Re: ID theft (offtipicish)
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Shachar Shemesh wrote: Peter wrote: On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, Shachar Shemesh wrote: YTfFYyyfDDk676 (different from time to time of course). And this will help how? If there is a harnivore system somewhere triggering on nontext codes it will start wasing serious time and producing huger reports for its masters if 5% of email has such nonstandard text. I meant, how will this help against the fact that, if you sign your emails, they are legally binding? It would not. But then nothing else would. You see, I ranted in the past on this list about 'redefinitions' of various kinds. The redefinition of a digital signature as 'legally binding' is such a redefinition. It may be useful but imho people are not clear about this (I wasn't for sure until someone pointed out the relatively recent law). Consider the following: Many companies and individuals have a standard signature that contains a disclaimer that says that 'the opinions herein .. do not represent anything in particular ... are not yada yada ... no legal advice ...' etc etc. Now consider that such a message is digitally signed, as are all others going out of a server. On a bad day, someone who is a known joker who is known to have a crush on Ann sends a coworker an email with the content 'I'll kill you if you look at Ann like that one more time'. The recipient is run over by a car the next day. During the investigation that follows this email is discovered. What will happen then ? Who knows. Anyway this is exaggerated (as usual), but the facts remain: - any communication can contain semantically conflicting information - redefining some part of it as 'legally binding' raises the part's value above others in the communication - if such a 'raised value' item is present then it recursively covers the semantic content of the communication, whatever that is, and itself! - if the content of the communication is semantically ambiguous or contradictory or null then this is made 'legally binding' by signing it - adding a disclaimer induces such nullification automatically - therefore any digitally signed communication that contains a disclaimer is semantically null, same as any unsigned communication that contains such a disclaimer. Sort of like Tom Cruise's first born's first piece of c**p, gold plated and preserved, mounted on a mahagony pedestal, but different. - the legal value of an unsigned and un-disclaimed email is also null, defined by hiatus when it is defined that a signed email is legally binding. - therefore the values of a signed and disclaimed and an unsigned and undisclaimed messages are both null. - yet most people expect their outgoing emails not to be legally binding even if digitally signed and will hold this position if taken to court. It is taken for granted that a 'disclaimer' is there even if it is not. - knowing that courts have fun intrepreting obvious things 'in the spirit of the law' one cannot know what the outcome will be, even if such a case ends up in court. So much trouble for a hash sum. Tsk tsk. Anyway the short answer seems to be: A digitally signed (with a certificate) .AND. explicitly undisclaimed [1] email message .MAY. be legally binding .IF. tested in court under .SOME. jurisdictions. Peter (or John) [1]: phew, what a word. 'undisclaimed' ?! Maybe 'not disclaimed' or 'not covered by any implicit or explicit disclaimer' would work better PS: I am not a lawyer, and VERY glad about that. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ID theft (offtipicish)
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Peter wrote: Anyway the short answer seems to be: A digitally signed (with a certificate) .AND. explicitly undisclaimed [1] email message .MAY. be legally binding .IF. tested in court under .SOME. jurisdictions. Peter (or John) [1]: phew, what a word. 'undisclaimed' ?! Maybe 'not disclaimed' or 'not covered by any implicit or explicit disclaimer' would work better More exactly, containing an explicit claim along the lines of 'This is not an exercise. I really mean what it says, and I send it digitally signed according to the law /200x, which I know to be valid under the jurisdiction of ... and '. Because if it does not contain such a statement I don't think it will hold water. PS: I am not a lawyer, and VERY glad about that. Still true. Peter = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ID theft (offtipicish)
Peter wrote: I meant, how will this help against the fact that, if you sign your emails, they are legally binding? It would not. Then why did you say it would? /me is confused. But then nothing else would. Not true. Not signing trivial emails would. A recommendation, I might add, that you mocked. I am not holding my breath for an apology, but feel free to surprise me. The redefinition of a digital signature as 'legally binding' is such a redefinition. There is no redefinition here. Digital signatures were always a verified way of establishing that you said something. Automatic signing of all outgoing mail was always of questionable wisdom. The only thing that changed is that it is even less smart to do so today. It may be useful but imho people are not clear about this (I wasn't for sure until someone pointed out the relatively recent law). That's why I gave the advice I did. Consider the following: Many companies and individuals have a standard signature that contains a disclaimer that says that 'the opinions herein ... do not represent anything in particular ... are not yada yada ... no legal advice ...' etc etc. IANAL, but I doubt that digital signatures change anything in that regard. Signed or not, there is a limit on how much you can limit your liability. Signing your outgoing mail makes you liable for what you say, but the fact that you digitally signed your email does not change my rights. That's exactly the reason it's so important not to automatically sign everything. Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. Have you backed up today's work? http://www.lingnu.com/backup.html = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: crappy audio
On Sun, 2007-02-04 at 20:59 +0200, Diego Iastrubni wrote: I can confirm the unplugging issue you describe. It's a known fact (Hetz already mentioned it on this list a few weeks ago). According to this: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LaptopTestingTeam/Lenovo3000N100_0768 There is a patch which fixes it. interesting. Do you happen to know if the patch (as mentioned on that page) was released back to ALSA ? This wiki also tought me that the camera is a WIP, quite cool. how's that ? I couldn't get the camera to work and didn't find any driver that will even compile. Oded, did you make the sd card reader work? Acording to this: http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/How_to_get_the_internal_SD-CARD_working It should work, however enabling the tifm_sd module at boot, disables the audio on this system. I haven't tried the SD card reader. -- Oded ::.. Fish lurk in streams. -- Rochester, New York, Democrat Chronicle, January 29 = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Xen Unstable Seed Repository Tarball
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 11:35:05AM +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/SRG/netos/xen/downloads/xen-unstable.hg.tar.gz is broken. Where can I find the seed repository tarball instead? No idea. You can just clone the repo. Or - you could ask on the xen-devel mailing list where someone might actually know ;-) Thanks in advance, Shlomi Fish P.S: someone should update the cheatsheet. You know what they say about patches and acceptance. Cheers, Muli = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ID theft (offtipicish)
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Shachar Shemesh wrote: Peter wrote: I meant, how will this help against the fact that, if you sign your emails, they are legally binding? It would not. Then why did you say it would? /me is confused. Ahh, now you have reached the opinion of the public ;-) As I pointed out, the problem is the confusion and that is not 'helped' by the redefinition of the value of something many users would not consider legally binding, namely a digital signature of a certain kind, only in association with a digital certificate of a certain kind, and only when tested in court. But then nothing else would. Not true. Not signing trivial emails would. A recommendation, I might add, that you mocked. I am not holding my breath for an apology, but feel free to surprise me. You can consider yourself partially virtually surprised, however this email is not digitally signed using an approved method and recognized certificate, and does not contain a claim of intent. I am not mocking you, the problem is the system. Once it is up to the courts, it is the depth of the pockets of one of the participants that decides the outcome. It is irrelevant if this is decided by the ability to sustain the burden of legal fees or the loss of time and business caused by direct and indirect effects of an eventual lawsuit, or by direct financial impact. The redefinition of a digital signature as 'legally binding' is such a redefinition. There is no redefinition here. Digital signatures were always a verified way of establishing that you said something. Automatic signing of all outgoing mail was always of questionable wisdom. The only thing that changed is that it is even less smart to do so today. Let me expand on this: Not all (more exactly: most) digital signatures are digital signatures in this context. In particular, f.ex., signing an email with a *private* public key that is shown only to qualified individuals on demand (and a court would certainly not qualify) is explicitly, by design, not 'digital signing' in the sense implied by you and by the new law, and should it at any time become binding, then new ways will be found to circumvent the new redefinition. In this case, the digital signature is meant to serve the role of sealing wax on a paper envelope, NOT to make the email legally binding. Not for the courts, but for the *intended* recipient. And in fact, the act of such an email or a subpoena for the *private* public key that was used to sign it appearing in court is irrefutable proof of eavesdropping and possibly illegal 'electronic surveillance', followed by explicit malicious use of the information thus gained. Therefore one could be explicit and say that 'an email digitally signed with an approved method and a recognized electronic security certificate is legally binding in certain countries'. And this implies that all other emails, signed or not, are *not*. It may be useful but imho people are not clear about this (I wasn't for sure until someone pointed out the relatively recent law). That's why I gave the advice I did. Yes, that was welcome. But you have to be very explicit. Consider the following: Many companies and individuals have a standard signature that contains a disclaimer that says that 'the opinions herein ... do not represent anything in particular ... are not yada yada ... no legal advice ...' etc etc. IANAL, but I doubt that digital signatures change anything in that regard. Signed or not, there is a limit on how much you can limit your liability. Signing your outgoing mail makes you liable for what you say, but the fact that you digitally signed your email does not change my rights. That's exactly the reason it's so important not to automatically sign everything. In general, making new 'definitions' of the value of signatures is void of value when one considers precisely the fact that you state so obviously in this answer: That in fact 'it depends' and there are 'limits' which actually redefine the meaning of 'not legally binding'. These 'limits' are not stipulated by the law and are 'open for intrepretation', which, due to information collection on an unprecedented scale, is likely to be used out of context and with malice, often by people who had nothing to do with the collection and organization of the information (such as stored emails at an ISP). *This* is why freedom of speech is important. F.ex. censoring some answers to emails in a thread on a public list that is archived is equivalent with quoting out of context for malicious purposes (by leaving certain questions raised in a thread unanswered, or improperly answered in the opinion of a thread participant). And signing one's emails with non-legally-binding and deniable methods is a part of ensuring that freedom of speech is maintained, and if not, then to what extent. F.ex. searching for unique message ids on public search engines yields interesting results, wrt
Re: Xen Unstable Seed Repository Tarball
Hi Muli! Thanks for the information. On 2/5/07, Muli Ben-Yehuda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 11:35:05AM +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/SRG/netos/xen/downloads/xen-unstable.hg.tar.gz is broken. Where can I find the seed repository tarball instead? No idea. You can just clone the repo. OK. I'll start doing that. Or - you could ask on the xen-devel mailing list where someone might actually know ;-) I'll do that too. Thanks in advance, Shlomi Fish P.S: someone should update the cheatsheet. You know what they say about patches and acceptance. I know. However, I can send a patch only once I know how to fix it myself. Regards, Shlomi Fish Cheers, Muli -- -- Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ If his programming is anything like his philosophising, he would find 10 imaginary bugs in the Hello World program. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ID theft (offtipicish)
Peter wrote: Let me expand on this: Not all (more exactly: most) digital signatures are digital signatures in this context. In particular, f.ex., signing an email with a *private* public key that is shown only to qualified individuals on demand (and a court would certainly not qualify) is explicitly, by design, not 'digital signing' in the sense implied by you and by the new law, Well, it is not a digital signature by any original definition either. Unless I know the certificate used for signing, the fact that the RSA/DSA/ElGamal/Whatever algorithm was applied to it neither adds nor subtracts. I have to know who the key belongs to in order for the actual signature to mean anything. We will now break for a quick disclaimer: *DISCLAIMER* Not only am I not a lawyer, but the following analysis is based not on actually reading the text of the law, but on it being explained to me. As such, it may be even less accurate than the usual half assed analysis of legal matters you (plural) have come to expect of me: We now return you to our usual program: However, if I have done any reasonable measures to ascertain that key X belongs to you, then the law says I can depend on anything signed using said key as coming from you, unless, of course, you follow the exceptions provided by the law to notify me in a timely manner that your key is no longer valid. As far as I understand the law (again, not from reading it), it does not list specific algorithms that should be used or specific procedures for authenticating that the keys belong to the specific person. All it does do is to define what a CA is, and say that such a CA is authorized to authenticate keys. There is nothing there (again, hearsay that had better be verified) that suggests that merely because PGP uses a different kind of authentication, it is not as binding as the usual PKI method. This means, to me, you have but two options. Signing your emails with a key the you did not prove to me belongs to you, which is useless with or without the law, and signing your emails with a key you did prove to me in the past, which makes your emails legally binding. In general, making new 'definitions' of the value of signatures is void of value when one considers precisely the fact that you state so obviously in this answer: That in fact 'it depends' and there are 'limits' which actually redefine the meaning of 'not legally binding'. Those limits apply to any contract, electronic or not, and therefor have no bearing on the question at hand. You cannot limit my rights by signing a piece of paper I did not sign, just as you cannot limit my rights by sending me an electronically signed email. And signing one's emails with non-legally-binding and deniable methods is a part of ensuring that freedom of speech is maintained, If you sign your emails in a deniable way you, indeed, avoid the problems of the digital signature law. What I fail to see is what you gain by it. Deniability and signature are, as far as I can see, mutually exclusive. Peter Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. Have you backed up today's work? http://www.lingnu.com/backup.html = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ID theft (offtipicish)
Michael Vasiliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Change your online id to single-letter strings of just one letter, Like: zzz zzz [EMAIL PROTECTED] I suggest you take a look at advanced search syntax of google for a start. Google Hacks and book and j0hnny's website may be an interesting reading for you. What makes you think I am not aware of that ? ;-) This makes searching by your name futile. Or do what I do and sign all your messages with 'Peter' or 'John'. There are about 100 million Johns out there and in case of identity theft they will likely take another John's identity. After wiping off my tears, I did this naive query: http://www.google.com/search?q=peter+plp+actcomie=UTF-8oe=UTF-8 hitting paydirt at the very first obvious link: http://www.actcom.co.il/~plp Stealthy online presence indeed. The rest of the results look relevant as well. Having your not very common name, should I continue on what would an identity thief do next? You just proved that what I preach works. That page is ten years old and has not been actualized sice Y2K or so with small exceptions. The information therein is about as 'fresh', with exception of the code, which works, and gives it some credibility. My email address in plain on that page has helped train my spam filter to unbelievable perfection, scoring a solid 0.1% false negatives over the years. The lack of another homepage forces you to believe that that *is* in fact my homepage. That might even be true. Or not. But that could change now that you opened the subject. About name search: If many people use ids like [EMAIL PROTECTED] then searching by that will not yield results. At least not in the beginning. 2. Encode your birthday and snail mail address using a riddle that only a patient human can solve. Example: http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/harry/address.htm (I solved that but it took a while) How's that going to protect your identity? If by 'identity' you mean the information available to anyone on the internet then me and you mean different things with 'identity'. I am not playing this game for a variety of reasons. I am not a 'hacker' and usually do not wear any hat, nor do I pretend to. 3. Digitally sign your email. Not like the peasants do by adding four lines of gpg crud, put it in a custom header instead. Yum! Give me another tracking vector, your web of trust. I will be able to pinpoint your location, interests, friends, business contacts...and measure the pet paranoia level in bits, while I'm at it. Are you talking about my real web of trust or about one of the ones I am faking, if so, which one of them, and how do you know that what you found was not put there so you can find it. I'm not saying that it was, but suppose. Also how do you know if the web of trust you just hooked so easily is waxing or waning (never mind its initial role, standalone or aggregated with other issues, or whether it had such a role in the first place). Or whether it is a trap of some sort (see above about spam). Do yourself a favor and next time you are going to distribute security advice, don't insult the blackhats' intelligence while you're doing it. They have a swollen ego, the very least, you'll be laughed at. They are smart enough to do what they do and not get caught, what makes you think they are stupid enough to not master the art of Google search? Thanks for playing, although this is not a game. The 'advice' was not security advice, which I am not qualified to give. Someone asked something and I answered. Basically what I advocated should prevent most script kiddies from having a fun day. It does not bring 'security'. John = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ID theft (offtipicish)
Alon Altman wrote: What if I sign my messages with a public key, but include a statement in the message that the signature is only for authentication purposes only and does not serve as a commitment to anything written in the message? I don't know. It may work. It may not. I am not a lawyer. It MAY be that the authentication is all it really takes to create binding commitment. After all, if you promise me, orally, to do something, that's a binding agreement too (for anything but buying real-estate). The reason all contracts are not made orally is because of deniability, which does not exist in this case. If that's the case, then the above disclaimer can be said to be irrelevant. Or, in short, I am not a lawyer, I am not familiar with contract laws, and I highly doubt that there are any precedences that apply with such new a law. I wouldn't risk it if I were you. Alon Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. Have you backed up today's work? http://www.lingnu.com/backup.html = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ID theft (offtipicish)
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Shachar Shemesh wrote: Alon Altman wrote: What if I sign my messages with a public key, but include a statement in the message that the signature is only for authentication purposes only and does not serve as a commitment to anything written in the message? I don't know. It may work. It may not. I am not a lawyer. It MAY be that the authentication is all it really takes to create binding commitment. After all, if you promise me, orally, to do something, that's a binding agreement too (for anything but buying real-estate). The reason all contracts are not made orally is because of deniability, which does not exist in this case. If that's the case, then the above disclaimer can be said to be irrelevant. Or, in short. 'it depends' and the 'legally binding' signature is as useful as a bandage on a wooden foot. At most, it makes things more complicated than they already are. That could mean increased legal fees ;-) It also means that using it exposes one MORE than not using to legal action by an unhappy (or sick) recipient. Therefore using 'chaff' signatures with an unpublished (and changed often, like once per message) key or cert all the time can be said to reduce problems. When the time comes for litigy, you will be asked and if it's an undesirable request the answer will be 'it is not mine', but if it is your broker checking that you gave him a sell order, then it will be 'it's mine' (you can tell this because you will have saved the key used for signing the message to the broker, as opposed to the others, which will have been deleted ... - just as an example). Unauthorized persons will only be able to suspect that the message is probably signed (as are all others that you will have sent). The goal of the 'legally binding' signature seems to be to allow legal transactions via email to proceed. Unintentionally, it has opened the way for unexpected litigy and for illegal eavesdropping and information collection (it is very easy to collect all emails with a valid signature - in the sense of valid gpg etc - as they are a small percentage of the traffic. Or were, until now, and then use them or sell them to someone who will use them). Peter = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ID theft (offtipicish)
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 12:15 +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote: Deniability and signature are, as far as I can see, mutually exclusive. I wonder how Off-the-record ( http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/ ) works then. I'm not a cryptology expert, but I can tell you that it allows people to IM each other, has some sort of method where you authenticate that you know that a certain key belongs to a certain someone and then it assures you that its the same someone for all additional conversations, and their web site claims as thus: Encryption No one else can read your instant messages. Authentication You are assured the correspondent is who you think it is. Deniability The messages you send do not have digital signatures that are checkable by a third party. Anyone can forge messages after a conversation to make them look like they came from you. However, during a conversation, your correspondent is assured the messages he sees are authentic and unmodified. Perfect forward secrecy If you lose control of your private keys, no previous conversation is compromised. It seems like they claim both deniability and and assurance (which is what you get from signing, except w/o the signing part) at the same time. -- Oded ::.. If a train station is where the train stops, what is a work station? = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: XMLTV and Israel? (fwd)
Hi,
I have a working xmltv setup here. It required some hacking into the
downloader code for Israel. First of all, you should use tvtime which has
xmltv support. Second, you need the tv_grab_il script attached. Third,
you'll need a cron job something like this (here I download twice per week):
20 6 * * 0,3 cp /home/alon/media/TV/listings.xml
/home/alon/media/TV/listings.xml.old /usr/local/bin/tv_grab_il | tv_sort
/home/alon/media/TV/listings.xml
Fourth, you need to configure tvtime to use your XMLTV file and correctly
modify the ~/.tvtime/stationlist.xml file with XMLTV ids (I'm attaching my
file).
Good luck!
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Amichai Rotman wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to set up Freevo on my Ubuntu 6.10 box and make use of the TV
guide feature. I understand it uses XMLTV to get the TV guide (like the EPG
on digital broadcast) but I don't know how to set it up.
I tried to follow the instructions but it is very unfriendly and confusing.
Any of you know of an existing guide / HOWTO or did it him/her self?
Thanks!
--
This message was sent by Alon Altman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ICQ:1366540
GPG public key at http://8ln.org/pubkey.txt
Key fingerprint = A670 6C81 19D3 3773 3627 DE14 B44A 50A3 FE06 7F24
--
-=[ Random Fortune ]=-
Any philosophy that can be put in a nutshell belongs there.
-- Sydney J. Harris
-- Attached file included as plaintext by Listar --
-- File: tv_grab_il
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
=pod
=head1 NAME
tv_grab_il - Grab TV listings for Israel.
=head1 SYNOPSIS
tv_grab_il --help
tv_grab_il [--config-file FILE] --configure
tv_grab_il [--config-file FILE] [--output FILE] [--days N]
[--offset N] [--quiet]
=head1 DESCRIPTION
Outputs TV listings for channels available in Israel (free to air, cable
and satellite). The data is obtained from parsing web pages from the Israeli
portal walla (from tv.walla.co.il).
First run Btv_grab_il --configure to decide which channels to download. There
is a long list. You may want to select none when it asks you for which
channels and manually edit the configuration file to uncomment the channels
you wish to tape. Then run Btv_grab_il with no arguments to output the
listing in XML format to the standard output.
To view the hebrew, you will need to set your terminal to have a unicode font
that supports hebrew.
B--configure Prompt for which channels, and write the configuration file.
B--config-file FILE Set the name of the configuration file, the
default is B~/.xmltv/tv_grab_il.conf. This is the file written by
B--configure and read when grabbing.
B--output FILE write to FILE rather than standard output.
B--days N grab N days. The default is 7 (there does not seem to be more
information than this anyway on the server in general).
B--offset N start N days in the future. The default is to start
from today.
B--quiet suppress the progress messages normally written to standard
error.
=head1 SEE ALSO
Lxmltv(5).
=head1 AUTHOR
Written by Jason Friedman, [EMAIL PROTECTED] This program is
based on tv_grab_sn, written by Stefan G:orling, [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
maintained by Staffan Malmgren, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Patched by Alon Altman.
Last updated: 5 February, 2007.
=head1 BUGS
The summer time routine uses the European summer time start and stop
dates which are different to those used in Israel. The correct times
can be found at
http://www.greenwichmeantime.com/local/asia/il.htm?israel+jerusalem+tel_aviv
=cut
use strict;
#binmode(STDOUT,:utf8);
#binmode(STDERR,:utf8);
use HTML::TreeBuilder;
use Date::Manip;
use Getopt::Long;
use Locale::Hebrew;
use Encode;
use XMLTV;
use XMLTV::Memoize;
use XMLTV::Ask;
use XMLTV::TZ qw(parse_local_date);
use XMLTV::DST qw(utc_offset);
use XMLTV::Config_file;
use XMLTV::Get_nice;
use XMLTV::Mode;
use XMLTV::Usage END
$0: get Israeli television listings in XMLTV format
To configure: $0 --configure [--config-file FILE]
To grab listings: $0 [--config-file FILE] [--output FILE] [--days N]
[--offset N] [--quiet]
END
;
# Use Term::ProgressBar if installed.
use constant Have_bar = eval { require Term::ProgressBar; 1 };
# Memoize some date parsing routines, if possible. FIXME move to
# XMLTV::Memoize.
#
eval { require Memoize };
unless ($@) {
foreach (qw(utc_offset ParseDate UnixDate dc fetch_data)) {
Memoize::memoize($_) or warn cannot memoize $_;
}
}
sub xhead();
sub configure();
sub get_channels();
sub fetch_data ($$);
sub get_display_name ($);
sub process_file( $ );
sub read_config_file( $ );
sub dc ( $$ );
sub reencode ( $ );
# The base timezone (winter time) and summer time for Israel is
# equivalent however the switchover dates are different (see BUGS)
my $BASE_TZ = EET;
my $PAGE_ENCODING = Windows-1255;
my $DOMAIN = 'tv.walla.co.il';
XMLTV::Memoize::check_argv('XMLTV::Get_nice::get_nice_aux');
my ($opt_days, $opt_help, $opt_output,
$opt_offset,$opt_configure,
Re: XMLTV and Israel?
Hi,
I have a working xmltv setup here. It required some hacking into the
downloader code for Israel. First of all, you should use tvtime which has
xmltv support. Second, you need the tv_grab_il script attached. Third,
you'll need a cron job something like this (here I download twice per week):
20 6 * * 0,3 cp /home/alon/media/TV/listings.xml
/home/alon/media/TV/listings.xml.old /usr/local/bin/tv_grab_il | tv_sort
/home/alon/media/TV/listings.xml
Fourth, you need to configure tvtime to use your XMLTV file and correctly
modify the ~/.tvtime/stationlist.xml file with XMLTV ids (I'm attaching my
file).
Good luck!
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Amichai Rotman wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to set up Freevo on my Ubuntu 6.10 box and make use of the TV
guide feature. I understand it uses XMLTV to get the TV guide (like the EPG
on digital broadcast) but I don't know how to set it up.
I tried to follow the instructions but it is very unfriendly and confusing.
Any of you know of an existing guide / HOWTO or did it him/her self?
Thanks!
--
This message was sent by Alon Altman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ICQ:1366540
GPG public key at http://8ln.org/pubkey.txt
Key fingerprint = A670 6C81 19D3 3773 3627 DE14 B44A 50A3 FE06 7F24
--
-=[ Random Fortune ]=-
Any philosophy that can be put in a nutshell belongs there.
-- Sydney J. Harris
-- Attached file included as plaintext by Listar --
-- File: tv_grab_il
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
=pod
=head1 NAME
tv_grab_il - Grab TV listings for Israel.
=head1 SYNOPSIS
tv_grab_il --help
tv_grab_il [--config-file FILE] --configure
tv_grab_il [--config-file FILE] [--output FILE] [--days N]
[--offset N] [--quiet]
=head1 DESCRIPTION
Outputs TV listings for channels available in Israel (free to air, cable
and satellite). The data is obtained from parsing web pages from the Israeli
portal walla (from tv.walla.co.il).
First run Btv_grab_il --configure to decide which channels to download. There
is a long list. You may want to select none when it asks you for which
channels and manually edit the configuration file to uncomment the channels
you wish to tape. Then run Btv_grab_il with no arguments to output the
listing in XML format to the standard output.
To view the hebrew, you will need to set your terminal to have a unicode font
that supports hebrew.
B--configure Prompt for which channels, and write the configuration file.
B--config-file FILE Set the name of the configuration file, the
default is B~/.xmltv/tv_grab_il.conf. This is the file written by
B--configure and read when grabbing.
B--output FILE write to FILE rather than standard output.
B--days N grab N days. The default is 7 (there does not seem to be more
information than this anyway on the server in general).
B--offset N start N days in the future. The default is to start
from today.
B--quiet suppress the progress messages normally written to standard
error.
=head1 SEE ALSO
Lxmltv(5).
=head1 AUTHOR
Written by Jason Friedman, [EMAIL PROTECTED] This program is
based on tv_grab_sn, written by Stefan G:orling, [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
maintained by Staffan Malmgren, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Patched by Alon Altman.
Last updated: 5 February, 2007.
=head1 BUGS
The summer time routine uses the European summer time start and stop
dates which are different to those used in Israel. The correct times
can be found at
http://www.greenwichmeantime.com/local/asia/il.htm?israel+jerusalem+tel_aviv
=cut
use strict;
#binmode(STDOUT,:utf8);
#binmode(STDERR,:utf8);
use HTML::TreeBuilder;
use Date::Manip;
use Getopt::Long;
use Locale::Hebrew;
use Encode;
use XMLTV;
use XMLTV::Memoize;
use XMLTV::Ask;
use XMLTV::TZ qw(parse_local_date);
use XMLTV::DST qw(utc_offset);
use XMLTV::Config_file;
use XMLTV::Get_nice;
use XMLTV::Mode;
use XMLTV::Usage END
$0: get Israeli television listings in XMLTV format
To configure: $0 --configure [--config-file FILE]
To grab listings: $0 [--config-file FILE] [--output FILE] [--days N]
[--offset N] [--quiet]
END
;
# Use Term::ProgressBar if installed.
use constant Have_bar = eval { require Term::ProgressBar; 1 };
# Memoize some date parsing routines, if possible. FIXME move to
# XMLTV::Memoize.
#
eval { require Memoize };
unless ($@) {
foreach (qw(utc_offset ParseDate UnixDate dc fetch_data)) {
Memoize::memoize($_) or warn cannot memoize $_;
}
}
sub xhead();
sub configure();
sub get_channels();
sub fetch_data ($$);
sub get_display_name ($);
sub process_file( $ );
sub read_config_file( $ );
sub dc ( $$ );
sub reencode ( $ );
# The base timezone (winter time) and summer time for Israel is
# equivalent however the switchover dates are different (see BUGS)
my $BASE_TZ = EET;
my $PAGE_ENCODING = Windows-1255;
my $DOMAIN = 'tv.walla.co.il';
XMLTV::Memoize::check_argv('XMLTV::Get_nice::get_nice_aux');
my ($opt_days, $opt_help, $opt_output,
$opt_offset,$opt_configure,
Re: Making sure Actcom lives on
On 30/01/07, Geoffrey S. Mendelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:51:41PM +0200, Random Penguin wrote: Rumor would have it that Bezeq Benleumi have purchased Actcom for the knowledge base and not the customer base. From a business perspective, this does make sense. Both in the press and when speaking to Actcom on the phone the current line is Everything will stay the same, only the ownership has changed. They apparently understand that any attempt to convert current Actcom customers to Bezeq Benleumi customers will only be met with a mass exodus. And you expect a company with BBL's customer service record, who's CEO hires a company to write a virus so that he can spy on other companies, will honor this? Quite frankly, they don't care. If 20% of Actcom's customers leave (which is very unlikely), they were the ones that generated 80% of the customer service calls. Most likley the number of Linux and UNIX (including Macintosh) customers is a few percent. If they can ditch them, they will make more profit, not less. Take for example, the recent YES/HOT debates. HOT, which is an independent company changed their decision and gave their customers what they want, YES, which is partly owned by BEZEQ (BBL is 100% owned by them) did nothing except tell their customers that what they will give them is what they will take. Geoff. What you say is reason enough to make such a petition. I'll even sign it in person if it's written in Haifa. Dotan Cohen http://iphone-wiki.com http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/47/b-52_s.html = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ID theft (offtipicish)
Shachar Shemesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As far as I understand the law (again, not from reading it), it does not list specific algorithms that should be used or specific procedures for Mistake #1, and counting. I did point out before, that certain MUAs implicitly sign the message by calculating a hash sum over the message and certain key parameters in it and making it unique to the sending machine and to the time and network it was sent at/on. By your definition then, ALL email sent by anybody using such MUAs is legally binding. The MUAs in cause are the default MUAs used by everyone on the Internet, in this country and elsewhere, moreover the UID is mandated by RFCs and no using them breaks emails systems (don't ask how I know this). authenticating that the keys belong to the specific person. All it does do is to define what a CA is, and say that such a CA is authorized to authenticate keys. There is nothing there (again, hearsay that had better be verified) that suggests that merely because PGP uses a different kind of authentication, it is not as binding as the usual PKI method. And there is nothing that suggests that other signing mechanisms, such as UIDs assigned by operating systems to messages and checksums required as per RFCs for the transmission of messages over the Internet, and implicitly archived by packet sniffers, are *not* signatures by your definition. This means, to me, you have but two options. Signing your emails with a key the you did not prove to me belongs to you, which is useless with or without the law, and signing your emails with a key you did prove to me in the past, which makes your emails legally binding. No, you have but two options: Pretending that the messages are not signed while in fact the OS and the transport mechanisms both archive and sign them, or signing them in semi-mockery in a way that reduces the potential value of any collected information for malicious use, and increases it for oneself (maintaining a complete log of what one has sent can be 'interpreted' as much or as little as any log collected by an ISP - including any quotes out of context - positively or negatively - again 'it depends'). In general, making new 'definitions' of the value of signatures is void of value when one considers precisely the fact that you state so obviously in this answer: That in fact 'it depends' and there are 'limits' which actually redefine the meaning of 'not legally binding'. Those limits apply to any contract, electronic or not, and therefor have no bearing on the question at hand. You cannot limit my rights by signing a piece of paper I did not sign, just as you cannot limit my rights by sending me an electronically signed email. If those limits apply to 'any contract' then why is it necessary to make new limits when you said yourself that something sent to you by someone else 'cannot bind you to do anything'. It is also somewhat ironic that you write this using media and machines (and using software and licenses) which have implicitly limited your rights in many ways right now, most of them without having you sign anything. Again 'it depends'. Just like some clickthrough licenses have paragraphs like 'void where invalid' and such. Signatures are just another mirror in the maze and this particular instace (the law, if it is as you said), is a particularly bad implementation of a mirror imho. It leaves a LOT open for 'interpretation' in court, should it come to that. And signing one's emails with non-legally-binding and deniable methods is a part of ensuring that freedom of speech is maintained, If you sign your emails in a deniable way you, indeed, avoid the problems of the digital signature law. What I fail to see is what you gain by it. Deniability and signature are, as far as I can see, mutually exclusive. Let's analyze this: A signature is a device that identifies the signed object in a context (or network or system) of trust for at least one peer (who can be yourself). A chaff signature is a device that may appear as a signature to smeone who is not a member of the network of trust. Deniability constitutes the credible ability of the signer to deny that he has signed an object in front of a peer who is not a member of the network of trust, and who is potentially attempting intrusion therein or control thereof. For any such peer who is not a member of the network, the provable existence of chaff signatures and their regular use by the signer may mean that he has no case when he thinks that he has one, and the widespread use of signatures (of the non-open, non-binding kind) is a way for signers to put themselves in such a position of deniability, while sometimes maintaining the possibility to prove the opposite (i.e. a real signature of the non-binding kind). When the signatures are not in fact chaff, but have some other obscure role, such as UIDs or message IDs, then even the fact that the signer is practicing deniability
Re: Off-the-record [Was: ID theft (offtipicish), but is now more on topic]
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 17:55 +0200, Peter wrote: On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Alon Altman wrote: On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Oded Arbel wrote: It seems like they claim both deniability and and assurance (which is what you get from signing, except w/o the signing part) at the same time. I think that the trick is to give the other party the signing key right after you signed the message. The usual trick with just-on-time crypto like that is to use a public/private key system to generate and exchange a unique key to be used just for that session, and then destroy it. Problem - it maintains authentication across sessions: when at first I talk with someone, I get a crypto thumbprint that I need to verify manually that it belongs to the person I'm supposed to be talking (for example - by phone). After I do that once, whenever I talk with the same person, I am assured that its the same person. That doesn't work with simple session only encryption, and what I don't understand is how they both offer assurance and deniability, if the next time I'm talking with the same guy I can be assured of his identity but he can later claim that it wasn't him. -- Oded ::.. It's sort of a threat, you see. I've never been very good at them myself, but I'm told they can be very effective. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cloning my laptop's HD over the network (LG T1 Express)
In reply to everyone and to end this long thread: Thank you. Mission completed. I ended up following Chaim advice and buying very cool usb2usb network connection cable, which if you continue reading will find out that was ultimately unnecessary. The story starts from the windows server side, which has the storage space. The supplied driver and software with the conceptronic usb data cable failed to work completely (not before blue screening the xp box). I turned to find a livecd which could boot with the usbnet kernel module, this turned out to be simplistic task every 2.4 has it. Then comes that issue of ntfs write, I decided not to take any chances and used the excellent gparted utility to resize my ntfs partition on hdb, creating new ext3 partition on the XP machine. This alone required booting into windows, doing a chkdsk /f d: and then rebooting the xp os (twice!!, for the ntfs logs). After the resizing is over comes the turn of the ftpd, I've searched the whole net for a livecd with ftp server on it, which turned nothing useful. I ended up using Ubuntu desktop 6.10 livecd mode, which allowed me do a .deb install into ram. I've downloaded http://il.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/v/vsftpd/vsftpd_2.0.4-0ubuntu5_i386.deb and had it transferred to the livecd os over the already working usb0 network interface. vsftpd required some modifications in /etc/vsftpd.conf to allow local user login and home path that would map to the newly mounted hdb2 ext3 partition. Progressing to the LG laptop side, I've loaded g4l 0.21. doing ifconfig -a shows there's a new usb0 network device. so far so good, time to load g4l. g4l found 0 network interfaces (?). OK, obviously a bug (#1) in the g4l script. Switch to console (alt+f2, username g4l, password ). vi /bin/g4l:149. Back to (alt+f1), full hda copy process and- nothing happens. (alt+f2) vi /bin/g4l:706. On 1/21/07, Tzafrir Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 12:02:57AM +0200, Chaim Keren Tzion wrote: BTW, did you try Knoppix instead of g4l? Also note that the partition-copying that g4l does is done by partimage. partimage is included in several other live CDs. Actually no, at least not with g4l-0.21. It uses the plain simple dd. The command from line 706 in g4l with a few minor modifications is dd bs=1M if=/dev/hda | jetcat-mod -p58605120 | bzip2 | ncftpput -m -u user -p pass -c 192.168.168.1 /mnt/hdb2/g4l/t1_express_03022007.img.bz2 that's all. Generally speaking: g4l is one buggy hairy bash script, Nothing more. Turned out I could save myself a few good hours by using grml.org in the first place, which has the full driver support for my laptop and is true Debian. Oh well, you win some you write some ;) -- Tzafrir Cohen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il || a Mutt's [EMAIL PROTECTED] || best ICQ# 16849755 || friend t Maxim. -- Cheers, Maxim Veksler Free as in Freedom - Do u GNU ? = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] ID theft
On Monday 05 February 2007 13:15, Peter wrote: certain MUAs implicitly sign the message by calculating a hash sum over the message and certain key parameters in it and making it unique to the sending machine and to the time and network it was sent at/on. By your definition then, ALL How is hash a digital signature? - Aviram = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Synchronizing KAddressbook with Moto Razr
Sorry for asking a Linux question on the privacy mailing list (or is it paranoid inc?). Does anybody know how to synchronize kaddressbook with Motorola Razr phone? Extra bonus if it works for KOrganizer too. Gnokii doesn't work for obvious reasons and all the moto4lin style utils only tell me what the battery status is and don't really allow me to sync. I'm hoping for a bluetooth solution, but using the USB cable is ok too. TIA. - Aviram = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
possible to dial into netvision from linux?
My parents use an ancient Windows PC to dial into their Netvision account and read their Netvision email using Netvision's email system. Their computer is very tempermental, so I'd love to replace it with a simple Linux computer to increase reliability and reduce space. Last time I checked, and this was awhile ago, it was only possible to dial into Netvision with a (Windows) program provided by Netvision. Can this be done from Linux? And, once connected to Netvision, is it possible to access the Netvision email system, either with a standard email client or a web email system? Any other comments or suggestions? Thanks, Michael = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Off-the-record [Was: ID theft (offtipicish), but is now more on topic]
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 21:24 +0200, Peter wrote: On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Oded Arbel wrote: That doesn't work with simple session only encryption, and what I don't understand is how they both offer assurance and deniability, if the next time I'm talking with the same guy I can be assured of his identity but he can later claim that it wasn't him. Think about how the unique session key is generated: a pubilc key exchange occurs, with or without second factor authentication (on the phone as you said), then a session key is generated and used based on this. The session key is used only once and then destroyed. The next time you connect you cannot in theory know that you are talking to the same person without using the second factor again imho (otherwise you are relying on communication possibly crypted with a private public key sent during the second factor communication). Deniability relies on both sides destroying the session keys immediately after use, the server not storing or saving any. After the fact, only a lie detector can find out if you did talk to the other guy. Of course anybody having run a packet sniffer all the time on either connection (and having listened in on the phone) will only pretend to be using the lie detector since he already knows what he needs to know. You seem to imply that with off-the-record, both a third party that has access to the entire session can prove the identity of at least one side of it (destroying deniability) and that on a second session one cannot be assured of the identity of the other person w/o again performing manual verification (destroying authentication). So you are essentially calling the OTR guys liars, right ? -- Oded ::.. He looked a lot bigger when I didn't see him -- Jayne (Adam Baldwin), Firefly = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: possible to dial into netvision from linux?
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 12:20 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Last time I checked, and this was awhile ago, it was only possible to dial into Netvision with a (Windows) program provided by Netvision. I don't know that there ever was a time when this was correct. Can this be done from Linux? http://cables2.netvision.net.il/linux/ And, once connected to Netvision, is it possible to access the Netvision email system, either with a standard email client The only non-standard email protocol in wide use these days is the Exchange-outlook microsoft MAPI protocol which is no being used by Netvision. So any email client found on Linux should do the trick. or a web email system? Check if the Netvision web-mail system can be accessed using Mozilla Firefox on MS-Windows. If that works (and I believe it will), then it will also work with Firefox on Linux, and possibly with other browsers. -- Oded ::.. Famous Last Words 051-They need a twenty to hit me, I'm invincible = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: possible to dial into netvision from linux?
ביום שני 05 פברואר 2007, 22:50, נכתב על ידי Oded Arbel: Can this be done from Linux? http://cables2.netvision.net.il/linux/ He is using dialup. goto http://linmodems.org and google for more information. Also subscribe to their list and ask for more help. This is one of the darker places in the FOS world - linmodems. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: possible to dial into netvision from linux?
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Oded Arbel wrote: On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 12:20 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Last time I checked, and this was awhile ago, it was only possible to dial into Netvision with a (Windows) program provided by Netvision. I don't know that there ever was a time when this was correct. I may have been mis-informed, or I may have misunderstood. Can this be done from Linux? http://cables2.netvision.net.il/linux/ Excellent. I'll read that. And, once connected to Netvision, is it possible to access the Netvision email system, either with a standard email client The only non-standard email protocol in wide use these days is the Exchange-outlook microsoft MAPI protocol which is no being used by Netvision. So any email client found on Linux should do the trick. So there is good hope. I personally use pine, and so have no experience with the GUI email clients. Does anyone have experience teaching non-technical people to use Thunderbird or Evolution? or any of the others? I've used Thunderbird a tiny bit and it seems reasonably easy to pick up. or a web email system? Check if the Netvision web-mail system can be accessed using Mozilla Firefox on MS-Windows. If that works (and I believe it will), then it will also work with Firefox on Linux, and possibly with other browsers. Excellent tip. I'll try this too. Michael = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: possible to dial into netvision from linux?
On 06/02/07, Diego Iastrubni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ביום שני 05 פברואר 2007, 22:50, נכתב על ידי Oded Arbel: Can this be done from Linux? http://cables2.netvision.net.il/linux/ He is using dialup. goto http://linmodems.org and google for more information. Also subscribe to their list and ask for more help. This is one of the darker places in the FOS world - linmodems. Isn't this only relevant for those ancient winmodem which were software-only built-in modems in laptops? (and even then, many of them worked with Linux thanks to sites like the one above). If he buys a desktop then he can get a simple AT-compliant PCI modem, shouldn't he? --Amos
Re: possible to dial into netvision from linux?
Yes, but most AT compliant PCI modems today are software only. -- Ori Idan On 2/6/07, Amos Shapira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 06/02/07, Diego Iastrubni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ביום שני 05 פברואר 2007, 22:50, נכתב על ידי Oded Arbel: Can this be done from Linux? http://cables2.netvision.net.il/linux/ He is using dialup. goto http://linmodems.org and google for more information. Also subscribe to their list and ask for more help. This is one of the darker places in the FOS world - linmodems. Isn't this only relevant for those ancient winmodem which were software-only built-in modems in laptops? (and even then, many of them worked with Linux thanks to sites like the one above). If he buys a desktop then he can get a simple AT-compliant PCI modem, shouldn't he? --Amos
Re: [OT] ID theft
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Aviram Jenik wrote: On Monday 05 February 2007 13:15, Peter wrote: certain MUAs implicitly sign the message by calculating a hash sum over the message and certain key parameters in it and making it unique to the sending machine and to the time and network it was sent at/on. By your definition then, ALL How is hash a digital signature? A hash is a checksum that has the property of being hard to duplicate with a different data set (as in, message). F.ex. SHA-1 etc are 'secure' (past tense) hashes. If the message length is given then it is extraordinarily hard to come up with a different message of the same length that has the same hash sum. Therefore knowing the hash sum of a message (like the md5 sum of a program) essentially certifies that the program is indeed the same one if its newly computed sum equals the hash sum. For a message, if a hash sum is computed and stored somewhere (perhaps in the message itself, but not necessarily - a signature would be, of course), then the content of the message cannot be tampered with without changing the sum. Therefore the hash guarantees the message's integrity. This is a form of anonymous signature. The hash can however also sign other things, such as a secret known only to the sender. Then the recipient cannot check the hash without asking the sender for the secret (which would likely be transferred in some nonobvious form, like public key encryption etc), but more simply would send just the hash back and ask whether it is valid. Of course if the request comes from a third party the sender can decide that the request is spam ... there are infinite variations on this. Besides the ability to send secret messages in what appears to be just another signature. Note that I am not a security expert. Peter = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: possible to dial into netvision from linux?
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Amos Shapira wrote: On 06/02/07, Diego Iastrubni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ×××× ×©× × 05 פ×ר××ר 2007, 22:50, × ××ª× ×¢× ××× Oded Arbel: Can this be done from Linux? http://cables2.netvision.net.il/linux/ He is using dialup. goto http://linmodems.org and google for more information. Also subscribe to their list and ask for more help. This is one of the darker places in the FOS world - linmodems. Isn't this only relevant for those ancient winmodem which were software-only built-in modems in laptops? (and even then, many of them worked with Linux thanks to sites like the one above). If he buys a desktop then he can get a simple AT-compliant PCI modem, shouldn't he? Yes, I intend to purchase an AT compliant PCI modem. I hope these are still made. Perhaps I should save one from an old junk machine (they seem to show up quite often). Thanks for reminding me that I should check for this. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: possible to dial into netvision from linux?
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 12:38:50AM +0200, Ori Idan wrote: Yes, but most AT compliant PCI modems today are software only. Someone gave me an Intel modem clone. It sat in junk box until I broke down and installed a UPS, which took over the only serial port I had on that computer. I stuck the modem in, and obviously it did not work. A quick web search pointed to a driver written by someone on this list, hosted in Israel. A quick download, make and install, and it was working. Good job! Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel [EMAIL PROTECTED] N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: possible to dial into netvision from linux?
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote: On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 12:38:50AM +0200, Ori Idan wrote: Yes, but most AT compliant PCI modems today are software only. Someone gave me an Intel modem clone. It sat in junk box until I broke down and installed a UPS, which took over the only serial port I had on that computer. I stuck the modem in, and obviously it did not work. A quick web search pointed to a driver written by someone on this list, hosted in Israel. A quick download, make and install, and it was working. Good job! Nice story. That's the modem I want :-) Michael = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
