a88210@mail.computeralt.com>
X-Sender: scott@mail.computeralt.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.1.4 (Beta)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 00:51:51 -0400
To: Kris Kennaway <kris@hub.freebsd.org>, John Howie <JHowie@msn.com>
From: "Scott I. Remick" <scott@computeralt.com>
Subject: Re: Help me win the MS-Proxy/ipfw war
Cc: chat@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909272127170.33972-100000@hub.freebsd.org>
References: <014201bf095f$c1c50180$fd01a8c0@pacbell.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Not true.
According to the private MCSP website, the software licenses granted are
for "internal-use" and we are free "to distribute the product within their
organization to encourage evangelism and product recommendations."
However, "MCSP product licenses are not intended resale, for employee
personal use at home, or for installation at a customer site (customer
product evaluations are available through the Microsoft Corporate Solutions
Pilot program)."
Not to endorse MS or anything....we all know MY opinion of them :)
At 12:29 AM 9/28/99 , Kris Kennaway wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, John Howie wrote:
>
> > BTW Common mistake: you do not necessarily get to use Microsoft
> products for
> > free just because you are an MCSP. There are license restrictions that must
> > be adhered to.
>
>Good point - ISTR the license only allows you to deploy them for R&D
>purposes. In practice, the temptation of having the CDs there is probably
>too strong for many people. How Microsoft feel about this, given their
>stance on software piracy, would be interesting to find out :-)
>
>Kris
-----------------------
Scott I. Remick scott@computeralt.com
Network and Information (802)388-7545 ext. 236
Systems Manager FAX:(802)388-3697
Computer Alternatives, Inc. http://www.computeralt.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 3:22: 6 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from tuminfo2.informatik.tu-muenchen.de (tuminfo2.informatik.tu-muenchen.de [131.159.0.81])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6844515067
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 03:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from lichtena@informatik.tu-muenchen.de)
Received: from sunhalle35.informatik.tu-muenchen.de ([131.159.4.192] EHLO in.tum.de ident: lichtena [port 35364]) by tuminfo2.informatik.tu-muenchen.de with ESMTP id <110854-225>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 12:21:48 +0000
Message-ID: <37F096BA.D55C2FA5@in.tum.de>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 12:21:46 +0200
From: Stephan Lichtenauer <lichtena@informatik.tu-muenchen.de>
Reply-To: stephan.lichtenauer@v-vm.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
Cc: Gianmarco Giovannelli <gmarco@scotty.masternet.it>,
Stephan Lichtenauer <senior@qdrei.de>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: german fortune cookies
References: <37ECE128.E33DF26B@qdrei.de> <4.2.0.58.19990927083539.04759570@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Brett Glass wrote:
>
> I can see it now:
>
> "Das fortuner is not fur gefingerpoken und mittengrabbben...." ;-)
>
> --Brett
:-P :)
stephan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 11:15:54 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 758)
id 284B514E6C; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:15:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 15FED1CD478; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:15:53 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from kris@hub.freebsd.org)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:15:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kris Kennaway <kris@hub.freebsd.org>
To: "Scott I. Remick" <scott@computeralt.com>
Cc: John Howie <JHowie@msn.com>, chat@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Help me win the MS-Proxy/ipfw war
In-Reply-To: <4.2.1.4.19990928004516.00a88210@mail.computeralt.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909281114420.19775-100000@hub.freebsd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Scott I. Remick wrote:
> Not true.
This is a different license to the one my previous employer was under,
then. Theirs prohibited deployment other than for R&D work.
Kris
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 14:23:13 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from kirk.giovannelli.it (kirk.giovannelli.it [194.184.65.4])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16ECD14A31
for <chat@freebsd.org>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 14:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from gmarco@giovannelli.it)
Received: from suzy (modem29.masternet.it [194.184.65.39])
by kirk.giovannelli.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA11780
for <chat@freebsd.org>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 23:22:57 +0200 (CEST)
(envelope-from gmarco@giovannelli.it)
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19990928232504.018dbb50@194.184.65.4>
X-Sender: gmarco@194.184.65.4
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 23:27:23 +0200
To: chat@freebsd.org
From: Gianmarco Giovannelli <gmarco@giovannelli.it>
Subject: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Is the address in the subject line still valid to submit a pr ?
I have sent 2 pr regarding a new port but none of them is returned to me (I
am subscribed to the gnats ML too...)
Is it a my fault ?
Best Regards,
Gianmarco Giovannelli , "Unix expert since yesterday"
http://www.giovannelli.it/~gmarco
http://www2.masternet.it
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 15:44:29 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp03.primenet.com (smtp03.primenet.com [206.165.6.133])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65422150BF
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:44:12 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from tlambert@usr07.primenet.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by smtp03.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA19210;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:43:30 -0700 (MST)
Received: from usr07.primenet.com(206.165.6.207)
via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAkka4xL; Tue Sep 28 15:43:19 1999
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
by usr07.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA12513;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:43:47 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199909282243.PAA12513@usr07.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
To: brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 22:43:46 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, alk@pobox.com, gary@eyelab.psy.msu.edu,
chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19990924172733.047be8c0@localhost> from "Brett Glass" at Sep 24, 99 05:34:22 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> Terry:
>
> In your message below, you express disapproval of both the DUL and
> authentication. Unfortunately, the solution you DO propose does not
> appear to solve the problem of hit-and-run attacks from throwaway
> dial-up accounts (for which the ISP would need to provide
> certificates -- or use its own and risk having it voided if someone
> sent spam).
Yes, you're right. Just as authentication with someone who intends
to violate your acceptable use policy doesn't prevent the violation,
it only allows you to take action against them to prevent additional
abuse.
> Many other questions arise, too, including:
>
> What authority issues the certificates?
One contractually obligated to not issue certificates to SPAM'mers;
someone who operates on the basis of looking data up in the RBL
database, for example.
> What if one is stolen? A legitimate user whose certificate is
> stolen could lose vital mail.
Yes, just as a legitimate company whose mail server is used as a
relay can find themselves in the ORBS database.
> People don't take the time to sign PGP keys now. Will they be willing
> to go through the hassle of signing e-mail certificates?
They will if the certification process is transparent for older
servers, and automatic for newer ones. Newer servers would insist
on having a valid certificate, and would only grudgingly allow you
to operate without one (and then, you'll only be able to talk to
people so long as the certificate authority would be willing to
sign the certificate on your behalf).
> For us, the DUL seems to work quite well; I, for one, have never lost
> a legitimate e-mail because of it. And I watch the logs.
The problem with the DUL is that it is biases against a technology,
rather than being biased against those who would abuse it.
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 15:53: 4 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp02.primenet.com (smtp02.primenet.com [206.165.6.132])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1470314F06
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from tlambert@usr07.primenet.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by smtp02.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA26685;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:52:59 -0700 (MST)
Received: from usr07.primenet.com(206.165.6.207)
via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpd026655; Tue Sep 28 15:52:54 1999
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
by usr07.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA12756;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:52:52 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199909282252.PAA12756@usr07.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
To: jdn@acp.qiv.com (Jay Nelson)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 22:52:51 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9909241849240.1185-100000@acp.qiv.com> from "Jay Nelson" at Sep 24, 99 07:04:07 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> >Much of the existing "AntiSPAM" practice, while it has been truly
> >well intentioned, has resulted in a balkanization of email
> >connectivity, to the point that the Internet really no longer
> >meets its initial design goals, at least in as far as email is
> >concerned. Having only a single path between all servers for
> >any given source and destination email address is broken.
>
> I would submit that the "internet" is no longer functioning as it was
> intended, although it seems to have met it's design goals too well.
> The bulkanization of email, as you call it, strikes me as a reasonable
> situation in the face of people who now expect me to pay for the
> receipt and distribution of their advertising. What the average
> spammer does, is steal my resources and bandwidth for their own gain.
> An ISP who allows that activity is an accessory to the theft.
That's "balkanization", as in the division of the balkan states
between nations at the end of World War II to prevent reuinification
and thus the potential of another Hitler.
It's a cure which is often worse than the disease. We build networks
to communicate, and then we hobble them because we are unwilling (or
simply too lazy) to deploy appropriate technology to prevent them
from being abused.
> Your credentials idea is more abominable than the spammers. It would,
> in fact, be one more trackable datum that would surely be abused by
> government pinheads with too much time on their hands.
Nonsense. All it would say is that "This credential belongs to domain Y,
which is not (yet) a known source of SPAM; this credential expores on
date YYYY-MM-DD-HH-MM-SS".
If the government wants this information, it can run "nslookup"
against the RBL database, using any of the millions of machines the
governemnt owns, after doing a "getpeername()".
> The single path notion sounds a lot like UUCP, which has, and still,
> works quite well. If the socialization of the internet becomes more of
> a reality, it may be a worthy alternative.
Then run UUCP of TCP/IP, and insist on authentications before starting
up your "g" protocol transmission. There no reason to pollute SMTP
with in-band authentications; if the authentication belongs anywhere,
it belongs in the transport, so that it doesn't have to be reinvented
(differently, and generally poorly) by any person to lazy to install
SSLeay (or IPv6 + IPSEC).
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 15:54:42 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp01.primenet.com (smtp01.primenet.com [206.165.6.131])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E1C314F06
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:54:38 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from tlambert@usr07.primenet.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by smtp01.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA06777;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:54:34 -0700 (MST)
Received: from usr07.primenet.com(206.165.6.207)
via SMTP by smtp01.primenet.com, id smtpd006707; Tue Sep 28 15:54:29 1999
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
by usr07.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA12858;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:54:28 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199909282254.PAA12858@usr07.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
To: davids@webmaster.com (David Schwartz)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 22:54:28 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, alk@pobox.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <000601bf06ec$663326a0$021d85d1@youwant.to> from "David Schwartz" at Sep 24, 99 05:24:58 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> > The technicality you are trying to use is the "select group"
> > technicality, where you grant priviledge to a select group of
> > people. This is commonly used in defense of trade secrets,
> > where your select group is, e.g., "Everyone who has signed an
> > SVR4 source license agreement".
>
> The "select group" is anyone with a static IP address.
That's not a "select group", that an "exclusionary group".
AT&T could have said "anyone we don't want to have our trade secrets",
if that were an allowable tactic.
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 16: 2:35 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1855F158F1
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:02:29 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from brett@lariat.org)
Received: from mustang (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2])
by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA17886;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:02:04 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19990928165117.05315a40@localhost>
X-Sender: brett@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:01:59 -0600
To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, alk@pobox.com, gary@eyelab.psy.msu.edu,
chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199909282243.PAA12513@usr07.primenet.com>
References: <4.2.0.58.19990924172733.047be8c0@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
At 10:43 PM 9/28/99 +0000, Terry Lambert wrote:
>The problem with the DUL is that it is biases against a technology,
>rather than being biased against those who would abuse it.
Hmmm. Is that really so? It seems to me that what we have here is not
a bias against a technology per se, but rather a restriction on a
particular type of account. This kind of account is often abused.
Requiring the customer with that kind of account to pass e-mail
through a certain type of gateway -- one which can detect or limit
such abuse -- seems like a reasonable restriction.
I was dubious; I waited more than a year after hearing about the DUL
to implement it. But when I finally tried it, I found that it was
highly effective; it targeted spam like a laser and rejected no
legitimate traffic.
--Brett
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 16: 4:28 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EFB814F06
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from brett@lariat.org)
Received: from mustang (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2])
by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA17916;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:04:07 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19990928170249.00b1cc70@localhost>
X-Sender: brett@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:04:02 -0600
To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>,
jdn@acp.qiv.com (Jay Nelson)
From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199909282252.PAA12756@usr07.primenet.com>
References: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9909241849240.1185-100000@acp.qiv.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
At 10:52 PM 9/28/99 +0000, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > The bulkanization of email, as you call it, strikes me as a reasonable
> > situation in the face of people who now expect me to pay for the
> > receipt and distribution of their advertising. What the average
> > spammer does, is steal my resources and bandwidth for their own gain.
> > An ISP who allows that activity is an accessory to the theft.
>
>That's "balkanization", as in the division of the balkan states
>between nations at the end of World War II to prevent reuinification
>and thus the potential of another Hitler.
I think he was trying to make a pun! If he wasn't, it was a very good
unintentional one. (I've repeated it in conversation since.)
--Brett
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 16:12:11 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp02.primenet.com (smtp02.primenet.com [206.165.6.132])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5763414FA5
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from tlambert@usr07.primenet.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by smtp02.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA03972;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:12:05 -0700 (MST)
Received: from usr07.primenet.com(206.165.6.207)
via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpd003837; Tue Sep 28 16:11:57 1999
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
by usr07.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA13317;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:11:50 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199909282311.QAA13317@usr07.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups)
To: n@nectar.com (Jacques Vidrine)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 23:11:50 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <19990925003530.6331CBE08@gw.nectar.com> from "Jacques Vidrine" at Sep 24, 99 07:35:30 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Jacques Vidrine writes:
>
> Well, I started the first ISP in New Orleans in 1994, and ran it
> through late 1998. I was VP Technology of Verio Midamerica for most
> of 1998 as well (that involved 10 ISP operations). I'm fairly
> familiar with the problem. :-) In fact, I've dealt with this very
> issue (filtering packets with destination TCP port 25 and a dial-up
> source address) before. So, I do speak from some experience.
>
> I am not advocating making it easy for spammers. The RBL has been a
> huge help, and the DUL looks potentially even more helpful. I just
> object to blocking legitimate traffic.
>
> I applaud your effort at monitoring this traffic from your dial-up
> users, to help you catch spammers early, but filtering should be
> something for which they opt-in.
Exactly. SPAM is something you can only act on post-facto, and then
only once a violation of contract (e.g. an Acceptable Use Policy)
has taken place.
Rate limitation of outbound email through a transparent proxy
server (based on service class and Quality Of Service warrants)
is acceptable, as is setting trigger points below which legitimate
customers are not harrassed.
> > If we have an AUP that states that all outbound smtp port 25 connections
> > shall be via our smarthost relay hosts we darn well have a right not
> > only to monitor that this is being done, we further more have a right
> > to inforce it if we so decide to.
>
> Of course you do have the ``right'', in a legal sense. An ``ISP'' also
> has the right to not deliver any traffic with a destination port of,
> say, 17, or 80 even. That doesn't make it a _good_ policy. To risk
> repeating myself, I believe that a company that doesn't deliver the
> legitimate (non-fraudulent) traffic of its customers is _not_ really
> an Internet Service Provider, but something else. ``A JSP perhaps?'' a
> friend and colleague of mine, with much more experience than me, once
> said :-)
Exactly right.
> Analogously, a host can choose not to support, say, IP fragment
> reassembly, but then it isn't then a host (by RFC 1122).
8-).
> Yes, I know there is no RFC or other standards document that says what
> an ISP is and how one must perform. I am merely expressing my opinion
> on the matter.
Actually, there should be such RFC's. At the very least, it is
a topic ripe for Best Current Practice RFC's.
> > We don't, but your violating IETF standards by doing anything other
> > than smtp on port 25 of tcp.
>
> AFAIK, there is no IETF standard which disallows traffic other than
> SMTP to flow on port 25. That isn't to say that it is wise to use
> ports in a way that conflict with the IANA Assigned Numbers
> (rfc1700?). Such use would probably be a response to some temporary
> problem, or maybe an experimental protocol. But, the point is, that
> is not the concern of the ISP. It is the business of the customer,
> only. The ISP is simply to deliver the packets from A to B.
Yes.
Legally, it's important for ISP's to be recognized as common
carriers, such that the Australia debacle gets resolved, and the
responsibility of implementing the unfunded mandates of a foreign
government does not devolve to people who are not even citizens
of the offending country.
Telephone carriers are not held legally responsible for interstate
data transport (for example), even when said transport violates
local community standards. They are common carriers; it is not
seen to be their job to police their customers actions.
This is not to say that ISP's should not have themselves held to
account for the standards of conduct of their customers, nor that
they should be permitted to disclaim all responsibility on the
basis of their failure to contractually oblicate their customers
to appropriate AUP's. But to hold someone responsible for the
actions of another, especially if those actions are squelched
quickly when they are reported, via contractual enforcement, is
just wrong.
> You skipped the issue of customers that do not wish to push their SMTP
> traffic through your mail server (which is the more realistic
> scenario). What do you do with the conscientious business customer
> that has dial-up account with you, but due to company policy needs to
> push SMTP through their own mail server?
This is a common practice; however, you can charge these people more,
since if they were to fan out through your servers, they would not
tie up your (presumably lower bandwidth) downstream resources.
A more and more common practice is, for reasons of security, to
push the SMTP connection between two disparately located over a
VPN. Unless you disallow VPN's, there are good business cases
as to why a customer would not want someone, perhaps a disgruntled
employee of their ISP, snooping their sensitive corporate data.
Or worse, selling the relay mail logs from the server you forced
your customers to use to SPAM'mers, who will then SPAM both ends
of each connection. This is not a hypothetical situation; I have
heard reports of just this at various ISP's and "mail portals".
> > ISP's are _not_ common carriers, or at least the courts haven't made
> > up thier minds on this one.
>
> I don't suggest that they are common carriers (though I would guess
> that in time they will be).
Me too!
> I suggest that an ISP is in the business of moving packets.
> Arbitrarily filtering packets conflicts with that business.
Well, there's your stated business, and then there's your business.
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 16:14:58 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp02.primenet.com (smtp02.primenet.com [206.165.6.132])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A35B914FA5
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from tlambert@usr07.primenet.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by smtp02.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA05233;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:14:52 -0700 (MST)
Received: from usr07.primenet.com(206.165.6.207)
via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpd005159; Tue Sep 28 16:14:43 1999
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
by usr07.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA13434;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:14:40 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199909282314.QAA13434@usr07.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to
To: brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 23:14:40 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: n@nectar.com, freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19990924200154.047b51a0@localhost> from "Brett Glass" at Sep 24, 99 08:08:11 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> >I am not advocating making it easy for spammers. The RBL has been a
> >huge help, and the DUL looks potentially even more helpful. I just
> >object to blocking legitimate traffic.
>
> The problem is, how can you tell what is legitimate? There's no good
> way, a priori, to distinguish spam from legitimate e-mail. It's only
> the pattern of mailing and/or the content that gives it away.
If someone complains to your postmaster, and can document the
offense, and it violates your AUP, then it's not legitimate, and
you can terminate your contract with the customer as a result of
failure to comply with terms.
> Moreover, in order to detect an abusive pattern of mailing, you need
> to have logging -- which you get when you channel users' mail through
> your server.
Transparent proxy, logging limited to not log potentially sensitive
information, only traffic analysis; shortlived to make it useless
to a court order.
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 16:32:59 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp02.primenet.com (smtp02.primenet.com [206.165.6.132])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55E3015800
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:32:57 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from tlambert@usr07.primenet.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by smtp02.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA11220;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:32:54 -0700 (MST)
Received: from usr07.primenet.com(206.165.6.207)
via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpd011175; Tue Sep 28 16:32:45 1999
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
by usr07.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA13935;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:32:43 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199909282332.QAA13935@usr07.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups)
To: ben@scientia.demon.co.uk (Ben Smithurst)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 23:32:43 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <19990925222536.A1470@lithium.scientia.demon.co.uk> from "Ben Smithurst" at Sep 25, 99 10:25:37 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> > It is however based upon reality in the world of using web caches
> > (which I don't see anyone objecting to) at ISP's to increase web
> > access speed.
>
> I have no objection to web caches, no. I *do* have an objection to
> having all traffic out of my machine *forced* to go through the ISP's
> web cache. If I want to use it, I know how to configure my software to
> use it (and I do use it), I don't need the ISP doing that for me.
FWIW, most ISPs buy POPs (Points of Presense) from a big provider,
and do not control the IP address assignment (even for static IP
addresses) nor do they control the account name assignments, which
must apriori not conflict with existing RADIUS records from the
middle tier provider.
What this effectively means is that, unless you are a Mom-and-Pop
ISP, and are a very small time player in the ISP game, you will not
control your points of presence, and will therefore be unable to
filter packets in or out of your customer's machine, unless they
choose to let you do this by pointing their machines at your servers.
Other than RADIUS acconting records on connect and disconnect, which
any intelligent ISP would be using to do DNSUPDATE, converting the
dynamic IPs into session-static IPs, and adjusting reverse records
so that "everything just works", including ETRN to dialup servers,
you really don't get notification of your customer's IP traffic,
unless it is directed to, or through, one of your machines.
The thing that's really moronic is that the filtering is based on
IP address, not domain name. It's relatively cheap to burn an IP
address in a SPAM, especially if it does not belong to you, whereas
burning a domain name will cost you $70 a pop and tend to piss off
ARIN and other powers-that-be to the point where you won't get new
ones.
Domain-name/certificate pairs are the technically correct (and more
expensive for the SPAM'mer, in the long run) soloution.
What are you going to do when IPv6 gets widely deployed? Put the
entirety of the stateless autoconfiguration space into the DUL so
that pwople with Linux laptops can't hit-and-run SPAM at airport
terminals computer lounges and "cyber" Caffes?
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 16:37:38 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp02.primenet.com (smtp02.primenet.com [206.165.6.132])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 506D015800
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:37:36 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from tlambert@usr07.primenet.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by smtp02.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA12745;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:37:34 -0700 (MST)
Received: from usr07.primenet.com(206.165.6.207)
via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpd012719; Tue Sep 28 16:37:33 1999
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
by usr07.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA14015;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:37:09 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199909282337.QAA14015@usr07.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to
To: brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 23:37:00 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: ben@scientia.demon.co.uk, freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net,
chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19990925170012.047f24a0@localhost> from "Brett Glass" at Sep 25, 99 05:01:09 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Brett Glass writes:
> At 10:25 PM 9/25/99 +0100, Ben Smithurst wrote:
> >Going further away from SMTP still, do you allow *any* traffic from
> >remote dial up hosts into your network? Do you allow any traffic from
> >your dial up hosts out of your network? If so, I'd like to know why you
> >think SMTP and HTTP deserve special treatment,
>
> In a word: spam. At least in the case of SMTP.
What about HTTP?
I guess the answer is "to filter Banner Ad downloads"?
I guess next we will disallow lookups of domain names that might
violate community standards.
The only answer to SPAM is implementing technology that makes it
impossible, and that's not the RBL or the DUL, so long as there
exists one machine with a static IP, no RBL entry, and an open
relay, somewhere in the world.
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 16:48:27 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.6.134])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B1BF14E04
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from tlambert@usr07.primenet.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by smtp04.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA23967;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:47:27 -0700 (MST)
Received: from usr07.primenet.com(206.165.6.207)
via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAy3aaWU; Tue Sep 28 16:47:20 1999
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
by usr07.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA14375;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:48:07 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199909282348.QAA14375@usr07.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk
To: jack@germanium.xtalwind.net (jack)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 23:48:07 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: gjp@in-addr.com, n@nectar.com, freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net,
chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909251912510.17474-100000@germanium.xtalwind.net> from "jack" at Sep 25, 99 07:16:58 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> Today Gary Palmer wrote:
> > It doesn't, but direct-inject and relay-rape spam is a major problem.
> > How do you propose that large ISPs combat abuse of their dialups to
> > create this problem? Forcing the spam to go through their own SMTP
> > servers, where it can be logged, tracked, rate limited and noticed
> > much earlier is a BIG step in the right direction. UU Net is doing
> > this for all of their resold dialups because of the major problems
> > they had.
>
> This is the second time I've heard that UUnet is blocking port 25
> from their dialups. The number of connections from *.da.uu.net
> that I continue to reject make me think it is an urban legand. :(
The theory is that that have "opted" to list their dialup lines with
the DUL's DNS server, which can tell if an IP address is assigned to
a dynamic IP address pool.
The fact is that the majority of dialup address blocks listed in the
DUL are involuntary placement there by third parties.
If they (or another dialup IP POP provider) _had_ intentionally
opted in (I kind of doubt that EarthLink, for example, intentially
severed the ability of their customers to send email to AOL on a
voluntary basis, what without a relay infrastructure in place at
the time), then they are "filtering port 25 at destinations which
have opted to check the DUL before accepting the SMTP connection".
A tangent:
Kind of like all California drivers "opted in" to surrendering their
thumbprint to the state, with the possibility that fingerprint
whorls, as biometric data, could demonstrate, with the furtherance
of the human genome project, that you perhaps have some genetic
predisposition for certain diseases.
The same way a picture of someone showing a detached left earlobe
has been linked to an expression of genes known to be implicated
in both Cardio Myopathy and Coronary Artery disease.
Given a state-run healthcare system, like medicare, or worse, a
private health insurance agency getting acess to biometric data
that indicates that you are a high risk is my idea of a nightmare:
"Sorry Bob; I see here that you have an abnormality in the Histamine
complex on your chromosone 6 which makes you ineligible for this
treatment, since statistically you are 99.95% likely to die from
an allergic reaction to dust mites before lack of this treatment
would kill you".
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 16:54:46 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp02.primenet.com (smtp02.primenet.com [206.165.6.132])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7445B14D01
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from tlambert@usr07.primenet.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by smtp02.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA18887;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:54:41 -0700 (MST)
Received: from usr07.primenet.com(206.165.6.207)
via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpd018859; Tue Sep 28 16:54:39 1999
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
by usr07.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA14538;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:54:38 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199909282354.QAA14538@usr07.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups)
To: freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (Rodney W. Grimes)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 23:54:38 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: ben@scientia.demon.co.uk, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199909252335.QAA08631@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> from "Rodney W. Grimes" at Sep 25, 99 04:35:50 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> They already are, and you don't even know it. It may be at a major
> provider near you soon too. These are _NOT_ proxy boxes, these are
> the new generation of ``no change needed to client boxes'' web caches.
Pull the other one, and then ask Paul Vixie about his "Interceptor"
box, and what's currently going on with it.
> SMTP deserves very special attention due to the fact that the number 1
> complaint of users of the internet is *SPAM*. SPAM is propogated via
> smtp. Do I need to say more? I can if I do.
I think you need to block POP3 and "Pine". Most SPAM is propagated
via either reading it at the ISP, or using POP3 and pulling it down
nto client machines.
> HTTP deserves special treatment as it consumes 76% of our upstream
> channel. Our ability to reduce the cost of rendering service is good
> common business practice. If you want to continue to pay $15/month
> for a service I can cost effeciency reduce to $8.00/month go right ahead,
> meanwhile I'll be chomping away at your heals.
Block them animated GIF banner ads... that'll decrease your overhead.
> You can add up ALL the other protocols and they don't even make a
> dent compared to HTTP traffic.
And pictures, in particular. Ignoring that, you have "nocache" pages
of dynamic content, where in fact it's a rather trivial addition to allow
HTTP transported dynamic content to be cached on a per document basis.
Though not transparently, without client modifications.
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 17: 0:41 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from tok.qiv.com (tok.qiv.com [205.238.142.68])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C11A14FA5
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:00:36 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from jdn@acp.qiv.com)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
by tok.qiv.com (MailHost/Current) with UUCP id TAA50755;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:00:28 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from localhost (jdn@localhost)
by acp.qiv.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id SAA00678;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:55:02 -0500 (CDT)
(envelope-from jdn@acp.qiv.com)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:55:01 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jay Nelson <jdn@acp.qiv.com>
To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
In-Reply-To: <199909282252.PAA12756@usr07.primenet.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9909281814250.622-100000@acp.qiv.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
[snip]
...
>> The bulkanization of email, as you call it, strikes me as a reasonable
>> situation in the face of people who now expect me to pay for the
>> receipt and distribution of their advertising. What the average
>> spammer does, is steal my resources and bandwidth for their own gain.
>> An ISP who allows that activity is an accessory to the theft.
>
>That's "balkanization", as in the division of the balkan states
>between nations at the end of World War II to prevent reuinification
>and thus the potential of another Hitler.
I understood the use of the word, but it's irrelevant to the internet
and the problem of spammers. I think you missed the point. This issue
is this: everyone of us _pays_ for our own connection the network.
While everyone has a right to speak, _no one_ has a right to not only
force me to listen, but to force me to pay for it as well.
>It's a cure which is often worse than the disease. We build networks
>to communicate, and then we hobble them because we are unwilling (or
>simply too lazy) to deploy appropriate technology to prevent them
>from being abused.
We build networks to communicate as we choose. We don't spend the
money and effort so suzie@tits.com can dump junk on our machines
and enjoy the benefit of our investment. This isn't some damned
social love fest. Many of us are willing to prevent our networks
from being abused -- and we don't need fancy technology to do it.
If that is what you consider "balkanization", then so be it. I see no
reason to be "unified" with _any_ source of spam. In fact, I would
submit that the spammers and skript kiddies have reasonably well
corrupted whatever the original design goals may have been. The
question now is: what do we do about it?
>> Your credentials idea is more abominable than the spammers. It would,
>> in fact, be one more trackable datum that would surely be abused by
>> government pinheads with too much time on their hands.
>
>Nonsense. All it would say is that "This credential belongs to domain Y,
>which is not (yet) a known source of SPAM; this credential expores on
>date YYYY-MM-DD-HH-MM-SS".
And, as you've nearly admitted in another mail, adds very little to
preventing abuse. It's equivalent to asking a burgler for his driver's
license before opening the door.
Besides -- how is your credential notion any different than the RBL in
preventing abuse? If I've identified the machine responsible for
sending the abuse and can easily block it, what's the value of
verifying that the name I'm blocking is, in fact, the name that
I'm blocking?
>If the government wants this information, it can run "nslookup"
>against the RBL database, using any of the millions of machines the
>governemnt owns, after doing a "getpeername()".
Hmm... again, you've missed the point. I doubt the govt cares about
the spammers;)
-- Jay
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 17: 2:23 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.6.134])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B819514FAA
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from tlambert@usr07.primenet.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by smtp04.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA28168;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:01:29 -0700 (MST)
Received: from usr07.primenet.com(206.165.6.207)
via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAIGaq82; Tue Sep 28 17:01:22 1999
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
by usr07.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA14740;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:02:12 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199909290002.RAA14740@usr07.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
To: jazepeda@pacbell.net (Alex Zepeda)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 00:02:12 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net, gjp@in-addr.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909261051530.367-100000@localhost> from "Alex Zepeda" at Sep 26, 99 10:56:48 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> The one worthwhile thing they did however, was rig up some sort of
> authentication so that if the IP you were using (assuming it was a non
> "native" IP), had logged into their POP3 server, for the next 30 mins that
> IP could use their SMTP server.
This is trivial to implement. You use an "accessdb" in your sendmail
configuration, and update it when people successfully log in via POP3;
you need to log the IP address so that you get the specific port,
instead of opening a huge hole for anyone claiming residence in a
domain. It's called "SMTP relay after POP".
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 17:24:55 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.6.134])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4859A15885
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:24:50 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from tlambert@usr07.primenet.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by smtp04.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA05050;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:23:26 -0700 (MST)
Received: from usr07.primenet.com(206.165.6.207)
via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAJyaWEj; Tue Sep 28 17:23:00 1999
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
by usr07.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA15521;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:23:46 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199909290023.RAA15521@usr07.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
To: brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 00:23:45 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, alk@pobox.com, gary@eyelab.psy.msu.edu,
chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19990928165117.05315a40@localhost> from "Brett Glass" at Sep 28, 99 05:01:59 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> >The problem with the DUL is that it is biases against a technology,
> >rather than being biased against those who would abuse it.
>
> Hmmm. Is that really so? It seems to me that what we have here is not
> a bias against a technology per se, but rather a restriction on a
> particular type of account. This kind of account is often abused.
An account is whatever the person selling the account and the person
buying the account can agree on as their definition of "account".
The word "account" derives from "accounting" (as in charging for CPU
seconds), and implicitly refers to being "accountable" for those
actions which are taken with your credentials in force (including
things like "you pay $4.00 per CPU minute" or "you won't send SPAM").
> Requiring the customer with that kind of account to pass e-mail
> through a certain type of gateway -- one which can detect or limit
> such abuse -- seems like a reasonable restriction.
It seems like an abominable restriction, to me.
Rod mentioned that he could cut the cost of providing his service
to $8.00 a month, and that you'd be an idiot to keep paying a higher
price.
I agree. Now all we are disagreeing about is the technology used
to implement the cost controls that Rod currently implements by
caching HTTP data (I still can't see how he could do this in a
transparent fashion and still have it function in all cases) and
by SMTP restrictions that I think are "low tech" and "onerous to
customer interests".
> I was dubious; I waited more than a year after hearing about the DUL
> to implement it. But when I finally tried it, I found that it was
> highly effective; it targeted spam like a laser and rejected no
> legitimate traffic.
That you are aware of, in your less-complicated-than-an-ISP setup.
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 17:30:47 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from tok.qiv.com (tok.qiv.com [205.238.142.68])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AE4615783
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:30:43 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from jdn@acp.qiv.com)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
by tok.qiv.com (MailHost/Current) with UUCP id TAA50798;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:30:26 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from localhost (jdn@localhost)
by acp.qiv.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id TAA00712;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:01:57 -0500 (CDT)
(envelope-from jdn@acp.qiv.com)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:01:57 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jay Nelson <jdn@acp.qiv.com>
To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19990928170249.00b1cc70@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9909281856360.622-100000@acp.qiv.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Brett Glass wrote:
>At 10:52 PM 9/28/99 +0000, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
>> > The bulkanization of email, as you call it, strikes me as a reasonable
>> > situation in the face of people who now expect me to pay for the
>> > receipt and distribution of their advertising. What the average
>> > spammer does, is steal my resources and bandwidth for their own gain.
>> > An ISP who allows that activity is an accessory to the theft.
>>
>>That's "balkanization", as in the division of the balkan states
>>between nations at the end of World War II to prevent reuinification
>>and thus the potential of another Hitler.
>
>I think he was trying to make a pun! If he wasn't, it was a very good
>unintentional one. (I've repeated it in conversation since.)
I hope you are right. It never occured to me though, that a spammer
could be equated to Hitler. That took me by surprise;)
-- Jay
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 17:40:59 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from modgud.nordicrecords.com (h21-168-107.nordicdms.com [207.21.168.107])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D0B2115783
for <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from dwalton@acm.org)
Received: (qmail 2943 invoked by alias); 29 Sep 1999 00:40:56 -0000
Message-ID: <19990929004056.2942.qmail@modgud.nordicrecords.com>
Received: (qmail 2936 invoked from network); 29 Sep 1999 00:40:56 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO walton) (207.21.168.137)
by mail.nordicdms.com with SMTP; 29 Sep 1999 00:40:56 -0000
From: "Dave Walton" <dwalton@acm.org>
To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:38:28 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: praise be to Torvalds?
Reply-To: dwalton@acm.org
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a)
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
This is cute. Brings a whole new meaning to the concept of
operating system holy wars. But why do you suppose they didn't
base this project on BSD? We have such an adorable mascot!
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/19990927/tc/19990927332.html
Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Walton dwalton@acm.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 17:42:50 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1117A15801
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:42:48 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from brett@lariat.org)
Received: from mustang (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2])
by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA18844;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:42:37 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19990928184147.047569c0@localhost>
X-Sender: brett@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:42:22 -0600
To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, alk@pobox.com, gary@eyelab.psy.msu.edu,
chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199909290023.RAA15521@usr07.primenet.com>
References: <4.2.0.58.19990928165117.05315a40@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
At 12:23 AM 9/29/99 +0000, Terry Lambert wrote:
>> I was dubious; I waited more than a year after hearing about the DUL
> > to implement it. But when I finally tried it, I found that it was
> > highly effective; it targeted spam like a laser and rejected no
> > legitimate traffic.
>
>That you are aware of, in your less-complicated-than-an-ISP setup.
We are actually more sophisticated than many for-profit ISPs.
--Brett
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 17:44: 0 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp03.primenet.com (smtp03.primenet.com [206.165.6.133])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02DA715783
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:43:56 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from tlambert@usr07.primenet.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by smtp03.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA00332;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:43:19 -0700 (MST)
Received: from usr07.primenet.com(206.165.6.207)
via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpdAAActayEa; Tue Sep 28 17:43:08 1999
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
by usr07.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA15943;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:43:42 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199909290043.RAA15943@usr07.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
To: jdn@acp.qiv.com (Jay Nelson)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 00:43:42 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9909281814250.622-100000@acp.qiv.com> from "Jay Nelson" at Sep 28, 99 06:55:01 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> >That's "balkanization", as in the division of the balkan states
> >between nations at the end of World War II to prevent reuinification
> >and thus the potential of another Hitler.
>
> I understood the use of the word, but it's irrelevant to the internet
> and the problem of spammers. I think you missed the point. This issue
> is this: everyone of us _pays_ for our own connection the network.
> While everyone has a right to speak, _no one_ has a right to not only
> force me to listen, but to force me to pay for it as well.
Granted, and you have the right to not listen to illegitimate traffic.
I think it's stupid to say that traffic from a dialup server is
definitionally illegitimate.
I think it's much more reasonable to say that traffic from a dialup
server with a valid, current certificate is legitimate.
> >It's a cure which is often worse than the disease. We build networks
> >to communicate, and then we hobble them because we are unwilling (or
> >simply too lazy) to deploy appropriate technology to prevent them
> >from being abused.
>
> We build networks to communicate as we choose. We don't spend the
> money and effort so suzie@tits.com can dump junk on our machines
> and enjoy the benefit of our investment. This isn't some damned
> social love fest. Many of us are willing to prevent our networks
> from being abused -- and we don't need fancy technology to do it.
Non-"fancy" technology (are you aware when X.509 was standardized?)
tends to tar everyone with the same brush. It's indiscrimant between
diabolical offendors and legitimate users.
Only an idiot shoots people to prevent them from drinking untreated
water "for their own protection".
Dynamic IP addresses are a legitimate cost control technology. In
some areas of the world, i.e. Europe, they are mandatory, or close
enough that it doesn't matter.
> If that is what you consider "balkanization", then so be it. I see no
> reason to be "unified" with _any_ source of spam. In fact, I would
> submit that the spammers and skript kiddies have reasonably well
> corrupted whatever the original design goals may have been.
Actually, the implementation of technically inferior approaches
to "solving" the problem is what has corrupted the original
design goals, to with: to be able to survive a national or global
catastrophe, and continue to function (i.e. the mail gets delivered).
> The question now is: what do we do about it?
We implement apropriate technology, and we speak up in public
forums when "script kiddies" use "scripts" that are supposedly
somehow morally superior due to their stopping abuse, while at
the same time damaging the Internet.
We get technical people who actually _know what the hell they
are doing_ to implement technological soloutions that are designed
to prevent pervision from their intended purpose.
> >> Your credentials idea is more abominable than the spammers. It would,
> >> in fact, be one more trackable datum that would surely be abused by
> >> government pinheads with too much time on their hands.
> >
> >Nonsense. All it would say is that "This credential belongs to domain Y,
> >which is not (yet) a known source of SPAM; this credential expores on
> >date YYYY-MM-DD-HH-MM-SS".
>
> And, as you've nearly admitted in another mail, adds very little to
> preventing abuse. It's equivalent to asking a burgler for his driver's
> license before opening the door.
No, it's equivalent to having him targeted in your sights, in case
he is a burglar (as opposed to blowing his head off, in case he is
a burglar, and checking after all the bodies in the room have stopped
twitching).
> Besides -- how is your credential notion any different than the RBL in
> preventing abuse? If I've identified the machine responsible for
> sending the abuse and can easily block it, what's the value of
> verifying that the name I'm blocking is, in fact, the name that
> I'm blocking?
Because that name could move to a different IP address and SPAM
you again. If you block by IP, then you have to do technologically
stupid things, like assume the guilt of an entire class of IP
addresses merely because they _might_ be abused without you
knowing the true identity of the sender (something you didn't
know because you implemented a technically inferior soloution
based on an assumption of guilt).
If, on the other hand, you have a certificate on hand, you can
say "please revoke this certificate, and cost this SPAM'mer real
money". This also makes it so you don't have to do stupid things
like complain to an ISP, and have the complaint "handled" with "all
due process", all the time the SPAM'mer is continuing to SPAM
other people.
Putting the control in the hands of a central authority (or
authorities; you could choose to respect multiple certificate
signatories; try to do an exclusion list with ORBS, the DUL,
or the RBL) negates this latency, and negates the possiblity of
a "rogue ISP" requiring multiple latencies to clean up after a
SPAM.
> >If the government wants this information, it can run "nslookup"
> >against the RBL database, using any of the millions of machines the
> >governemnt owns, after doing a "getpeername()".
>
> Hmm... again, you've missed the point. I doubt the govt cares about
> the spammers;)
Your point was that somehow, a certificate scheme requires an
equation with personal identity, rather than merely DNS identity.
This is the same mistake you are making when you try to equate an
IP address with identity.
At least domain name assignements are publically accessible. It
is well known that MSNet use address blocks for which there are
no reverse delegations back to them (for example).
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 17:47:27 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp01.primenet.com (smtp01.primenet.com [206.165.6.131])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EA5E15783
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from tlambert@usr07.primenet.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by smtp01.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA17062;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:47:22 -0700 (MST)
Received: from usr07.primenet.com(206.165.6.207)
via SMTP by smtp01.primenet.com, id smtpd017006; Tue Sep 28 17:47:12 1999
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
by usr07.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA16032;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:47:10 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199909290047.RAA16032@usr07.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
To: brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 00:47:09 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, alk@pobox.com, gary@eyelab.psy.msu.edu,
chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19990928184147.047569c0@localhost> from "Brett Glass" at Sep 28, 99 06:42:22 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> > > I was dubious; I waited more than a year after hearing about the DUL
> > > to implement it. But when I finally tried it, I found that it was
> > > highly effective; it targeted spam like a laser and rejected no
> > > legitimate traffic.
> >
> >That you are aware of, in your less-complicated-than-an-ISP setup.
>
> We are actually more sophisticated than many for-profit ISPs.
Sophistication != Complexity.
Many ISPs have complex setups, which preclude simply implementing
the draconian measures you advocate implementing "across the board".
For many ISPs, there is no "across the board", or the number of
service classes is so large that you can not easily divide all
of the machines into a role per service class.
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 17:53:16 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69EE315783
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from brett@lariat.org)
Received: from mustang (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2])
by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA18927;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:53:01 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19990928184900.04799cc0@localhost>
X-Sender: brett@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:52:45 -0600
To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, alk@pobox.com, gary@eyelab.psy.msu.edu,
chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199909290047.RAA16032@usr07.primenet.com>
References: <4.2.0.58.19990928184147.047569c0@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
At 12:47 AM 9/29/99 +0000, Terry Lambert wrote:
>> We are actually more sophisticated than many for-profit ISPs.
>Sophistication != Complexity.
>
>Many ISPs have complex setups, which preclude simply implementing
>the draconian measures you advocate implementing "across the board".
Ah, but they're not draconian. Our membership overwhelmingly favored
them.
>For many ISPs, there is no "across the board", or the number of
>service classes is so large that you can not easily divide all
>of the machines into a role per service class.
We have multiple levels of membership -- analogous to the "service
classes" of a for-profit ISP. And some of those levels leave the
decision to filter (or not to) up to the member.
The only complaint we have ever had: One member with a fixed IP
and a "nailed-up" dialup line recently complained that we were NOT
fltering for them. We went over one day, during lunch hour, and helped
them set up their server to do so.
--Brett
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 18: 0:34 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (GndRsh.dnsmgr.net [198.145.92.4])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 800A215879
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net)
Received: (from freebsd@localhost)
by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA17813;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from freebsd)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Message-Id: <199909290058.RAA17813@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups)
In-Reply-To: <199909282311.QAA13317@usr07.primenet.com> from Terry Lambert at "Sep 28, 1999 11:11:50 pm"
To: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: n@nectar.com (Jacques Vidrine), chat@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
...
> > Yes, I know there is no RFC or other standards document that says what
> > an ISP is and how one must perform. I am merely expressing my opinion
> > on the matter.
>
> Actually, there should be such RFC's. At the very least, it is
> a topic ripe for Best Current Practice RFC's.
I've been thinking exactly that for the past few days.
Care to help me co-author one??
> > > We don't, but your violating IETF standards by doing anything other
> > > than smtp on port 25 of tcp.
> >
> > AFAIK, there is no IETF standard which disallows traffic other than
> > SMTP to flow on port 25. That isn't to say that it is wise to use
> > ports in a way that conflict with the IANA Assigned Numbers
> > (rfc1700?). Such use would probably be a response to some temporary
> > problem, or maybe an experimental protocol. But, the point is, that
> > is not the concern of the ISP. It is the business of the customer,
> > only. The ISP is simply to deliver the packets from A to B.
>
> Yes.
>
> Legally, it's important for ISP's to be recognized as common
> carriers, such that the Australia debacle gets resolved, and the
> responsibility of implementing the unfunded mandates of a foreign
> government does not devolve to people who are not even citizens
> of the offending country.
Ahhh... ISP's will never be classified as ``common carriers'':
47 USC 153 (10) COMMON CARRIER. -- The term ``common carrier'' or ``carrier''
means any person engaged as a common carrier [sic, self refering definition,
can not be resolved :-(] for hire, in interstate or foreign communication
by wire or radio or in interstate or foreign radio transmission of energy,
except where reference is made to common carriers not subject to this Act;
but a person engaged in radio broadcasting shall not, insofar as such
person is so engaged, be deemed a common carrier.
They more properly fit one of the more defined carrier classes:
47 USC 153 (11) CONNECTING CARRIER. --
47 USC 153 (26) LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIER --
47 USC 153 (37) RURAL TELEPHONE COMPANY --
47 USC 153 (44) TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER -- [this is the best fit]
We, as in Accurate Communications, Inc, fall under 47 USC 153 (11), (26),
and (44). We are treated as common carriers by reference from 153 (44)
to 153 (10) with respect to only ``telecommunications services
(47 USC 153 (46))''. It's all a very twisted maze of definitions that
takes about 10 readings to even start getting the picture right.
It even gets harder when you start reading the body of the ACT in that
it says ``common carrier'' so many places, and you have to go, okay,
we are only treated as a common carrier for the portions of the
act that deal with telecomuunications services. It even gets harder
when it says ``common carriers, but not connecting carriers'', now
what do we do??? We are both :-). You call legal and pay them
another lump some to unravel it for you and say well... they really
meant to say ```blah blah blahh''.. :-)
> Telephone carriers are not held legally responsible for interstate
> data transport (for example), even when said transport violates
> local community standards. They are common carriers; it is not
> seen to be their job to police their customers actions.
I would start reading 47 USC at section 230.... stop at 251. I can't
seem to find anything in 47 USC that really addresses the exemption
placed on ``carriers'', not just ``common carriers'' from certain
legal and civil prosecution. It's probably some place in title 18.
Also ``Telephone Carriers'' is not defined... ``Telecommunications
Carriers'' would be the correct usage. Also note, Telecommunications
Carriers != Common Carriers in all cases, only certain ones.
And furthermore, though many view the benifit of having a Title 18
exclusion from criminal and civil prosecution under several portions
of the code at large as a big benifit, they seem to ignore the very
large offsetting requirements of having to meet a whole new section
of law, USC 47, and all the legal problems it can bring, like universal
access, requirements to file State PUC and Federal FCC yearly billing
reports, etc, etc. Loss of right to refuse service, requirements of
equal treatment of all clients, etc, etc. It is a _huge_ burden, one
that must be weighted with great care.
Our final solutions was to operate as seperate, but assoctiated legal
entities. The ISP is operated as a totally seperate legal entity
from the Carrier business, they do have a possible affiliated status under
the 47 USC act, but so far the lawyers have keep us clean on that one.
...
>
> > > ISP's are _not_ common carriers, or at least the courts haven't made
> > > up thier minds on this one.
> >
> > I don't suggest that they are common carriers (though I would guess
> > that in time they will be).
>
> Me too!
If you walk like a duck, talk like a duck, smell like a duck and look
like a duck the law usually treats you like a duck. Any ISP can
obtain ``Carrier'' status with a simple form, a long wait, and some
times a small fee. It won't make them operating LEC's, but they will
be ``Carriers'' under the law.
>
> > I suggest that an ISP is in the business of moving packets.
> > Arbitrarily filtering packets conflicts with that business.
>
> Well, there's your stated business, and then there's your business.
:-).
--
Rod Grimes - KD7CAX - (RWG25) rgrimes@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 18: 6:25 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (GndRsh.dnsmgr.net [198.145.92.4])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9C5314C98
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net)
Received: (from freebsd@localhost)
by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA17835;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:04:46 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from freebsd)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Message-Id: <199909290104.SAA17835@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to
In-Reply-To: <199909282314.QAA13434@usr07.primenet.com> from Terry Lambert at "Sep 28, 1999 11:14:40 pm"
To: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass), n@nectar.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
...
> > Moreover, in order to detect an abusive pattern of mailing, you need
> > to have logging -- which you get when you channel users' mail through
> > your server.
>
> Transparent proxy, logging limited to not log potentially sensitive
> information, only traffic analysis; shortlived to make it useless
> to a court order.
Slippery slope, as a Carrier we have to retain such data, if collected
in the normal operation of our business for something like 3 years...
Things like data collected for billing records, protection of our
network, clients and connected carriers all has specific minimal legal
retention periods on it, with pretty stiff fines if you don't have it
when it is asked for. Furthermore we have 48 hours to produce any of
this data when it is requested by court order so we have to manage
that massive pile carefully :-(. Though we are allowed to charge a
small bounded fee for retreaving it, that fee no where near compensates
for the needed storage of such data, we have to pass that on to the
customer, and are allowed to under law.
--
Rod Grimes - KD7CAX - (RWG25) rgrimes@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 18:12:48 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (GndRsh.dnsmgr.net [198.145.92.4])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73FA114DB9
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:12:43 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net)
Received: (from freebsd@localhost)
by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA17852;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:12:37 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from freebsd)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Message-Id: <199909290112.SAA17852@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups)
In-Reply-To: <199909282332.QAA13935@usr07.primenet.com> from Terry Lambert at "Sep 28, 1999 11:32:43 pm"
To: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:12:37 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: ben@scientia.demon.co.uk (Ben Smithurst), chat@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> > > It is however based upon reality in the world of using web caches
> > > (which I don't see anyone objecting to) at ISP's to increase web
> > > access speed.
> >
> > I have no objection to web caches, no. I *do* have an objection to
> > having all traffic out of my machine *forced* to go through the ISP's
> > web cache. If I want to use it, I know how to configure my software to
> > use it (and I do use it), I don't need the ISP doing that for me.
>
> FWIW, most ISPs buy POPs (Points of Presense) from a big provider,
> and do not control the IP address assignment (even for static IP
> addresses) nor do they control the account name assignments, which
> must apriori not conflict with existing RADIUS records from the
> middle tier provider.
Technical correction, they do control the account name assignments,
which is done through domainized versions of RADIUS by apending
a @domain that is used by a local to the POP radius proxy to forward
the request to the correct client of the big provider. Radiator
and Merit Radius both have this feature and are used extensivly
by the wholesale dialup providers.
We have contracts with some of these wholesale providers and we
totally control the account name portion. We don't even need to call
them when we add/delete accounts.
--
Rod Grimes - KD7CAX - (RWG25) rgrimes@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 18:18:15 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (GndRsh.dnsmgr.net [198.145.92.4])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99BB614DB9
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net)
Received: (from freebsd@localhost)
by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA17869;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:17:33 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from freebsd)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Message-Id: <199909290117.SAA17869@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to
In-Reply-To: <199909282337.QAA14015@usr07.primenet.com> from Terry Lambert at "Sep 28, 1999 11:37:00 pm"
To: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:17:33 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass), ben@scientia.demon.co.uk,
chat@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> Brett Glass writes:
> > At 10:25 PM 9/25/99 +0100, Ben Smithurst wrote:
> > >Going further away from SMTP still, do you allow *any* traffic from
> > >remote dial up hosts into your network? Do you allow any traffic from
> > >your dial up hosts out of your network? If so, I'd like to know why you
> > >think SMTP and HTTP deserve special treatment,
> >
> > In a word: spam. At least in the case of SMTP.
>
> What about HTTP?
Asked and answered... in other email...
> I guess the answer is "to filter Banner Ad downloads"?
>
> I guess next we will disallow lookups of domain names that might
> violate community standards.
You'd be ill to see what my DNS rules look like... well... maybe
not... we have, not yet activated on a wide scale, but in test,
rules that stop direct outbound DNS queries. They get redirected
to our own root name server for purpose of performance improvements,
and for catching any customers trying to poison someones broken
named server.
>
> The only answer to SPAM is implementing technology that makes it
> impossible, and that's not the RBL or the DUL, so long as there
> exists one machine with a static IP, no RBL entry, and an open
> relay, somewhere in the world.
The only answer to SPAM is to make it financially un attractive. If
you cut the revenues created by SPAM you can have 10 static IP's not
on the RBL and 10,000 open relays. Though it would still be possible
to SPAM they wouldn't bother as the ROI is negative...
Cutting down the amount delivered goes a long way to making the ROI
get smaller and smaller.
--
Rod Grimes - KD7CAX - (RWG25) rgrimes@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 18:23:17 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (GndRsh.dnsmgr.net [198.145.92.4])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67E6E158C4
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net)
Received: (from freebsd@localhost)
by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA17878;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:20:28 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from freebsd)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Message-Id: <199909290120.SAA17878@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk
In-Reply-To: <199909282348.QAA14375@usr07.primenet.com> from Terry Lambert at "Sep 28, 1999 11:48:07 pm"
To: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:20:28 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: jack@germanium.xtalwind.net (jack), gjp@in-addr.com,
n@nectar.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> > Today Gary Palmer wrote:
> > > It doesn't, but direct-inject and relay-rape spam is a major problem.
> > > How do you propose that large ISPs combat abuse of their dialups to
> > > create this problem? Forcing the spam to go through their own SMTP
> > > servers, where it can be logged, tracked, rate limited and noticed
> > > much earlier is a BIG step in the right direction. UU Net is doing
> > > this for all of their resold dialups because of the major problems
> > > they had.
> >
> > This is the second time I've heard that UUnet is blocking port 25
> > from their dialups. The number of connections from *.da.uu.net
> > that I continue to reject make me think it is an urban legand. :(
>
> The theory is that that have "opted" to list their dialup lines with
> the DUL's DNS server, which can tell if an IP address is assigned to
> a dynamic IP address pool.
>
> The fact is that the majority of dialup address blocks listed in the
> DUL are involuntary placement there by third parties.
WRONG!!! Please read the web pages again...
> If they (or another dialup IP POP provider) _had_ intentionally
> opted in (I kind of doubt that EarthLink, for example, intentially
> severed the ability of their customers to send email to AOL on a
> voluntary basis, what without a relay infrastructure in place at
> the time), then they are "filtering port 25 at destinations which
> have opted to check the DUL before accepting the SMTP connection".
Earthlink opted-in to reduce the mail load on abuse@earthlink, simple
economics.
--
Rod Grimes - KD7CAX - (RWG25) rgrimes@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 18:26: 6 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (GndRsh.dnsmgr.net [198.145.92.4])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DEE614D48
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net)
Received: (from freebsd@localhost)
by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA17895;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:25:49 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from freebsd)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Message-Id: <199909290125.SAA17895@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups)
In-Reply-To: <199909282354.QAA14538@usr07.primenet.com> from Terry Lambert at "Sep 28, 1999 11:54:38 pm"
To: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:25:49 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: ben@scientia.demon.co.uk, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> > They already are, and you don't even know it. It may be at a major
> > provider near you soon too. These are _NOT_ proxy boxes, these are
> > the new generation of ``no change needed to client boxes'' web caches.
>
> Pull the other one, and then ask Paul Vixie about his "Interceptor"
> box, and what's currently going on with it.
I'll go hunting for that there ``Interceptor''.
> > SMTP deserves very special attention due to the fact that the number 1
> > complaint of users of the internet is *SPAM*. SPAM is propogated via
> > smtp. Do I need to say more? I can if I do.
>
> I think you need to block POP3 and "Pine". Most SPAM is propagated
> via either reading it at the ISP, or using POP3 and pulling it down
> nto client machines.
Ahhh.. wrong side of the problem. It needs to be stopped before it
gets into the users mail box, not on it's way from our server to
thier mail reader. Besides, we don't want to store it either!!
> > HTTP deserves special treatment as it consumes 76% of our upstream
> > channel. Our ability to reduce the cost of rendering service is good
> > common business practice. If you want to continue to pay $15/month
> > for a service I can cost effeciency reduce to $8.00/month go right ahead,
> > meanwhile I'll be chomping away at your heals.
>
> Block them animated GIF banner ads... that'll decrease your overhead.
No, CACHE the animated GIF banner ads making it look like our pipe to
the internet is much larger than it really is. If I block them I'd
have to modify the AUP, if I make them fast our clients are just a
bunch of happy campers.
--
Rod Grimes - KD7CAX - (RWG25) rgrimes@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 18:30:47 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from tok.qiv.com (tok.qiv.com [205.238.142.68])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E654915121
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:30:39 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from jdn@acp.qiv.com)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
by tok.qiv.com (MailHost/Current) with UUCP id UAA50944;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 20:30:31 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from localhost (jdn@localhost)
by acp.qiv.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id UAA00813;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 20:06:16 -0500 (CDT)
(envelope-from jdn@acp.qiv.com)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 20:06:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jay Nelson <jdn@acp.qiv.com>
To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
In-Reply-To: <199909290023.RAA15521@usr07.primenet.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9909281947120.769-100000@acp.qiv.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
[snip]
>> I was dubious; I waited more than a year after hearing about the DUL
>> to implement it. But when I finally tried it, I found that it was
>> highly effective; it targeted spam like a laser and rejected no
>> legitimate traffic.
>
>That you are aware of, in your less-complicated-than-an-ISP setup.
Hmm... maybe it would be helpful if you explained to those of us that
live in a "less-complicated-than-an-ISP" world, those of us who pay
for internet _service_ why we should change our attitude?
-- Jay
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 18:41:46 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from shell.futuresouth.com (shell.futuresouth.com [198.78.58.28])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95B7115121
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from fullermd@futuresouth.com)
Received: (from fullermd@localhost)
by shell.futuresouth.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA07663;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 20:41:08 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 20:41:08 -0500
From: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@futuresouth.com>
To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>,
Jacques Vidrine <n@nectar.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups)
Message-ID: <19990928204107.I29176@futuresouth.com>
References: <199909282311.QAA13317@usr07.primenet.com> <199909290058.RAA17813@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.3i
In-Reply-To: <199909290058.RAA17813@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>; from Rodney W. Grimes on Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 05:58:45PM -0700
X-OS: FreeBSD <http://www.freebsd.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 05:58:45PM -0700, a little birdie told me
that Rodney W. Grimes remarked
> ...
> > > Yes, I know there is no RFC or other standards document that says what
> > > an ISP is and how one must perform. I am merely expressing my opinion
> > > on the matter.
> >
> > Actually, there should be such RFC's. At the very least, it is
> > a topic ripe for Best Current Practice RFC's.
>
> I've been thinking exactly that for the past few days.
FWIW, I think that's an excellent proposal in its own right, even
independant of this current party-o-fun discussion.
--
Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net
Unix Systems Administrator | fullermd@futuresouth.com
Specializing in FreeBSD | http://www.over-yonder.net/
FutureSouth Communications | ISPHelp ISP Consulting
"The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I
haven't figured out how to light the middle yet"
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 18:43:33 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE70015121
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from brett@lariat.org)
Received: from mustang (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2])
by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA19425;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:43:16 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19990928194050.04753710@localhost>
X-Sender: brett@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:42:57 -0600
To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>,
tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert)
From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to
Cc: ben@scientia.demon.co.uk, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199909290117.SAA17869@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
References: <199909282337.QAA14015@usr07.primenet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
At 06:17 PM 9/28/99 -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
>The only answer to SPAM is to make it financially un attractive. If
>you cut the revenues created by SPAM you can have 10 static IP's not
>on the RBL and 10,000 open relays. Though it would still be possible
>to SPAM they wouldn't bother as the ROI is negative...
Well, for 99% of all of the suckers who are duped into participating
into an MLM pyramid scheme, the ROI is negative, too. But this does
not keep foolish people from trying it. That's why Amway, Melaleuca,
Herbalife, etc. do so well.
We cannot rely on the intelligence of the spammer to motivate him
or her to stop spamming, as the fact that he or she is doing it in
the first place indicates a lack of judgment.
--Brett
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 18:46:24 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF6915121
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:46:21 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from brett@lariat.org)
Received: from mustang (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2])
by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA19453;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:46:10 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19990928194426.047b8370@localhost>
X-Sender: brett@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:45:51 -0600
To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>,
tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert)
From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to
talk to dialups)
Cc: ben@scientia.demon.co.uk, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199909290125.SAA17895@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
References: <199909282354.QAA14538@usr07.primenet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
At 06:25 PM 9/28/99 -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
>No, CACHE the animated GIF banner ads making it look like our pipe to
>the internet is much larger than it really is. If I block them I'd
>have to modify the AUP, if I make them fast our clients are just a
>bunch of happy campers.
And install the Junkbusters proxy as an option, so they can be even happier
and browse even faster if they so choose. Plus, they'll save you bandwidth
if they opt in and use it. ;-)
--Brett
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 19:30:58 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from tok.qiv.com (tok.qiv.com [205.238.142.68])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63D7414E59
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from jdn@acp.qiv.com)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
by tok.qiv.com (MailHost/Current) with UUCP id VAA51030;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:30:36 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from localhost (jdn@localhost)
by acp.qiv.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id VAA00899;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:23:19 -0500 (CDT)
(envelope-from jdn@acp.qiv.com)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:23:19 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jay Nelson <jdn@acp.qiv.com>
To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
In-Reply-To: <199909290043.RAA15943@usr07.primenet.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9909282012440.769-100000@acp.qiv.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
[snip]
>Granted, and you have the right to not listen to illegitimate traffic.
>
>I think it's stupid to say that traffic from a dialup server is
>definitionally illegitimate.
That's a valid point. I generally block entire domains, if the abuse
continues.
>I think it's much more reasonable to say that traffic from a dialup
>server with a valid, current certificate is legitimate.
I still don't see how this type of certification accomplishes anything
except validating that the address isn't spoofed.
[snip]
>Non-"fancy" technology (are you aware when X.509 was standardized?)
>tends to tar everyone with the same brush. It's indiscrimant between
>diabolical offendors and legitimate users.
Well... there are good ideas and bad;)
>Only an idiot shoots people to prevent them from drinking untreated
>water "for their own protection".
True -- but we're not talking about protecting the spammers. With
intruders, you shoot first and ask later.
>Dynamic IP addresses are a legitimate cost control technology. In
>some areas of the world, i.e. Europe, they are mandatory, or close
>enough that it doesn't matter.
Also true. This is, I think where IPV6 will improve things, but it
also allows more spammers to spm more than ever before with some
rather serious security implications.
>> If that is what you consider "balkanization", then so be it. I see no
>> reason to be "unified" with _any_ source of spam. In fact, I would
>> submit that the spammers and skript kiddies have reasonably well
>> corrupted whatever the original design goals may have been.
>
>Actually, the implementation of technically inferior approaches
>to "solving" the problem is what has corrupted the original
>design goals, to with: to be able to survive a national or global
>catastrophe, and continue to function (i.e. the mail gets delivered).
That presupposes that the world will end if email doesn't get through.
In such a catastrophe, I doubt people will be checking their email.
The more relevant problem now is stopping abuse. As technology gets
more sophisticated, so do the abusers. We use what we have now to stop
the abuse we have now.
>> The question now is: what do we do about it?
>
>We implement apropriate technology, and we speak up in public
>forums when "script kiddies" use "scripts" that are supposedly
>somehow morally superior due to their stopping abuse, while at
>the same time damaging the Internet.
Terry, speaking out on topics accomplishes nothing but give idle women
things to do. In my experience, most ISPs have trouble standing up and
talking at the same time (no flames, please -- my experience only;). I
respectfully submit that if you cut off a domain and increase the
level of complaint, you get a more willing response from whomever is
responisble.
>We get technical people who actually _know what the hell they
>are doing_ to implement technological soloutions that are designed
>to prevent pervision from their intended purpose.
At an ISP? They'll have to pay more than $2.00/Hr. for staff;)
[snip]
>> Besides -- how is your credential notion any different than the RBL in
>> preventing abuse? If I've identified the machine responsible for
>> sending the abuse and can easily block it, what's the value of
>> verifying that the name I'm blocking is, in fact, the name that
>> I'm blocking?
>
>Because that name could move to a different IP address and SPAM
>you again. If you block by IP, then you have to do technologically
>stupid things, like assume the guilt of an entire class of IP
>addresses merely because they _might_ be abused without you
>knowing the true identity of the sender (something you didn't
>know because you implemented a technically inferior soloution
>based on an assumption of guilt).
You're right -- but how do I increase the pain for the responsible
domain to stop. It appears that, that is the only thing that will have
much effect. If enough subscribers complain, good things seem to
happen -- if the subscribers don't complain, the status quo stays
inplace.
>If, on the other hand, you have a certificate on hand, you can
>say "please revoke this certificate, and cost this SPAM'mer real
>money". This also makes it so you don't have to do stupid things
>like complain to an ISP, and have the complaint "handled" with "all
>due process", all the time the SPAM'mer is continuing to SPAM
>other people.
This would only work if it were universally implemented. But, your
right about the ISP droids. Talking to them seems to be nothing more
than verbal masturbation. I'm not sure what's worse -- the spammers or
the ISPs;)
>Putting the control in the hands of a central authority (or
>authorities; you could choose to respect multiple certificate
>signatories; try to do an exclusion list with ORBS, the DUL,
>or the RBL) negates this latency, and negates the possiblity of
>a "rogue ISP" requiring multiple latencies to clean up after a
>SPAM.
Ah... but who is the central authority? Life on the streets has taught
me to not trust a "central authority." There's good that can come of
it -- but also abuse. Specifically, when will "business reasons"
compel a "change" in policy and we suddenly find previously blocked
domains back on-line? I think that spam control is ultimately left to
each of us to decide as we see fit. I think that's the way it should
be.
>> >If the government wants this information, it can run "nslookup"
>> >against the RBL database, using any of the millions of machines the
>> >governemnt owns, after doing a "getpeername()".
>>
>> Hmm... again, you've missed the point. I doubt the govt cares about
>> the spammers;)
>
>Your point was that somehow, a certificate scheme requires an
>equation with personal identity, rather than merely DNS identity.
No -- the point was that it provides one more trackable datum. One
that develops a "profile" and one adds one more "legal" proof of
whatever. True, there is little difference between your authentication
suggestions and what is currently available for such tracking, but why
add to it when there appears to be so little gained?
I'm not an ISP -- I'm an end-point. My ISP is usless as tits on a boar
hog in protecting me from the abuse of the net -- and ultimately,
that's the way it should be. I pay for a connection -- not protecton.
If I pay for the freedom to manage my net the way I choose, then I
I expect to have the freedom to do that, DUL or not.
MHO only.
-- Jay
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 19:31:25 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from guppy.pond.net (guppy.pond.net [205.240.25.2])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B643614E59
for <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:31:21 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from dmp@aracnet.com)
Received: from aracnet.com (snapuser2-89.pacificcrest.net [216.36.34.89])
by guppy.pond.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA11402;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:28:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199909290228.TAA11402@guppy.pond.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:30:53 -0700
From: "D.M.P." <dmp@aracnet.com>
Reply-To: gryph@mindless.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dwalton@acm.org
Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: We have have answers! [Was: Re: praise be to Torvalds?]
References: <19990929004056.2942.qmail@modgud.nordicrecords.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Dave Walton wrote:
>
> This is cute. Brings a whole new meaning to the concept of
> operating system holy wars. But why do you suppose they didn't
> base this project on BSD? We have such an adorable mascot!
>
> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/19990927/tc/19990927332.html
Do they have plans for renaming the SYN flag on IP packets? Can't
have Good Christian Folk SYN'ing everywhere.
Will they get rid of bash? The name is violent. Or will it spawn
a sect of Bourne Again Christians?
Will they rename the superuser account to god? Will the password
default to stpeter? Will you be able to talk(1) to god?
Will you be able to finger another user outside of wedlock?
Will you be allowed to frob your bits?
--
"Nothing is more noble, nothing more venerable than fidelity. Truth
and faithfulness are the most sacred excellences and endowments of
the human mind." -- Cicero
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 19:41:12 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from pop3-3.enteract.com (pop3-3.enteract.com [207.229.143.32])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7E1C914E59
for <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:41:11 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com)
Received: (qmail 93198 invoked from network); 29 Sep 1999 02:41:10 -0000
Received: from shell-1.enteract.com (dscheidt@207.229.143.40)
by pop3-3.enteract.com with SMTP; 29 Sep 1999 02:41:10 -0000
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:41:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com>
To: gryph@mindless.com
Cc: dwalton@acm.org, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: We have have answers! [Was: Re: praise be to Torvalds?]
In-Reply-To: <199909290228.TAA11402@guppy.pond.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96.990928213909.2035B-100000@shell-1.enteract.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, D.M.P. wrote:
> Dave Walton wrote:
> >
> > This is cute. Brings a whole new meaning to the concept of
> > operating system holy wars. But why do you suppose they didn't
> > base this project on BSD? We have such an adorable mascot!
> >
> > http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/19990927/tc/19990927332.html
It must be a joke. It isn't under the GNU Public License.
David Scheidt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 20: 4:40 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from guppy.pond.net (guppy.pond.net [205.240.25.2])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7573515034
for <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 20:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from dmp@aracnet.com)
Received: from aracnet.com (snapuser2-89.pacificcrest.net [216.36.34.89])
by guppy.pond.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA14994;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 20:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199909290301.UAA14994@guppy.pond.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 20:03:35 -0700
From: "D.M.P." <dmp@aracnet.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com>
Cc: dmp@aracnet.com, dwalton@acm.org, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: We have have answers! [Was: Re: praise be to Torvalds?]
References: <Pine.NEB.3.96.990928213909.2035B-100000@shell-1.enteract.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
David Scheidt wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, D.M.P. wrote:
>
> > Dave Walton wrote:
> > >
> > > This is cute. Brings a whole new meaning to the concept of
> > > operating system holy wars. But why do you suppose they didn't
> > > base this project on BSD? We have such an adorable mascot!
> > >
> > > http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/19990927/tc/19990927332.html
>
> It must be a joke. It isn't under the GNU Public License.
>
> David Scheidt
According to the article it's going to be realeased under a modified
BSD license. Isn't that a conflict of interest, though? The BSD
mascot being little red horned fellow and all. :-)
--
"Nothing is more noble, nothing more venerable than fidelity. Truth
and faithfulness are the most sacred excellences and endowments of
the human mind." -- Cicero
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 20: 5:38 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from zone.unixshell.com (zone.syracuse.net [209.2.141.6])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73F8615034
for <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 20:05:31 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from ze5yr@unixshell.com)
Received: from localhost (ze5yr@localhost)
by zone.unixshell.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA05819;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 23:05:22 -0400 (EDT)
(envelope-from ze5yr@unixshell.com)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 23:05:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Cliff Crawford <ze5yr@unixshell.com>
To: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com>
Cc: gryph@mindless.com, dwalton@acm.org, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: We have have answers! [Was: Re: praise be to Torvalds?]
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96.990928213909.2035B-100000@shell-1.enteract.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909282304240.1238-100000@zone.unixshell.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, David Scheidt wrote:
| > Dave Walton wrote:
| > >
| > > This is cute. Brings a whole new meaning to the concept of
| > > operating system holy wars. But why do you suppose they didn't
| > > base this project on BSD? We have such an adorable mascot!
| > >
| > > http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/19990927/tc/19990927332.html
|
| It must be a joke. It isn't under the GNU Public License.
The article mentions that they have a web site, but doesn't link to it..???
I'd like to see the web site myself..
--
cliff crawford http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/cjc26/
-><- air yang tenang jangan disangka tiada buaya
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 20:27:34 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from pop3-3.enteract.com (pop3-3.enteract.com [207.229.143.32])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AAAFF15084
for <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 20:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com)
Received: (qmail 12689 invoked from network); 29 Sep 1999 03:27:32 -0000
Received: from shell-1.enteract.com (dscheidt@207.229.143.40)
by pop3-3.enteract.com with SMTP; 29 Sep 1999 03:27:32 -0000
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 22:27:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com>
To: Cliff Crawford <ze5yr@unixshell.com>
Cc: gryph@mindless.com, dwalton@acm.org, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: We have have answers! [Was: Re: praise be to Torvalds?]
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909282304240.1238-100000@zone.unixshell.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96.990928222711.2672A-100000@shell-1.enteract.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Cliff Crawford wrote:
>
> The article mentions that they have a web site, but doesn't link to it..???
> I'd like to see the web site myself..
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Node/4081/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 21:41:53 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from norn.ca.eu.org (cr965240-b.abtsfd1.bc.wave.home.com [24.113.19.137])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E0AA14D28
for <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from cpiazza@norn.ca.eu.org)
Received: by norn.ca.eu.org (Postfix, from userid 1002)
id ABD4465; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:41:50 -0700
From: Chris Piazza <cpiazza@home.net>
To: "D.M.P." <dmp@aracnet.com>
Cc: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com>, dwalton@acm.org,
freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: We have have answers! [Was: Re: praise be to Torvalds?]
Message-ID: <19990928214150.B734@norn.ca.eu.org>
References: <Pine.NEB.3.96.990928213909.2035B-100000@shell-1.enteract.com> <199909290301.UAA14994@guppy.pond.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre1i
In-Reply-To: <199909290301.UAA14994@guppy.pond.net>
X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.0-CURRENT
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 08:03:35PM -0700, D.M.P. wrote:
> David Scheidt wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, D.M.P. wrote:
> >
> > > Dave Walton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is cute. Brings a whole new meaning to the concept of
> > > > operating system holy wars. But why do you suppose they didn't
> > > > base this project on BSD? We have such an adorable mascot!
> > > >
> > > > http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/19990927/tc/19990927332.html
> >
> > It must be a joke. It isn't under the GNU Public License.
> >
> > David Scheidt
>
> According to the article it's going to be realeased under a modified
> BSD license. Isn't that a conflict of interest, though? The BSD
> mascot being little red horned fellow and all. :-)
Hehe.. that's not as funny as their license...
3.All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
must display the following acknowledgement:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
everlasting life. (John 3:16, King James Bible)
-Chris
--
:Chris Piazza : Abbotsford, BC:
:cpiazza@home.net : cpiazza@FreeBSD.org:
: : :
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 22:29:11 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from socrates.entelchile.net (socrates.entelchile.net [206.137.97.68])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6581114DBB
for <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 22:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from openbsd@altavista.net)
Received: from altavista.net ([206.84.69.171]) by socrates.entelchile.net
(Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35)
with ESMTP id net for <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 01:28:34 -0400
Message-ID: <37F1A110.12562BEA@altavista.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 01:18:08 -0400
From: Rodrigo De la Vega <openbsd@altavista.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12 i686)
X-Accept-Language: es-ES
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Subject: subscribe
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
subscribe
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 28 23:13:30 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from bachue.usc.unal.edu.co (bachue.usc.unal.edu.co [168.176.3.20])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2271714F06
for <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 23:13:09 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from pfgiffun@bachue.usc.unal.edu.co)
Received: from bachue.usc.unal.edu.co ([168.176.3.62])
by bachue.usc.unal.edu.co (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6)
with ESMTP id AAA3968 for <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>;
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 23:37:22 -0400
Message-ID: <37F198C9.9705169F@bachue.usc.unal.edu.co>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 23:42:49 -0500
From: "Pedro Fernando Giffuni" <pfgiffun@bachue.usc.unal.edu.co>
Organization: Universidad Nacional de Colombia
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony} (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: We have have answers! [Was: Re: praise be to Torvalds?]
References: <Pine.NEB.3.96.990928213909.2035B-100000@shell-1.enteract.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
David Scheidt wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, D.M.P. wrote:
>
> > Dave Walton wrote:
> > >
> > > This is cute. Brings a whole new meaning to the concept of
> > > operating system holy wars. But why do you suppose they didn't
> > > base this project on BSD? We have such an adorable mascot!
> > >
> > > http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/19990927/tc/19990927332.html
>
> It must be a joke. It isn't under the GNU Public License.
>
Of course not ...THAT would be evil ! :-)
Pedro.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 29 6:27:55 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2901515186
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 06:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from des@flood.ping.uio.no)
Received: (from des@localhost)
by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA07993;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:25:43 +0200 (CEST)
(envelope-from des)
To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Cc: jdn@acp.qiv.com (Jay Nelson), chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
References: <199909282252.PAA12756@usr07.primenet.com>
From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no>
Date: 29 Sep 1999 15:25:43 +0200
In-Reply-To: Terry Lambert's message of "Tue, 28 Sep 1999 22:52:51 +0000 (GMT)"
Message-ID: <xzp905pzw6g.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
Lines: 21
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 19.34
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> writes:
> That's "balkanization", as in the division of the balkan states
> between nations at the end of World War II to prevent reuinification
> and thus the potential of another Hitler.
You are totally confused. This is not what happened after WWII; what
happened after WWII was the consolidation of small central european
countries into federal republics under communist rule. Balkanization
refers to the division of central european countries into small
individual nations after WWI; they were to serve as a buffer zone, a
set of "watertight compartments" in case of a Soviet attempt to expand
into Western Europe. World War One was supposed to be the War To End
All Wars; instead, the victors' vengeful and petty attitude towards
the defeated parties nurtured the misery, resentment and hate which
allowed Hitler to rise to power. Hitler spoke of Germany being stabbed
in the back after WWI; I cannot say I completely disagree with him on
that particular point.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 29 6:33:21 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4D9B15162
for <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 06:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from des@flood.ping.uio.no)
Received: (from des@localhost)
by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA08009;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:32:57 +0200 (CEST)
(envelope-from des)
To: gryph@mindless.com
Cc: dwalton@acm.org, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: We have have answers! [Was: Re: praise be to Torvalds?]
References: <19990929004056.2942.qmail@modgud.nordicrecords.com> <199909290228.TAA11402@guppy.pond.net>
From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no>
Date: 29 Sep 1999 15:32:57 +0200
In-Reply-To: "D.M.P."'s message of "Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:30:53 -0700"
Message-ID: <xzp7ll9zvue.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
Lines: 10
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 19.34
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
"D.M.P." <dmp@aracnet.com> writes:
> Will they get rid of bash? The name is violent. Or will it spawn
> a sect of Bourne Again Christians?
AAMOF, their web site states that bash will be the default shell
precisely because of the name.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 29 9: 8:43 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 121281592D; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org)
Received: from harmony.village.org (harmony.village.org [10.0.0.6])
by rover.village.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA35369;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:02:42 -0600 (MDT)
(envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org)
Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.9.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id KAA03335; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:02:38 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <199909291602.KAA03335@harmony.village.org>
To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin Makefile src/gnu/lib/libdialog Makefile src/gnu/lib/libreadline Makefile.inc src/include ucontext.h signal.h src/lib/libc Makefile src/lib/libc/alpha/gen setjmp.S src/lib/libc/compat-43 sigcompat.c src/lib/libc/gen sigsetops.c ...
Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, chat@FreeBSD.org
Reply-To: chat@FreeBSD.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:18:47 PDT."
<199909291518.IAA59949@freefall.freebsd.org>
References: <199909291518.IAA59949@freefall.freebsd.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:02:38 -0600
From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
In message <199909291518.IAA59949@freefall.freebsd.org> Marcel Moolenaar writes:
: According to good taste this means that I will receive a
: badge which either will be glued or mechanically stapled,
: drilled or otherwise violently forced onto me :-)
Yup. However, they do leave cool scars when removed later in life.
There's a growing cult that gets together to practices its unspeakable
rituals in large FreeBSD committer gatherings :-)
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 29 10:20:18 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from monsoon.mail.pipex.net (monsoon.mail.pipex.net [158.43.128.69])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 61100159A0
for <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from mark@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org)
Received: (qmail 9094 invoked from network); 29 Sep 1999 17:18:46 -0000
Received: from userbf39.uk.uudial.com (HELO marder-1.) (62.188.142.60)
by smtp.dial.pipex.com with SMTP; 29 Sep 1999 17:18:46 -0000
Received: (from mark@localhost)
by marder-1. (8.9.2/8.8.8) id SAA00771;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 18:18:37 +0100 (BST)
(envelope-from mark)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 18:18:36 +0100
From: Mark Ovens <mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org>
To: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com>
Cc: gryph@mindless.com, dwalton@acm.org, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: We have have answers! [Was: Re: praise be to Torvalds?]
Message-ID: <19990929181836.A280@marder-1>
References: <199909290228.TAA11402@guppy.pond.net> <Pine.NEB.3.96.990928213909.2035B-100000@shell-1.enteract.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96.990928213909.2035B-100000@shell-1.enteract.com>
Organization: Total lack of
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 09:41:09PM -0500, David Scheidt wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, D.M.P. wrote:
>
> > Dave Walton wrote:
> > >
> > > This is cute. Brings a whole new meaning to the concept of
> > > operating system holy wars. But why do you suppose they didn't
> > > base this project on BSD? We have such an adorable mascot!
> > >
> > > http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/19990927/tc/19990927332.html
>
> It must be a joke. It isn't under the GNU Public License.
^^^
God Needs Unix?
>
> David Scheidt
>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
--
STATE-OF-THE-ART: Any computer you can't afford.
OBSOLETE: Any computer you own.
________________________________________________________________
FreeBSD - The Power To Serve http://www.freebsd.org
My Webpage http://ukug.uk.freebsd.org/~mark/
mailto:mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org http://www.radan.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 29 10:22:15 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp05.primenet.com (smtp05.primenet.com [206.165.6.135])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7AA0155DB
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:22:05 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from tlambert@usr06.primenet.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by smtp05.primenet.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id KAA10514;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:21:58 -0700
Received: from usr06.primenet.com(206.165.6.206)
via SMTP by smtp05.primenet.com, id smtpdj87w7a; Wed Sep 29 10:19:53 1999
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA15370;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:14:02 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199909291714.KAA15370@usr06.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
To: brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 17:14:02 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, alk@pobox.com, gary@eyelab.psy.msu.edu,
chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19990928184900.04799cc0@localhost> from "Brett Glass" at Sep 28, 99 06:52:45 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> >> We are actually more sophisticated than many for-profit ISPs.
> >
> >Sophistication != Complexity.
> >
> >Many ISPs have complex setups, which preclude simply implementing
> >the draconian measures you advocate implementing "across the board".
>
> Ah, but they're not draconian. Our membership overwhelmingly favored
> them.
"He who would trade liberty for security, deserves neither."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Not to mention that they will become inoperational in the face
of IPv6 stateless autoconfiguration. What will you do then?
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 29 10:26:15 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.6.134])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35EE515937
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from tlambert@usr06.primenet.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by smtp04.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21275;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:24:03 -0700 (MST)
Received: from usr06.primenet.com(206.165.6.206)
via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAYKai5O; Wed Sep 29 10:23:32 1999
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA15997;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:23:44 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199909291723.KAA15997@usr06.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups)
To: freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (Rodney W. Grimes)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 17:23:44 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, n@nectar.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199909290058.RAA17813@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> from "Rodney W. Grimes" at Sep 28, 99 05:58:45 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> > > Yes, I know there is no RFC or other standards document that says what
> > > an ISP is and how one must perform. I am merely expressing my opinion
> > > on the matter.
> >
> > Actually, there should be such RFC's. At the very least, it is
> > a topic ripe for Best Current Practice RFC's.
>
> I've been thinking exactly that for the past few days.
> Care to help me co-author one??
I'll do better than that, in the near future, as I've been working
on code, some of which is tagged for technology transfer to ISPs.
> > Legally, it's important for ISP's to be recognized as common
> > carriers, such that the Australia debacle gets resolved, and the
> > responsibility of implementing the unfunded mandates of a foreign
> > government does not devolve to people who are not even citizens
> > of the offending country.
>
> Ahhh... ISP's will never be classified as ``common carriers'':
> 47 USC 153 (10) COMMON CARRIER. -- The term ``common carrier'' or ``carrier''
> means any person engaged as a common carrier [sic, self refering definition,
> can not be resolved :-(] for hire, in interstate or foreign communication
> by wire or radio or in interstate or foreign radio transmission of energy,
> except where reference is made to common carriers not subject to this Act;
> but a person engaged in radio broadcasting shall not, insofar as such
> person is so engaged, be deemed a common carrier.
I think this applies to anyone who endpoints Internet connectivity
for their customers. In time, I think that ISPs will be put under
that umbrella, if only to tarrif them as IP telephony comes online,
and the current RBOCs start losing their sources of revenue.
> They more properly fit one of the more defined carrier classes:
> 47 USC 153 (11) CONNECTING CARRIER. --
> 47 USC 153 (26) LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIER --
> 47 USC 153 (37) RURAL TELEPHONE COMPANY --
> 47 USC 153 (44) TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER -- [this is the best fit]
>
> We, as in Accurate Communications, Inc, fall under 47 USC 153 (11), (26),
> and (44). We are treated as common carriers by reference from 153 (44)
> to 153 (10) with respect to only ``telecommunications services
> (47 USC 153 (46))''. It's all a very twisted maze of definitions that
> takes about 10 readings to even start getting the picture right.
I think we will also see Internet communications regulated as
telecommunications, including "legal" wiretapping (quoted to
emphasize the hypocrisy inherent in wiretapping in the context
of the 5th Ammendment).
Anything else will eventually result in a lot of federal regulators
losing their jobs (a sad day, indeed).
> And furthermore, though many view the benifit of having a Title 18
> exclusion from criminal and civil prosecution under several portions
> of the code at large as a big benifit, they seem to ignore the very
> large offsetting requirements of having to meet a whole new section
> of law, USC 47, and all the legal problems it can bring, like universal
> access, requirements to file State PUC and Federal FCC yearly billing
> reports, etc, etc. Loss of right to refuse service, requirements of
> equal treatment of all clients, etc, etc. It is a _huge_ burden, one
> that must be weighted with great care.
These requirements are actually not strictly associated with
"Common Carrier", as you point out, but "Telecommunications Carrier".
> Our final solutions was to operate as seperate, but assoctiated legal
> entities. The ISP is operated as a totally seperate legal entity
> from the Carrier business, they do have a possible affiliated status under
> the 47 USC act, but so far the lawyers have keep us clean on that one.
Heh. You're a "Kairetsu".
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 29 10:28: 3 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp01.primenet.com (smtp01.primenet.com [206.165.6.131])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C94D214F41
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:27:38 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from tlambert@usr06.primenet.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by smtp01.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA28480;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:27:38 -0700 (MST)
Received: from usr06.primenet.com(206.165.6.206)
via SMTP by smtp01.primenet.com, id smtpd028396; Wed Sep 29 10:27:27 1999
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA16205;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:27:24 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199909291727.KAA16205@usr06.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to
To: freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (Rodney W. Grimes)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 17:27:24 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, brett@lariat.org, n@nectar.com,
chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199909290104.SAA17835@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> from "Rodney W. Grimes" at Sep 28, 99 06:04:45 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> > > Moreover, in order to detect an abusive pattern of mailing, you need
> > > to have logging -- which you get when you channel users' mail through
> > > your server.
> >
> > Transparent proxy, logging limited to not log potentially sensitive
> > information, only traffic analysis; shortlived to make it useless
> > to a court order.
>
> Slippery slope, as a Carrier we have to retain such data, if collected
> in the normal operation of our business for something like 3 years...
> Things like data collected for billing records, protection of our
> network, clients and connected carriers all has specific minimal legal
> retention periods on it, with pretty stiff fines if you don't have it
> when it is asked for. Furthermore we have 48 hours to produce any of
> this data when it is requested by court order so we have to manage
> that massive pile carefully :-(. Though we are allowed to charge a
> small bounded fee for retreaving it, that fee no where near compensates
> for the needed storage of such data, we have to pass that on to the
> customer, and are allowed to under law.
The point is that you aren't really collecting the data, you are
collecting trigger points which result in data.
The data you have is whether or not a particular account has
demonstrated a pattern of abuse with regards to your AUP, based
on scoring. So _maybe_ you'd have to keep your score data for
a set period of time, but that's practically useless as a legal
bludgeon (except perhaps to another ISP using the same scoring
criteria).
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 29 10:35:55 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91250155F7
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:35:51 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from brett@lariat.org)
Received: from mustang (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2])
by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26807;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 11:35:37 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19990929112454.047535d0@localhost>
X-Sender: brett@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 11:35:01 -0600
To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, alk@pobox.com, gary@eyelab.psy.msu.edu,
chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199909291714.KAA15370@usr06.primenet.com>
References: <4.2.0.58.19990928184900.04799cc0@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
At 05:14 PM 9/29/99 +0000, Terry Lambert wrote:
>"He who would trade liberty for security, deserves neither."
> -- Benjamin Franklin
The correct quote is:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
The use of port 25 is not "essential" so long as a mail server is
provided, nor is it "essential" to be able to receive e-mail sent directly
from other ISPs' dial-ins. Freedom from spam brings INCREASED liberty, not
less. It makes life more productive and pleasant, and assures that ISPs'
resources aren't abused, which is a very good thing, IMHO. Your mileage
may vary, of course.
>Not to mention that they will become inoperational in the face
>of IPv6 stateless autoconfiguration. What will you do then?
I haven't looked into the issue of what IPv6 might mean to the DUL or
RBL. However, I'm sure that Paul Vixie is. (I wouldn't mind learning
more about the topic myself, as I certainly don't want to give up either
facility when I move to IPv6.)
--Brett Glass
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 29 10:37:11 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp01.primenet.com (smtp01.primenet.com [206.165.6.131])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91C571589C
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from tlambert@usr06.primenet.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by smtp01.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA01668;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:36:46 -0700 (MST)
Received: from usr06.primenet.com(206.165.6.206)
via SMTP by smtp01.primenet.com, id smtpd001654; Wed Sep 29 10:36:44 1999
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA16816;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:36:43 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199909291736.KAA16816@usr06.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
To: jdn@acp.qiv.com (Jay Nelson)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 17:36:42 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9909281947120.769-100000@acp.qiv.com> from "Jay Nelson" at Sep 28, 99 08:06:16 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> >> I was dubious; I waited more than a year after hearing about the DUL
> >> to implement it. But when I finally tried it, I found that it was
> >> highly effective; it targeted spam like a laser and rejected no
> >> legitimate traffic.
> >
> >That you are aware of, in your less-complicated-than-an-ISP setup.
>
> Hmm... maybe it would be helpful if you explained to those of us that
> live in a "less-complicated-than-an-ISP" world, those of us who pay
> for internet _service_ why we should change our attitude?
When IPv6 becomes widely deployed, it will be possible to attach
a machine to any network, and through stateless autoconfiguration
obtain a valid, routable IPv6 address -- a "static" address.
This is tantamount to a "roaming" cell phone obtaining cellular
service from a local cell.
The only real difference is that a cell phone has a cryptographic
"certificate" identifying the phone, so that abuse can be detected
and service discontinued.
Are you going to place the entire IPv6 stateless autoconfiguration
space into the DUL?
Good frigging luck. I don't think the people with Palm VII's or
Nokia Cell phones, etc., will really stand for you denying them
the ability to use their digital mobile communications devices to
communicate.
It would be nice if people would look beyond 6-8 months into the
future when they are implementing things like SPAM protection, so
that we don't have to reinvent our arms for the SPAM arms race
every 6 months. The DUL will not survive the IPv6 transition as
a useful tool (weapon) against SPAM, nor will it survive wide spread
standardization of mobile IP technology.
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 29 10:39:13 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp01.primenet.com (smtp01.primenet.com [206.165.6.131])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8219A155F7
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from tlambert@usr06.primenet.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by smtp01.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA02528;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:39:02 -0700 (MST)
Received: from usr06.primenet.com(206.165.6.206)
via SMTP by smtp01.primenet.com, id smtpd002493; Wed Sep 29 10:38:53 1999
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA16940;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:38:52 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199909291738.KAA16940@usr06.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups)
To: freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (Rodney W. Grimes)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 17:38:51 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, ben@scientia.demon.co.uk, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199909290112.SAA17852@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> from "Rodney W. Grimes" at Sep 28, 99 06:12:37 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> > FWIW, most ISPs buy POPs (Points of Presense) from a big provider,
> > and do not control the IP address assignment (even for static IP
> > addresses) nor do they control the account name assignments, which
> > must apriori not conflict with existing RADIUS records from the
> > middle tier provider.
>
> Technical correction, they do control the account name assignments,
> which is done through domainized versions of RADIUS by apending
> a @domain that is used by a local to the POP radius proxy to forward
> the request to the correct client of the big provider. Radiator
> and Merit Radius both have this feature and are used extensivly
> by the wholesale dialup providers.
The technical name of this suffix is called the RADIUS "realm".
Not everyone uses this, as they require license fees.
> We have contracts with some of these wholesale providers and we
> totally control the account name portion. We don't even need to call
> them when we add/delete accounts.
I assume you are talking accounts using dynamic IP assignment?
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 29 10:50: 4 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.6.134])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 845CA15981
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from tlambert@usr06.primenet.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by smtp04.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA28246;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:45:43 -0700 (MST)
Received: from usr06.primenet.com(206.165.6.206)
via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAaya4G2; Wed Sep 29 10:45:22 1999
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA17203;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:45:08 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199909291745.KAA17203@usr06.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk
To: freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (Rodney W. Grimes)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 17:45:07 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, jack@germanium.xtalwind.net,
gjp@in-addr.com, n@nectar.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199909290120.SAA17878@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> from "Rodney W. Grimes" at Sep 28, 99 06:20:28 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> > The theory is that that have "opted" to list their dialup lines with
> > the DUL's DNS server, which can tell if an IP address is assigned to
> > a dynamic IP address pool.
> >
> > The fact is that the majority of dialup address blocks listed in the
> > DUL are involuntary placement there by third parties.
>
> WRONG!!! Please read the web pages again...
I don't give a flying what they claim, I _know_ an dynamic IP address
block which was involuntarily "registered".
> > If they (or another dialup IP POP provider) _had_ intentionally
> > opted in (I kind of doubt that EarthLink, for example, intentially
> > severed the ability of their customers to send email to AOL on a
> > voluntary basis, what without a relay infrastructure in place at
> > the time), then they are "filtering port 25 at destinations which
> > have opted to check the DUL before accepting the SMTP connection".
>
> Earthlink opted-in to reduce the mail load on abuse@earthlink, simple
> economics.
EarthLink did not have infrastructure in place to do the mail relay
for their own customers at the time of this supposed "opt in". I
personnally did the modifications to the InterJet to support this,
and they had no server names available to place in my input fields
at the time the problems started. This resulted in a significant
disruption in service for our installed customer base.
Given what I have heard some people say about EarthLink since then,
I sincerely question the correctness of your statements that the
disruption in customer service was "voluntary".
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 29 10:59:41 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.6.134])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8532155D9
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:58:52 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from tlambert@usr06.primenet.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by smtp04.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02480;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:57:54 -0700 (MST)
Received: from usr06.primenet.com(206.165.6.206)
via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAzqayWe; Wed Sep 29 10:57:47 1999
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA17884;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:58:38 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199909291758.KAA17884@usr06.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups)
To: freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (Rodney W. Grimes)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 17:58:38 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, ben@scientia.demon.co.uk, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199909290125.SAA17895@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> from "Rodney W. Grimes" at Sep 28, 99 06:25:49 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> > > SMTP deserves very special attention due to the fact that the number 1
> > > complaint of users of the internet is *SPAM*. SPAM is propogated via
> > > smtp. Do I need to say more? I can if I do.
> >
> > I think you need to block POP3 and "Pine". Most SPAM is propagated
> > via either reading it at the ISP, or using POP3 and pulling it down
> > nto client machines.
>
> Ahhh.. wrong side of the problem. It needs to be stopped before it
> gets into the users mail box, not on it's way from our server to
> thier mail reader. Besides, we don't want to store it either!!
Before you download it is topologically equivalent.
Your storage argument is really an argument that you have an
inefficient storage mechanism, which replicates messages to
multiple users, rather than storing the messages once, and
then storing per maildrop references.
Most mail servers which do this (e.g. Post.Office from Software.COM
and Exchange from Microsoft) have rather buggy implementations,
since they do not regenerate the local "Received:" timestamp header
when the message is being downloaded. This failure means that
programs like "fetchmail" can't fan domains agregated in POP3
maildrops back out properly at the final destination.
As far as not wanting to transit the mail to the users for user
applied filtering rules (e.g. providing filtering as a service,
and thereby reducing overall connect time on overcommitted modem
pools and other resources), that is an issue of implementing IMSP
or ACAP mechanisms for definition of filter rules on a per account
basis.
Again, since the opt-in or opt-out is a per maildrop question, it
is a technology issue. It doesn't matter if you apply the maildrop
filter rules by not instantiating a reference, or by deinstantiating
it on the way out.
No matter how you look at it, it's technically possible to (1) get
rid of the storage argument and (2) get rid of the modem transit
argument.
> > Block them animated GIF banner ads... that'll decrease your overhead.
>
> No, CACHE the animated GIF banner ads making it look like our pipe to
> the internet is much larger than it really is. If I block them I'd
> have to modify the AUP, if I make them fast our clients are just a
> bunch of happy campers.
But they are dynamic content. By definition, you won't get the
same data each time. Not that I'd mind a single, cached FreeBSD
banner ad, mind you, but I'm sure your own site hosting customers
(if you have any) will want _their_ banner ads propagated.
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 29 11:15:24 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp05.primenet.com (smtp05.primenet.com [206.165.6.135])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17ACF14E89
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 11:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from tlambert@usr06.primenet.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by smtp05.primenet.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id LAA29962;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 11:14:57 -0700
Received: from usr06.primenet.com(206.165.6.206)
via SMTP by smtp05.primenet.com, id smtpdvsJ1Ea; Wed Sep 29 11:07:48 1999
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA18004;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 11:00:31 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199909291800.LAA18004@usr06.primenet.com>
Subject: BCP RFC's for ISP's
To: fullermd@futuresouth.com (Matthew D. Fuller)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 18:00:31 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net, tlambert@primenet.com, n@nectar.com,
chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <19990928204107.I29176@futuresouth.com> from "Matthew D. Fuller" at Sep 28, 99 08:41:08 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 05:58:45PM -0700, a little birdie told me
> that Rodney W. Grimes remarked
> > ...
> > > > Yes, I know there is no RFC or other standards document that says what
> > > > an ISP is and how one must perform. I am merely expressing my opinion
> > > > on the matter.
> > >
> > > Actually, there should be such RFC's. At the very least, it is
> > > a topic ripe for Best Current Practice RFC's.
> >
> > I've been thinking exactly that for the past few days.
>
> FWIW, I think that's an excellent proposal in its own right, even
> independant of this current party-o-fun discussion.
On that note, please see:
ftp://ftp.whistle.com/pub/terry/drafts/draft-lambert-dns-pns-00.txt
ftp://ftp.whistle.com/pub/terry/drafts/draft-lambert-dns-split-00.txt
ftp://ftp.whistle.com/pub/terry/drafts/draft-lambert-dns-bsec-00.txt
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 29 11:40:31 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.6.134])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DC5C14BEA
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 11:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from tlambert@usr06.primenet.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by smtp04.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17096;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 11:39:13 -0700 (MST)
Received: from usr06.primenet.com(206.165.6.206)
via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAZKaarH; Wed Sep 29 11:39:07 1999
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA19783;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 11:39:58 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199909291839.LAA19783@usr06.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
To: jdn@acp.qiv.com (Jay Nelson)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 18:39:58 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9909282012440.769-100000@acp.qiv.com> from "Jay Nelson" at Sep 28, 99 09:23:19 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> >I think it's much more reasonable to say that traffic from a dialup
> >server with a valid, current certificate is legitimate.
>
> I still don't see how this type of certification accomplishes anything
> except validating that the address isn't spoofed.
It operates by incorporating a field:
"UCE:" <token>
Where <token> can be:
token = "yes" / "no"
One potential rule would be:
IF the certificate has not expired && "UCE:" == "no" THEN
accept
ELSE
reject
Pretty simple.
> >Only an idiot shoots people to prevent them from drinking untreated
> >water "for their own protection".
>
> True -- but we're not talking about protecting the spammers. With
> intruders, you shoot first and ask later.
Is "bob593@aol.com" sending mail to "fred@example.com" an intruder
on "example.com"'s server, or is he a legitimate sender of email?
On that note, since all of AOL is dialup, why aren't all AOL
source addresses blocked by the DUL?
I think that it's probably not because they didn't "opt in", but
because AOL has bought a large number of the infrastructure
companies, and owns a majority (22 million) of all Internet users.
> >Dynamic IP addresses are a legitimate cost control technology. In
> >some areas of the world, i.e. Europe, they are mandatory, or close
> >enough that it doesn't matter.
>
> Also true. This is, I think where IPV6 will improve things, but it
> also allows more spammers to spm more than ever before with some
> rather serious security implications.
Which is why a technological soloution which can survive the IPv6
transition needs to be deployed _now_.
> >Actually, the implementation of technically inferior approaches
> >to "solving" the problem is what has corrupted the original
> >design goals, to with: to be able to survive a national or global
> >catastrophe, and continue to function (i.e. the mail gets delivered).
>
> That presupposes that the world will end if email doesn't get through.
You mean like the formula for an antidote to a nervegas, or an
antidote for a bioweapon?
> In such a catastrophe, I doubt people will be checking their email.
You mean like when the Internet worm was stopped by people who
collaborated using email?
> The more relevant problem now is stopping abuse. As technology gets
> more sophisticated, so do the abusers. We use what we have now to stop
> the abuse we have now.
And preclude future abuse. The DUL fails to do that.
> >> The question now is: what do we do about it?
> >
> >We implement apropriate technology, and we speak up in public
> >forums when "script kiddies" use "scripts" that are supposedly
> >somehow morally superior due to their stopping abuse, while at
> >the same time damaging the Internet.
>
> Terry, speaking out on topics accomplishes nothing but give idle women
> things to do. In my experience, most ISPs have trouble standing up and
> talking at the same time (no flames, please -- my experience only;). I
> respectfully submit that if you cut off a domain and increase the
> level of complaint, you get a more willing response from whomever is
> responisble.
You mean "from the ISP of whomever is responsible".
If you really mean "whomever is responsible", then I submit that
tying the ability to send email without a relay to a requirement
that you have a registered domain name is more likely to do what
you intend than attacking the ISP of an abusive user.
This conversation reminds me of the scene in "Trinity is Still My
Name", where the banditos rode in and started beating up the Mormon
settlers. When the bandit leader got to "Bambino" ("Trinity"'s
brother), and belted him in the mouth, it had no effect except to
make him mad, and he belted the bandit leader back, _hard_. So
the bandit leader ordered one of his men to hit "Bambino". The
man afraid for his life, slapped "Bambino", not too hard. "Bambino"
reacted by belting the bandit leader again. The bandit leader got
the point.
The whole issue of using an IP address as a key for SPAM control,
or threating an ISP with the RBL, should they not implement and
enforce an AUP, is analogous to the actual bandit leader (SPAM'mer)
ordering one of his men (throw-away ISP account) to hit you (send
SPAM).
The effective defense is not to hit the man "ordered" to do the
dirty work, but to belt the bandit leader in the mouth, _hard_.
The RBL and the DUL do not effectively do this.
> >We get technical people who actually _know what the hell they
> >are doing_ to implement technological soloutions that are designed
> >to prevent pervision from their intended purpose.
>
> At an ISP? They'll have to pay more than $2.00/Hr. for staff;)
No. To build the software systems that ISPs then use.
> >> Besides -- how is your credential notion any different than the RBL in
> >> preventing abuse?
[ ... ]
> >Because that name could move to a different IP address and SPAM
> >you again. If you block by IP, then you have to do technologically
> >stupid things, like assume the guilt of an entire class of IP
> >addresses merely because they _might_ be abused without you
> >knowing the true identity of the sender (something you didn't
> >know because you implemented a technically inferior soloution
> >based on an assumption of guilt).
>
> You're right -- but how do I increase the pain for the responsible
> domain to stop. It appears that, that is the only thing that will have
> much effect. If enough subscribers complain, good things seem to
> happen -- if the subscribers don't complain, the status quo stays
> inplace.
You charge them $70 an instance for their efforts, by invalidating
the ability of their domain to send email.
When the ROI drops below $70, or when they find themselves unable
to register new domains, the SPAM stops.
What are you charging people who SPAM you now?
Do you think they have a net zero or net negative ROI now, or do you
think that they are being positively reinforced to send SPAM by a
net positive ROI?
> >If, on the other hand, you have a certificate on hand, you can
> >say "please revoke this certificate, and cost this SPAM'mer real
> >money". This also makes it so you don't have to do stupid things
> >like complain to an ISP, and have the complaint "handled" with "all
> >due process", all the time the SPAM'mer is continuing to SPAM
> >other people.
>
> This would only work if it were universally implemented. But, your
> right about the ISP droids. Talking to them seems to be nothing more
> than verbal masturbation. I'm not sure what's worse -- the spammers or
> the ISPs;)
The same is true of the RBL and the DUL. They can not be effective
in eliminating SPAM unless they are universally implemented. It's
like swimming in contaminated water, but having a strong immune
system; you don't get rid of the germs that way.
> >Putting the control in the hands of a central authority (or
> >authorities; you could choose to respect multiple certificate
> >signatories; try to do an exclusion list with ORBS, the DUL,
> >or the RBL) negates this latency, and negates the possiblity of
> >a "rogue ISP" requiring multiple latencies to clean up after a
> >SPAM.
>
> Ah... but who is the central authority? Life on the streets has taught
> me to not trust a "central authority." There's good that can come of
> it -- but also abuse. Specifically, when will "business reasons"
> compel a "change" in policy and we suddenly find previously blocked
> domains back on-line? I think that spam control is ultimately left to
> each of us to decide as we see fit. I think that's the way it should
> be.
This is why you can intentionally pick the authorities who you
respect in my system, and can respect multiple authorities idea
as to who is a valid sender, or insist that multiple authorities
vet the message before you accept it.
You want to accept certificates from "The Christian Coalitiion",
fine; you get ads, but you don't get porno SPAM.
You want to accept certificates from "The Responsible UCE Group",
hey, you can do that too.
> >> >If the government wants this information, it can run "nslookup"
> >> >against the RBL database, using any of the millions of machines the
> >> >governemnt owns, after doing a "getpeername()".
> >>
> >> Hmm... again, you've missed the point. I doubt the govt cares about
> >> the spammers;)
> >
> >Your point was that somehow, a certificate scheme requires an
> >equation with personal identity, rather than merely DNS identity.
>
> No -- the point was that it provides one more trackable datum. One
> that develops a "profile" and one adds one more "legal" proof of
> whatever. True, there is little difference between your authentication
> suggestions and what is currently available for such tracking, but why
> add to it when there appears to be so little gained?
It doesn't add to it. I fail to see the addtional data point.
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 29 12: 8:15 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (GndRsh.dnsmgr.net [198.145.92.4])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F0B1155BB
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:08:06 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net)
Received: (from freebsd@localhost)
by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA20055;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from freebsd)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Message-Id: <199909291907.MAA20055@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups)
In-Reply-To: <199909291738.KAA16940@usr06.primenet.com> from Terry Lambert at "Sep 29, 1999 05:38:51 pm"
To: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: ben@scientia.demon.co.uk, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> > > FWIW, most ISPs buy POPs (Points of Presense) from a big provider,
> > > and do not control the IP address assignment (even for static IP
> > > addresses) nor do they control the account name assignments, which
> > > must apriori not conflict with existing RADIUS records from the
> > > middle tier provider.
> >
> > Technical correction, they do control the account name assignments,
> > which is done through domainized versions of RADIUS by apending
> > a @domain that is used by a local to the POP radius proxy to forward
> > the request to the correct client of the big provider. Radiator
> > and Merit Radius both have this feature and are used extensivly
> > by the wholesale dialup providers.
>
> The technical name of this suffix is called the RADIUS "realm".
Rights, thanks, but I don't use that name for it, it confuses all the other
folks around here into thinking that I am talking about our Kerberous
stuff :-) ;-).
> Not everyone uses this, as they require license fees.
Allmost everyone in the wholesale dialup business uses this. A Radiator
licence at $1000 is pennies when your dealing with things at this scale.
The ISP end of it does not take a modified radius server if the Radiator
configuration is set to strip the realm during proxy.
>
> > We have contracts with some of these wholesale providers and we
> > totally control the account name portion. We don't even need to call
> > them when we add/delete accounts.
>
> I assume you are talking accounts using dynamic IP assignment?
Mostly, but not totatly, we can do static IP as well. We can even
inject routes to get fancier customers with IP space using these
setups. It's a lot more complicated and we only have 1 wholesaler
that is currently willing to do this, but it works just fine.
--
Rod Grimes - KD7CAX - (RWG25) rgrimes@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 29 12:10:35 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from penelope.skunk.org (penelope.skunk.org [208.133.204.51])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 899BA1591F
for <chat@freebsd.org>; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from ben@penelope.skunk.org)
Received: from localhost (ben@localhost)
by penelope.skunk.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA55144
for <chat@freebsd.org>; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:14:55 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:14:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ben Rosengart <ben@skunk.org>
To: chat@freebsd.org
Subject: a nice little mention on infoworld
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909291513100.54368-100000@penelope.skunk.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD got mentioned as a "flexible and less expensive [than Windows]
Unix" in the same breath as Solaris by Nicholas Petreley in an article
for InfoWorld two days ago.
http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayNew.pl?/petrel/petrel.htm
--
Ben Rosengart
UNIX Systems Engineer, Skunk Group
StarMedia Network, Inc.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 29 12:17: 2 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (GndRsh.dnsmgr.net [198.145.92.4])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A1F214DC6
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:16:55 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net)
Received: (from freebsd@localhost)
by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA20069;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from freebsd)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Message-Id: <199909291915.MAA20069@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups)
In-Reply-To: <199909291758.KAA17884@usr06.primenet.com> from Terry Lambert at "Sep 29, 1999 05:58:38 pm"
To: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: ben@scientia.demon.co.uk, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
...
> No matter how you look at it, it's technically possible to (1) get
> rid of the storage argument and (2) get rid of the modem transit
> argument.
Technically perhaps, but we have to implement this stuff in the time
frame of yesterday. Theory is great, we have a real job to get done
today, not next year.
>
> > > Block them animated GIF banner ads... that'll decrease your overhead.
> >
> > No, CACHE the animated GIF banner ads making it look like our pipe to
> > the internet is much larger than it really is. If I block them I'd
> > have to modify the AUP, if I make them fast our clients are just a
> > bunch of happy campers.
>
> But they are dynamic content. By definition, you won't get the
> same data each time. Not that I'd mind a single, cached FreeBSD
> banner ad, mind you, but I'm sure your own site hosting customers
> (if you have any) will want _their_ banner ads propagated.
Animated gifs are not always dynamic content, they are .gif files that
don't change most of the time.
Banner ads are fine to cache, due to the fact that when you aggregate
a large user base who all hit the same area of the internet you quickly
build up a good collection of the banner ads that area of the internet
is sending out.
We probably have a 60 to 70% hit rate on any banner adds on Yahoo and
a few other major sites. Though the pointer in the referenceing page
causes that page to be uncacheable, the pointed to (reference) is often
quite cacheable and static, and often even an animated gif.
--
Rod Grimes - KD7CAX - (RWG25) rgrimes@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 29 13:33:46 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from bachue.usc.unal.edu.co (bachue.usc.unal.edu.co [168.176.3.20])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88D3114D73
for <chat@FreeBSD.org>; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 13:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from pfgiffun@bachue.usc.unal.edu.co)
Received: from bachue.usc.unal.edu.co ([168.176.3.57])
by bachue.usc.unal.edu.co (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6)
with ESMTP id AAA4300 for <chat@FreeBSD.org>;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:33:31 -0400
Message-ID: <37F278C0.A4416A60@bachue.usc.unal.edu.co>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:38:24 -0500
From: "Pedro Fernando Giffuni" <pfgiffun@bachue.usc.unal.edu.co>
Organization: Universidad Nacional de Colombia
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony} (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: chat@FreeBSD.org
Subject: E.T. watches the cart formula races
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Hi,
I usually didn't like car racing, but since there is a Colombian in the
first place, the local news have covered it well. Juan Pablo Montoya is
an espectacular pilot...
One of the local channels was replaying some scenes from the last race
in Texas, and they noticed some shadows in the background. They are
claiming the shadows were actually UFOs, and they have some nice shots
taken from Juan Pablo's on board camera.
I probably got this one before slashdot ;-).
Pedro.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 29 14:24:34 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from guppy.pond.net (guppy.pond.net [205.240.25.2])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 772AD15908
for <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 14:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from dmp@aracnet.com)
Received: from aracnet.com (snapuser2-89.pacificcrest.net [216.36.34.89])
by guppy.pond.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA16497;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 14:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199909292116.OAA16497@guppy.pond.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 14:17:56 -0700
From: "D.M.P." <dmp@aracnet.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Ovens <mark@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
Cc: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com>, gryph@mindless.com,
dwalton@acm.org, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: We have have answers! [Was: Re: praise be to Torvalds?]
References: <199909290228.TAA11402@guppy.pond.net> <Pine.NEB.3.96.990928213909.2035B-100000@shell-1.enteract.com> <19990929181836.A280@marder-1>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Mark Ovens wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 09:41:09PM -0500, David Scheidt wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, D.M.P. wrote:
>>> Dave Walton wrote:
>>>> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/19990927/tc/19990927332.html
>>
>> It must be a joke. It isn't under the GNU Public License.
> ^^^
> God Needs Unix?
Is it possible that they didn't choose the GPL because the GNU mascot
is a goat, and Satan being a goat-man?
--
"Nothing is more noble, nothing more venerable than fidelity. Truth
and faithfulness are the most sacred excellences and endowments of
the human mind." -- Cicero
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 29 14:39:34 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from monsoon.mail.pipex.net (monsoon.mail.pipex.net [158.43.128.69])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D81BF151D0
for <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 14:39:20 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from mark@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org)
Received: (qmail 14396 invoked from network); 29 Sep 1999 21:39:18 -0000
Received: from userbl93.uk.uudial.com (HELO marder-1.) (62.188.144.200)
by smtp.dial.pipex.com with SMTP; 29 Sep 1999 21:39:18 -0000
Received: (from mark@localhost)
by marder-1. (8.9.2/8.8.8) id WAA04382;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 22:39:17 +0100 (BST)
(envelope-from mark)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 22:39:17 +0100
From: Mark Ovens <mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org>
To: "D.M.P." <dmp@aracnet.com>
Cc: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com>, gryph@mindless.com,
dwalton@acm.org, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: We have have answers! [Was: Re: praise be to Torvalds?]
Message-ID: <19990929223916.D280@marder-1>
References: <199909290228.TAA11402@guppy.pond.net> <Pine.NEB.3.96.990928213909.2035B-100000@shell-1.enteract.com> <19990929181836.A280@marder-1> <199909292116.OAA16497@guppy.pond.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i
In-Reply-To: <199909292116.OAA16497@guppy.pond.net>
Organization: Total lack of
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 02:17:56PM -0700, D.M.P. wrote:
> Mark Ovens wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 09:41:09PM -0500, David Scheidt wrote:
> >> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, D.M.P. wrote:
> >>> Dave Walton wrote:
> >>>> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/19990927/tc/19990927332.html
> >>
> >> It must be a joke. It isn't under the GNU Public License.
> > ^^^
> > God Needs Unix?
>
> Is it possible that they didn't choose the GPL because the GNU mascot
> is a goat,
Is it? I thought it was a Gnu. Well, whatever, it's not as cute as
Chuck^WBeastie ;-)
> and Satan being a goat-man?
>
> --
> "Nothing is more noble, nothing more venerable than fidelity. Truth
> and faithfulness are the most sacred excellences and endowments of
> the human mind." -- Cicero
--
STATE-OF-THE-ART: Any computer you can't afford.
OBSOLETE: Any computer you own.
________________________________________________________________
FreeBSD - The Power To Serve http://www.freebsd.org
My Webpage http://ukug.uk.freebsd.org/~mark/
mailto:mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org http://www.radan.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 29 16: 6:57 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.6.134])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F90314D8C
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 16:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from tlambert@usr08.primenet.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by smtp04.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA24213;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 16:06:46 -0700 (MST)
Received: from usr08.primenet.com(206.165.6.208)
via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpdAAA7FaqiV; Wed Sep 29 16:06:34 1999
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA07950;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 16:06:30 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199909292306.QAA07950@usr08.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups)
To: freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (Rodney W. Grimes)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 23:06:30 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, ben@scientia.demon.co.uk, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199909291915.MAA20069@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> from "Rodney W. Grimes" at Sep 29, 99 12:15:00 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> > No matter how you look at it, it's technically possible to (1) get
> > rid of the storage argument and (2) get rid of the modem transit
> > argument.
>
> Technically perhaps, but we have to implement this stuff in the time
> frame of yesterday. Theory is great, we have a real job to get done
> today, not next year.
To paraphrase you, "An i.Mail license is pennies, when you are
talking about this kind of scale".
For the DDNS support, may I suggest Microsft IAS does dynamic DNS
update in response to RADIUS for use of dynamic IPs for things
like ETRN.
You just have to know where to buy; I hate recommending a Microsoft
product for this, but since there's no integration on FreeBSD or
other OSs at this time, it's the only game in town.
> Animated gifs are not always dynamic content, they are .gif files that
> don't change most of the time.
>
> Banner ads are fine to cache, due to the fact that when you aggregate
> a large user base who all hit the same area of the internet you quickly
> build up a good collection of the banner ads that area of the internet
> is sending out.
>
> We probably have a 60 to 70% hit rate on any banner adds on Yahoo and
> a few other major sites. Though the pointer in the referenceing page
> causes that page to be uncacheable, the pointed to (reference) is often
> quite cacheable and static, and often even an animated gif.
Well, I think until people go to cascading style sheets, you
are going to be not caching a lot of information, unless you
violate the HTTP spec. and cache in contravention of the cache
control headers. 8-(.
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 29 16:45: 4 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp03.primenet.com (smtp03.primenet.com [206.165.6.133])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 983741509D
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 16:44:49 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from tlambert@usr08.primenet.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by smtp03.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA07740;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 16:44:44 -0700 (MST)
Received: from usr08.primenet.com(206.165.6.208)
via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAe3aOdp; Wed Sep 29 16:44:37 1999
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA09145;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 16:44:32 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199909292344.QAA09145@usr08.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
To: brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 23:44:32 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, alk@pobox.com, gary@eyelab.psy.msu.edu,
chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19990929112454.047535d0@localhost> from "Brett Glass" at Sep 29, 99 11:35:01 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> >"He who would trade liberty for security, deserves neither."
> > -- Benjamin Franklin
>
> The correct quote is:
>
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
> deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
Thanks. I was quoting from a fortunes file.
> The use of port 25 is not "essential" so long as a mail server is
> provided, nor is it "essential" to be able to receive e-mail sent directly
> from other ISPs' dial-ins. Freedom from spam brings INCREASED liberty, not
> less. It makes life more productive and pleasant, and assures that ISPs'
> resources aren't abused, which is a very good thing, IMHO. Your mileage
> may vary, of course.
This really has little bearing on the point that I was attacking, which
was your statement that "Ah, but they're not draconian. Our membership
overwhelmingly favored them.". A majority does not the definition of
"draconian" make; "draconian" is based on the action, not how favorably
the action is received among a sample group.
You also seem to be implying that I am somehow "pro SPAM". To my
knowledge, I am the only person whose email address was removed from
Sanford Wallace's CDROM of email addresses, for my perserverence in
following through on the dictum that "to SPAM me is to lose a relay".
It costs more money in lost relayability than you could ever hope to
get, even if I were stupid enough to buy the product you are SPAM'ming
me about. I also made it a point to contact, in writing, the people
employing his services to make the point I would not recommend their
products, under any circumstances.
In one year, I volunteered over 700 hours to help secure open
SMTP relays. This as opposed to trying to get those relays into the
ORBS or the RBL, or to get their dialup lines into DUL. In short, I
engaged in a hell of a lot more constructive (and effective) behaviour
than most people have been advocating in this thread.
> >Not to mention that they will become inoperational in the face
> >of IPv6 stateless autoconfiguration. What will you do then?
>
> I haven't looked into the issue of what IPv6 might mean to the DUL or
> RBL. However, I'm sure that Paul Vixie is. (I wouldn't mind learning
> more about the topic myself, as I certainly don't want to give up either
> facility when I move to IPv6.)
Paul has advocated that reverse addresses not be automatically
assigned to such addresses which result from IPv6 stateless
autoconfiguration.
Others have advocating a huge administrative infrastructure that
would result in such addresses being firewalled from sending packets,
with explicit stateful configuration.
The IPv6 working group (actually IPNGWG) has, understandably,
opposed both of these positions. See:
http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/ipng-main.html
for detailed information on IPv6.
Note that Paul's approach would not stop SPAM via the DUL, but
would rather stop it by the reverse lookup returning an error,
instead of returning a valid reverse mapping, as a side effect.
Most people I've discussed this with (in the DNSIND, DNSOP and
DNSSEC working groups) tend to agree that if a host has a valid
IP address that is not specifically administratively prohibited
from being routed, that the DNS server owning the delegation for
the block in which the address resides should allow a DNS update
to reflect the machines desired host and domain name.
The point is, short of firewalling all such addresses, there is
no way to prevent their assignment in an IPv6 network. This was
an intended design goal of IPv6. Once assigned, the DNS server
owning the delegation for the block in which the address resides
is _OBLIGATED_ to provide a reverse mapping, if it allows packets
originating from that address to be routed off the network.
A correct way of implementing security in the case of deciding
whether or not to route packets would be to query the home name
server for the machine, and see if the clients certificate was
signed with the home servers private key, and if so, allow the
entry.
Either way, even if you accept the nightmare of administration
associated with trying to control everything that it's possible
to control (perhaps if someone was so anal retentive that if
we shoved a lump of coal up their arse and came back an hour
later, we would find a diamond), you really can't implement IPv6
and not allow such updates, if you allow routing at all.
The classic case is a laptop from "visitor.com" in an IR-equipped
conference room at "example.com" getting an IPv6 address, and
wanting a reverse assignment as "laptop01.visitor.com" instead
of "visiting-laptop38.example.com". Maybe it needs this to get
a VPN connection to access a common installation of "PowerPoint"
for a presentation in the conference room; the reason is really
irrelevant, so long as there is one valid reason which people
may want to do this (and I can think of dozens, including that
"example.com" doesn't want administrative responsibility for the
laptop from "visitor.com"'s actions).
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 29 16:53:49 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A93E314D7B
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 16:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from brett@lariat.org)
Received: from mustang (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2])
by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA00918;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 17:53:28 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19990929174839.0538f100@localhost>
X-Sender: brett@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 17:53:13 -0600
To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, alk@pobox.com, gary@eyelab.psy.msu.edu,
chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199909292344.QAA09145@usr08.primenet.com>
References: <4.2.0.58.19990929112454.047535d0@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
At 11:44 PM 9/29/99 +0000, Terry Lambert wrote:
>This really has little bearing on the point that I was attacking, which
>was your statement that "Ah, but they're not draconian. Our membership
>overwhelmingly favored them.". A majority does not the definition of
>"draconian" make; "draconian" is based on the action, not how favorably
>the action is received among a sample group.
Draconian is in the eye of the beholder.
"Beat me, beat me!" said the Masochist. And the Sadist replied,
"Nooooooo! Muhahahahahaha!"
>You also seem to be implying that I am somehow "pro SPAM".
That wasn't the intent. But abandoning the tactics that you dislike
would lead us to receive massive amounts of spam, with no effective
recourse.
>The classic case is a laptop from "visitor.com" in an IR-equipped
>conference room at "example.com" getting an IPv6 address, and
>wanting a reverse assignment as "laptop01.visitor.com" instead
>of "visiting-laptop38.example.com". Maybe it needs this to get
>a VPN connection to access a common installation of "PowerPoint"
>for a presentation in the conference room; the reason is really
>irrelevant, so long as there is one valid reason which people
>may want to do this (and I can think of dozens, including that
>"example.com" doesn't want administrative responsibility for the
>laptop from "visitor.com"'s actions).
Sounds to me as if the ideal solution is to use a VPN, or SSH with
port redirection, to get to one's "home" mail server for both inbound
and outbound traffic.
--Brett
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 29 16:53:48 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (GndRsh.dnsmgr.net [198.145.92.4])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA3114F3D
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 16:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net)
Received: (from freebsd@localhost)
by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA21929;
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 16:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from freebsd)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Message-Id: <199909292348.QAA21929@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups)
In-Reply-To: <199909292306.QAA07950@usr08.primenet.com> from Terry Lambert at "Sep 29, 1999 11:06:30 pm"
To: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 16:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: ben@scientia.demon.co.uk, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> > > No matter how you look at it, it's technically possible to (1) get
> > > rid of the storage argument and (2) get rid of the modem transit
> > > argument.
> >
> > Technically perhaps, but we have to implement this stuff in the time
> > frame of yesterday. Theory is great, we have a real job to get done
> > today, not next year.
>
> To paraphrase you, "An i.Mail license is pennies, when you are
> talking about this kind of scale".
We are not a wholesale dial up provider, so you have missed in
your attempt to use an analogy. i.Mail would not be pennies for
us, but probably for any wholesale dial up provider.
> For the DDNS support, may I suggest Microsft IAS does dynamic DNS
> update in response to RADIUS for use of dynamic IPs for things
> like ETRN.
You can take your Microsh*t recomendations and put them where the
sun don't shine. And, yes, I know I am an officer of a corporation
who is a Microsoft DSP and shouldn't say such things, but right now
I am not acting as that officer, but as an officer of another corporation.
I also don't happen to care about providing an un-asked for by client
service by doing DDNS.
> You just have to know where to buy; I hate recommending a Microsoft
> product for this, but since there's no integration on FreeBSD or
> other OSs at this time, it's the only game in town.
First, I do know where to by _legit copies_, after all I do where the
hat of an officer of a Microsoft DSP on occasion.
I won't put a production network at the mercy of MicroSh*t. It is not
a workable solution. It requires NT, NT can not be made reliable and
secure. It is not a technical reality in the form of a working solution.
Please don't ever recommend to me again that I should look at a Microsoft
product, especially on a FreeBSD mailling list!
--
Rod Grimes - KD7CAX - (RWG25) rgrimes@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 29 20:33: 1 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 758)
id 66038152F2; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 20:32:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 5ACC11CD47B; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 20:32:11 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from kris@hub.freebsd.org)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 20:32:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kris Kennaway <kris@hub.freebsd.org>
To: Chris Piazza <cpiazza@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: chat@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/games/wmminichess - Imported sources
In-Reply-To: <199909300318.UAA06769@freefall.freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909292031280.48315-100000@hub.freebsd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Chris Piazza wrote:
> Import of wmminichess.
>
> A dockapp that puts the power of gnu chess in a windowmaker dockapp.
> *warning*: severe eye strain if you play this!
I'm still waiting for wmmozilla :-)
Kris
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 29 22:27:43 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from modgud.nordicrecords.com (h21-168-107.nordicdms.com [207.21.168.107])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 28641155C7
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 22:27:40 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from dwalton@acm.org)
Received: (qmail 5985 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 1999 05:27:40 -0000
Message-ID: <19990930052740.5983.qmail@modgud.nordicrecords.com>
Received: (qmail 5972 invoked from network); 30 Sep 1999 05:27:39 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO walton) (207.21.168.137)
by mail.nordicdms.com with SMTP; 30 Sep 1999 05:27:39 -0000
From: "Dave Walton" <dwalton@acm.org>
To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 22:25:12 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
Reply-To: dwalton@acm.org
Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a)
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no> writes:
>
> Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> writes:
> > That's "balkanization", as in the division of the balkan states
> > between nations at the end of World War II to prevent
> > reuinification and thus the potential of another Hitler.
>
> You are totally confused. This is not what happened after WWII;
> what happened after WWII was the consolidation of small central
> european countries into federal republics under communist rule.
> Balkanization refers to the division of central european countries
> into small individual nations after WWI; they were to serve as a
> buffer zone, a set of "watertight compartments" in case of a
> Soviet attempt to expand into Western Europe. World War One
> was supposed to be the War To End All Wars; instead, the
> victors' vengeful and petty attitude towards the defeated parties
> nurtured the misery, resentment and hate which allowed Hitler to
> rise to power. Hitler spoke of Germany being stabbed in the back
> after WWI; I cannot say I completely disagree with him on that
> particular point.
Indeed. I once saw a discussion of how WWI lead into WWII,
which lead into the Cold War, which contributed to a number of
smaller conflicts around the globe. The speaker's conclusion was
that all these events, from the assassination of Archduke
Ferdinand in 1914 through to the collapse of the Soviet Union in
1991, were part of a single, protracted, world war.
It's an interesting viewpoint, and one that I think has some merit.
(Good thing this is -chat!)
Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Walton dwalton@acm.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 30 3:45:57 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
id CA48B15070; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 03:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net)
Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218])
by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA09827;
Thu, 30 Sep 1999 12:45:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (from eivind@localhost)
by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id MAA77200;
Thu, 30 Sep 1999 12:45:33 +0200 (MET DST)
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 12:45:33 +0200
From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.org>
To: chat@FreeBSD.org
Cc: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@FreeBSD.org>,
cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin Makefile src/gnu/lib/libdialog Makefile src/gnu/lib/libreadline Makefile.inc src/include ucontext.h signal.h src/lib/libc Makefile src/lib/libc/alpha/gen setjmp.S src/lib/libc/compat-43 sigcompat.c src/lib/libc/gen sigsetops.c ...
Message-ID: <19990930124533.D71340@bitbox.follo.net>
References: <199909291518.IAA59949@freefall.freebsd.org> <199909291602.KAA03335@harmony.village.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3i
In-Reply-To: <199909291602.KAA03335@harmony.village.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 10:02:38AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <199909291518.IAA59949@freefall.freebsd.org> Marcel Moolenaar writes:
> : According to good taste this means that I will receive a
> : badge which either will be glued or mechanically stapled,
> : drilled or otherwise violently forced onto me :-)
>
> Yup. However, they do leave cool scars when removed later in life.
"Pain is temporary. Glory is forever. Chicks dig scars."
- Anonymous
Eivind.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 30 6:31:16 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F30E14FFF
for <chat@freebsd.org>; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 06:31:09 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from brett@lariat.org)
Received: from mustang (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.lariat.org [206.100.185.2])
by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA06236
for <chat@freebsd.org>; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 07:31:03 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19990930072751.049d3100@localhost>
X-Sender: brett@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 07:30:58 -0600
To: chat@freebsd.org
From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
Subject: Speaking of spam...
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
...check out
http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/story/story_3921.html
(just published today). Looks like a LOT of people are getting
irate about spam.... The RBL and DUL seem mild compared to
some of the measures mentioned here.
--Brett
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 30 13:48:43 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from frmug.org (frmug-gw.frmug.org [193.56.58.252])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2F321567C
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from roberto@keltia.freenix.fr)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
by frmug.org (8.9.3/frmug-2.5/nospam) with UUCP id WAA25622
for chat@FreeBSD.ORG; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 22:48:11 +0200 (CEST)
(envelope-from roberto@keltia.freenix.fr)
Received: by keltia.freenix.fr (Postfix, from userid 101)
id 67F8A8711; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 22:06:27 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 22:06:27 +0200
From: Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr>
To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
Message-ID: <19990930220627.A62609@keltia.freenix.fr>
Mail-Followup-To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG
References: <4.2.0.58.19990924144336.04490ba0@localhost> <199909242140.OAA26254@usr05.primenet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Mutt/1.0pre2i
In-Reply-To: <199909242140.OAA26254@usr05.primenet.com>
X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.0-CURRENT/ELF AMD-K6/200 & 2x PPro/200 SMP
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
According to Terry Lambert:
> stateless autoconfiguration mechanism. This is acceptable for
> IPv4, since link.local is defined to be non-routable; however,
> in IPv6, stateless autoconfiguration results in a routable
> address. THIS WAS AN INTENDED IPv6 DESIGN GOAL.
So what? ISP would make their mail server on one prefix (in IPv6 terms) and
the dialups on another one. That way, you could put the dialups prefix in the
DUL/v6.
I don't see much of a problem.
--
Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- roberto@keltia.freenix.fr
FreeBSD keltia.freenix.fr 4.0-CURRENT #74: Thu Sep 9 00:20:51 CEST 1999
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 30 18:17:32 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp03.primenet.com (smtp03.primenet.com [206.165.6.133])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20FFD14D12
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 18:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from tlambert@usr09.primenet.com)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by smtp03.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA18732;
Thu, 30 Sep 1999 18:17:10 -0700 (MST)
Received: from usr09.primenet.com(206.165.6.209)
via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAYWayHK; Thu Sep 30 18:17:04 1999
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA14430;
Thu, 30 Sep 1999 18:17:04 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199910010117.SAA14430@usr09.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
To: roberto@keltia.freenix.fr (Ollivier Robert)
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 01:17:04 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <19990930220627.A62609@keltia.freenix.fr> from "Ollivier Robert" at Sep 30, 99 10:06:27 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
> According to Terry Lambert:
> > stateless autoconfiguration mechanism. This is acceptable for
> > IPv4, since link.local is defined to be non-routable; however,
> > in IPv6, stateless autoconfiguration results in a routable
> > address. THIS WAS AN INTENDED IPv6 DESIGN GOAL.
>
> So what? ISP would make their mail server on one prefix (in IPv6 terms) and
> the dialups on another one. That way, you could put the dialups prefix in the
> DUL/v6.
>
> I don't see much of a problem.
Airport lounges with network connectivity.
Conference rooms with network connectivity.
Etc.
The world is moving toward there being no such thing as a LAN, per se,
with everything being handled via VPN. It doesn't matter where you
jack your hardware into the net, you'll be on your corporate "LAN".
You aren't going to be able to tell if something is a dialup or not,
because stateless autoconfiguration doesn't have to occur into a
particular prefix.
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Oct 1 0:22:44 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from agora.bafug.org (ip53176.transbay.net [209.133.53.176])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E631514BD5
for <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 00:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from jgrosch@agora.bafug.org)
Received: (from jgrosch@localhost)
by agora.bafug.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA00652
for freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 00:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from jgrosch)
From: Josef Grosch <jgrosch@agora.bafug.org>
Message-Id: <199910010722.AAA00652@agora.bafug.org>
Subject: BAFUG Announce
To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 00:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: jgrosch@MooseRiver.com
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL61 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
This is the monthly BAFUG posting. It contains 3 sections; Jobs, Counter,
and Retail notice. This is posted on the first of the month. If there are
any questions please send them to jgrosch@MooseRiver.com
Thanks
*** JOBS NOTICE ***
San Francisco Bay Area FreeBSD Jobs
BAFUG (Bay Area FreeBSD Users Group) has put up a web page of employers in
the San Francisco Bay Area who are looking for employees, permanent or
contact, who have FreeBSD skills. The URL is :
http://www.bafug.org/BayAreaJobs.html
Employers:
The emphasis here is FreeBSD. The job you are advertising should have
FreeBSD as a major component of the job. If you wish to advertise a job
please send the URL to your web page with the job listings to
jgrosch@MooseRiver.com.
Employees:
When contacting these employers please tell them that you saw this job
listing on the Bay Area FreeBSD Jobs page.
*** COUNTER NOTICE ***
FreeBSD Counter Project
The FreeBSD Counter project and BAFUG (Bay Area FreeBSD Users Group) have
put up the first public beta of its counter page. The Counter project is
an attempt to gauge the installed base of FreeBSD. We current do not have a
very good idea as to what is our installed base, how FreeBSD is being used
and by whom. Because of this, FreeBSD is at a disadvantage when talking to
ISVs and hardware and software vendors.
You are invited to register with the counter project. The counter page can
be found at :
http://www.bafug.org/FbsdCounter.html
Couple of caveats:
* Your information is held to be confidential. Only those on the
project, FreeBSD core group, and Walnut Creek CDROM will ever see
this information. It will _NOT_ be handed over to spammers, direct
marketers, and any of the other assorted bozos.
* Suggestions and comments are welcome!
* The database behind this page was built from the email registrations
sent to Walnut Creek. If you registered at the time of an install
chances are you are in this database.
*** RETAIL NOTICE ***
Retail outlets for FreeBSD
A common question for new users of FreeBSD is, "Where can I get a copy of
FreeBSD"? Aside from Walnut Creek CDROM (http://www.cdrom.com) there are a
number of retail outlets world wide. A partial list can be found at
http://www.bafug.org/Retail.html
Notice this is a partial list. We are collecting addresses (snail, email,
and web) of retail outlets for FreeBSD. So, send us the address of you
friendly (or not-so-friendly) store that carries FreeBSD.
--
$Id: BafugAnnounce.txt,v 1.2 1999/10/01 07:10:24 jgrosch Exp $
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Oct 1 10: 5:58 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from frmug.org (frmug-gw.frmug.org [193.56.58.252])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36F4115A97
for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 10:05:44 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from roberto@keltia.freenix.fr)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
by frmug.org (8.9.3/frmug-2.5/nospam) with UUCP id TAA17345
for chat@FreeBSD.ORG; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 19:05:39 +0200 (CEST)
(envelope-from roberto@keltia.freenix.fr)
Received: by keltia.freenix.fr (Postfix, from userid 101)
id 89F228711; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 07:54:40 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 07:54:40 +0200
From: Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr>
To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups
Message-ID: <19991001075440.A66599@keltia.freenix.fr>
Mail-Followup-To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG
References: <19990930220627.A62609@keltia.freenix.fr> <199910010117.SAA14430@usr09.primenet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Mutt/1.0pre2i
In-Reply-To: <199910010117.SAA14430@usr09.primenet.com>
X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.0-CURRENT/ELF AMD-K6/200 & 2x PPro/200 SMP
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
According to Terry Lambert:
> Airport lounges with network connectivity.
> Conference rooms with network connectivity.
This is not a problem. If one is using Mobile/IPv6, the mobile will be using
its home address for everything except traffic on the foreign network where it
will have a care-of address.
> The world is moving toward there being no such thing as a LAN, per se,
> with everything being handled via VPN. It doesn't matter where you
> jack your hardware into the net, you'll be on your corporate "LAN".
Not necessarily a VPN. With Mobile/IPv6 you can either tunnel everything
through the home agent or use the routing protocol to redirect the packets.
If the mobile is trying to send mail, it will either use its home address
(thus using its home MTA) or its care-of address (thus using a foreign
MTA). In either case, the prefix (the only interesting thing there) will be
known.
> You aren't going to be able to tell if something is a dialup or not,
> because stateless autoconfiguration doesn't have to occur into a
> particular prefix.
I don't see it much of a problem again. In all these cases, you'll be
acquiring an address in a known prefix and people can still put their "dialup"
prefixes in a DUL/v6 kind of thing.
--
Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- roberto@keltia.freenix.fr
FreeBSD keltia.freenix.fr 4.0-CURRENT #74: Thu Sep 9 00:20:51 CEST 1999
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Oct 1 14:16:33 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from lgchexch001.lgc.com (lgchexch001.lgc.com [134.132.92.92])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B113150BC
for <chat@freebsd.org>; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 14:16:15 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from RSnow@lgc.com)
Received: by lgchexch001 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
id <4CNY8XJ5>; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 16:16:14 -0500
Message-ID: <9F147E391A3FD111B9A800805F356C526BC9C2@lgcadev001.zycor.lgc.com>
From: Rob Snow <RSnow@lgc.com>
To: "'chat@freebsd.org'" <chat@freebsd.org>
Subject: Weird question for you guys - Stripe (vinum) on NFS?
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 16:16:25 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Has anyone (FreeBSD or other) ever done a stripe set on NFS mounted
filesystems? Any thoughts?
-
Rob Snow
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Oct 1 18:53:41 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from pop3-3.enteract.com (pop3-3.enteract.com [207.229.143.32])
by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4F8AB14CAB
for <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 18:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from jdm@shell-2.enteract.com)
Received: (qmail 46355 invoked from network); 2 Oct 1999 01:53:23 -0000
Received: from shell-2.enteract.com (jdm@207.229.143.41)
by pop3-3.enteract.com with SMTP; 2 Oct 1999 01:53:23 -0000
Received: (from jdm@localhost)
by shell-2.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA32747
for freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:53:23 -0500 (CDT)
(envelope-from jdm)
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:53:23 -0500
From: Jennifer Dawn Myers <jdm@enteract.com>
To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Subject: roomshare FreeBSDcon
Message-ID: <19991001205323.A32674@enteract.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.6i
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
I've got a room reserved for Tuesday - Saturday afternoon (4 nights)
at the Radisson at $149/night (they are out of FreeBSDcon rate rooms).
I'd like to share the room with someone to reduce my costs. Or, if
you have a room at the $125 rate and need a roommate, that's even better.
We can use your reservation and I'll cancel mine.
Please email me at jdm@enteract.com if you are interested.
Thanks!
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message