On 22 Jan 2003, at 1:26am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some, I haven't even told anyone about, so there's no way anyone can know
that I can (or expect to) receive email at them.
They have an MX record, which is all the spam robots need.
The source ip also varies ...
By how much? Are they
Hi all,
I have recently set up a web server which auth's against my corporate
LDAP server. Everything works great, the only caveat is that the
LDAP server does not currently define groups. As a result, anyone
within the company can authenticate to my web server.
Not a huge problem, but I'd
In a message dated: 22 Jan 2003 10:57:59 EST
Kenneth E. Lussier said:
Admittedly, I don't know much about LDAP, but what about this... Could
you run your own LDAP server that replicates only selected entries from
the Corp. LDAP server, and append attributes to the entries? Then you
could do the
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 09:05:19AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can't really spoof the source IP address of a TCP connection. (Well,
you can, but the TCP handshake will never complete, making it rather
useless.)
Sure you can, if you can guess the initial
This is happening to the servers hosting GNHLUG. Same scenario - every
2 hours or so and all from john@... And he seems to come from open relays.
I've had to firewall out some of the relays he's been using, but he's still
chewing up megabytes/day in log files. I'll have to put another disk on
In a message dated: 22 Jan 2003 11:21:11 EST
Kenneth E. Lussier said:
On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 10:52, Derek Martin wrote:
I can't say for certain, but I'm strongly inclined to doubt it. I
can't recall having seen any sort of authentication scheme of any sort
that allows you to mix credentials
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 9:15am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can't really spoof the source IP address of a TCP connection.
(Well, you can, but the TCP handshake will never complete, making it
rather useless.)
Sure you can, if you can guess the initial sequence number for the TCP
On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 11:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's exactly what I'm looking for. Any pointers?
Again, I'm not an expert on this, and I can neither confirm nor deny
that any of my ideas will work (but the more I type them, the more
people around me think that I am actually busy ;-)
In a message dated: 22 Jan 2003 11:47:23 EST
Kenneth E. Lussier said:
In your .htaccess file, try something like:
AuthLDAPAuthoritative On
AuthLDAPURL ldap://server/basedn?attr?scope?filter
require group foo
AuthType Basic
Yeah, the problem is I need a way of saying auth against LDAP, and if
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You can't really spoof the source IP address of a TCP connection. (Well,
you can, but the TCP handshake will never complete, making it rather
useless.)
Well, I wouldn't call this useless, since you can accomplish certain
(nefarious) tasks this way.
--kevin
--
On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 11:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AuthLDAPAuthoritative is set to On by default, the problem is that it
only allows other modules to be used for authentication if it *fails*,
so you can have a multiple auth mechanisms as backups to LDAP, but
I can't seem to find
If this happens much longer, I'm going to have to get out the baseball bat.
Prediction: before January 2005 somebody will lose their
life as a direct consequence of their involvement with SPAM.
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bob Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(somebody else probably has the URL more readily available than I).
http://razor.bindview.com/publish/papers/tcpseq.html
http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/newtcp/
Regards,
--kevin
--
Kevin D. Clark / Cetacean Networks / Portsmouth, N.H. (USA)
Folks,
I'm Bill Cornell. This past year I've been off-and-on involved with the Rye school system's technical directions through SAU50. (SAU50 covers Portsmouth, Greenland, Rye, and Newcastle.)
My focus has been on the computer network the school is trying to put in place. Keeping in mind that
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 10:12am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They have an MX record, which is all the spam robots need.
Pardon my butting in, but what is an MX record?
MX = Mail Exchanger. An MX record is a record in the DNS that designates
the mail exchanger for a given domain name. Other
On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 10:12, Erik Price wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 22 Jan 2003, at 1:26am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some, I haven't even told anyone about, so there's no way anyone can know
that I can (or expect to) receive email at them.
They have an MX record, which
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 10:26am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However it is still possible to spoof the source, IF the attacker has
control of some machine (i.e. a router) which lives in the path ...
Well, this has turned into a semantic distinction. I generally consider
spoofing to be a passive
Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However it is still possible to spoof the source, IF the attacker has
control of some machine (i.e. a router) which lives in the path the
target host would use to send packets to the host which actually has
the IP being used for spoofing (man, I hope
Even basic HTTP authentication can do this.
You have a passwd file and a group file. You can in your access setup do
a require group blah where blah is the name of the group. I've done
it before with mod_auth_pam to restrict certain interface pages to
people in the admin group.
Check this
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 09:05:19AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The source ip also varies ...
By how much? Are they all within the same netblock?
Nope. Quite a bit of variation. All the way from 12.x.x.x to 218.x.x.x.
So far, 107 attempts from 59 unique address.
... I'm not
Details of the meeting:
Who:Vince McHugh, Systems Support Manager NECS\Canon
What: High End Linux Printing, using CUPS, Scanning and Imaging
documents to a Linux desktop.
When: 19:30, 29 January 2003 (Note, this is NEXT week)
Good afternoon all,
can someone tell me the best method to copy files from a auto mounting
home directory, which comes from a Solaris box, to a linux box. I'm
setting up a server on Dell Poweredge 4600 running Linux 7.3 which,
when finished, will be where most if not all of our exports will
I would use rsync.
--
Robert E. Anderson email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Systems Programmer phone: (603) 862-3489
UNH Research Computing Centerfax: (603) 862-1761
In a message dated: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:53:46 EST
Robert Anderson said:
I would use rsync.
Not rEmacs? It has everything, including the kitchen sync ;)
--
Seeya,
Paul
--
Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853 E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE
It may look like I'm just sitting here doing
Well you could run rsync from an emacs shell.
But then again I'm sure we'll be getting a PERL solution soon. The
other swiss army knife of Unix. (Although emacs could make the PERL
look pretty too). ;)
--
Robert E. Anderson
Robert Casey wrote:
I would like to do this copy and keep permissions if possible.
rsync, tar, or cp -ax would seem logical. Does this have to be done at
each boot or is it a one-time deal?
--
Regards, | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GNU/Linux: superior tools
.| http://www.golgotha.net
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 4:32pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P.S. Which opens up the discusson - what do you do if you want a permanent
email address?
Pay for it.
You can register your own domain. That is a fairly safe way to do things.
As long as you pay the bills, it is fairly unlikely
This was on a tech site but I have never used it:
Robin Hurd
16 Dec 2002, Rating 3.83 (out of 5)
This tip will allow you to copy directory trees without worrying about ownerships,
permissions,
etc. (Note: This command is good for Unixes without a recursive copy command) The
FIND
Hewitt Tech said:
P.S. Which opens up the discusson - what do you do if you want a permanent
email address? I'm signed up at bigfoot and will likely re-subsribe from
that email/domain address.
I got my address, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at http://www.register.com. $35 for
2 years. I redirect it to
P.S. Which opens up the discusson - what do you do if you want a
permanent email address? I'm signed up at bigfoot and will likely
re-subsribe from that email/domain address.
I absolutely concur with what others have said about getting your own
domain name. I've been lucky: my well.com address
I had not heard about the prices going up. I know the raised them recently if
you did not have cable tv as well, but if they keep raising the price, I may
investigate Earthlink or dial up till something else comes available in my
area. Unfortunately ATT have a monopoly in my area as there is
I'm not positive they're going to raise rates. They say on their web page
that they will be considering services and pricing whatever that means.
-Alex
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Hewitt Tech [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003
Actually, I do both. I have registered a couple of domain names and one is
hosted. I also decided that the bigfoot service for $9.95/quarter was
reasonable and I've already asked our online friends to use my bigfoot
address. I was just curious about who was using what and for how much. As
much as
I certainly was aware that Comcast had bought ATT broadband.
For some reason I assumed that since ATT owned the ATTBI.COM
domain name that customers wouldn't need to change their
email addresses. But apparently that's not true. Has anyone
heard anything different? Given that we had to
There are also hints that they will be raising prices again.
Considering that ATT just did this within the last couple of
months, it's a bit amazing. Maybe they subscribe (no pun
intended) to the What the market will bear school of
marketing. Maybe they haven't heard that a lot of high
I meant to send this to the list, sorry you'll see it twice Travis ;^)
-Alex
- Original Message -
From: Hewitt Tech [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Travis Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: Email hosting (was: ATTBI/Comcast rant)
I recall reading an
It continues to amaze me how short people's memories are.
It was not long ago at all that an Internet feed of the speed
you get from a cable ISP would cost you thousands of dollars
per month. Not that I am in any way defending the
ATT/Comcast monopoly; I just don't understand how
Dear all:
Wow! Quite a response. Thanks guys. Currently, my plan is to find out the name of
the Technology Coordinator at EHS and start from there. As things go on, I can
forsee the need for a meeting, especially if the administration is receptive.
If the TC is unreceptive, then I guess we
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 7:26pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What *does* it cost to deliver high speed?
Do you really want an answer to that?
For the small DSL CLEC case, you have: Local loop charges. CO facilities
rental. CO equipment. Data link between CO and ISP NOC (T1, multiple T1s,
or
Ah yes, but why, after a pile of telecommunications companies
went bankrupt laying thousands of miles of buried
fibre-optics cables are we still talking about dial-up
connections? What *does* it cost to deliver high speed? For
that matter, I think copper/fibre is passé. It should be
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 8:42pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As of my last bill, my broadband connection now costs almost double what
it did a year ago ($60.99 vs. $35/mo). That's absurd. There's no
incentive to keep them low. It's that simple.
If it's so simple, why don't you go start a
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 9:04pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... There's no correction here ...
Then please explain to me why almost every single DSL company has gone out
of business.
--
Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do |
| not
I never said it was cheap ...
[ then, later on in the same paragraph ]
... Cable Internet should be dirt cheap for them to provide ...
Which is it?
Cheap to get started from SCRATCH.. ATT already has a HUGE setup
already in place reselling T's and having peers so they didn't even have
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 9:00pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The exsiting ISP, be it Vitts, MV, Joe Blow local ISP, they should already
have ISP backbone equipment in place for their dialups.
Just because a business is already in possession of something doesn't mean
you can call it free. Even if
Providing two-way packet-switched unicast data services is a
*completely
different* scenario.
It isn't. Or, it is... but the same head end does both, over
the same coax. So it doesn't matter.
Exactly! They needed to redo the cable plant to offer just one of the
three services they
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 9:36pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then please explain to me why almost every single DSL company has gone
out of business.
Because they're still need Verizon to set up the line for them..
Look, Verizon may be a bunch of incompetent morons (they are), but the
fact that
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 9:00pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The exsiting ISP, be it Vitts, MV, Joe Blow local ISP, they should
already have ISP backbone equipment in place for their dialups.
Just because a business is already in possession of
something doesn't mean you can call it free.
Look, Verizon may be a bunch of incompetent morons (they
are), but the fact that it takes them a month to provision a
line doesn't mean everyone goes out of business. It's take
years for DSL to reach general availability; an additional
month isn't going to make a difference.
That's
I know that, but I imagine they still need equipment.
But the point you seem to be missing is that the equipment is THE VERY
SAME equipment which runs the already profitable cable business.
I'm not missing it at all; I'm assuming that isn't true.
Look, to deliver television -- even
49 matches
Mail list logo
