Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.os.linux > #56901 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "anonymous" <anonymous@rip.ax.lt> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-06-16 07:53 -0500 |
| Last post | 2019-06-25 15:11 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 244 — 42 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.os.linux
Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "anonymous" <anonymous@rip.ax.lt> - 2019-06-16 07:53 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Anonymous" <nobody@mixmin.net> - 2019-06-16 07:56 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Fenris <fenris@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-16 15:53 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-16 15:35 +0100
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2019-06-16 15:30 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-16 16:53 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "School of Agriculture" <ag@hick.edu> - 2019-06-17 14:35 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-17 20:42 +0100
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-17 17:31 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2019-06-17 20:30 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 10:12 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-06-17 20:30 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Anonymous" <nobody@mixmin.net> - 2019-06-18 07:04 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Fenris <fenris@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-18 14:18 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-18 14:17 +0100
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-06-18 08:52 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-06-20 05:57 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2019-06-20 07:05 -0500
Using 'sed' to delete a line from a file (Was: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-06-20 12:32 +0000
Re: Using 'sed' to delete a line from a file (Was: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug) Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-20 12:17 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Anonymous" <anon@anon.com> - 2019-06-20 08:31 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Anonymous" <anon@anon.com> - 2019-06-20 08:33 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Anonymous" <anon@anon.com> - 2019-06-20 08:42 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2019-06-16 11:57 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2019-06-16 21:28 +0200
How come we're not talking about (Was: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-06-16 20:12 +0000
Re: How come we're not talking about (Was: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug) "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2019-06-17 06:52 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2019-06-21 13:24 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-16 11:12 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2019-06-16 13:26 -0700
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-06-16 13:34 -0700
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 10:20 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-19 10:55 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 12:37 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-19 13:13 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 14:31 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2019-07-20 19:43 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-19 09:36 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 14:36 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2019-07-20 19:37 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2019-06-19 21:32 +0300
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-19 20:47 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 21:01 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-19 20:23 +0100
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 22:53 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-19 23:09 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-20 05:21 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-20 04:16 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-20 06:21 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 14:38 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-20 13:30 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 19:21 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-20 18:39 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 22:52 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-20 23:48 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 13:01 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-21 12:30 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 14:51 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-21 13:43 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-23 12:56 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-21 08:55 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 19:01 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "F. Russell" <frussell@random.info> - 2019-06-21 13:33 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-21 13:39 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-21 10:14 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 19:09 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2019-06-21 13:39 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 19:07 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "F. Russell" <frussell@random.info> - 2019-06-21 17:19 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 19:57 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2019-06-21 23:14 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Lucifer <LuciferMorningstar@bigpond.com> - 2019-06-23 19:00 +1000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2019-06-22 00:17 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2019-06-22 02:08 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-23 12:59 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2019-06-21 11:18 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 19:10 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-21 19:57 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 23:09 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-21 08:17 +0100
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 13:03 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-19 19:51 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 22:45 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2019-07-20 19:46 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 21:00 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-19 20:20 +0100
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 14:43 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-19 16:44 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 22:57 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> - 2019-06-19 16:17 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-19 17:43 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 00:58 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-19 17:40 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-19 23:53 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2019-07-20 19:31 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Freenet" <pieer@free.fr> - 2019-06-16 20:44 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-06-17 12:41 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-17 17:30 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-18 11:29 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-18 16:15 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-18 20:28 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-18 17:27 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-19 00:04 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-18 22:36 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 10:06 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-19 16:15 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 14:51 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> - 2019-06-20 15:13 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 19:14 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-20 12:21 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2019-06-21 00:56 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-20 16:07 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-20 14:24 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-20 16:51 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 23:02 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-20 15:14 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 13:41 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2019-06-21 09:30 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 19:14 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-21 12:34 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 23:53 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 22:55 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-20 15:17 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 14:03 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-21 22:59 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-22 07:51 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-22 16:53 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-22 18:56 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-22 20:09 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-22 22:48 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-22 22:51 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-23 13:19 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-23 07:33 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-23 15:07 +0100
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 02:09 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-23 22:22 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 11:41 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-24 07:24 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-23 13:14 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-23 11:50 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 02:41 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-30 15:08 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-06-30 21:14 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-30 15:22 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-06-30 21:47 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-07-01 08:10 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-01 10:05 +0100
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-01 12:54 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-01 12:08 +0100
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-07-01 11:54 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2019-07-01 12:30 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-07-01 17:11 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-07-01 17:06 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-07-02 09:35 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-07-02 09:20 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-02 14:28 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-07-01 07:51 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-01 12:46 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-07-01 09:50 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-01 17:31 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-07-01 12:10 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-02 14:17 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-07-02 10:22 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-02 19:10 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-02 19:16 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-07-02 12:27 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-07-02 14:33 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-03 13:34 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-07-03 09:06 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-04 03:14 +0100
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug - spam on mail "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-04 15:26 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-07-01 17:16 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-02 14:20 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-23 16:36 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 03:37 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-24 13:50 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 23:14 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-21 16:01 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-21 23:57 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-21 17:35 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2019-06-21 22:04 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-22 12:57 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2019-06-21 21:58 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-22 07:32 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-21 23:10 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-22 08:21 +0100
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-22 13:01 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-22 16:55 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-22 18:47 -0500
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-22 20:15 -0600
Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-23 13:52 +0200
Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-23 10:02 -0500
Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 02:17 +0200
Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-06-23 22:30 -0500
Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-23 11:56 -0600
Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] Sidney_Kotic <kant@have.it> - 2019-06-23 10:11 -0800
Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 03:23 +0200
Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-06-24 09:07 +0000
Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 11:52 +0200
Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-06-24 14:14 -0400
Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 23:21 +0200
Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-30 15:38 -0600
Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-30 15:31 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2019-06-30 09:17 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-30 15:41 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-21 23:02 -0600
Fidonet [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-23 14:02 +0200
Re: Fidonet [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-06-24 09:11 +0000
Re: Fidonet [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-24 11:53 +0200
Re: Fidonet [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2019-06-25 07:37 +0200
Re: Fidonet [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-25 16:49 +0200
Re: Fidonet [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-25 19:34 +0100
Re: Fidonet [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2019-06-30 09:36 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2019-06-30 08:52 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2019-06-30 08:25 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-30 20:01 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-06-30 20:57 +0100
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-30 15:47 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> - 2019-06-30 16:13 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 00:43 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 10:28 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-06-19 10:30 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 12:51 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-06-19 11:30 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 21:03 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-19 12:30 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 21:11 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-19 20:10 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-19 22:18 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-19 20:33 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-19 23:05 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-19 23:30 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-19 21:43 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Georges <georges@prout.com> - 2019-06-20 05:50 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 23:20 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2019-06-19 21:45 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2019-06-20 03:23 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2019-06-19 21:45 -0600
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-20 23:15 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2019-06-30 09:54 -0400
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-06-30 20:06 +0200
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2019-06-19 11:55 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org - 2019-06-22 13:20 +0000
Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2019-06-25 15:11 +0200
Page 7 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 13 Next page →
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-21 23:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u700uf-1en.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #57084 |
On 21/06/2019 20.34, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 6/21/19 5:41 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> The local word was "pasos", which can be translated as "steps".
>> Possibly referring to the electromechanical counters they used. So
>> counts of the counter, ticks,
>
> Okay.
>
>> I don't know in English how it was called.
>
> Fair enough.
>
>> Ok, local call. One call it step for every 40 seconds, plus one more
>> as the other side lifts the receiver.
>
> So would calling your friend / family in the same (small town with a
> single phone office) count as two steps, every 40 seconds?
One "tick" as soon as my friend lifts the phone, plus one "tick" every
40 seconds, in advance. Thus two ticks up to 39 seconds, 3 ticks if the
call is 40" to 79", and so on.
>
> Note: I'm ignoring the 0th item in the following lists. I think the
> other listed numbers account for the steps. At least as I understand it.
>
> Is that where a call would take the following path?
>
> 0) Your home to your central office.
> 1) Your central office to your friend's / family's home.
Right.
> 1 step billed at 40 second intervals.
Yep.
>
>> Regional call. Two steps, or two counts, as the receiver lifts, then
>> one count per each 30 seconds.
>
> What defines a "regional call"?
Here, a province, which might be a county for you. A province here could
be 30..80 km side to side. Administrative regions with sizes and
boundaries determined by long history :-)
Not what Canadians call a province :-)
>
> 0) Your home to your central office.
> 1) Your central office to the central office in the neighbor town.
> 2) The central office in the neighbor town to your friend's / family's
> home.
Right. If they are in the same county :-)
Perhaps like calling from New York to Long Island.
>
> 2 steps billed at 30 second intervals.
>
>> Inter regional call. 3 counts on lift, plus one count every 20 seconds.
>
> What defines an "inter regional call"?
Here, like calling Madrid to Barcelona. Say NY to Philadelphia. It is
difficult to compare as the USA is so big.
>
> Is that where a call would take the following path?
>
> 0) Your home to your central office.
> 1) Your central office to the long distance office.
> 2) The long distance office to the central office in your friend's /
> family's town.
> 3) The central office in your friend's / family's town to their home.
Exactly.
> 3 steps billed at 20 second intervals.
>
> It looks like each additional "step" / "pasos" / "path" (as Cybe R.
> Wizard points out) accounts for elements of the telephone network that
> your call is using. I'm guessing that they consider the connection
> ("step" / "pasos" / "path") between your home and your central office to
> be yours to use. But the other connections take resources that others
> can't use while you're making the call.
No, the steps or ticks are just a time unit of variable length, with
length that depends on the administrative (political) distance, not the
actual exchanges used.
They were urban calls, which were inside the same municipal space -
which here can include different villages, and technically include call
from exchange to exchange.
Then calls outside of the city but inside the province.
Then calls from one province to another province.
All provinces being administrative regions by government, not telephone
structure related.
This can have very interesting nuances, when a province has a city
inside another province - because some count in the distance past
conquered it or who knows why.
Example: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevi%C3%B1o_enclave>
Or when calling a neighbouring friend that lived in the next province,
just 5 Km away. It is a national call, inter-regional... It could be
cheaper to take the bike or the bus.
>
> The "your call is utilizing" bit also accounts for the cost of dialing
> someone and them not picking up, vs the additional step used when they
> pick up.
If the other call did not pick up, it was no cost. Which was a trick
used by students to call family long distance: say ring three times,
then ring two times, it is me, please call me back. 3-3, I'm Ok. Etc :-D
>
>> Each count is 7.5 cents. Next month there is a price rise, the count
>> will 7.78 cents.
I see I thought to type "will be 7.78 cents", I ate words :-(
>
> I'm not that surprised.
>
>> (arbitrary numbers).
>
> They work for the sake of this discussion. ;-)
Exactly :-)
>
>> They did not have computers on many exchanges. Timer circuitry gave
>> periodic pulses, with different frequency according to call distance.
>> The counters (I had one, half the size of a cigarette package) were
>> stacked in hundreds at exchanges, and someone read them manually and
>> wrote the bills. For the bills they did use computers.
>>
>> The system has not been used since ages. It was in use till 199X at
>> least. I don't know when they changed to seconds, somewhere around
>> 1997 I think, but only on new companies. A source says 2006.
>
> Sounds like the new phone switches installed in the '90s used new
> simpler time only based billing.
It was because in 1997 the telephone market was opened to competition,
and the new competitors changed to a simpler method, which worked as a
marketing ruse :-)
And I started working for one of the competitors, who happened to use
Lucent 5ESS Exchanges, who used Linux machines to monitor the exchanges
remotely. I was astonished at seeing a big and serious company using
Linux, so I thought of learning about it ;-)
(so my knowledge of the older telephone system was not direct)
>> You could contract a counter machine to have at home. Coffee shops
>> with public phones used those to charge the clients for the calls. See
>> the photos here:
>>
>> <https://www.teknoplof.com/2014/08/25/teletax-el-contador-publico-de-pasos-telefonicos-de-los-ochenta/>
>>
>>
>> It is difficult to google for the thing because it finds apps and
>> gadgets to count walking steps instead.
>>
>> I found the technical specs of the remote (Spanish), with photos and
>> diagrams:
>>
>> <http://micolecciondetelefonos.blogspot.com/2011/03/contadores-de-linea.html>
>>
>>
>> I don't know the proper term in English, sorry.
>
> Apology is unnecessary.
>
>> :-D
>>
>> Not quite :-)
>
> Is what I outlined above closer?
Yes.
>
>> Oh, from my computer logs. I don't remember exactly which one. Maybe
>> from wvdial.
>
> I now see that the information used for billing was available at calling
> parties end of the line.
>
> This means that you could have something local collect that information
> and do something with it. Much like you did.
Yes.
>
> Was it also available at the called parties end of the line?
They could have their own "incoming" logs at their computers, but there
was no billing for those.
If you mean if they got the "beeps" transmitted to their side, no,
mostly not. High tones were filtered out to not overload amplifiers and
multiplexers, I understand. Or, where they used digital transmission,
high tones were simply not sampled and digitized.
>
>> Oh, and when fidonet was not on internet but needed a direct call (the
>> original method, of course, but I had forgotten)
>
> ACK
>
>> the Frontdoor software generated the logs.
>
> That makes sense for BBS calls.
>
> I guess you had your computer listen for the billing information tones,
> even for voice calls.
Not me, but it was possible, I suppose. Most of us did estimates.
Students living together in a shared flat did their calls home with a
watch on the hand and a paper.
Oh, and the cost varied per time of day! Morning, afternoon, night,
weekends... I had forgotten.
Now I have what we call "flat rate". A constant monthly charge to
anywhere (fixed line) inside Spain. Mobiles have a time limit per month.
Cheaper than it was, not really cheap, but at least better and
understandable. Including mobile, fibre internet, and "TV a la carta" (I
believe you have the expression "television a la carte", according to
DeepL translator).
>
>> There were mismatches with the official bill, but it was acceptable.
>> Roundup in favour of the company.
>
> Typical.
>
>> I know. I looked at you with some envy, specially at being able to do
>> local phone calls for free, or having things like Compuserve "nearby"
>> :-)~
>
> ;-)
>
>> I read computer magazines (PC Magazine?) that included programs in
>> source code. Like ted.asm --> ted.com. You could call the magazine BBS
>> to obtain the source code, or connect to Compuserve. I had nothing of
>> that. Not even a phone of my own, certainly no modem. Didn't have a
>> friendly teacher with access, either. So I typed myself the whole
>> thing... it worked, eventually: I made some typing errors.
>
> I dabbled in things like that a LONG time ago. They were BASIC programs
> for my dad's TRS-80.
>
>> TED: tiny editor. Less than 3 KB. Wonderful little thing for having on
>> floppies, not the awful edlin.
>
> ACK
>
>
>
--
Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-20 22:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <te8ttf-7vp.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #57043 |
On 20/06/2019 22.07, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: > On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 14:51:22 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> >> On 19/06/2019 22.15, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >> >> Thanks :-) >> >> I simply do not get the difference between comp.os.linux.misc and >> alt.os.linux > > There might be not much differences. But as I pointed out there is a > group covering editors, no matter what flavor of Linux, UNIX or even > Windows you use. > >> - but then, I discovered Usenet late. Not that simple to use when >> connection was using a modem, and the phone call had to be paid per >> minute here. Then I found leafnode. > > Same here. Before unmetered DSL I was using leafnode. Using vwdial to > establish an analog connection to the internet. Waited that the sound to > negotiate the connection muted and launching the Leafnode command to get > me new articles (also used fetchmail at the same time to download > emails), then terminated the dial-up connection. I had that scripted. As soon as the connection went up (wvdial, too), a script would trigger automatically, doing mail send/collection, news, and fidonet. When all was finished, it sounded a bell to tell me that I could disconnect. > >>>> I agree with removing the advocacy/privacy groups, I don't see why they >>>> are there. >>> >>> Because there was also the never ending Emacs VS Vi discussion at some point. >> >> Sure. They are said to have been epic. >> >> I meant why this thread was posted to those groups. To trigger a flamewar? > > I think the importance, whether you use Emacs or Vi, is over. Today it's > nostalgia. Like, is the Commodore 64 better than the Atari 8Bit series? Is > your Atari ST superior to my Commodore Amiga. Nobody cares today. It's > just nostalgia. Yep :-) -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-20 15:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qegt75$b4a$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #57047 |
On 6/20/19 2:55 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > I had that scripted. As soon as the connection went up (wvdial, too), I want to look into wvdial. > a script would trigger automatically, doing mail send/collection, > news, and fidonet. Can I ask what protocols were used? mail and news can run through UUCP. It's also possible to use SMTP & NNTP with prodding. But it seems like FidoNet would be it's own modem connection (to a BBS) or via FidoNet-over-TCP/IP. #curiosity > When all was finished, it sounded a bell to tell me that I could > disconnect. Were you not able to automatically disconnect? Or did you want to remain connected in case you wanted to use the connection for something else, e.g. web browsing or ftp file transfer? -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-21 14:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <emtutf-6gt.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #57051 |
On 20/06/2019 23.17, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 6/20/19 2:55 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> I had that scripted. As soon as the connection went up (wvdial, too),
>
> I want to look into wvdial.
>
>> a script would trigger automatically, doing mail send/collection,
>> news, and fidonet.
>
> Can I ask what protocols were used? mail and news can run through UUCP.
> It's also possible to use SMTP & NNTP with prodding. But it seems like
> FidoNet would be it's own modem connection (to a BBS) or via
> FidoNet-over-TCP/IP. #curiosity
You are right. There was (is) some software that does fidonet over TCP,
but it is rather "recent". This century or end of the XX. Let me see, I
must have it on this computer... Could be binkd for hpt. Long time since
last I used it. Confirm, it is binkd.
BINKD(8) BINKD(8)
NAME
binkd - transfer files between two Fidonet systems over
TCP/IP
SYNOPSIS
binkd [-Ccipqsv] [ -P node ] config-file
DESCRIPTION
Binkd is a Fidonet mailer designed to operate via TCP/IP
networks. As a FTN-compatible internet daemon, it makes
possible efficient utilization of TCP/IP protocol suite as
a transport layer in FTN-based (Fido Technology Network)
networks.
Binkd expects your spool for Fido-like networks to be in
BSO ("Bink style outbound") format. BSO is also used by
ifmail and BinkleyTerm mailers.
...
16 Jul 1998
It still lives:
<https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Binkd>
Some of the links are dead, like the user guide.
Mail and news, standard tcp/ip, not uucp on my time. I used fetchmail,
and initially sendmail. Most places accepted directly sent mail, till
antispam measures killed it and we had to use the ISPs. For news, leafnode.
Most Fidonet development switched to Russia, for some reason they were
interested. I lost contact when the the machine that powered the node I
used died. The sysop was an OS/2 fan, and said he could not manage to do
it in Linux, too difficult for him. Another sysop offered to give us
access, but I did not manage to configure it. He was using a
fidonet-nntp gateway, but with some incomplete software; needed auth
that failed with both Thunderbird and leafnode.
>
>> When all was finished, it sounded a bell to tell me that I could
>> disconnect.
>
> Were you not able to automatically disconnect? Or did you want to
> remain connected in case you wanted to use the connection for something
> else, e.g. web browsing or ftp file transfer?
That's right, I used the time for a little browsing. I don't remember if
I automated the hanging at some point. That was long ago...
There was software that would establish a call when needed, and kill it
on no network activity, but that could be prohibitive here, because call
establishment was charged. And of course, I had to tell/ask my roommates
that I was going to connect.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-21 22:59 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qekckm$qh1$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #57062 |
On 6/21/19 6:03 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > You are right. There was (is) some software that does fidonet over TCP, > but it is rather "recent". This century or end of the XX. Let me see, > I must have it on this computer... Could be binkd for hpt. Long time > since last I used it. Confirm, it is binkd. I know of binkd, but I've never used it. > It still lives: :-) > Some of the links are dead, like the user guide. That happens. I suspect that FidoNet technology has fared better than some other old networking technologies. Seeing as how there is a TCP/IP interface for it. > Mail and news, standard tcp/ip, not uucp on my time. I used fetchmail, > and initially sendmail. … For news, leafnode. Nice. So you were using standard internet protocols between your client(s) and a local server. I like it. :-) > … Most places accepted directly sent mail, till antispam measures killed > it and we had to use the ISPs. … Ya. I suspect you could have made it work by smart hosting through a well established email server, possibly your ISP. Relatively recent anti-spam techniques have made it harder, SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MTA-STS. But still possible. > Most Fidonet development switched to Russia, for some reason they were > interested. I lost contact when the the machine that powered the node I > used died. The sysop was an OS/2 fan, and said he could not manage to do > it in Linux, too difficult for him. Another sysop offered to give us > access, but I did not manage to configure it. He was using a > fidonet-nntp gateway, but with some incomplete software; needed auth > that failed with both Thunderbird and leafnode. I've heard that the Russians were interested in FidoNet and / or other FTNs from multiple sources. I've had one source tell me that's not the case. Though he was thinking I was talking about dial-up. I think a fair bit of FTN is done over TCP/IP now, possibly via anonymizing technologies like Tor (hidden services) / I2P. > That's right, I used the time for a little browsing. I don't remember > if I automated the hanging at some point. That was long ago... Fair enough. > There was software that would establish a call when needed, and kill > it on no network activity, but that could be prohibitive here, because > call establishment was charged. And of course, I had to tell/ask my > roommates that I was going to connect. ACK I find it interesting to hear from people that lived through it, what they did, and why they did it. Thank you. :-) -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-22 07:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87lfxtrdf8.fsf@dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #57102 |
Grant writes: > I suspect that FidoNet technology has fared better than some other old > networking technologies. Seeing as how there is a TCP/IP interface > for it. There is UUCP over TCP/IP. > I suspect you could have made it work by smart hosting through a well > established email server, possibly your ISP. You can and many of us still do. Don't rely on your ISP, though. Pay a small amount of money to somebody such as Newsguy who makes a business of providing such service. > Relatively recent anti-spam techniques have made it harder, SPF, DKIM, > DMARC, MTA-STS. Not a problem. Newsguy deals with all that. I just configure Exim to use Newsguy as a smarthost (it's a choice in the configuration dialogue at install time) and use Fetchmail to get my incoming mail from Newsguy via POP every 5 minutes. Gandi redirects mail to my domains to Newsguy. I get all the benefits of running my own mail server (I once did that) without any of the hassles. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-22 16:53 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qembir$16g$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #57122 |
On 6/22/19 6:51 AM, John Hasler wrote: > There is UUCP over TCP/IP. Yep. I've not actually seen people use it. But I'm aware that it exists. I think I've also heard about people using things like stunnel to do UUCP over TLS over TCP/IP I have seen people use UUCP over SSH (over TCP/IP). > You can and many of us still do. Don't rely on your ISP, though. > Pay a small amount of money to somebody such as Newsguy who makes a > business of providing such service. Or pay a small amount for a VPS and run your own smart host. ;-) > Not a problem. Newsguy deals with all that. I just configure Exim > to use Newsguy as a smarthost (it's a choice in the configuration > dialogue at install time) and use Fetchmail to get my incoming mail > from Newsguy via POP every 5 minutes. Gandi redirects mail to my > domains to Newsguy. I get all the benefits of running my own mail > server (I once did that) without any of the hassles. Fair. I don't like the idea of POPing email, but I suspect there are other options, including Newsguy relaying SMTP to you. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-22 18:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87v9wxp41n.fsf@dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #57150 |
I wrote: > Don't rely on your ISP, though. Pay a small amount of money to > somebody such as Newsguy who makes a business of providing such > service. Grant writes: > Or pay a small amount for a VPS and run your own smart host. I've administered an Internet-facing mail server. I'd rather pay Newsguy to do that (cheaper than a VPS, too). > I don't like the idea of POPing email... Why? > ...but I suspect there are other options, including Newsguy relaying > SMTP to you. In today's environment that would be the only practical way for me to run my own mail server but again, I'd rather pay Newsguy to do that. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-22 20:09 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qemn22$j9h$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #57153 |
On 6/22/19 5:56 PM, John Hasler wrote: > I've administered an Internet-facing mail server. I'd rather pay > Newsguy to do that (cheaper than a VPS, too). Fair enough. > Why? I believe in leveraging things in the SMTP protocol, e.g. ORCPT, DSN, DELIVERBY. None of those things are supported all the way to your server when the SMTP delivery stops at the upstream server and you POP things from the mailbox(es). There's also the issue(s) around supporting multiple email addresses. SMTP makes it trivial to pass the different addresses down to your machine, even if you are only BCCed. POP will very either mix multiple email addressees into one mailbox, where they need to be separated back out, or you need to POP multiple mailboxes. I think that SMTP (or even UUCP) is cleaner than that. Especially if you use ETRN. The upstream server can be told to try to deliver to your server and queue the email while your server's offline. When you are online, issue an ETRN and the server will try to deliver to you again and succeed. > In today's environment that would be the only practical way for me > to run my own mail server but again, I'd rather pay Newsguy to do that. To each his / her own. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-22 22:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87mui9otbj.fsf@dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #57154 |
Grant writes: > There's also the issue(s) around supporting multiple email > addresses. SMTP makes it trivial to pass the different addresses down > to your machine, even if you are only BCCed. POP will very either mix > multiple email addressees into one mailbox, where they need to be > separated back out, or you need to POP multiple mailboxes. Newsguy gives me lots of mailboxes and Fetchmail has no problem dealing with them. Mailagent sorts mail for local delivery by Exim even when different addresses get mixed in one box. > The upstream server can be told to try to deliver to your server and > queue the email while your server's offline. When you are online, > issue an ETRN and the server will try to deliver to you again and > succeed. That comes for free with POP. If I don't fetch my mail it just sits there. I could even read it via Webmail if necessary or fetch it to a different machine at a different site. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-22 22:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qen0i2$roo$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #57157 |
On 6/22/19 9:48 PM, John Hasler wrote: > Newsguy gives me lots of mailboxes and Fetchmail has no problem dealing > with them. Mailagent sorts mail for local delivery by Exim even when > different addresses get mixed in one box. There are always a lot of different things that can be done. But not all of them achieve the same thing or do so by the same method. It sounds like you are happy with what you are doing. Good for you. I would not be happy using POP. > That comes for free with POP. If I don't fetch my mail it just sits > there. I could even read it via Webmail if necessary or fetch it to > a different machine at a different site. 2+2=4 ≠ 2*2=4 + ≠ * Different methods are used for different things. Even if they both get email into your mailbox. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-23 13:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <gn95hgF8nplU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57158 |
On 23/06/2019 06.51, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 6/22/19 9:48 PM, John Hasler wrote:
>> Newsguy gives me lots of mailboxes and Fetchmail has no problem
>> dealing with them. Mailagent sorts mail for local delivery by Exim
>> even when different addresses get mixed in one box.
>
> There are always a lot of different things that can be done. But not
> all of them achieve the same thing or do so by the same method.
>
> It sounds like you are happy with what you are doing. Good for you.
>
> I would not be happy using POP.
I no longer use POP, only IMAP. Much easier with multiple machines.
And I also use fetchmail.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-23 07:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87fto0pjl1.fsf@dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #57168 |
Carlos writes: > I no longer use POP, only IMAP. Much easier with multiple machines. > And I also use fetchmail. I have IMAP available but it has no advantages for me. I do not want my mail to remain on Newsguy's server any longer than necessary. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-23 15:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qeo13e$548$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57171 |
On 23/06/2019 13:33, John Hasler wrote: > Carlos writes: >> I no longer use POP, only IMAP. Much easier with multiple machines. >> And I also use fetchmail. > > I have IMAP available but it has no advantages for me. I do not want my > mail to remain on Newsguy's server any longer than necessary. > Same here. I do not want it to reamin on MY virtual server -- "Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) " Alan Sokal
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-24 02:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <9ug5ufxaom.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor> |
| In reply to | #57171 |
On 23/06/2019 14.33, John Hasler wrote:
> Carlos writes:
>> I no longer use POP, only IMAP. Much easier with multiple machines.
>> And I also use fetchmail.
>
> I have IMAP available but it has no advantages for me. I do not want my
> mail to remain on Newsguy's server any longer than necessary.
Doesn't have to, if you so wish. Fetchmail will retrieve and delete it
instantly from the server, as always.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-23 22:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87wohboefv.fsf@dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #57202 |
Carlos writes: > I no longer use POP, only IMAP. Much easier with multiple machines. > And I also use fetchmail. I wrote: > I have IMAP available but it has no advantages for me. I do not want my > mail to remain on Newsguy's server any longer than necessary. Carlos writes: > Doesn't have to, if you so wish. Fetchmail will retrieve and delete it > instantly from the server, as always. Sure but for my purposes IMAP does nothing POP doesn't do. If Newsguy ever deprecates POP I'll switch to IMAP. It's a trivial change. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-24 11:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oei6ufxhvu.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor> |
| In reply to | #57203 |
On 24/06/2019 05.22, John Hasler wrote:
> Carlos writes:
>> I no longer use POP, only IMAP. Much easier with multiple machines.
>> And I also use fetchmail.
>
> I wrote:
>> I have IMAP available but it has no advantages for me. I do not want my
>> mail to remain on Newsguy's server any longer than necessary.
>
> Carlos writes:
>> Doesn't have to, if you so wish. Fetchmail will retrieve and delete it
>> instantly from the server, as always.
>
> Sure but for my purposes IMAP does nothing POP doesn't do. If Newsguy
> ever deprecates POP I'll switch to IMAP. It's a trivial change.
If you read the fetchmail manual, you will find they favour imap over
pop for a number of features and problems it solves - in the fetchmail
use case, which is typically download and remove from server.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-24 07:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87o92nnpcg.fsf@dhh.gt.org> |
| In reply to | #57212 |
Carlos writes: > If you read the fetchmail manual, you will find they favour imap over > pop for a number of features and problems it solves - in the fetchmail > use case, which is typically download and remove from server. None that matter to me. My present setup works fine. If anything ever comes up I'll change. For now, it ain't broke. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-23 13:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <gn959gF8nplU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57102 |
On 22/06/2019 06.59, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 6/21/19 6:03 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> You are right. There was (is) some software that does fidonet over
>> TCP, but it is rather "recent". This century or end of the XX. Let me
>> see, I must have it on this computer... Could be binkd for hpt. Long
>> time since last I used it. Confirm, it is binkd.
>
> I know of binkd, but I've never used it.
>
>> It still lives:
>
> :-)
>
>> Some of the links are dead, like the user guide.
>
> That happens.
>
> I suspect that FidoNet technology has fared better than some other old
> networking technologies. Seeing as how there is a TCP/IP interface for it.
Las time I looked, traffic was very low, many Spanish groups had no
messages for days, some none for months. International groups in English
fared better. I don't know about the Russians.
>> Mail and news, standard tcp/ip, not uucp on my time. I used fetchmail,
>> and initially sendmail. … For news, leafnode.
>
> Nice. So you were using standard internet protocols between your
> client(s) and a local server. I like it. :-)
>
>> … Most places accepted directly sent mail, till antispam measures
>> killed it and we had to use the ISPs. …
>
> Ya. I suspect you could have made it work by smart hosting through a
> well established email server, possibly your ISP.
One nuance with all Spain providers I know, is that they do not allow
sending of email with a "from" header that is not theirs. Thus, as I
have different email accounts, I could not use a single smarthost. So
for a while I was stuck. First I tried to mail directly, and if it
bounced, I used Thunderbird to send via the provider of that account.
Then postfix added a feature that allows automatic selection of the
relayhost for each mail based on the "from" header, coupled with auth
(login/pass) for each account. That was the final solution that I'm
using till now.
Ah, with a difference compared to other countries: I can send using the
standard SMTP port, which is blocked by providers on USA or Canada, for
instance. When I visited, I had to reconfigure to use the Delivery port
instead.
And that posed another problem, because my main local Spain provider
doesn't listen on the Deliver port and insists on the SMTP port - which
was blocked by Bell. So I could not send some mail while I was there...
>
> Relatively recent anti-spam techniques have made it harder, SPF, DKIM,
> DMARC, MTA-STS.
>
> But still possible.
Yes, maybe, but I have not bothered. :-)
>> Most Fidonet development switched to Russia, for some reason they were
>> interested. I lost contact when the the machine that powered the node I
>> used died. The sysop was an OS/2 fan, and said he could not manage to do
>> it in Linux, too difficult for him. Another sysop offered to give us
>> access, but I did not manage to configure it. He was using a
>> fidonet-nntp gateway, but with some incomplete software; needed auth
>> that failed with both Thunderbird and leafnode.
>
> I've heard that the Russians were interested in FidoNet and / or other
> FTNs from multiple sources. I've had one source tell me that's not the
> case. Though he was thinking I was talking about dial-up. I think a
> fair bit of FTN is done over TCP/IP now, possibly via anonymizing
> technologies like Tor (hidden services) / I2P.
I suspect that some used Fidonet technology with direct phone calls, and
outside of the Fidonet network, for mail outside of Internet scooping.
>> That's right, I used the time for a little browsing. I don't remember
>> if I automated the hanging at some point. That was long ago...
>
> Fair enough.
>
>> There was software that would establish a call when needed, and kill
>> it on no network activity, but that could be prohibitive here, because
>> call establishment was charged. And of course, I had to tell/ask my
>> roommates that I was going to connect.
>
> ACK
>
> I find it interesting to hear from people that lived through it, what
> they did, and why they did it. Thank you. :-)
Welcome :-)
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-23 11:50 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qeoe70$58h$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #57166 |
On 6/23/19 5:14 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote: > Las time I looked, traffic was very low, many Spanish groups had > no messages for days, some none for months. International groups in > English fared better. I don't know about the Russians. ACK > One nuance with all Spain providers I know, is that they do not allow > sending of email with a "from" header that is not theirs. Did they only check if the From: header (and hopefully the SMTP envelope too) was in their domain(s)? Or did they also check to see if the From: header … was associated with the account you used to authenticate to their server(s)? (I'm assuming that you do authenticate to their server(s)) > Thus, as I have different email accounts, I could not use a single > smarthost. So for a while I was stuck. First I tried to mail directly, > and if it bounced, I used Thunderbird to send via the provider of > that account. That's annoying. > Then postfix added a feature that allows automatic selection of the > relayhost for each mail based on the "from" header, coupled with auth > (login/pass) for each account. That was the final solution that I'm > using till now. ACK > Ah, with a difference compared to other countries: I can send using > the standard SMTP port, which is blocked by providers on USA or Canada, > for instance. When I visited, I had to reconfigure to use the Delivery > port instead. Ya. It's my understanding that a current best practice is for ISPs to filter traffic from residential IP space to TCP port 25. I /thought/ that this was becoming common around the world. > And that posed another problem, because my main local Spain provider > doesn't listen on the Deliver port and insists on the SMTP port - which > was blocked by Bell. So I could not send some mail while I was there... Oops! > Yes, maybe, but I have not bothered. :-) > > I suspect that some used Fidonet technology with direct phone calls, > and outside of the Fidonet network, for mail outside of Internet > scooping. That jives with what I've heard elsewhere. > Welcome :-) :-) -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.os.linux
csiph-web