INFO-VAX Sat, 10 May 2008 Volume 2008 : Issue 261 Contents: Re: DECServer 700 replacement. Re: DECServer 700 replacement. Re: Ip address blocking by country Re: Ip address blocking by country Re: Ip address blocking by country Re: Ip address blocking by country Re: OT: Desktop wars Re: OT: Desktop wars ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 10:45:36 GMT From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?= Subject: Re: DECServer 700 replacement. Message-ID: JF Mezei wrote: > General question: > > With VMS, one can define an LTAxxx: device that allows outgoing > connections to a terminal server's port. Or TNAnnn: ports, if you're running telnet capable servers and/or do not want/can use LAT on your LAN/WAN. TNA devices works *mostly* just as well as LTA devices... Jan-Erik. > Essentially giving that VMS box > access to serial ports. This comes out of the box with VMS. > > Would it be correct to state that in the Unix world, there is no > built-in facility for such virtualised serial ports and that one needs > to buy some separate package that will provide outbound serial port > access via a terminal server ? (I assume reverse telnet). > > Is there a strong RFC/standard on how virtual serial ports work between > a host and the terminal server, or do each terminal servers have their > own software/protocol to link a unix host with their terminal servers ? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 11:03:11 GMT From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?= Subject: Re: DECServer 700 replacement. Message-ID: Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote: > JF Mezei wrote: >> General question: >> >> With VMS, one can define an LTAxxx: device that allows outgoing B.t.w, all connections are of course bi-derectional after the initial connection from the VMS server. Jan-Erik. >> connections to a terminal server's port. > > Or TNAnnn: ports, if you're running telnet capable > servers and/or do not want/can use LAT on your LAN/WAN. > > TNA devices works *mostly* just as well as LTA devices... > > Jan-Erik. > >> Essentially giving that VMS box >> access to serial ports. This comes out of the box with VMS. >> >> Would it be correct to state that in the Unix world, there is no >> built-in facility for such virtualised serial ports and that one needs >> to buy some separate package that will provide outbound serial port >> access via a terminal server ? (I assume reverse telnet). >> >> Is there a strong RFC/standard on how virtual serial ports work between >> a host and the terminal server, or do each terminal servers have their >> own software/protocol to link a unix host with their terminal servers ? ------------------------------ Date: 10 May 2008 13:19:07 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Ip address blocking by country Message-ID: <68llmbF2t532oU1@mid.individual.net> In article , "Tom Linden" writes: > On Thu, 08 May 2008 09:18:59 -0700, David Turner, Island Computers > wrote: > >> Got the point and we are considering blocking the whole country but we'll >> wait and see how much spam we get from now on... >> >> Thanks ! To Everyone.. >> > I usually just block class B IPs Your not interested in business from American Universities? What possible mapping between Class B addresses and SPAM could there be? (We have and have had since the 80's a Class B address space here at UofS!) bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: 10 May 2008 13:31:51 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: Ip address blocking by country Message-ID: <68lme6F2t532oU2@mid.individual.net> In article <9560198c-315d-47c1-a04a-ba6f2e10e878@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, sms.antinode@gmail.com writes: > JF Mezei wrote: >> I don't have an extensive list, but: > > Ultra-exhaustive, I'd say. > >> ! Chinanet >> Bad-Clients: 58.0.0.0/8, > > That alone would seem to stop big chunks of Japan, > Australia, Thailand, Malaysia, Pakistan, India, > Singapore, Vietnam, and I don't know what else. > > Great aim, there, JF. 58.32.0.0/11, perhaps, > unless stopping all of Asia really was the goal. The only one in his list that I would have a problem with is Australia. The rest are truly a waste of time and blocking them is by far the best thing anyne can do to improve the INTERNET. Followed very closely by most of South America. (Sometime ago I joined a mailing list for the Tiny COBOL Compiler which was hosted out of Brazil. The ISP where this was hosted apparently passed all the members email addresses out to every SPAMMER they could find. Like anyone in America can actually understand Portugese!!) The INTERNET should have been kept private like it was in the first place and the ISP's, SPAMMERS and general public shold have created been required to create their own instead of turning a functioning and valuable research tool into a mostly useless cesspool. bill (Who is all in favor of bringing back USENET as a means of limiting access and creating a network of peers that is once again usefull for something other than naked pictures of Brittany Spears and Viagra.) bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 07:17:11 -0700 From: "Tom Linden" Subject: Re: Ip address blocking by country Message-ID: On Sat, 10 May 2008 06:19:07 -0700, Bill Gunshannon wrote: > In article , > "Tom Linden" writes: >> On Thu, 08 May 2008 09:18:59 -0700, David Turner, Island Computers >> wrote: >> >>> Got the point and we are considering blocking the whole country but >>> we'll >>> wait and see how much spam we get from now on... >>> >>> Thanks ! To Everyone.. >>> >> I usually just block class B IPs > Your not interested in business from American Universities? > What possible mapping between Class B addresses and SPAM could there be? You took it out of context, chinese class B > > (We have and have had since the 80's a Class B address space here at > UofS!) > > bill > -- PL/I for OpenVMS www.kednos.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 15:34:21 +0000 (UTC) From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Subject: Re: Ip address blocking by country Message-ID: "Tom Linden" writes: >On Sat, 10 May 2008 06:19:07 -0700, Bill Gunshannon >wrote: >> In article , >> "Tom Linden" writes: >>> I usually just block class B IPs >> Your not interested in business from American Universities? >> What possible mapping between Class B addresses and SPAM could there be? >You took it out of context, chinese class B Class A/B/C addresses are just relics of the old way of allocating IP addresses. Nowadays they'll allocate IP addresses to organizations and countries on just about any netmask, not just /8 (Class A), /16 (Class B) and /24 (Class C). The old way was just wasteful, if a smallish company grew too big for a Class C, the next step (Class B) was excessively large. And if you look at who got Class A's under the old scheme, you kind of have to wonder what were they thinking. Allocations by country are widely scattered. You'll find China or some such have a /11 here, a /12 there, a /14 elsewhere etc. I discovered this when some Russian spammer starting forging the name of my VMS hobbyist system as the From: in his spam, and sent it out almost exclusively to Russian emails. I started getting swamped in backscatter from Russian systems and I wanted to block Russia as a country. There were at least 100 netblocks assigned to Russia at the time. ------------------------------ Date: 10 May 2008 13:39:55 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: OT: Desktop wars Message-ID: <68lmtaF2t532oU3@mid.individual.net> In article <482414f8$0$31195$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes: > > Remember that Apple started with essentially nothing left, and came out > with a totally new operating systems (OS-X) in roughly 2001. Since when is OS-X "a totally new operating system"? That would be like me repackaging Slackware, calling it "Bill-OS V5.0" and claiming it was "a totally new operating system"!! bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 06:59:11 -0700 (PDT) From: "johnhreinhardt@yahoo.com" Subject: Re: OT: Desktop wars Message-ID: On May 10, 9:39 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote: > In article <482414f8$0$31195$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>, > JF Mezei writes: > > Remember that Apple started with essentially nothing left, and came out > > with a totally new operating systems (OS-X) in roughly 2001. > > Since when is OS-X "a totally new operating system"? That would be > like me repackaging Slackware, calling it "Bill-OS V5.0" and claiming > it was "a totally new operating system"!! > Close, but not quite. It would be like you repackaging Slackware and then writing the equivalent of Gnome or KDE and calling it Bill-OS V5.0. Aqua, the Apple GUI (plus a lot of utilities) is theirs and they wrote it themselves (maybe some came from NEXT? I'm not sure). But you're right. Calling it a "totally new operating system" is a stretch. ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2008.261 ************************