Re: noip service on a b-focus 312
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Lior Kesos wrote: The thing about linux/FOSS is that (as the perl moto says) There like a gazillion ways to do anything. In this case it was to update my ip at noip2 and I went to alot of redundent work and have like 4 different ways of doing that including a python agent I started writing. So I didn't even find out if dproxy works and just googled the surface of what it is and how it can help me - which isn't much because I solved my problem 3 solutions ago :). regards Lior So if you use a large enough microscope(s) to bash in the nail then it's ok once the nail is in ? ;-) Peter = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Fixing curraptd partition afther power failure
Maybe try to use fstools outside of your rootfs? I've heard of a similar situation when the ext fs tools were effected them self. Cheers, Ohad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ik Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 9:39 PM To: linux-il@linux.org.il Subject: Fixing curraptd partition afther power failure Hi, I have a power failure several days ago. Since then, my root partition have problem with cleaning the inods. Regardless of fsck attempts, that keep reporting that everything is ok (next mount will clean the lost inods), but I'm unable to compile things, many programs stopped responding or die because of memory loss and even some installation of packages are corrupted and i'm unable to remove correctly without destroying some of my system. I also used badblocks in order to see if some sectors are corrupted and everything reported ok. I'm using Debain unstable (originally sid net install). Is there any other way that I can fix the inods instead of reinstalling the system (I really hope it will not come to that). Thank you for any help, Ido -- Health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MF vs. LAMP - orthogonal to closed vs. Free (was: Re: Off topic - open vs. closed sources Re: compiling expect sources or easy to use c++ engine?)
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005, Omer Zak wrote about MF vs. LAMP - orthogonal to closed vs. Free (was: Re: Off topic - open vs. closed sources Re: compiling expect sources or easy to use c++ engine?): Nowadays, IBM is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) supporters of Linux developments. They are in the business of tailoring solutions for customers, rather than selling shrink-wrapped software. Therefore, using Linux and Linux-based software makes a lot of business sense for them. Actually, that is not as simple as it sounds. First, the plain fact is that most software that IBM is currently involved in is NOT open source or free software. Second, IBM has to face, and in the future this will become even more urgent, the problem of how to avoid making a complete transformation from a research and development company, into a low profit margin chevrat co'ach adam (how do you say that in English?). It is not clear that it is in IBM's (and other companies, like Nzer's) best interests to stop hiding their home-grown software, and instead to just get paid, by-hour of support person, for the specific fixes and upgrades the users want. Like Nzer said, there's a limit to what you can charge for an expert's hour (if you overcharge, they'll just find a cheaper expert), while there's almost no limit to what you can charge for new software. Obviously, the IBMs and similar companies of the world will need to face competition from some small company that comes to a customer and tells him We can install for you a piece of free software, and only charge you half what you pay now - we will modify this software software to fit exactly what you need. And indeed, such companies are appearing and causing headaches to companies that want to keep their old marketing techniques. But apparently, these headaches are not (yet?) big enough to force the entire market to change its ways. -- Nadav Har'El| Thursday, Jun 30 2005, 23 Sivan 5765 [EMAIL PROTECTED] |- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |The socks in my drawer are like http://nadav.harel.org.il |snowflakes: No two are alike. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: noip service on a b-focus 312
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 12:07:41AM +0200, Lior Kesos wrote: I put the noip binary on a web server on my host and then ran wget from the router while I was on /var that seems to be writeable. Just note that /var is tmpfs, recreated at reboot. -- Didi = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A new venture - preventing spam
Dear Linux-IL subscribers, I'm looking for people who are interested in founding with me a new venture related to preventing spam. The anti-spam market is a big market and in 2 or 3 years it's expected to become a market of billions. I already have an idea of solving this problem. I believe that with the right people with me we'll be able to find a solution to this problem. If any of you is interested, please contact me for more information. Best Regards, Uri Even-Chen Speedy Net Raanana, Israel. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +972-9-7715013 Website: www.uri.co.il = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Off topic - open vs. closed sources Re: compiling expect sources or easy to use c++ engine?
Nzer Zaidenberg wrote: but its worth noting that if you will act as you act (espcially at your age) you will be treated as a less then progessional person. more so, you give other open source advocates like me bad reputation Nzer, I stayed out of the argument up till now, because I really don't like trolls, but I have to tell you that reading what and how you both wrote sure makes one of you come out as a less then progessional person (I do assume you meant proffesional, right?) but it sure ain't Oron. You can screw your customer as much as you (and they) want, and it really isn't our business untill you made it one by coming to this public mailing list and asking for help to screw your customers. Don't like what we have to say? though. It's not about open source and software, it's about being a human being. PS. Have you considered the fact that this is a public and archived mailing list? anyone who is about to do business with your company and has two bits for a brain will read this little exchange. I doubt that it bode well for you and your reputation. Have a nice life, Gilad -- Gilad Ben-Yossef [EMAIL PROTECTED] Codefidence. A name you can trust(tm) Web: http://codefidence.com | SIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IL: +972.9.8650475 ext. 201 | Fax:+972.9.8850643 US: +1.360.2275194 ext. 201 | Cel: +972.52.8260388 I am Jack's Overwritten Stack Pointer -- Hackers Club, the movie = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Off topic - open vs. closed sources Re: compiling expect sources or easy to use c++ engine?
Nadav Har'El wrote: Actually, sadly, he almost convinced me. Indeed, imagine a market where you can sell your software to 100 installation, for a price of $100,000 each (just making numbers up). That's all great, but how do you get more income after that? Most companies like to get more money from improvements and upgrades. Aside from all the usual arguments about whether it's right to REQUIRE income after that, whether the company deserves said income or not, there is a more fundamental difference. Having the source does not mean open source. The very fact that the program is an expect tcl script, and therefor readable to the client, does not imply that the client is at liberty to change it and do with it as they please. In other words, what Nzer is looking for is a way to technically prevent the clients from doing what they LEGALLY are not allowed to do anyways. Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. Have you backed up today's work? http://www.lingnu.com/backup.html = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Firefox 0wn3d (possibly by its masters)
I caught Mozilla connecting to 140.211.166.210:443
This ip resolves to '.' but all its neighbors 140.211.166.{209,211} etc
resolve to mozilla hosts. The ip range is owned by the Oregon (USA)
Education System (cf. ARIN Whois).
Can anyone confirm that their Firefox connects to an address in this
range without being asked to at least once a day. The connection causes
a certain amount of disk activity. I will try to look at what changed.
I have software updates turned off. I will search the firefox binary and
all files for this IP in many forms and I will booby trap my dns to log
any activity in this range.
Please share information on this.
Questions:
1. If it's a RSS feed update or such public information, then why does
it use 443 (https)
2. If it is not public information, then WHAT is it ?
3. Why has this IP no human-readable DNS name when all its neighbors
have one.
Peter
=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Firefox 0wn3d (possibly by its masters)
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 12:55 +0300, Peter wrote:
I caught Mozilla connecting to 140.211.166.210:443
This ip resolves to '.' but all its neighbors 140.211.166.{209,211} etc
resolve to mozilla hosts. The ip range is owned by the Oregon (USA)
Education System (cf. ARIN Whois).
For your first claim:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ hostx 140.211.166.210
Name: osprox01.mozilla.osuosl.org
Address: 140.211.166.210
For your second claim:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ hostx addons.mozilla.org
addons.mozilla.org A 140.211.166.210
addons.mozilla.org A 140.211.166.211
Yes, this is mozilla update, and that sites runs with SSL by default.
--
shimi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Openoffice and unicode and windows 98
Hi, Is anyone else experiencing the following problem: - Take a Hebrew excel file created on Windows 98 - edit it with Openoffice on Linux (locale he_IL.UTF-8) - Send it back to the person who sent it to you - They try to open it and see squares instead of Hebrew letters (what probably indicates that it was transformed to Unicode which is not available on Windows 98, but I'm just guessing) The same file can be opened on Windows 2000 (that supports Unicode) in the same office version. This happens repeatedly - i.e. every time I edit an excel sent from a Windows 98 and send it back the letters are shown as squares. Any ideas what's happening or how to solve it? - Aviram = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[job offer] FSF is hiring
To whom it may concern ;-). http://www.fsf.org/news/fsfsysadmin.html = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Getting the IP address of eth0 in a kernel module
Hello, Is there a way to get in a kernel module the ip address which is assigned to eth0 ? (for the simplicity let's assume that there is only eth0 and no eth0:1 and so on ; and that there is another ethN (where N1). I of course know about the ifconfig of net-tools, but this is a user space app which opens a socket; I want to get the IP address of eth0 in a module in kernel space I assume that there is an IOCTL call which does this but googling did not gave much success. Regards, Amir _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Openoffice and unicode and windows 98
Aviram yes. Windows 98 does Unicode differently - AFAIK it doesnt support UCS-2 like OO and MS Office require and modern OS's like NT, 2k and XP (and *x) all support you're screwed dL Aviram Jenik wrote: Hi, Is anyone else experiencing the following problem: - Take a Hebrew excel file created on Windows 98 - edit it with Openoffice on Linux (locale he_IL.UTF-8) - Send it back to the person who sent it to you - They try to open it and see squares instead of Hebrew letters (what probably indicates that it was transformed to Unicode which is not available on Windows 98, but I'm just guessing) The same file can be opened on Windows 2000 (that supports Unicode) in the same office version. This happens repeatedly - i.e. every time I edit an excel sent from a Windows 98 and send it back the letters are shown as squares. Any ideas what's happening or how to solve it? - Aviram = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Danny Lieberman Visit us at http://www.software.co.il Office + 972 8 970-1485 Cell + 972 54 447-1114 = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Openoffice and unicode and windows 98
On Thursday 30 June 2005 14:54, Danny Lieberman wrote: Aviram yes. Windows 98 does Unicode differently - AFAIK it doesnt support UCS-2 like OO and MS Office require and modern OS's like NT, 2k and XP (and *x) all support But how do word/excel do their magic? you're screwed :-( dL - Aviram = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Firefox 0wn3d (possibly by its masters)
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, shimi wrote:
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 12:55 +0300, Peter wrote:
I caught Mozilla connecting to 140.211.166.210:443
This ip resolves to '.' but all its neighbors 140.211.166.{209,211} etc
resolve to mozilla hosts. The ip range is owned by the Oregon (USA)
Education System (cf. ARIN Whois).
For your first claim:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ hostx 140.211.166.210
Name: osprox01.mozilla.osuosl.org
Address: 140.211.166.210
For your second claim:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ hostx addons.mozilla.org
addons.mozilla.org A 140.211.166.210
addons.mozilla.org A 140.211.166.211
Yes, this is mozilla update, and that sites runs with SSL by default.
And what the flowers does it do updating when I have updating turned off
? And I caught it staying open on that connection for nearly 15 minutes.
Lots of nothing ?
Other, the dns resolved 140.211.166.210 '.' when using dproxy but as you
show using another named. Conclusion: dproxy is broken. True ?
Peter
=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Openoffice and unicode and windows 98
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Aviram Jenik wrote: Hi, Is anyone else experiencing the following problem: - Take a Hebrew excel file created on Windows 98 - edit it with Openoffice on Linux (locale he_IL.UTF-8) - Send it back to the person who sent it to you - They try to open it and see squares instead of Hebrew letters (what probably indicates that it was transformed to Unicode which is not available on Windows 98, but I'm just guessing) The same file can be opened on Windows 2000 (that supports Unicode) in the same office version. This happens repeatedly - i.e. every time I edit an excel sent from a Windows 98 and send it back the letters are shown as squares. Any ideas what's happening or how to solve it? In what format did you save it from Oo ? Oo uses only unicode internally. Peter = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Openoffice and unicode and windows 98
MS Office 2k and above use UCS-2 for the content, MS Office does its magic because it recognizes documents generated on older versions of the operating system - you will see that there is a file format called Excel 5.0/95 Aviram Jenik wrote: On Thursday 30 June 2005 14:54, Danny Lieberman wrote: Aviram yes. Windows 98 does Unicode differently - AFAIK it doesnt support UCS-2 like OO and MS Office require and modern OS's like NT, 2k and XP (and *x) all support But how do word/excel do their magic? you're screwed :-( dL - Aviram -- Danny Lieberman Visit us at http://www.software.co.il Office + 972 8 970-1485 Cell + 972 54 447-1114 = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Openoffice and unicode and windows 98
On Thursday 30 June 2005 14:36, Peter wrote: - They try to open it and see squares instead of Hebrew letters (what probably indicates that it was transformed to Unicode which is not available on Windows 98, but I'm just guessing) In what format did you save it from Oo ? Oo uses only unicode internally. OpenOffice calls it Microsoft Excel 97/2000/XP Peter - Aviram = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A new venture - preventing spam
Hi Matan, I know you won't like my advice, and will ignore it, but it must be said: Your idea will not work. Thanks for your advice, but I'm curious - how do you know? I didn't write any details about my idea. If you don't have any details, how do you know that it won't work? Best Regards, Uri Even-Chen Speedy Net Raanana, Israel. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +972-9-7715013 Website: www.uri.co.il = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting the IP address of eth0 in a kernel module
Umm... As far as I could see there's not easy way of doing it.
Here's a small sample application I wrote... hopefully it'll help you.
get_ip,c: Get the first IP assigned to an Ethernet device.
=
#include linux/init.h
#include linux/kernel.h
#include linux/module.h
#include linux/moduleparam.h
#include linux/inetdevice.h
#include linux/netdevice.h
MODULE_DESCRIPTION(Test Module);
MODULE_AUTHOR(Gilboa Davara);
MODULE_LICENSE(GPL);
static int ethernet_id = 0;
module_param(ethernet_id,int,0400);
MODULE_PARM_DESC(ethernet_id,Ethernet device to display);
static int __init test_startup(void)
{
struct net_device *device;
struct in_device *in_dev;
struct in_ifaddr *if_info;
char dev_name[20];
__u8 *addr;
sprintf(dev_name,eth%d,ethernet_id);
device = dev_get_by_name(dev_name);
in_dev = (struct in_device *)device-ip_ptr;
if_info = in_dev-ifa_list;
addr = (char *)if_info-ifa_local;
printk(KERN_WARNING Device %s IP: %u.%u.%u.%u\n,
dev_name,
(__u32)addr[0],
(__u32)addr[1],
(__u32)addr[2],
(__u32)addr[3]);
return 0;
}
static void __exit test_exit(void)
{
}
module_init(test_startup);
module_exit(test_exit);
=
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 13:45 +0300, Amir Binyamini wrote:
Hello,
Is there a way to get in a kernel module the ip address which is
assigned
to eth0 ?
(for the simplicity let's assume that there is only eth0 and no
eth0:1 and so on ; and that there is another ethN (where N1).
I of course know about the ifconfig of net-tools, but this
is a user space app which opens a socket; I want to get the IP address
of eth0 in a module in kernel space
I assume that there is an IOCTL call which does this but googling
did not gave much success.
Regards,
Amir
_
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Gilboa Davara [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A new venture - preventing spam
On 30/06/05 17:03, Nadav Har'El wrote: SPF is probably the best solution I know of for this problem which still keeps your plausible deniability (i.e., gpg is TOO strong) That's an important and often-missed drawback of signed e-mail, but not an inherent one. There are well-established cryptographic solutions letting Alice sign a message to Bob in a way that Bob will be convinced, but not anyone else. This is done by forming a signature that could have been created by *either* Alice or Bob. When Bob gets such a signature he knows he didn't create it so Alice must have, but if Bob shows that signature to a 3rd party, the 3rd party would say but you could have forged that yourself!. This is called a designated-verifier signature, and GPG doesn't support it. The catch is that the above requires both Alice and Bob to have key pairs and know each other's public key. So it's not applicable in all scenarios, unless combined with PKI or identity-based signatures/encryption. Still, it's applicable in many cases that are now unaddressed. Eran = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting the IP address of eth0 in a kernel module
Hello, Thnks; I was wrong and you are right : ioctls are really inefficient in this case. Regards, Amir From: Baruch Even [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Amir Binyamini [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: linux-il@linux.org.il Subject: Re: Getting the IP address of eth0 in a kernel module Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:00:10 +0100 Amir Binyamini wrote: Hello, Is there a way to get in a kernel module the ip address which is assigned to eth0 ? First, you want the struct net_device *, use dev_get_by_name(), find it in include/linux/netdevice.h Use __in_dev_get() to convert the net_device to 'struct in_device *'. To do it properly you'll use in_dev_get() and when you finish with it use in_dev_put(). Use for_primary_ifa(in_dev) to search the primary addresses of the device. (for the simplicity let's assume that there is only eth0 and no eth0:1 and so on ; and that there is another ethN (where N1). I of course know about the ifconfig of net-tools, but this is a user space app which opens a socket; I want to get the IP address of eth0 in a module in kernel space I assume that there is an IOCTL call which does this but googling did not gave much success. IOCTLs? inside the kernel? It might be possible but you are in the kernel, so you have access to the kernel data structures... Besides, using netlink is the right way. Baruch _ Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.com/ = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A new venture - preventing spam
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 04:17:18PM +0300, Uri Even-Chen wrote: Someone else wrote: I know you won't like my advice, and will ignore it, but it must be said: Your idea will not work. Thanks for your advice, but I'm curious - how do you know? I didn't write any details about my idea. If you don't have any details, how do you know that it won't work? If it's really novel and never done before, you could patent it. If not, everyone else will use it as soon it becomes public. If handled propery you can get over two years of secrecy by the patent office (you file in the US). The big problem will be that the day after your idea is published (18 months after a real patent application), if it leaks out or you write an article, GPL it, etc. the spam producers will have figured out a work aorund and it will be worthless. If you follow the sendmail mailing lists and newsgroups you will see people publishing their ideas to prevent spam. The joke is often on them as the spam producers also read the postings and start working on workarounds before the idea hits the general public. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel [EMAIL PROTECTED] N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (077)-424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 VoN Skype: mendelsonfamily. Looking for work as a CTO or consultant in handheld gaming, large systems development, handheld device construction, etc. See U.S. patent applications 20050108591, 20050107165. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fixing curraptd partition afther power failure
Hi First of all thank you all for the replays. I forgot to mention that I'm using ext3, and all of my fsck operation where using live cd. Another issue (that I tested today), is that strace on gcc hangs on waitpid command, while gcc open to me infinite number of processes. While I made chroot the partition on the rescue disc, gcc worked as it should without any problems. So I really can't understand whats wrong with my system. Ido On Thursday 30 June 2005 10:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe try to use fstools outside of your rootfs? I've heard of a similar situation when the ext fs tools were effected them self. Cheers, Ohad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ik Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 9:39 PM To: linux-il@linux.org.il Subject: Fixing curraptd partition afther power failure Hi, I have a power failure several days ago. Since then, my root partition have problem with cleaning the inods. Regardless of fsck attempts, that keep reporting that everything is ok (next mount will clean the lost inods), but I'm unable to compile things, many programs stopped responding or die because of memory loss and even some installation of packages are corrupted and i'm unable to remove correctly without destroying some of my system. I also used badblocks in order to see if some sectors are corrupted and everything reported ok. I'm using Debain unstable (originally sid net install). Is there any other way that I can fix the inods instead of reinstalling the system (I really hope it will not come to that). Thank you for any help, Ido -- God, grant me the Senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the Good Fortune to run into the ones I do, And the Eyesight to tell the difference. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A new venture - preventing spam
Nadav Har'El wrote: The theoretical problem with spam prevention is that it is an arms race, the people who do it have a (large) economic motivation, and it is just an example of the broader problem of abuse of power in our society (I see a mailbox? I can stuff my ad there, so why not. I see a wall? I can write my name there, so why not. A computer will do whatever I tell it? So let's see if I can tell other people's computers to format their hard drive). However, in practice, the spam problem *can* be alleviated. And you (Uri) have a good track-record of coming up with ideas that DO WORK well (namely, speedy.co.il), so I wish you the best of luck. Spam filtering, for example, does work. Since spam started, I have received a whopping 100,000 (!) spam messages, and only about 200 got through me home-grown filters (that also use colaborative spam blacklists like RBLs and Vipul's razor). Nowadays I get about 125 spams a day (!). Without spam filtering, I would not have been able to read email at all. In addition to text-based filtering and online up-to-the-minute collaborative blacklists, there are new tricks that aim to fix the fundamental problem of SMTP mail: no authentication and no accountability, which allows not only spammers to prosper, but more alarmingly - phishers who are trying to defraud you. SPF is probably the best solution I know of for this problem which still keeps your plausible deniability (i.e., gpg is TOO strong) and allows communication with new people. SPF is already catching some of the spam and fraudulant emails that I get, but it will get better as more major email senders will start adding SPF records to their DNS. And of course, there are techniques which make it more expensive (with postage-stamp like payments or computationally expensive) to send email, therefore making spamming more expensive and ultimately, not worth it. Unfortunately, I view these last directions as HOPELESS, and I hope Uri that you're not going in that direction. The problem is twofold. First, if emailing is more expensive it will not just harm the spammers - it will also harm operators of legitimate mailing lists, and ISPs with large mail servers. Secondly, and more importantly: spammers have, from the start (and even more so today) relied on shifting the costs to others. They don't need to buy postage stamps or make expensive computations if they can break into your machine and have it do the mailing. This makes postage stamps out of the question (you'll just steal money from the poor victims), and long computation problematic (if it's too short, you'll gain nothing. If it's too long, nobody can run a legitimate mailing list). And last but not least, maybe Uri has a new trick up his sleeve? Why be so negative? Thanks for the compliments. I have been studying the subject of spam during the past few years, and I'm aware of other solutions. Spam filtering is a common solution, and we all use them, but it's not perfect. It has problems of false positives and false negatives. I also checked other solutions and they are not perfect either. No solution is perfect. SPF, as well as DomainKeys, are concerned on signing domain names. They have many flaws, but the main one (I think) is that they do nothing to prevent spam. A spammer, using his own (newly registered) domain name, can send millions of legitimate messages through them. My idea is to sign the whole E-mail address, and limit the number of legitimate messages a user can send per day. This will mean creating a new protocol which will either replace SMTP or work on top of it. It will be similar to SPF and DomainKeys, with the difference of signing the whole E-mail address and limiting the number of messages per day. The main challenge is to convince users and sys admins to use this new protocol. Mailing lists will not be able to use this new protocol, but a different new protocol will be created for them. The new protocol will enable mailing lists to send mail only to users who confirmed their subscription. A mailing list admin will not be able to transfer his subscribers to another mailing list. Users will be able to unsubscribe using the protocol, without having to ask for permission from the mailing list admin. I'm looking for people who will help me form a profitable business from this idea. Profitability is one goal, solving spam is another goal. Of course no solution to spam in 100% complete, but as Nadav said a solution should be good enough. If a solution gets rid of 99.9% of spam, while not interfering with 99.9% of legitimate messages - it's good enough. My solution will also prevent phishing and E-mail worms. And sending E-mail for legitimate users will still be free (no cost). Best Regards, Uri Even-Chen Speedy Net Raanana, Israel. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +972-9-7715013 Website: www.uri.co.il
Re: A new venture - preventing spam
Matan Ziv-Av wrote: What's to prevent a spammer to register how many addresses they want? A mechanism will prevent it. Each new address will have to be validated by a human being - not a computer. Optionally, we will do it in a way that will prevent people to open hundreds of new E-mail addresses per day. For example - the process of opening a new E-mail address can take time, such as half an hour. If you want to count how many messages an address sends, you need a central server. That's right. We need either a central server or another mechanism to count the messages sent by each address per day. Who will run it (for free)? Who will trust it? Either we will run it, or we can lease it to another company. It's like with registration of domain names and SSL signatures. There are companies who control these registrations (such as Verisign), and everybody trust them. When you use DNS or SSL, you rely on these companies to work properly. If they didn't, DNS and/or SSL wouldn't work. What will be the limit? We should decide, but I think around 250 messages per day is a good guess. I'm looking for people who will help me form a profitable business from this idea. Profitability is one goal, solving spam is another goal. Of course no solution to spam in 100% complete, but as Nadav said a solution should be good enough. If a solution gets rid of 99.9% of spam, while not interfering with 99.9% of legitimate messages - it's good enough. My solution will also prevent phishing and E-mail worms. It's good enough for some people, but not for others (me for example). It's good enough for most of the people. And that's good enough for me :-) You can never please everybody... Best Regards, Uri Even-Chen Speedy Net Raanana, Israel. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +972-9-7715013 Website: www.uri.co.il = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A new venture - preventing spam
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005, Uri Even-Chen wrote about Re: A new venture - preventing spam: Thanks for the compliments. I have been studying the subject of spam during the past few years, and I'm aware of other solutions. Spam filtering is a common solution, and we all use them, but it's not perfect. It has problems of false positives and false negatives. I also checked other solutions and they are not perfect either. No solution is perfect. Indeed. Like I said, even a less-then-perfect solution is enough to turn the spam major problem into the spam minor annoyance. Of course, the more perfect the solution, the better :-) SPF, as well as DomainKeys, are concerned on signing domain names. They have many flaws, but the main one (I think) is that they do nothing to prevent spam. A spammer, using his own (newly registered) domain name, can send millions of legitimate messages through them. My idea is to Indeed. SPF is less about reducing spam per se, and more about reducing From: address spoofing. The most serious kind of false-negative in ordinary spam filters is phishing-type scams. If just one of those goes through to your inbox, and you think that your bank indeed wants you to click here and enter your password, then you're screwed. Also, the most serious kind of false positive in spam filters is usually people with whom you work with and such - so people often add entire domains to their white list, only causing a barrage of spoofed mail (like viruses) to come to your mailbox. SPF aims to take care of these kinds of problems, while other techniques take care of the other problems (hijacked machines, mass mailed crap, porn messages, etc.). So SPF is not a solution against spam - it is just part of an entire solution that you can build. sign the whole E-mail address, and limit the number of legitimate messages a user can send per day. This will mean creating a new protocol which will either replace SMTP or work on top of it. It will be similar to SPF and DomainKeys, with the difference of signing the whole E-mail address and limiting the number of messages per day. The main challenge is to convince users and sys admins to use this new protocol. Maybe we shouldn't really discuss all the details on this list (after all, it's supposed to be a linux list), but I (and Eran) already mentioned why a cryptographic confirmation of who sent the mail isn't always desired. SPF strikes a delicate balance: you can be quite sure that the mail indeed comes from the domain it says it does, but you have to trust this domain owner not to falsify the user's name. Also, you know that the mail comes from a certain domain, but you can't *prove* it to anyone else (because the proof - the email itself - could be something you simply made up). This means that as a user, you have plausible deniability (your email can't be taken against you in court). This is a desirable property, for most people. Mailing lists will not be able to use this new protocol, but a different new protocol will be created for them. The new protocol will enable mailing lists to send mail only to users who confirmed their subscription. A mailing list admin will not be able to transfer his subscribers to another mailing list. Users will be able to unsubscribe using the protocol, without having to ask for permission from the mailing list admin. I'm interested to hear some day how you plan to do this :-) In particular, I wonder if you are you relying on a central Trent (trusted company that runs this entire email business) to do all the book-keeping, limitations, and so on, or keeping the decentralized structure of email? Also, I wonder, how your scheme prevents a spammer from opening 1,000 email accounts and send (signed addressed) emails from all of them. I think you may end up having the same problem you report on SPF: that you can be sure of the domain, but if you don't know the domain is trustworthy you really can't be sure about the identity or non-spaminess of an individual user on that domain. I'm looking for people who will help me form a profitable business from this idea. Profitability is one goal, solving spam is another goal. Of Good luck. May the source be with you :-) -- Nadav Har'El| Thursday, Jun 30 2005, 24 Sivan 5765 [EMAIL PROTECTED] |- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Software is like sex, it is better when http://nadav.harel.org.il |it's free -- Linus Torvalds = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A new venture - preventing spam
Hmm, I see that you already answered some of my questions. Sorry for jumping the gun. On Thu, Jun 30, 2005, Uri Even-Chen wrote about Re: A new venture - preventing spam: Either we will run it, or we can lease it to another company. It's like with registration of domain names and SSL signatures. There are companies who control these registrations (such as Verisign), and everybody trust them. When you use DNS or SSL, you rely on these companies to work properly. If they didn't, DNS and/or SSL wouldn't work. Have you ever wondered why almost no individual owns a certificate signed by one of the browser-recognized registrars? Heck, some organizations I know even don't have them, and sign their own certificates on their https site. It's because the certification process is too expensive and complex for ordinary users to go through. It's certainly completely out of the questions for the hoards of free-email users. SSL's PKI (public key infrastructure) was supposed to allow a lot of things. Among these things, you also have client certificates - each user would have a certificate in his browser, and use it to log in, and so on, instead of passwords. But this initiative never took off. Why? Because users can't deal with the beurocracy and costs involved. I am afraid that your solution will face the same problems. -- Nadav Har'El|Friday, Jul 1 2005, 24 Sivan 5765 [EMAIL PROTECTED] |- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Unix is user friendly - it's just picky http://nadav.harel.org.il |about it's friends. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: domain spoofing
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005, Meir Michanie (riunx) wrote about domain spoofing: My proposal is th e following: I believe that your proposal is almost identical to Yahoo's Domain Keys (http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys). SPF is a similar technique that does not need cryptography (see http://spf.pobox.com/) but makes it slightly more complex to relay email. -- Nadav Har'El|Friday, Jul 1 2005, 24 Sivan 5765 [EMAIL PROTECTED] |- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |How's he gonna read that magazine rolled http://nadav.harel.org.il |up like that? What the ... - a fly. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: domain spoofing
I believe that your proposal is almost identical to Yahoo's Domain Keys Why I keep discoverying America. :) At least now we know that Yahoo is smart as myself. :) = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: domain spoofing
Seriously, why doesn't take off? I think that it would stop part of phishing and spam and we get back the relay MTA functionality. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
