Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
At least three months. I use IE 6.0.2800.1106.xpsp2( Chinese Version). And, this problem does not come up on my notebook which runs the same version of WinXP & IE. Maybe they could not remake the situation Joe --- "Dre G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How long has it been since you have used it? > What browsers were you using? > > I have had a few issues but they have all been > resolved so Im unsure as > to were your problems stem from. > > Just curious. > > Andre > > On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 02:28, Joe Shen wrote: > > Gmail seems to be in Beta stage. I got a Gmail > account > > months ago, but I do not use it by now. > > The reason is it does not solve two bugs I met. > > The first is, after logining into gmail it will > prompt > > with "Ooops, the system was unable to perform your > > operation. Please try again in a few seconds" if I > > click "Compose Mail". Sometime this message comes > up > > after I FINALLY succeed with "Compose MAIL" and > click > > "Send". > > > > Another thing I met is, when trying to log in. > After > > typing in username/password, it shows "Gmail is > not > > available by now", and I have to reload one or two > > times to log in. > > > > This is really contrast to what Yahoo! could > provide. > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > --- Brett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > WOW! Overwhelming response. Haven't sent them > all > > > out yet, but all > > > accounted for. > > > > > > Brett > > > > > > On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 13:51:43 -0700, Brett > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I've got a few to give out as well. Email me > > > off-list and if I have > > > > any left, I'll send an invite. > > > > > > > > Brett > > > > > > > > On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 16:43:30 -0400, Joshua > Brady > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > All gone > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Download the latest ringtones, games, and more! > > http://sg.mobile.yahoo.com > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Download the latest ringtones, games, and more! http://sg.mobile.yahoo.com
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
- Original Message - From: "Randy Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jonathan Nichols" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 9:04 PM Subject: Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites > > > You know, I'm having trouble finding people that *don't* have gmail.com > > accounts already. :P > > i don't, mainly because i have no idea why i would want one. same > for all these multiply.com invites. b-b-but they are "invite [EMAIL PROTECTED]@$", that means it's "exclusive!#@@#", you could finally Belong! paul
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
> You know, I'm having trouble finding people that *don't* have gmail.com > accounts already. :P i don't, mainly because i have no idea why i would want one. same for all these multiply.com invites. randy
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
Nico Schottelius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > P.S.: If you are interested in the background of this story, read > http://nico.schotteli.us/papers/net/orkut-diary for more information. My $0.02 social commentary on orkut (and similar social networking sites) is at http://www.fedster.com/ *.orkut.com is in my rejecthosts.dbm. ---Rob
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
Deepak Jain [Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 01:37:54AM -0400]: > >You know, I'm having trouble finding people that *don't* have gmail.com > >accounts already. :P > > > >-Jonathan "G-mail-less" Nichols > > > > If we are all network operators, exactly what is the benefit of having a > 1GB mailbox operated by another network? What exaclty is the benefit of having a g-point-mail account? It's the same benefit you have when joining Orkut: You are 31337 if you have an account, as not everybody can participate. The most interesting thing is how many people still are giving all their personal data out to big companies for data mining. Sincerly, Nico P.S.: If you are interested in the background of this story, read http://nico.schotteli.us/papers/net/orkut-diary for more information. -- Keep it simple & stupid, use what's available. Please use pgp encryption: 8D0E 27A4 is my id. http://nico.schotteli.us | http://linux.schottelius.org pgpVvsbXsleV0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
> since when nanog-l turned into gmailswaps.com ? He's not being sarcastic. There really are gmail swapping sites at http://www.gmailswap.com and http://www.gmailtrader.com --Michael Dillon
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
If you have spare Gmail accounts, please consider donating them here: http://www.gmail4troops.com Anne
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
I believe Lou here is scanning customers email accounts to block them from GMail usage: www.metron.com does that not defeat his whole purpose to prove a point here? Time to blacklist metron they seem to be scanning users emails without there prior consent! Josh On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:18:07 -0500 (CDT), Robert Bonomi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Aug 19 12:43:05 2004 > > Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:39:43 -0700 > > From: Lou Katz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:13:29PM -0700, Jonathan Nichols wrote: > > > > > > Joshua Brady wrote: > > > > > > >I've got 2 Gmail invites up for grabs for the first 2 to email me offlist. > > > > > > > > > > You know, I'm having trouble finding people that *don't* have gmail.com > > > accounts already. :P > > > > Because G-mail scans INCOMING mail without the sender's consent, we will NEVER > > have a G-mail account and have considered blocking them. > > Are you seriously considering blocking _everybody's_ mail? In today's world > practically *everybody* scans incoming mail. Spam, viruses, scams, bogus > bounce messages, etc., etc., ad nauseum. > > > have a G-mail account and have considered blocking them. We actively discourage > > our clients from using this service. > > Do you similarly discourage the use of ATT WorldNet, MSN, Yahoo, Earthlink, > Hotmail, AOL, Earthlink, Panix, Flashnet, Netscape.net, RCN, Corecomm, > Comcast, Cogent, RoadRunner, Cox, Adelphia, etc. ? *EVERY*ONE* of those > providers also scans all INCOMING mail. *Without* the sender's consent. > > Do you do any anti-spam and/or anti-virus scanning of *your* incoming mail? > > Why does it seem like the description 'two-faced' applies to your attitude? > > > If you want to let a service scan YOUR mail, > > it is your perogative, but you cannot give them permission to scan MY mail to you. > > > > And, just BTW, legally, _yes_ I *can* give a third-party permission to scan > any/all of my incoming mail, including yours. And you, the sender, do =not= > have anything to say about the matter. > > LEGAL FACT: > I can hire _anybody_ to read my mail, on my behalf, 'annotate' it for me, > and provide me with the 'marked up' copy, *without* violating any of your > 'intellectual property rights' (e.g., "copyright"). You have absolutely > no say in the matter, whatsoever. And it doesn't matter whether the 'mail' > in question is postal mail, or 'e-mail'. The law is _exactly_ the same. > > *ANYTHING* that _I_ can legally do with/to my incoming mail, I can hire an > 'agent' (someone acting 'at my direction', and 'on my behalf') to do. > > Now, if that person I hired were to give copies of my incoming mail to > _someone_else_ (other than myself), *then*and*only*then* would you have > a cause for action against "someone". If that person distributed those > copies _at_my_direction_, they would be immune; your 'cause for action' > would be against _me_. OTOH, if they did it *without* my permission, then > and =only= then, would you have cause for action against _them_. > > Of course, if _I_ were to do that self-same thing -- give copies of incoming > mail to 'someone else', then *I* would be liable to the sender for those > acts.
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Aug 19 12:43:05 2004 > Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:39:43 -0700 > From: Lou Katz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:13:29PM -0700, Jonathan Nichols wrote: > > > > Joshua Brady wrote: > > > > >I've got 2 Gmail invites up for grabs for the first 2 to email me offlist. > > > > > > > You know, I'm having trouble finding people that *don't* have gmail.com > > accounts already. :P > > Because G-mail scans INCOMING mail without the sender's consent, we will NEVER > have a G-mail account and have considered blocking them. Are you seriously considering blocking _everybody's_ mail? In today's world practically *everybody* scans incoming mail. Spam, viruses, scams, bogus bounce messages, etc., etc., ad nauseum. > have a G-mail account and have considered blocking them. We actively discourage > our clients from using this service. Do you similarly discourage the use of ATT WorldNet, MSN, Yahoo, Earthlink, Hotmail, AOL, Earthlink, Panix, Flashnet, Netscape.net, RCN, Corecomm, Comcast, Cogent, RoadRunner, Cox, Adelphia, etc. ? *EVERY*ONE* of those providers also scans all INCOMING mail. *Without* the sender's consent. Do you do any anti-spam and/or anti-virus scanning of *your* incoming mail? Why does it seem like the description 'two-faced' applies to your attitude? > If you want to let a service scan YOUR mail, > it is your perogative, but you cannot give them permission to scan MY mail to you. > And, just BTW, legally, _yes_ I *can* give a third-party permission to scan any/all of my incoming mail, including yours. And you, the sender, do =not= have anything to say about the matter. LEGAL FACT: I can hire _anybody_ to read my mail, on my behalf, 'annotate' it for me, and provide me with the 'marked up' copy, *without* violating any of your 'intellectual property rights' (e.g., "copyright"). You have absolutely no say in the matter, whatsoever. And it doesn't matter whether the 'mail' in question is postal mail, or 'e-mail'. The law is _exactly_ the same. *ANYTHING* that _I_ can legally do with/to my incoming mail, I can hire an 'agent' (someone acting 'at my direction', and 'on my behalf') to do. Now, if that person I hired were to give copies of my incoming mail to _someone_else_ (other than myself), *then*and*only*then* would you have a cause for action against "someone". If that person distributed those copies _at_my_direction_, they would be immune; your 'cause for action' would be against _me_. OTOH, if they did it *without* my permission, then and =only= then, would you have cause for action against _them_. Of course, if _I_ were to do that self-same thing -- give copies of incoming mail to 'someone else', then *I* would be liable to the sender for those acts.
scanning (Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites)
LK> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:39:43 -0700 LK> From: Lou Katz LK> Because G-mail scans INCOMING mail without the sender's LK> consent, we will NEVER have a G-mail account and have LK> considered blocking them. We actively discourage our clients LK> from using this service. If you want to let a service scan LK> YOUR mail, it is your perogative, but you cannot give them LK> permission to scan MY mail to you. Uh huh. And the systems that run virus checks and bayesian filtering? Consider how your statements would apply to "you cannot give 'them' permission to scan MY spam/viruses to you." It just doesn't make sense. You'd better start blocking large chunks of the Internet, because Gmail isn't the only one out to get you^W^W^W^Wthat scans inbound messages. Eddy -- EverQuick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita _ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -*- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -*- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked.
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
I'm not sure if it's even worth responding to you, but here I go anyway All mail servers scan your email when you send to one of their users. Mine scanned your below message several times in a row - first to look for certain headers that I don't want coming through (like that subject prefix that adult-oriented sites are required to use, for example), then again to look words in the body that I don't want to come through (for various things, from links to sites that could harm my users, to signatures of specific viruses, to stuff about mortgages that nobody should be using their work email to take care of), then again to see if the message was addressed to the postmaster (at which point all other rules are stopped and the message goes straight to the postmaster account), then again to check for attachments and add headers for certain kinds, then again to check those headers and block certain kinds of attachments, then again to check for viruses, etc...etc...etc... Given that all of the above is standard mail procedure (maybe not at an ISP, but certainly at a corporation with specific strict usage policies, and even at an ISP many of the above are standard) I hope you can understand how pathetic your argument is. -- Jeff Wheeler Postmaster, Network Admin US Institute of Peace On Aug 19, 2004, at 1:39 PM, Lou Katz wrote: On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:13:29PM -0700, Jonathan Nichols wrote: Joshua Brady wrote: I've got 2 Gmail invites up for grabs for the first 2 to email me offlist. You know, I'm having trouble finding people that *don't* have gmail.com accounts already. :P Because G-mail scans INCOMING mail without the sender's consent, we will NEVER have a G-mail account and have considered blocking them. We actively discourage our clients from using this service. If you want to let a service scan YOUR mail, it is your perogative, but you cannot give them permission to scan MY mail to you. YMMV. -Jonathan "G-mail-less" Nichols -- -=[L]=-
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:13:29PM -0700, Jonathan Nichols wrote: > > Joshua Brady wrote: > > >I've got 2 Gmail invites up for grabs for the first 2 to email me offlist. > > > > You know, I'm having trouble finding people that *don't* have gmail.com > accounts already. :P Because G-mail scans INCOMING mail without the sender's consent, we will NEVER have a G-mail account and have considered blocking them. We actively discourage our clients from using this service. If you want to let a service scan YOUR mail, it is your perogative, but you cannot give them permission to scan MY mail to you. YMMV. > > -Jonathan "G-mail-less" Nichols -- -=[L]=-
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
Ksowa! I leave my desk for 5 minutes and theres like 50 requests. Im out on this account, Ill open my other one and serve the 5 I have on there in a couple minutes. The window is now closed though, sorry.
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
3 invites to hawk here. Email me offlist.
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
Bill Woodcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Steven S. wrote: > > I have 5 invites that I'm willing to part with... > > Uh, could we _please_ get back to something with operational content, or > nothing at all? > > Anyone have anything concrete on the SHA-0 / MD5 compromise, for instance? > Any operational impact there, that we need to worry about in the near > term? Here's the overview I sent to IAB/IESG: As you may or may not have heard, this year's CRYPTO conference has been very interesting: * Joux has found a single collision in SHA-0--an algorithm that nobody uses but that is very similar to SHA-1. However, SHA-0 was changed to fix a flaw (later found by Joux), thus becoming SHA-1 so we can hope that this attack can't be extended to SHA-1. The attack was fairly expensive, requiring about 2^51 operations the brute force attack would take about 2^80). * Biham and Chen can find collisions in a reduced round version of SHA-1 (40 rounds). The full SHA-1 is 80 rounds. It's hard to know whether this can be extended to full SHA-1 or not. NSA (who designed SHA-1) seems to be generally pretty good at tuning their algorithms so that they're just complicated enough to be secure. * Weng, Fang, Lai, and Yu have what appears to be a general method for finding collisions in MD4, MD5, HAVAL-128, and RIPEMD. They haven't published any details. What does this mean for us? I'll be writing up full details hopefully soon, but here's a short overview... WHAT'S BEEN SHOWN? An attacker can generate two messages M and M' such that Hash(M) = Hash(M'). Note that he cannot (currently) generate a message M such that Hash(M) is a given hash value, nor can he generate a message M' such that it hashes the same as a fixed message M. Currently this is possible for MD5 but we have to consider the possibility that it will be eventually possible for SHA-1. USES OF HASH FUNCTIONS We use hash algorithms in a bunch of different contexts. At minimum: 1. Digital signatures (you sign the hash of a message). (a) On messages (e.g. S/MIME). (b) On certificates. (c) In authentication primitives (e.g., SSH) 2. As MAC functions (e.g. HMAC) 3. As authentication functions (e.g. CRAM-MD5) 4. As key generation functions (e.g. SSL or IPsec PRF) THE POTENTIAL ATTACKS The only situation in which the current attacks definitely apply is (1). The general problem is illustrated by the following scenario. Alice and Bob are negotiating a contract. Alice generates two messages: M = "Alice will pay Bob $500/hr" M' = "Alice will pay Bob $50/hr" [0] Where H(M) = H(M'). She gets Bob to sign M (and maybe signs it herself). Then when it comes time to pay Bob, she whips out M' and says "I only owe $50/hr", which Bob has also signed (remember that you sign the hash of the message). So, this attack threatens non-repudiation or any kind of third party verifiability. Another, slightly more esoteric, case is certificates. Remember that a certificate is a signed message from the CA containing the identity of the user. So, Alice generates two certificate requests: R = "Alice.com, Key=X" R' = "Bob.com, Key=Y" Such that H(R) = H(R') (I'm simplifying here). When the CA signs R, it's also signing R', so Alice can present her new "Bob" certificate and pose as Bob. It's not clear that this attack can work in practice because Alice doesn't control the entire cert: the CA specifies the serial number. However, it's getting risky to sign certs with MD5. WHAT'S SAFE? First, anything that's already been signed is definitely safe. If you stop using MD5 today, nothing you signed already puts you at risk. There is probably no risk to two party SSH/SSL-style authentication handshakes. It's believed that HMAC is secure against this attack (according to Hugo Krawczyk, the designer) so the modern MAC functions should all be secure. I worry a bit about CRAM-MD5 and HTTP Digest. They're not as well designed as HMAC and you might potentially be able to compromise them to mount some kind of active cut-and-paste attack, though I don't have one in my pocket. The key generation PRFs should be safe. -Ekr [0] In practice, the messages might not be this similar, but there turn out to be lots of opportunities to make subtle changes in any text message.
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
>Uh, could we _please_ get back to something with operational content, or >nothing at all? > >Anyone have anything concrete on the SHA-0 / MD5 compromise, for instance? >Any operational impact there, that we need to worry about in the near >term? No worries. I don't think your gmail account is susceptible to this vulnerability. :) John --
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Bill Woodcock wrote: > Anyone have anything concrete on the SHA-0 / MD5 compromise, for instance? > Any operational impact there, that we need to worry about in the near > term? http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ sounds fubar'd to me Steve
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Steven S. wrote: > I have 5 invites that I'm willing to part with... Uh, could we _please_ get back to something with operational content, or nothing at all? Anyone have anything concrete on the SHA-0 / MD5 compromise, for instance? Any operational impact there, that we need to worry about in the near term? -Bill
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
since when nanog-l turned into gmailswaps.com ? come on already. -chris On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Steven S. wrote: > > And with that they're gone. Your welcome to everyone I got (I'm in the > process of sending them out as we speak). >
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
And with that they're gone. Your welcome to everyone I got (I'm in the process of sending them out as we speak).
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
I've not seen any of the problems you're speaking of, but then again I'm in a later stage in the beta than you were (I'm assuming)... I have 5 invites that I'm willing to part with, if anyone would like one let me know off list ;) On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:28:14 +0800 (CST), Joe Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gmail seems to be in Beta stage. I got a Gmail account > months ago, but I do not use it by now. > The reason is it does not solve two bugs I met. > The first is, after logining into gmail it will prompt > with "Ooops, the system was unable to perform your > operation. Please try again in a few seconds" if I > click "Compose Mail". Sometime this message comes up > after I FINALLY succeed with "Compose MAIL" and click > "Send". > > Another thing I met is, when trying to log in. After > typing in username/password, it shows "Gmail is not > available by now", and I have to reload one or two > times to log in. > > This is really contrast to what Yahoo! could provide. > > Joe
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
> > If we are all network operators, exactly what is the benefit of having a > > 1GB mailbox operated by another network? Offsite backup. Just encrypt and point your backup device to your E-mail box :-)
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
All gone On 8/19/2004 9:42 AM, Eric A. Hall wrote: > On 8/19/2004 1:37 AM, Deepak Jain wrote: > > >>If we are all network operators, exactly what is the benefit of having a >>1GB mailbox operated by another network? > > > 1) sending test mail to your internal network requires access to a > remote network/postoffice? > > 2) when users complain about failures, you can check it out? > > 3) get your favorite username/handle while it's still available? > > I've got a handful of extras if anybody else still needs one btw > -- Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
On 8/19/2004 1:37 AM, Deepak Jain wrote: > If we are all network operators, exactly what is the benefit of having a > 1GB mailbox operated by another network? 1) sending test mail to your internal network requires access to a remote network/postoffice? 2) when users complain about failures, you can check it out? 3) get your favorite username/handle while it's still available? I've got a handful of extras if anybody else still needs one btw -- Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
Gmail seems to be in Beta stage. I got a Gmail account months ago, but I do not use it by now. The reason is it does not solve two bugs I met. The first is, after logining into gmail it will prompt with "Ooops, the system was unable to perform your operation. Please try again in a few seconds" if I click "Compose Mail". Sometime this message comes up after I FINALLY succeed with "Compose MAIL" and click "Send". Another thing I met is, when trying to log in. After typing in username/password, it shows "Gmail is not available by now", and I have to reload one or two times to log in. This is really contrast to what Yahoo! could provide. Joe --- Brett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > WOW! Overwhelming response. Haven't sent them all > out yet, but all > accounted for. > > Brett > > On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 13:51:43 -0700, Brett > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've got a few to give out as well. Email me > off-list and if I have > > any left, I'll send an invite. > > > > Brett > > > > On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 16:43:30 -0400, Joshua Brady > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > All gone > > > > > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Download the latest ringtones, games, and more! http://sg.mobile.yahoo.com
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
You know, I'm having trouble finding people that *don't* have gmail.com accounts already. :P -Jonathan "G-mail-less" Nichols If we are all network operators, exactly what is the benefit of having a 1GB mailbox operated by another network? Deepak "150GB and growing" Jain
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
Joshua Brady wrote: I've got 2 Gmail invites up for grabs for the first 2 to email me offlist. You know, I'm having trouble finding people that *don't* have gmail.com accounts already. :P -Jonathan "G-mail-less" Nichols
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
WOW! Overwhelming response. Haven't sent them all out yet, but all accounted for. Brett On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 13:51:43 -0700, Brett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've got a few to give out as well. Email me off-list and if I have > any left, I'll send an invite. > > Brett > > On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 16:43:30 -0400, Joshua Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > All gone > > >
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
I've got a few to give out as well. Email me off-list and if I have any left, I'll send an invite. Brett On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 16:43:30 -0400, Joshua Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > All gone >
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
All gone
