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 11 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 Next page →
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-24 23:21 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] |
| Message-ID | <pfr7uf-kgm.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #57233 |
On 24/06/2019 20.14, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 11:52:26 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote: >> >> On 24/06/2019 11.07, Jasen Betts wrote: >>> >>> The phone company had a deal for fixed-price international calls one >>> weekend ($5 for 2 hours or someting like that - down from $5 for 3 >>> minutes), so I called up a BBS on the other side of the world for a >>> few hours to download stuff. >> >> How cute! I never heard of such a thing here. > > When the monopoly of the Deutsche Telekom fell 1998 many small so called > "call-by-call" provider popped up. Some offering only fixed phone > service, others that combined with mobile and other also (or only) > offered internet dial-up service. Prices went up and down (mostly down) > and every company tried ti get a big piece of the pie. By dialing a > special "area code" you would then be billed by the company associated > with that area code. Ah! I actually worked for such a company here :-) Initially on the installation of exchanges for scratch, then some remote maintenance, then "trouble ticketing". > I remember some new company obviously wanted to test their hardware and > offered the first hundred or so caller 24 hours for free. I think I used > wvdial at that and had it dial-in five seconds before 0:00. I succeeded > and nobody could call me that day because my single line was busy. Problem was (here) the company I worked for at the time (1998) offered "voice" service. Which meant that the international route digital stream was compressed, 4 streams per channel of 64Kbit. We found out when customers complained that international faxes failed or were terrible. We did not know. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-30 15:38 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] |
| Message-ID | <qfba4b$up1$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #57199 |
On 6/23/19 7:23 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote: > Well, we used the same software as nodes, with a configuration a bit > different. Hum. Was that a requirement? I thought there were multiple clients that could be used. I can see how a BBS package could be it's own point client. > It would not listen for the modem, it could not receive independently, > only connect with the authorized node. Ya. It would be difficult to receive anything directly, seeing as how a node number was needed as a destination address. Points aren't enough. > Oh, a point can connect directly with another node not is own to > send netmail directed to it or its points. That makes sense. > I don't remember how authentication was done. IF it was done. I would be surprised if anything more than username and password were validated. And that's more the connection than what's being sent. > We were. We met I think twice, in my time there. Once for a lunch, > and another at a lunch plus an ultra-light flying club. But I was to > afraid to take a ride. A flight, I mean. > > Our group said something about getting a lot of chicken on a Saturday. > Maybe they always went to a famous chicken restaurant :-) > > Did we call that "meeting in vertical"? Or was that a saying of > Radio Amateurs? I've not heard that phrase before. I can see how amateur radio operators that predominantly used horizontally polarized radio waves could say "meeting in vertical". That seems like the type of humor I associate with them. > WHAT?! :-O > > My laptop has just made a weird ugly noise through the speakers. It > has scared me, it is 3 AM. No idea what it was... probably Firefox has > one page loaded that did that. Which one? It is busy, 30% CPU. Maybe > a news page. Closed. CPU now close to zero. Oh, Chrome was open on > another tab, at the Amazon prime site. Closed too. > > Uff. O.o‽ -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-30 15:31 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Ancient networking [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] |
| Message-ID | <qfb9n7$arq$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #57169 |
On 6/23/19 5:52 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote: > Directly editing some files. I seem to recall something called > chat that would listen to the modem responses, send login/pass to > the service... names like "chap" or perhaps "pap". After login the > ppp service was started. I knew about it but didn't have to do it, > wvdial arrived just in time. It calls all the necessary pieces. *nod* I vaguely remember chat scripts. > Yes, that is. But not usenet newsgroups, not directly. Just Fidonet > groups, that were called echos or perhaps echoareas. I remember friends talking about ""discussions (arguments / flame wars) that would happen in "echos". > And we were given addresses called "points". I've heard of points before. I don't quite know what the advantage of a point is over a normal board. I guess it's akin to not needing to run your own board (server) and just have a client pull email from a board (server) that someone else is running. Sort of like a mid way point between client only and full board with your own node address. > I remember my sysop had a system where I could request the list of > files he hosted by sending perhaps a special "netmail". Then I could > request download of the files I wanted, to be downloaded on the next > connection. Maybe it was a standard, because I downloaded files from > other nodes directly. I think it was the Ralph Brown Interrupt List > that I downloaded from a node on the canary Islands - an expensive > phone call for me, but I needed that file. > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralf_Brown%27s_Interrupt_List> Intriguing. > I knew one that had the BBS on telnet. :-) > Yes, gateways to usenet were common at the end, but usually we had > to pay the sysop a small quantity to help with the costs. Fidonet was > basically free, but nodes incurred in costs (phone calls and possibly > a data connection) and often requested help with them. I don't recall > the payment method... not credit card, certainly. Not here. Postal > order, probably. *nod* Those were different times. More cooperative times. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-30 09:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <D96dnTSuA5XvK4XAnZ2dnUU7-TnNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #57104 |
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes: > > I can think of a couple of people that still run BBSs, at least one of > which still has a modem & phone line. One of them also has a Usenet > feed into the system. I don't know if he's gatewaying into FidoNet or > just having echos and Usenet available on his board. There was a local guy who ran a large multi-node BBS using PCBoard, and he had a satellite feed for Fido. "Fido on the bird" he called it. I had met him at some computer shows and at one point I bought some used RAM and I think a graphics card (I think the brand was Hercules), and when I went over to his house to get them, he gave me a tour of his BBS setup. He had it in an outbuilding and I remember him showing me how he had run thin net through a garden hose to get from there to the house where he had a couple of workstations setup so he and his wife could admin the board. I just found an old description of his BBS and he was evidently using Planet Connect and I found some info on that here: http://www.bbsdocumentary.com/library/CONCEPTS/SERVICES/SATELLITES/ I later worked for an ISP and they signed up with both Akamai and a company called Skycache. Both analyzed local traffic patterns and pushed data out to you and cached it to speed up web browsing, etc. But Skycache sent it out over a satellite feed. I think their slogan was "Reducing the World Wide Wait." Skycache also sent us a full Usenet feed, and I remember being pretty impressed by that. It was a whole lot less expensive then getting it from UUNet like we had before.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-30 15:41 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qfbabf$b7i$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #57332 |
On 6/30/19 7:17 AM, Bud Frede wrote: > There was a local guy who ran a large multi-node BBS using PCBoard, > and he had a satellite feed for Fido. "Fido on the bird" he called it. > > I had met him at some computer shows and at one point I bought some > used RAM and I think a graphics card (I think the brand was Hercules), > and when I went over to his house to get them, he gave me a tour of > his BBS setup. > > He had it in an outbuilding and I remember him showing me how he had > run thin net through a garden hose to get from there to the house > where he had a couple of workstations setup so he and his wife could > admin the board. LOL Thinnet (10Base2) through a garden hose. I like it. :-) > I just found an old description of his BBS and he was evidently using > Planet Connect and I found some info on that here: > > http://www.bbsdocumentary.com/library/CONCEPTS/SERVICES/SATELLITES/ $ReadingList++ > I later worked for an ISP and they signed up with both Akamai and > a company called Skycache. Both analyzed local traffic patterns > and pushed data out to you and cached it to speed up web browsing, > etc. But Skycache sent it out over a satellite feed. I think their > slogan was "Reducing the World Wide Wait." > > Skycache also sent us a full Usenet feed, and I remember being pretty > impressed by that. It was a whole lot less expensive then getting it > from UUNet like we had before. I'd be interested in a satellite feed of Usenet if such was still available. I've only heard about it in the past tense, and brief searches for it have not turned up anything. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-21 23:02 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qekcpo$qh1$2@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #57088 |
On 6/21/19 2:01 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: > IIRC did wvdial just made it easy to dial via ppp. I am bold and say > if you wanted you could even establish a DSL connection with it. > > <https://linux.die.net/man/1/wvdial> $ReadingList++ > I never used FIDO for news. I think FidoNet echos had (still have) their own ecosystem with different content, but similar in nature to Usenet newsgroups. > The leafnode news server uses NNTP. *nod* I've always run the full INN. Fortunately I've gotten an number of peers for text only feeds. > [Am not Carlos but reply anyway ;-)] Okay. Like I said in my reply to Carlos, I enjoy hearing about what people that experienced it remember. :-) > I disconnected manually. Might have or not have checked for mail or > check something on Altavista. *g* :-) -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-23 14:02 +0200 |
| Subject | Fidonet [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] |
| Message-ID | <gn9825F9bi2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57103 |
On 22/06/2019 07.02, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 6/21/19 2:01 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> IIRC did wvdial just made it easy to dial via ppp. I am bold and say
>> if you wanted you could even establish a DSL connection with it.
>>
>> <https://linux.die.net/man/1/wvdial>
>
> $ReadingList++
>
>> I never used FIDO for news.
>
> I think FidoNet echos had (still have) their own ecosystem with
> different content, but similar in nature to Usenet newsgroups.
Correct. Except that most were moderated. The moderator posted the rules
(like what charset to use), and could expel misbehavers. There was a
longish document with Fidonet rules. No, two docs, one generic, one for
the echoareas. The structure was hierarchical, with elected or appointed
bosses. Routes had to be defined according to resources, schedules
negotiated... All that was not automatic.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-24 09:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Fidonet [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] |
| Message-ID | <qeq43m$sai$3@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org> |
| In reply to | #57170 |
On 2019-06-23, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > On 22/06/2019 07.02, Grant Taylor wrote: >> On 6/21/19 2:01 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >>> IIRC did wvdial just made it easy to dial via ppp. I am bold and say >>> if you wanted you could even establish a DSL connection with it. >>> >>> <https://linux.die.net/man/1/wvdial> >> >> $ReadingList++ >> >>> I never used FIDO for news. >> >> I think FidoNet echos had (still have) their own ecosystem with >> different content, but similar in nature to Usenet newsgroups. > > Correct. Except that most were moderated. The moderator posted the rules > (like what charset to use), and could expel misbehavers. There was a > longish document with Fidonet rules. No, two docs, one generic, one for > the echoareas. The structure was hierarchical, with elected or appointed > bosses. Routes had to be defined according to resources, schedules > negotiated... All that was not automatic. Moderation was not like usenet moderation, the moderator didn't act as gatekeeper controling message flow, more like a bouncer expelling bad actors. -- When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-24 11:53 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Fidonet [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] |
| Message-ID | <n5j6ufx6bv.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor> |
| In reply to | #57210 |
On 24/06/2019 11.11, Jasen Betts wrote:
> On 2019-06-23, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 22/06/2019 07.02, Grant Taylor wrote:
>>> On 6/21/19 2:01 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>> IIRC did wvdial just made it easy to dial via ppp. I am bold and say
>>>> if you wanted you could even establish a DSL connection with it.
>>>>
>>>> <https://linux.die.net/man/1/wvdial>
>>>
>>> $ReadingList++
>>>
>>>> I never used FIDO for news.
>>>
>>> I think FidoNet echos had (still have) their own ecosystem with
>>> different content, but similar in nature to Usenet newsgroups.
>>
>> Correct. Except that most were moderated. The moderator posted the rules
>> (like what charset to use), and could expel misbehavers. There was a
>> longish document with Fidonet rules. No, two docs, one generic, one for
>> the echoareas. The structure was hierarchical, with elected or appointed
>> bosses. Routes had to be defined according to resources, schedules
>> negotiated... All that was not automatic.
>
> Moderation was not like usenet moderation, the moderator
> didn't act as gatekeeper controling message flow, more like a bouncer
> expelling bad actors.
Certainly.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-25 07:37 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Fidonet [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] |
| Message-ID | <njc3he55os8t8loe53hbmanbop3ga366gr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #57170 |
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 14:02:12 +0200, "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >On 22/06/2019 07.02, Grant Taylor wrote: >> On 6/21/19 2:01 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >>> IIRC did wvdial just made it easy to dial via ppp. I am bold and say >>> if you wanted you could even establish a DSL connection with it. >>> >>> <https://linux.die.net/man/1/wvdial> >> >> $ReadingList++ >> >>> I never used FIDO for news. >> >> I think FidoNet echos had (still have) their own ecosystem with >> different content, but similar in nature to Usenet newsgroups. > >Correct. Except that most were moderated. The moderator posted the rules >(like what charset to use), and could expel misbehavers. There was a >longish document with Fidonet rules. No, two docs, one generic, one for >the echoareas. The structure was hierarchical, with elected or appointed >bosses. Routes had to be defined according to resources, schedules >negotiated... All that was not automatic. When Usenet newsgroups first started being gated to Fidonet, many usenet users feared that letting the Fidonet rabble in would mean the end of Usenet. Now Usenet is full of spammers, trolls and fanatics and only about one article in 20 is worth reading, and I long for the days of Fidonet and the interesting conversations. -- Steve Hayes http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm http://khanya.wordpress.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-25 16:49 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Fidonet [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] |
| Message-ID | <1so9uf-ssi.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #57239 |
On 25/06/2019 07.37, Steve Hayes wrote: > On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 14:02:12 +0200, "Carlos E. R." > <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >> On 22/06/2019 07.02, Grant Taylor wrote: >>> On 6/21/19 2:01 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >>>> IIRC did wvdial just made it easy to dial via ppp. I am bold and say >>>> if you wanted you could even establish a DSL connection with it. >>>> >>>> <https://linux.die.net/man/1/wvdial> >>> >>> $ReadingList++ >>> >>>> I never used FIDO for news. >>> >>> I think FidoNet echos had (still have) their own ecosystem with >>> different content, but similar in nature to Usenet newsgroups. >> >> Correct. Except that most were moderated. The moderator posted the rules >> (like what charset to use), and could expel misbehavers. There was a >> longish document with Fidonet rules. No, two docs, one generic, one for >> the echoareas. The structure was hierarchical, with elected or appointed >> bosses. Routes had to be defined according to resources, schedules >> negotiated... All that was not automatic. > > When Usenet newsgroups first started being gated to Fidonet, many > usenet users feared that letting the Fidonet rabble in would mean the > end of Usenet. Now Usenet is full of spammers, trolls and fanatics and > only about one article in 20 is worth reading, and I long for the days > of Fidonet and the interesting conversations. Yes. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-25 19:34 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Fidonet [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] |
| Message-ID | <qetpfn$93j$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57245 |
On 25/06/2019 15:49, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> When Usenet newsgroups first started being gated to Fidonet, many >> usenet users feared that letting the Fidonet rabble in would mean the >> end of Usenet. Now Usenet is full of spammers, trolls and fanatics and >> only about one article in 20 is worth reading, and I long for the days >> of Fidonet and the interesting conversations. Wasnt it AOL that marked the end of Usenet as it guarnateed a series of noobs all the time - 'eternal september' Then they invented faeces book. > Yes -- Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas? Josef Stalin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-30 09:36 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Fidonet [Was: Re: Linux Command-Line Editors Vulnerable to High-Severity Bug] |
| Message-ID | <vtudnb8rJPJkJ4XAnZ2dnUU7-U3NnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #57239 |
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes: > > When Usenet newsgroups first started being gated to Fidonet, many > usenet users feared that letting the Fidonet rabble in would mean the > end of Usenet. Now Usenet is full of spammers, trolls and fanatics and > only about one article in 20 is worth reading, and I long for the days > of Fidonet and the interesting conversations. I remember seeing some of those abuses on FIDO, RIME, and some of the other echo networks back then too. There was one group of people that advocated Antivirus software, with one group aligning behind one brand and another group championing another brand. Two particularly strident ones were Zvi Netiv and Rod Fewster, IIRC. I think they even carried their battles with them from the BBS world to Usenet. (Nowadays they'd probably be the stars of some reality TV show.) The sad thing was that I think both of them had knowledge they could have shared and that people would have learned from, but they were so busy fighting that anyone with any sense avoided both of them and the products they argued about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-30 08:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <jIydnVfaN6QALYXAnZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #57088 |
Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> writes: > > I never used FIDO for news. The leafnode news server uses NNTP. > Once I discovered Usenet it wasn't long before I was spending more time on it than on the FIDO echoes. I tried a couple of solutions for mixing the two, but never found them to be very satisfactory. For a while I was using a newsreader called yarn/2 and I uploaded and downloaded SOUP packets to my ISP's shell server using uqwk. Then I got a second phone line so I could remain connected for longer periods and I switched to using a few different OS/2 newsreaders and finally switched to using slrn on the ISP's shell server. At some point around then I devoted a PC at home to Linux and did most things from there via a PPP connection rather than using their shell server.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-30 08:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Ip6dnZnnKu3eN4XAnZ2dnUU7-RvNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #57031 |
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes: > On 19/06/2019 22.15, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >> >> Because there was also the never ending Emacs VS Vi discussion at some point. > > Sure. They are said to have been epic. I found some of those discussions to be interesting, and I learned more about both editors from them. However, they always got to a point where one side likes emacs and the other likes vi and neither is going to convince the other to switch. Some people "agreed to disagree" at that point, but others got increasingly vehement and it got ugly. I always stopped reading the threads once the flames started to appear. It would be nice if I had the time and brainpower to know both editors equally well and be able to really evaluate them and perhaps choose one based on that, or just use each where they're best suited. However, when I started working with Unix, the other people using it had a definite preference for one over the other and I used the preferred one because I could more easily find someone to answer any questions about it that way. I don't have any regrets about that. The editor that I use for most editing tasks is and has been a very useful tool, and has made my life easier. As for the other topic that was raised; the suitability or non-suitability of a topic for a given newsgroup or newsgroups... I've seen groups ruined by off-topic posting and by excessive cross-posting. I've also seen other groups embrace off-topic posts and fit them in to the group's culture. At least in the groups that I read, there is no longer so much traffic that I really can't keep up and would seek to reduce posts that are well-intended but somewhat off-topic. I reserve my ire for those children playing silly dominance games - trolls in other words. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-30 20:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v0anuf-j92.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #57330 |
On 30/06/2019 14.25, Bud Frede wrote: > "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes: > >> On 19/06/2019 22.15, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >>> >>> Because there was also the never ending Emacs VS Vi discussion at some point. >> >> Sure. They are said to have been epic. > > I found some of those discussions to be interesting, and I learned more > about both editors from them. However, they always got to a point where > one side likes emacs and the other likes vi and neither is going to > convince the other to switch. Some people "agreed to disagree" at that > point, but others got increasingly vehement and it got ugly. I always > stopped reading the threads once the flames started to appear. > > It would be nice if I had the time and brainpower to know both editors > equally well and be able to really evaluate them and perhaps choose one > based on that, or just use each where they're best suited. It is difficult, their user interfaces are so different. > > However, when I started working with Unix, the other people using it had > a definite preference for one over the other and I used the preferred > one because I could more easily find someone to answer any questions > about it that way. That's a very sound strategy. Also for choosing a distribution. Me, I recognize that both are very powerful tools, but both have a steep learning curve which I did not want to invest the time doing. I have, on ocassion, used emacs because "upstream" of me was using it for some special feature and I learned enough to use it, for those files only. Or because I needed some specific feature. For example, emacs recognizes a file with extension .pgp as encripted and treats it appropriately, asking for the passphrase, not creating temporary files in the clear, etc. I was looking for an editor for encripted files and the howtos I found used emacs, so emacs it was. For that task only. > > I don't have any regrets about that. The editor that I use for most > editing tasks is and has been a very useful tool, and has made my life > easier. :-) > As for the other topic that was raised; the suitability or > non-suitability of a topic for a given newsgroup or newsgroups... I've > seen groups ruined by off-topic posting and by excessive > cross-posting. I've also seen other groups embrace off-topic posts and > fit them in to the group's culture. > > At least in the groups that I read, there is no longer so much traffic > that I really can't keep up and would seek to reduce posts that are > well-intended but somewhat off-topic. I reserve my ire for those > children playing silly dominance games - trolls in other words. :) :-) -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-30 20:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qfb47k$ap7$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57336 |
On 30/06/2019 19:01, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 30/06/2019 14.25, Bud Frede wrote: >> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes: >> >>> On 19/06/2019 22.15, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >>>> >>>> Because there was also the never ending Emacs VS Vi discussion at some point. >>> >>> Sure. They are said to have been epic. >> >> I found some of those discussions to be interesting, and I learned more >> about both editors from them. However, they always got to a point where >> one side likes emacs and the other likes vi and neither is going to >> convince the other to switch. Some people "agreed to disagree" at that >> point, but others got increasingly vehement and it got ugly. I always >> stopped reading the threads once the flames started to appear. >> >> It would be nice if I had the time and brainpower to know both editors >> equally well and be able to really evaluate them and perhaps choose one >> based on that, or just use each where they're best suited. > > It is difficult, their user interfaces are so different. > >> >> However, when I started working with Unix, the other people using it had >> a definite preference for one over the other and I used the preferred >> one because I could more easily find someone to answer any questions >> about it that way. > > That's a very sound strategy. Also for choosing a distribution. > > > Me, I recognize that both are very powerful tools, but both have a steep > learning curve which I did not want to invest the time doing. I have, on > ocassion, used emacs because "upstream" of me was using it for some > special feature and I learned enough to use it, for those files only. Or > because I needed some specific feature. > > For example, emacs recognizes a file with extension .pgp as encripted > and treats it appropriately, asking for the passphrase, not creating > temporary files in the clear, etc. I was looking for an editor for > encripted files and the howtos I found used emacs, so emacs it was. For > that task only. > >> >> I don't have any regrets about that. The editor that I use for most >> editing tasks is and has been a very useful tool, and has made my life >> easier. > > :-) > > >> As for the other topic that was raised; the suitability or >> non-suitability of a topic for a given newsgroup or newsgroups... I've >> seen groups ruined by off-topic posting and by excessive >> cross-posting. I've also seen other groups embrace off-topic posts and >> fit them in to the group's culture. >> >> At least in the groups that I read, there is no longer so much traffic >> that I really can't keep up and would seek to reduce posts that are >> well-intended but somewhat off-topic. I reserve my ire for those >> children playing silly dominance games - trolls in other words. :) > > :-) > > Emacs is not a text editor. It is a poor attempt to reproduce the functionality of a windowed desktop in a charaacter based terminal -- How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think. Adolf Hitler
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-30 15:47 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <qfbalc$ods$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> |
| In reply to | #57336 |
On 6/30/19 12:01 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > For example, emacs recognizes a file with extension .pgp as encripted > and treats it appropriately, asking for the passphrase, not creating > temporary files in the clear, etc. I was looking for an editor for > encripted files and the howtos I found used emacs, so emacs it was. For > that task only. Vim has a plugin that will do that. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-30 16:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qfb55201au8@news1.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #57330 |
On 6/30/19 8:25 AM, Bud Frede wrote: > It would be nice if I had the time and brainpower to know both editors > equally well and be able to really evaluate them and perhaps choose one > based on that, or just use each where they're best suited. That is what I do. I use emacs most of the time, but for some things, I find vi more convenient, so then I use vi. I switched to vi soon after it became available in UNIX. It was somewhat more powerful than ed, the only editor I knew of at the time. -- .~. Jean-David Beyer /V\ PGP-Key:166D840A 0C610C8B /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey ^^-^^ 16:10:01 up 1 day, 19:15, 2 users, load average: 4.91, 4.78, 4.73
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-06-19 00:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <226otf-hk9.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #56969 |
On 18/06/2019 22.15, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 11:29:43 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> >> Now, how did it happen that I wrote "alt.os.linux.suse" group above? It >> was supposed to be "alt.os.linux". >> >> Ah, I see why now while doing it again. Thunderbird tries to be too >> clever :-( > > Because I set a Followup-To: to avoid cross posting. And I attempted to add alt.os.linux back because that is the group I read first, and comp.os.linux.misc I may ignore. But Thunderbird autocompleted alt.os.linux to alt.os.linux.suse. > > Okay, you put the other groups back. Since SUSE is mentioned one could > add the Debian, RedHat, Fedora... groups. That group was unintentionally added. You can remove it as far as I'm concerned. > > Furthermore this might be off topic in any group dealing with Linux since > the topic is about and editor running on UNIX and other operating systems > too and there should be a group having editors as topic. At least the > de.* hierarchy has. vi is also used in Linux. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.os.linux
csiph-web