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 ; 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" 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 ; 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" To: "Rodney W. Grimes" Cc: jack , Gary Palmer , Jacques Vidrine , 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: 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 ; 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 To: Mark Ovens Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [slightly OT] Win 95 upgrade CD & bochs In-Reply-To: <19990926013323.F2759@marder-1> Message-ID: 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 ; 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 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 ; 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 , Mark Ovens From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: [slightly OT] Win 95 upgrade CD & bochs Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: 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 ; 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 To: Brett Glass Cc: Todd Meister , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [slightly OT] Win 95 upgrade CD & bochs Message-ID: <19990926162920.F282@marder-1> References: <19990926013323.F2759@marder-1> <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 ; 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 From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: [slightly OT] Win 95 upgrade CD & bochs Cc: Todd Meister , chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <19990926162920.F282@marder-1> References: <4.2.0.58.19990926091648.04455b20@localhost> <19990926013323.F2759@marder-1> <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 ; 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 , chat@FreeBSD.ORG From: Gianmarco Giovannelli 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" 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 ; 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" Message-Id: <199909261743.KAA10098@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups In-Reply-To: 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 ; 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 X-Sender: lynch@bytor.rush.net To: Ruth Shanen 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: 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 ; 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 To: "Rodney W. Grimes" Cc: Gary Palmer , chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups In-Reply-To: <199909261743.KAA10098@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Message-ID: 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 ; 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" 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 > : > > 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 ; 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 Message-Id: <199909261807.OAA20083@lucifier.dial-up.user.akula.net> Subject: Re: BSD misplaced on CompUSA shelves In-Reply-To: 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 ; 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 To: Mark Ovens Cc: Brett Glass , Todd Meister , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [slightly OT] Win 95 upgrade CD & bochs References: <19990926013323.F2759@marder-1> <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 ; 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 To: Phil Regnauld Cc: Brett Glass , Todd Meister , chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [slightly OT] Win 95 upgrade CD & bochs Message-ID: <19990926193138.O282@marder-1> References: <19990926013323.F2759@marder-1> <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" 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 ; 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 To: "Rodney W. Grimes" Cc: Gary Palmer , Alex Zepeda , 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 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 ; 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 Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [slightly OT] Win 95 upgrade CD & bochs References: <19990926013323.F2759@marder-1> From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav 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: Lines: 10 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Mark Ovens 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 ; 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 To: "Kevin S. Brackett" Cc: Brett Taylor , Gianmarco Giovannelli , chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Compupic Message-ID: <19990927000304.C5787@marder-1> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i In-Reply-To: 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" 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 To: gjp@in-addr.com (Gary Palmer) Cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" , 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 ; 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 To: "Matthew N. Dodd" Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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 ; 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 , Stephan Lichtenauer , chat@FreeBSD.ORG From: Brett Glass 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 To: Andre Gironda Cc: "Scott I. Remick" , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Help me win the MS-Proxy/ipfw war In-Reply-To: <19990927181310.G24486@toaster.sun4c.net> Message-ID: 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 $8k for mine. -- - bill fumerola - billf@chc-chimes.com - BF1560 - computer horizons corp - - ph:(800) 252-2421 - bfumerol@computerhorizons.com - billf@FreeBSD.org - To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 27 21:29:45 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 758) id E66D015760; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:29:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC42D1CD473; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:29:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@hub.freebsd.org) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:29:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway To: John Howie Cc: chat@freebsd.org, "Scott I. Remick" Subject: Re: Help me win the MS-Proxy/ipfw war In-Reply-To: <014201bf095f$c1c50180$fd01a8c0@pacbell.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, John Howie wrote: > BTW Common mistake: you do not necessarily get to use Microsoft products for > free just because you are an MCSP. There are license restrictions that must > be adhered to. Good point - ISTR the license only allows you to deploy them for R&D purposes. In practice, the temptation of having the CDs there is probably too strong for many people. How Microsoft feel about this, given their stance on software piracy, would be interesting to find out :-) Kris To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 27 21:50:29 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from server.computeralt.com (server.computeralt.com [207.41.29.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4BB414CCC; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:50:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from scott@computeralt.com) Received: from scott (scott.computeralt.com [207.41.29.100]) by server.computeralt.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA03547; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 00:50:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.2.1.4.19990928004516.00a88210@mail.computeralt.com> X-Sender: scott@mail.computeralt.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.1.4 (Beta) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 00:51:51 -0400 To: Kris Kennaway , John Howie From: "Scott I. Remick" Subject: Re: Help me win the MS-Proxy/ipfw war Cc: chat@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: References: <014201bf095f$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 ; 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 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 Cc: Gianmarco Giovannelli , Stephan Lichtenauer , 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 To: "Scott I. Remick" Cc: John Howie , 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: 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 ; 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 ; 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 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 ; 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 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 ; 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 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: 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 ; 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 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 ; 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 From: Brett Glass 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 ; 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 , jdn@acp.qiv.com (Jay Nelson) From: Brett Glass 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: 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 ; 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 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 ; 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 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 ; 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 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 ; 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 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 ; 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 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: 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 ; 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 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 ; 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 To: Terry Lambert 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: 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 ; 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 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: 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 ; 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 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 ; 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 To: Brett Glass Cc: Terry Lambert , 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: 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 ; 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" 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 ; 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 From: Brett Glass 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 ; 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 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: 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 ; 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 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 ; 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 From: Brett Glass 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 ; 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" 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 ; 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" 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 ; 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" 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 ; 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" 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 ; 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" 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 ; 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" 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 ; 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 To: Terry Lambert 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: 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 ; 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" To: "Rodney W. Grimes" Cc: Terry Lambert , Jacques Vidrine , 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 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 ; 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" , tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert) From: Brett Glass 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 ; 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" , tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert) From: Brett Glass 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 ; 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 To: Terry Lambert 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: 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 ; 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." 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 ; 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 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: 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 ; 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." X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Scheidt Cc: dmp@aracnet.com, dwalton@acm.org, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: We have have answers! [Was: Re: praise be to Torvalds?] References: 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 ; 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 To: David Scheidt 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: Message-ID: 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 ; 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 To: Cliff Crawford 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: Message-ID: 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 ; 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 To: "D.M.P." Cc: David Scheidt , 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: <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 ; 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 ; 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 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 ; 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 ; 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" 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: 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 ; 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 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 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: Lines: 21 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert 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 ; 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 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: 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." 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 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 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 ; 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 To: David Scheidt 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i In-Reply-To: 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 ; 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 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 ; 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 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 ; 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 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 ; 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 From: Brett Glass 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 ; 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 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: 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 ; 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 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 ; 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 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 ; 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 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 ; 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 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 ; 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 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: 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:" Where 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 ; 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" 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 ; 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 ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:14:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:14:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Ben Rosengart To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: a nice little mention on infoworld Message-ID: 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 ; 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" 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 ; 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 ; 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" 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 ; 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." X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Ovens Cc: David Scheidt , 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> <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 ; 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 To: "D.M.P." Cc: David Scheidt , 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> <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 ; 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 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 ; 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 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 ; 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 From: Brett Glass 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 ; 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" 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 To: Chris Piazza Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/games/wmminichess - Imported sources In-Reply-To: <199909300318.UAA06769@freefall.freebsd.org> Message-ID: 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 ; 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" To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav 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 writes: > > Terry Lambert 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 To: chat@FreeBSD.org Cc: Marcel Moolenaar , 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 ; 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 ; 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 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 ; 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 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 ; 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 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 ; 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 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 ; 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 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 ; 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 To: "'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 ; 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 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