From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 12 09:04:50 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8189616A4B3 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:04:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.tacorp.net (mail.tacorp.net [208.20.58.199]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ABB443F93 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:04:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from raistlin@tacorp.net) Received: from mail.tacorp.net (raistlin@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.tacorp.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h9CG9OfQ042522; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:09:24 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from raistlin@tacorp.net) Received: from localhost (raistlin@localhost)h9CG9NOP042517; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:09:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.tacorp.net: raistlin owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:09:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Jason Slagle To: Brad Knowles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20031012120509.A16713@mail.tacorp.net> References: <20031011212201.GA67228@bishop.my.domain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: Greg Pavelcak cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: General Wireless Network Question X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 16:04:50 -0000 On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, Brad Knowles wrote: > With 802.11b devices, the best speed you will be able to see is > about 3Mbps, which will be shared amongst all computers on the > network. Moreover, this speed will be lowered by microwaves, > wireless headphones, remote video sender devices, anything > broadcasting on the same radio frequencies. And as the clients get > further away from the router, the speed will drop so that the > connection can be kept up. Each client will still take up the same > amount of radio spectrum, however. I don't believe this to be true.. 10mb: 9.77 MB 598.43 kB/s Thats EAISLY 4.8mbs, and it was bursting up to 7 or so. You lose 20-30% due to radio overhead, but it's clearly NOT only 3mbs. This was with a cisco card and a cisco AP in 802.11b mode. The comments about microwaves are dead on though, and what are worse are the new 2.4ghz cordless phones - but those will effect G as much as B. Jason -- Jason Slagle - CCNP - CCDP /"\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign . X - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail . / \ - NO Word docs in e-mail . From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 12 09:37:13 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC18E16A4B3 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:37:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from katrine.aae.uiuc.edu (katrine.aae.uiuc.edu [128.174.132.87]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD6DB43FCB for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:37:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dmmcf@uiuc.edu) Received: by katrine.aae.uiuc.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6301EC3A21; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:37:08 -0500 (CDT) To: Greg Pavelcak References: <20031011212201.GA67228@bishop.my.domain> From: dmmcf@uiuc.edu (D. Michael McFarland) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:37:08 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20031011212201.GA67228@bishop.my.domain> (Greg Pavelcak's message of "Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:22:01 -0400") Message-ID: <878ynqtnt7.fsf@katrine.aae.uiuc.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: General Wireless Network Question X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 16:37:13 -0000 Greg Pavelcak writes: > In the wireless world, I don't understand an access point. Right > now, we have Comcast cable internet, a 4 port router, and a few > computers all wired, and all with access to the internet. Am I right > in thinking that I can just replace the current router with a > wireless router, get some wireless network cards, and get the same > results? An easy way to start might be to add an access point to your existing LAN. You can take your time to get it working with one client, then decide if it's worth the expense and effort to go entirely wireless. I've just set up a WAP in my office and got my notebook talking to it. It wasn't a very gratifying experience, but maybe I'll feel better if it continues to work for a while. > (I'm thinking D-Link because I read in FreeBSD mail > archives that they use supported chips.) My WAP is a D-Link DWL-2000AP, an 11g device which I picked up for US$74 after a $20 rebate. I'm very disappointed with it because: 1. Configuration is done through a web interface, and the _only_ browser I've been able to make work with this is MS's Internet Explorer (and believe me, I tried a bunch of 'em). The interface seems to use JavaScript in a way only IE will tolerate, with the result that configuration changes can't be saved from other browsers. (A friend with an older D-Link WAP (different model, too) reports no such troubles.) 2. This WAP will run a DHCP server for wireless clients, but (as far as I can tell) it won't distribute addresses from any range except a range including its own IP number. This might not matter on a home network where every box is on an unrouted IP, but here my desktop machines and the WAP itself have fixed, routed addresses. This effectively renders the WAP's DHCP server useless for me. (In contrast, the Apple AirPort hub I used to have would happily sit on the net at a fixed, routed IP number and distribute addresses from, for example, 10.0.1.x.) The Cisco PCM352 (11b) card I bought for the notebook, on the other hand, is a class act. It cost more than the D-Link WAP, but it was worth it. If I had it to do over again, I'd look to Cisco for the WAP, also. If you _do_ decide to go with the D-Link WAP, though, make me an offer. :-) Michael -- D. Michael McFarland, Visiting Senior Research Scientist Department of Aerospace Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign dmmcf@uiuc.edu, www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/dmmcf From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 12 15:30:53 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F18E616A4B3 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 15:30:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.inka.de (quechua.inka.de [193.197.184.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39B0643FDD for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 15:30:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mailnull@mips.inka.de) Received: from kemoauc.mips.inka.de (uucp@) by mail.inka.de with gbsmtp id 1A8oj6-0007bA-00; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:30:12 +0200 Received: from kemoauc.mips.inka.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kemoauc.mips.inka.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9CLveQc091668 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:57:40 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from mailnull@kemoauc.mips.inka.de) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by kemoauc.mips.inka.de (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id h9CLveNG091667 for freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:57:40 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from mailnull) From: naddy@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 21:57:39 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20031011212201.GA67228@bishop.my.domain> Originator: naddy@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: General Wireless Network Question X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 22:30:54 -0000 Brad Knowles wrote: > With 802.11b devices, the best speed you will be able to see is > about 3Mbps, "11Mbit/s" nominally. In practice, I can get ~550kbytes/s out of it. That is very slow if you're used to Fast Ethernet. Not that you are going to notice for web browsing. OTOH, if you copy around CD images... > I would say that VOIP over 802.11b could very easily be marginal at > best. Oh c'mon, standard telephony voice is 64kbit/s. > Myself, I'm a strong believer in having much higher LAN bandwidth > than your WAN upstream. Funnily enough, I just ordered my first GigE parts today. -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 12 15:42:53 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE72D16A4C0 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 15:42:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FF9943FB1 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 15:42:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h9CMglC7061126; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 18:42:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <20031011212201.GA67228@bishop.my.domain> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:42:36 +0200 To: naddy@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) From: Brad Knowles Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: General Wireless Network Question X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 22:42:53 -0000 At 9:57 PM +0000 2003/10/12, Christian Weisgerber wrote: >> I would say that VOIP over 802.11b could very easily be marginal at >> best. > > Oh c'mon, standard telephony voice is 64kbit/s. That's assuming you can get connected at 11Mbits/sec theoretical throughput, which you claim you can only get about ~550kbytes/s. If you can only manage to get connected at 2Mbits/sec or 1Mbit/sec (as happens when the signal strength drops), your practical throughput will be even lower. Moreover, your bandwidth estimate for VOIP doesn't take into account protocol overhead. In addition, this doesn't take into account how much of that shared bandwidth might be sucked down by other clients. VOIP can be done over 802.11b. Vocera has proven it. But you have to have a suitable LAN infrastructure to make that feasible. A single 802.11b access point may very well have difficulty meeting those requirements. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 12 16:18:19 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3ED216A4B3 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 16:18:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dmlb.org (cpc2-cmbg4-6-0-cust36.cmbg.cable.ntl.com [81.96.76.36]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3979243FAF for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 16:18:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dmlb@dmlb.org) Received: from orac.my.domain ([192.168.200.67] helo=orac) by dmlb.org with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1A8pTc-0008mY-00; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:18:16 +0100 Message-ID: <054d01c39117$215379e0$43c8a8c0@orac> From: "Duncan Barclay" To: "Christian Weisgerber" , References: <20031011212201.GA67228@bishop.my.domain> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:18:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Subject: Re: General Wireless Network Question X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:18:19 -0000 > Brad Knowles wrote: > > > With 802.11b devices, the best speed you will be able to see is > > about 3Mbps, > > "11Mbit/s" nominally. In practice, I can get ~550kbytes/s out of > it. That is very slow if you're used to Fast Ethernet. Not that > you are going to notice for web browsing. OTOH, if you copy around > CD images... > > > I would say that VOIP over 802.11b could very easily be marginal at > > best. > > Oh c'mon, standard telephony voice is 64kbit/s. But it requires guaranteed latency for acceptable quality. All RF protocols that are designed to carry voice have contention free (i.e. reserved) periods to ensure latency. e.g. Bluetooth, HomeRF etc. That's not to say it can't be done with .11b but any 802.3 or 802.11 (802.15 MACs are different) MAC is more concerned with getting the data through whatever the latency rather than guaranteeing latency with some packet loss. > > Myself, I'm a strong believer in having much higher LAN bandwidth > > than your WAN upstream. > > Funnily enough, I just ordered my first GigE parts today. > > -- > Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-chat-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 12 18:15:03 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AA9C16A4B3 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 18:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.uninterruptible.net (mail.uninterruptible.net [64.146.146.13]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E296D43FAF for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 18:14:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@catonic.net) Received: from Spaz.Catonic.NET (tnt6-216-180-4-26.dialup.hiwaay.net [216.180.4.26]) by mail.uninterruptible.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA1A050013; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 01:14:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: by Spaz.Catonic.NET (Postfix, from userid 1002) id B7D233369; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 01:14:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Spaz.Catonic.NET (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E324C69; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 01:14:55 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 01:14:55 +0000 (GMT) From: Kris Kirby To: "Kevin D. Kinsey, DaleCo, S.P." In-Reply-To: <3F88CCC1.20909@daleco.biz> Message-ID: X-Mailer: !/bin/sh MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: General Wireless Network Question X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 01:15:03 -0000 On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Kevin D. Kinsey, DaleCo, S.P. wrote: > Yeah, wise though. "Wardriving"? Watch out for marks > on the pavement! I guess all those guys run Linux? Warchalking is a myth. -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR TGIFreeBSD IM: 'KrisBSD' "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!" This message brought to you by the US Department of Homeland Security From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 12 18:49:08 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84E0316A4B3 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 18:49:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78B3C43F3F for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 18:49:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h9D1n3C7082749; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 21:49:04 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20031011212201.GA67228@bishop.my.domain> References: <20031011212201.GA67228@bishop.my.domain> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 03:44:45 +0200 To: Greg Pavelcak From: Brad Knowles Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: General Wireless Network Question X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 01:49:08 -0000 X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 01:49:08 -0000 At 5:22 PM -0400 2003/10/11, Greg Pavelcak wrote: > Any and all input on making the transition to wireless would be > greatly appreciated. There is a very interesting white paper by Intel at that I think you would do very well to read. Covers the subject pretty well and many associated subjects. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 12 18:49:11 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE38416A4B3 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 18:49:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0741F43FA3 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 18:49:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h9D1n3C9082749; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 21:49:08 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <20031011212201.GA67228@bishop.my.domain> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 03:48:51 +0200 To: naddy@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) From: Brad Knowles Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: General Wireless Network Question X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 01:49:12 -0000 At 9:57 PM +0000 2003/10/12, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > "11Mbit/s" nominally. In practice, I can get ~550kbytes/s out of > it. That is very slow if you're used to Fast Ethernet. Not that > you are going to notice for web browsing. OTOH, if you copy around > CD images... In the white paper linked from , Intel says that the maximum theoretical network performance you can see with 802.11b is 6Mbps (the 11Mbps number is for the radio transmissions one-way), and that the practical maximum throughput they see with an excellent network infrastructure is about 1.5Mbps. And that's shared. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 13 03:46:41 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A9DB16A4B3 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 03:46:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.broadpark.no (mail.broadpark.no [217.13.4.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D83943F75 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 03:46:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from smtp.des.no (37.80-203-228.nextgentel.com [80.203.228.37]) by mail.broadpark.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id F100278A75; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:46:38 +0200 (MEST) Received: by smtp.des.no (Pony Express, from userid 666) id B462B9BDDC; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:46:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from dwp.des.no (dwp.des.no [10.0.0.4]) by smtp.des.no (Pony Express) with ESMTP id DA3A59B531; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:46:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: by dwp.des.no (Postfix, from userid 2602) id C908FB823; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:46:34 +0200 (CEST) To: naddy@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) References: <20031011212201.GA67228@bishop.my.domain> From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:46:34 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Christian Weisgerber's message of "Sun, 12 Oct 2003 21:57:39 +0000 (UTC)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.090024 (Oort Gnus v0.24) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on dsa.des.no X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: General Wireless Network Question X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:46:41 -0000 naddy@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) writes: > Brad Knowles wrote: > > I would say that VOIP over 802.11b could very easily be marginal at=20 > > best. > Oh c'mon, standard telephony voice is 64kbit/s. No. ISDN voice uses up to 64 kbps, but analog POTS uses a lot less, and standard GSM works just fine with only 9600 bps. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 14 09:53:58 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECEB316A4B3 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:53:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from firecrest.mail.pas.earthlink.net (firecrest.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.121.247]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1939B43F3F for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:53:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from user-2ivfndt.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.247.221.189] helo=mindspring.com) by firecrest.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1A9SQg-000475-00; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:53:51 -0700 Message-ID: <3F8C29A8.31FC2085@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:51:52 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= References: <20031011212201.GA67228@bishop.my.domain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-ELNK-Trace: b1a02af9316fbb217a47c185c03b154d40683398e744b8a4af0bd8f8f628f6ebd847807270530e87548b785378294e88350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c cc: Christian Weisgerber cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: General Wireless Network Question X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:53:58 -0000 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote: > naddy@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) writes: > > Brad Knowles wrote: > > > I would say that VOIP over 802.11b could very easily be marginal at= > > > best. > > Oh c'mon, standard telephony voice is 64kbit/s. > = > No. ISDN voice uses up to 64 kbps, but analog POTS uses a lot less, > and standard GSM works just fine with only 9600 bps. FWIW, in the U.S. there are two types of ISDN: the kind you are talking about here, which requires upgraded cards in the CO in order to support out of band signalling, and the kind Veriozon (formerly U.S. West) was selling for a long time which uses in-band signalling and on does 56K, but which lets you use the older Nothern Telecom DV3 switches without needing to upgrade the cards or the wires. Yeah, it's ugly. The 9600 baud in the out-of-band case comes from a separate set of wires (and is "always on", like the GSM). If you're in a Verizon area, you are going to be unlikely to be able to get this for a while (they used to use the 9600 baud switch signalling channel to send email while the 64K/128K connections were down, back in the mid 1990's, as a selling point; they could even light a blinky light on the phone when you had email waiting). -- Terry From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 16 00:12:41 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9496016A4B3 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:12:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pcwin002.win.tue.nl (pcwin002.win.tue.nl [131.155.71.72]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D6AD43FA3 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:12:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stijn@pcwin002.win.tue.nl) Received: from pcwin002.win.tue.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pcwin002.win.tue.nl (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9G7D1wt050277; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:13:01 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from stijn@pcwin002.win.tue.nl) Received: (from stijn@localhost) by pcwin002.win.tue.nl (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id h9G7D1as050276; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:13:01 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from stijn) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:13:01 +0200 From: Stijn Hoop To: Poul-Henning Kamp Message-ID: <20031016071301.GQ88224@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> References: <20031015133634.GA37556@nagual.pp.ru> <43618.1066226536@critter.freebsd.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="I4VOKWutKNZEOIPu" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43618.1066226536@critter.freebsd.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Bright-Idea: Let's abolish HTML mail! cc: Andrey Chernov cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org cc: Wilko Bulte Subject: Re: hiding e-mail adresses needed badly X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:12:41 -0000 --I4VOKWutKNZEOIPu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [imho this belongs on -chat] On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 04:02:16PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > And I personally think that by "hiding" the email addresses, you concede > defeat to the spammers. I don't want to let a bunch of low-life > con-men decide how I can and should use the InterNet. Hear hear, I wish more people would take this POV. Hiding your email address is a constant process that you can never stop doing; and once you've made o= ne mistake the spammers get you anyway. Better to implement filters and never = see them. And if they still get through, just hit 'd' (the spam I get is identifiable by subject 99% of the time), and move on... --Stijn --=20 "I used to think I was indecisive, but now I'm not so sure." --I4VOKWutKNZEOIPu Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/jkT9Y3r/tLQmfWcRApEdAJ9H3+os67WCsOBn/U5h6bXNMc59nACfUk0l S5ctYgrDzIx/AFfmOWAooZk= =ERPE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --I4VOKWutKNZEOIPu-- From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 16 09:24:57 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8458716A4B3 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:24:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from carver.gumbysoft.com (carver.gumbysoft.com [66.220.23.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFE4E43FAF for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:24:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dwhite@gumbysoft.com) Received: by carver.gumbysoft.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D628F72DA3; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:24:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by carver.gumbysoft.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D484472DA2 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:24:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:24:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug White To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20031016071301.GQ88224@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> Message-ID: <20031016091358.K29159@carver.gumbysoft.com> References: <20031015133634.GA37556@nagual.pp.ru> <43618.1066226536@critter.freebsd.dk> <20031016071301.GQ88224@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: hiding e-mail adresses needed badly X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:24:57 -0000 Reset cc: chain On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Stijn Hoop wrote: > Hear hear, I wish more people would take this POV. Hiding your email address > is a constant process that you can never stop doing; and once you've made one > mistake the spammers get you anyway. Better to implement filters and never see > them. And if they still get through, just hit 'd' (the spam I get is > identifiable by subject 99% of the time), and move on... As an active poster to the freebsd lists, I'm pretty sure that they are not a source of mails the harvesters use. My spam volume is quite low, and SpamAssassin is 99% effective against it. My work email is much, much worse. Afte several years of indiscriminate use on usenet and website signups and Outlook, it gets 3-4,000 spams per month. The company uses (used, shortly) SA 2.4; I put 2.55 (and now 2.6) on my workstation with the cutoff at 2 and some score tuning and got 30% more spam traps for an effective rate that's even better than on my private mailserver. My work email also gets the newest spam trends; I saw the bayes-buster type spams way before my home address saw them. Use SA, set the cutoff to 4, and relax. Check the spam box every so often and tune rules and whitelist as needed. Have a beer. Life is too short to agonize over spam. On the bayes buster thread, I think the spammers were doing random searches for words on Google to get the passages they use; Google recently started returning zero results for certain types of queries where the words were totally unrelated. The passages in the spams were usually from books, about the length of the google abstract. Coincidence? -- Doug White | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve dwhite@gumbysoft.com | www.FreeBSD.org From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 16 16:16:44 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1AEE16A4B3; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1151143F93; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:16:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from billf@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1098) id 08BC02ED434; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:16:44 -0700 From: Bill Fumerola To: Brett Glass Message-ID: <20031016231643.GV53023@elvis.mu.org> References: <6.0.0.22.2.20031016160155.038eca38@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20031016160155.038eca38@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.8-MUORG-20030806 i386 cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Connecting to Cisco VPN concentrator X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: devnull@freebsd.org List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 23:16:44 -0000 [ moved off of -net ] On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 04:13:19PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote: > [...] i ran your mail through the FreeBSD Relevance Algorithm[1] and these were my results: ---Attachment: text/plain -- (all) Pipe to: grep -v freebsd-net | grep -ci freebsd 0 Press any key to continue... perhaps you were looking for a cisco, windows, or ipsec forum. in the mean time, i've moved this thread to the general discussion list. -- - bill fumerola / fumerola@yahoo-inc.com / billf@FreeBSD.org 1. patent pending From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 17 03:04:48 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C42F16A4B3 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:04:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net (heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.189]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C53143F3F for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:04:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from user-2ivfl37.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.247.212.103] helo=mindspring.com) by heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AARSW-0001u1-00; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:03:49 -0700 Message-ID: <3F8FBE1F.578E0B1F@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:02:07 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Jeremy References: <20031015112920.GA36404@nagual.pp.ru> <20031015132551.GA94612@freebie.xs4all.nl> <20031016124938.354fe903.steve@sohara.org> <3F8EE390.47F355D3@mindspring.com> <20031017072459.GB1668@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: b1a02af9316fbb217a47c185c03b154d40683398e744b8a423f50fc4284b805bf352853bdda9e587350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: hiding e-mail adresses needed badly X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:04:48 -0000 Moved to -chat... Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2003-Oct-16 11:29:36 -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > >Earthlink often sucks in terms of customer service. If they would > >just designate a couple of common markers as "known SPAM", the > >problem would have gone away > > There's a fine line between 'blocking a couple of common markers' > and arbitrarily blocking domains, IP addresses and all mails containing > specific words - which some large ISPs do. What's needed is a filter > system that allows users to control what they receive - not one where > the ISP gets to decide what is/isn't delivered. The problem with a "filter system" is the CPU overhead, and the fact that it doesn't scale nearly as well as a non-filtered system. You are talking about more CPU's which means more initial cost, and more overhead for rack space, power, etc.. There are several services which do this for people, but they are not very easy to use, and they tend to work only if your email address is reachable by a domain name, and then the mail is only forwarded to a single address -- and that address refuses all mail. What I was talking about was adding 4 lines to the EXIM config on Earthlink's inbound email servers to filter based on the body of a message without MIME decoding, which they already do, for a specific pattern of "Content-Type:" with ".exe" or ".scr" in it, anchored at the start of a line. This is a tradeoff for them between the processing for the delivery of these messages to 20 of their subscribers at a time vs. spending that time instead runing a precompiled regular expresion over a line that they are examining for the purposes of SPAM filtering anyway. > When W32.Swen first hit, I was getting "mailbox near quota" messages > if I didn't empty my home mailbox for about 8 hours. Oh yeah, that's also just so incredibly brilliant: "your mailbox has too many messages in it, so we're going to send you a message complaining about people sending you messages, so that you use up more of what you close to running out of in the first place". > I asked my ISP > when they would be implementing something to let me control what was > delivered into my mailbox and eventually managed to get a "we're > looking into the problem" response. I started running fetchmail as a > work-around (which stops the quota DOS but does nothing to help my > download bandwidth). AFAIK, they still haven't done anything. My download bandwidth is no longer a problem: I wrote a program that could identify the messages without fully downloading them, and delete them (as I said before: using an octet count from the "list" command, followed by a "head" command on the messages that met the size range criteria for the offending content). You should probably consider doing something like that, instead of using "fetchmail". > And Australia's biggest ISP (Telstra BigPond) is currently getting > unfavourable mentions in Parliament and the media because it's e-mail > system can't cope - users are claiming e-mails are being delayed a > week or more, or just aren't arriving. Of course they are. Boradband providers are notorious for stopping developement when they get to "it barely works", and ignoring scalability issues until they absolutely have to deal with them by rewriting the code. It's one of the reasons we modified the sendmail sources before we deployed the IBM Web Connections NOC in Rochester, NY: we cared about scalability. > >people forced to use Earthlink ("forced", because no matter where > >I go, Earthlink buys up my damn ISP -- no one talks about *that* > >monocoluture being a threat). > > Mumble years ago, I heard a talk on this phenomenom. They problem > boils down to ISP interconnect agreements - they generally wind up > meaning the small ISP has to pay the big ISP (or Internet wholesaler) > whatever the big ISP asks because their customers need to exchange > packets with IP addresses "owned" by the big ISP and the big ISP > doesn't have as much incentive to route packets to the smaller ISP. > This is a positive feedback loop with the bigger ISP absorbing all the > smaller ones. Yeah, the peering requirements were/are almost as stupid as the ATM access fees that banks charge each other, pass onto the customers, and, based on statistical averages, cost them equal to what they cost other people, and then pass the fees onto the customers and pocket them. I fought against charging for the peering, back when it first happened (because of UUNET thinking they could drive all their competition out of business with the fees). ATM fees still piss me off, since I know for a fact that bank ATM's save them money on tellers, and that there's a strong statistical correlation (within a fraction of an order of magnitude) between number of customers vs. number of ATMs a bank has, so, on average, there's no overall differential cost to them, and they are making money off both the fees and their ability to hire fewer human beings. > Optus Internet (my home ISP) state that they block incoming traffic > to TCP/25 to prevent them being being black-listed for allowing > people to run promiscuous SMTP relays. This is probably at least > partly true. That's BS. The issue is their delegation. If they delegate the address to a customer, then it's the customer who gets blocked by the blacklists, not them. If they are handing out IP delegations, then they aren't an ISP any more, they're an NSP. That's like saying Sprint or ARIN block port 25 to avoid being blacklisted. Blacklisting occurs at the delegation level. To take this to the logical conclusion: I don't know of a single blacklist that's blacklisted the entire IP address space because the U.S. top level authority refused to blacklist Sprint because Srint refused to blacklist some NSP because they refused to blacklist some other NSP because they refused to blacklist some ISP because they refused to blacklist some individual schmuck. You blacklist an ISP when they *don't* delegate, such that there is no way to know which of the ISP's IP addresses the schmuck will use next. Blacklisting works because it works against either the schmuck, or the organization immediately above the schmuck -- by way of either diking the schmuck himself out of the Internet, or diking the next guy up from the schmuck out of the Internet, so that the schmuck's peers who are hurt by it can bring pressure to bear on the ISP. If you can directly dike out the schmuck, then there's no need to escalate to the next level up. > > A non-quotaed maildrop would fix it. > > How do you stop the weenies never deleting e-mail so their mailboxes > grow indefinitely? You push mail down onto their machines, instead of waiting around for them to come pick it up. When you've queued up all you can accept, you return a *400* erro, not a *500* error (which is what Earthlink returns: "permanent failure: don't try again"), and the blockage propagates up the queue chain until the original sender gets an immediate error on an attempt to send: "The message cannot be queued for address XYZ, try sending your message again later". > A better solution would be a soft-quota'd maildrop. As long as > you get to it every few days you don't get DOS'd but if you never > delete your mail you get bitten. Of course, from an ISP > perspective, there's the problem of several thousand mailboxes > each receiving several hundred 200KB mails each day - that's an awful > lot of maildrop disk space to have to find in a hurry. Yes. It's all about queue size and pool retention time. No matter how big/small you make the queue quota (it doesn't matter if the mail is sitting in the queue undelivered because of the quota, or sitting in their maildrop: it's still taking you disk space, as an ISP, isn't it?), you have this problem. > >Can you imagine if someone wrote one of these things to *actively* > >target an ISP with a stupid network topology like Earthlink? > > Do you know of any ISPs that do a better job of upstream filtering? Yes, several. I had one that did. It got bought by a company that left it alone that got bought by Global Crossing, that left it mostly alone, that sold their dialup customers up for a round of funding to support the stupid idea of building out a high bandwidth network, even though it was after the collapse, to Mindspring, who mostly broke things by getting rid of shell accounts who sold it to Earthlink, who can't even stop worms transitting their mail servers into user's maildrops, and whose customer service is mostly off shore, technically inept, and unable to effect changes to servers, even if they weren't separated from the servers by an ocean and their own skill set. AOL has a reputation of blocking most SPAM these days. Everyone's moving from store-and-forward to store-and-wait-for-pickup these days because it's cheaper to run a simpler infrastructure, but the long term cost is their succeptability to denial of service attacks, which is going to cost them customers in the long run. I have to wonder if the $9.95/month AOL dialup is going to have the same Anti-SPAM features as regular AOL; if so, I'll probably become a "me too! me too!", as much self loathing as that may cause. > >You could drive the company out of business by chasing all their > >subscribers away by denying them the ability to receive communications > >from almost anyone else on the Internet. I'm really surprised these > >idiots are unwilling to do anything about saving their business model > >from extinction. > > The problem is that it doesn't really hurt the ISP - they (typically) > charge for downlink usage, so they're making more money by not blocking > SPAM. The customers have to put up with it because they know the > competing ISPs aren't any better. In the US, there are not metered telephone rates, unless you are a business, or explicitly request a metered tarrif: they are all flat rate local calls, and usage isn't metered. Packets aren't like water: unused packets don't build up a surplus of packets that can be sold later, and it doesn't cost to dig a well to get the packets in the first place, or a purification plant to purify them. The cost is come the same whether the wires are used or not, and a router's chips slowly cook and motherboards become dusty and short out not matter what. So in the US, yes, in fact, SPAM does cost them money, and they can not pass the cost onto their customers except as "fixed overhead" amortized among all of them. So they have an incentive to keep customers, which means keeping them happy, and providing the service they are being paid to provide. You very easily could target any major US ISP with a worm that DDOS'ed their user's POP3 maildrops, and caused those users to go elsewhere for their service. The amusing thing is that broadband doesn't help alleviate the problem for the ISP at all: if your computer isn't on, except when you are using it, then your maildrop has time to fill up and you lose. If it's on all the time, then you're a juicy target, and you lose. Either way, unless you can deal with the issue of pool retention time and pool size, you lose. SWEN.A and similar worms delete their own messages from an infected user's mailbox, so they don't see them, and remain an effective "carrier" for proagating them. But... I guess now I'm just waiting for someone to target an ISP and put it out of business with a worm that sends a large message to a user infected with the worm, and then pretends not to see it (and doesn't delete it, either) when the user goes to download mail. If that happens once or twice, maybe we'll see ISP's start to fix things. > "Death of USENET predicted ... Film at 11" can probably be updated. Probably. -- Terry From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 16 18:05:54 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC30A16A4B3; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:05:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lariat.org (lariat.org [63.229.157.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5444F43F75; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:05:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from runaround.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.org [63.229.157.2]) by lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA21821; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:05:48 -0600 (MDT) X-message-flag: Warning! Use of Microsoft Outlook renders your system susceptible to Internet worms. Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031016190411.0390c6d0@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:05:47 -0600 To: Bill Fumerola From: Brett Glass In-Reply-To: <20031016231643.GV53023@elvis.mu.org> References: <6.0.0.22.2.20031016160155.038eca38@localhost> <20031016231643.GV53023@elvis.mu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 05:04:02 -0700 cc: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Connecting to Cisco VPN concentrator X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 01:05:54 -0000 That's rude, Bill. It is, indeed, relevant. The PPTP/PPPoE server through which the client is connecting is running FreeBSD. --Brett Glass At 05:16 PM 10/16/2003, Bill Fumerola wrote: >[ moved off of -net ] > >On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 04:13:19PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote: >> [...] > >i ran your mail through the FreeBSD Relevance Algorithm[1] and these >were my results: > >---Attachment: text/plain -- (all) >Pipe to: grep -v freebsd-net | grep -ci freebsd >0 >Press any key to continue... > >perhaps you were looking for a cisco, windows, or ipsec forum. in the >mean time, i've moved this thread to the general discussion list. > >-- >- bill fumerola / fumerola@yahoo-inc.com / billf@FreeBSD.org > >1. patent pending