Re: [swinog] IP protection in Switzerland
Am 21.09.2012 18:21, schrieb Alexandre Egger: For those of you who have some spare time this weekend, there is a piece of entertainment written by the so-called USA government which sack [...] […] *Switzerland* Switzerland’s copyright law is inadequate, making it a home for rogue sites whose clear purpose is to facilitate and enable massive unauthorized making available of pirated material. It must be updated to Isn't it already written in "Neuromancer"? Something like "We still have a government; we are not yet completely ruled by companies" (I only have read the German translation). Regards Peter ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] port 25 outbound
Am 25.10.10 13:47, schrieb Jeroen Massar: On 2010-10-25 12:49, Manfredo Miserocchi wrote: users coming from Apple stores with their new IPhone, cannot send out their e-mail from a day to another and they're not understanding why :D Just one comment: Apple "Geniuses" should know better... Should, indeed. But they aren't the type of people who *know*... I thought people paid enough for those Apple toys so that they at least get configured properly... Should be easy enough to make a software try both ports and save the one which works. But since Apple (and all the other client-side-software-people) and even the access providers suddenly blocking Port 25 don't suffer the consequences of the things they do they don't feel like doing it properly. Regards Peter ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Port 25 Blockade @ Swisscom (Bluewin)
Oli Schacher schrieb: > Is there any chance Swisscom could change these antispam error messages > to CLEARLY indidicate they are generated by the Swisscom servers? You seem to have got an old message somehow. I got one today from the first one of our customers which is affected and this one was stating quite clearly what's going on (including link to the explanation). I changed his Outlook to the submit port which works well (except that the account test button keeps teeling it doesn't work - but who cares about that one...). Regards Peter ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Censurship in Germany Take 2
Andy Davidson schrieb: > On 20 Apr 2009, at 21:49, Peter Guhl Listenempfänger wrote: > >> Well, it depends. While blocking without loggin isn't good for >> anything at all > > In the UK we have -- we are told -- blocking without logging, because > the intent of the blocking is to prevent the *accidental* discovery of > child abuse images. I must say that I havent's often found real child porn sites by accident. Even looking for "child porn" in normal search engines normally only finds ordinary porn pages only using the keyword "child porn" as a marketing gag. To find the real stuff you still normally have to want to find it. But the idea to block some ugly stuff is not the worst. The worst thing is that somebody we, the people, didn't have elected and can't control is editing the blocklist (foreign countries and private organisations). A friend of mine can't do his work in the office because the company is using a blocklist (bought from a specialised company) blocking most technology related web forums as unwanted stuff. He can ask the IT-staff to open the sites but he can only ask for specific websites so it takes months to get them all. Even more the problem is that today every photo of a naked child is automatically banned as child porn. There is an exhibition somewhere in Germany (I guess) showing photos which have been shocking people when they came out. It includes some completely harmless pictures of naked children too - I wonder what kind of attacks they are facing! And nobody looks what happens in countries where it's normal to go around mostly naked. Nobody asks if there sexually motivated violation is a real problem. Regards Peter ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Censurship in Germany Take 2
Andreas Fink schrieb: > its getting worse: > > http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Kinderporno-Sperren-Provider-sollen-Nutzerzugriffe-loggen-duerfen--/meldung/136450 Well, it depends. While blocking without loggin isn't good for anything at all and logging without blocking would be a rather good idea blocking and logging is still stupid but has some chance to really get some child porn consumers. Of course the police will be swamped with useless data. Of course crawlers will cause most of the traffic; lots of them beeing spam harvesters hard to track. I wonder if the German BKA will first track down search engines etc. and try to sue them for consuming child porn. That would be very funny :-) Regards Peter ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud
Mike Kellenberger schrieb: > Let's discuss it some more and we'll make news on heise.de once again > http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Schweizer-Richterin-verlangt-Website-Sperrung-von-Providern--/meldung/33051 > :-) I submitted it to symlink.ch. ISPs can't take over responsibility for the behaviour of people somewhere at the other end of the world! Regards Peter ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Netclean - news
Hi Fredy Kuenzler schrieb: > Peter Keel schrieb: >> * on the Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 09:54:11AM +0100, Marc Hauswirth wrote: >>> block their Internet access to block pedophile content. >> The opposite of "good" is "good intent". > > As said earlier, IMHO the authorities should purchase the system for all > serviceproviders. This is not a matter of marketing, this is too serious. And a matter of responsibility. Everybody using it is responsible if it blocks the wrong content while everybody not using it is blamed for not doing anything. And then there's that other question: Who is supervising the ones who write the filter lists? What can a small Swiss ISP do if some NGO in another part of the world isn't working carefully? Regards Peter ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Bluewin SMTP Policy
Adrian Ulrich schrieb: I see the problem, but perhaps something like a captcha would also be sufficient to prevent this. It wouldn't prevent it, it just makes it harder. (Some spammers don't even use bots to create accounts. Using real people appears to be cheaper sometimes..) It always takes time until you have enough evidence to close an account. First there have to be a couple of spam-runs which are identified as spam (and not just as some newsletters a couple of recievers forgot or weren't aware they ordered it) and then he will, of course, tell you his computer got hijacked etc. Besides that real spammers are normally people you simply don't want to get in contact with. They often answer with endless and pointless pseudo-legal argumentations and a lot of FUD. Even some threats are possible (like "we will watch what you write in the usenet" or "we see that your employer is doing something which might be illegal"). Regards Peter ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Bluewin SMTP Policy
Hi Rainer Duffner schrieb: Jeroen Massar schrieb: Do you have a current, working example for that? (Just for research purposes, of course) ;- Well, I found an article mentioning the idea: http://www.boingboing.net/2004/01/27/solving-and-creating.html But it doesn't seem to provide an implementation. Regards Peter ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Bluewin SMTP Policy
Hi Jeroen Massar schrieb: Roger Schmid wrote: [..] Otherwise spammers would open 100th's of free accounts and use them to send spam from non-bluewin IPs :-/ I see the problem, but perhaps something like a captcha would also be sufficient to prevent this. SMTP-Captcha's? :) I guess he means captchas at the page where you register a free bluewin-account ;-) But if you give the spammers a real reason to break captchas they will find a way to do it. And then you can run for the next smart thing to do. Giving people an SMTP-Account at some server they pay for anyway is far better. SPF will, of course, cause you trouble. For that you would need an SMTP-Account at a server *listet in the SPF-record for the domain bluewin.ch*. Since nobody but bluewin themselves can provide that... yeah... you can guess what happens... Regards Peter ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Notice of Copyright Infringement - How do you proceed?
Hello Benoit Panizzon schrieb: I just got in contact with the swiss advocate of a company who sends us such messages about our users sharring copyrighted content. [...] So ist this true? Do most of you guys issue warning to your users if you get such messages? IANAL and I am not an ISP (currently). But I think you should not do too much. Otherwise you take the risk doing something illegal yourself and helping people who don't deserve it. It is possible that this lawyer does not want to sue anybody because he is nice. But it is at least as possible that he couldn't sue anybody with the information he has and tries to scare them using you as the relais. The question comes to my mind if you should (or even have to) inform your users that this advocate and the company he works for is accusing them to break the law. That has two effects: - User who didn't do anything can take action against false threats (the argument that you shouldn't be too sure that you can stay anonymous works for both sides). - User who really did something might think about it (which is not *that* bad either - at least it frees you some bandwith). But before you do anything you should throughly check if using your connection data for any such thing doesn't mean breaking a law at your side. Regards Peter ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Cablecom Winterthur blocking outgoing SMB connections?
Hi Tobias Goeller schrieb: > I have a current malicious traffic of about 100KBit/s coming from some > chinese ISPs... most time they try to accesss ports 138/139 and 445. That's incomming traffic, I guess. Blocking that is a good idea. Blocking outgoing smb is not entirely pointless too since it stops scans for open shares at the source. I agree with you that it's better to use CIFS in a tunnel since it's everything else but secure. Regards Peter ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Eines der ersten Urteile gegen Spamer ist draussen
Per Jessen schrieb: Xaver Aerni wrote: Hallo, Der Kanton Zug hat das erste Urteil gegen das Antispamgesetz verkündet. Dabei stellte es sich auf den gesichtspunkt, dass ein Abmeldelink alleine genügt. Auf die Punkte, das der Kläger weder eine Einwilligung gegeben habe und auch keine Geschäftsbeziehung habe, wurde ignoriert Wer interesse hat kann das Urteil selber unter http://www.pop.ch/urteil.pdf. Ich denke das gibt ein wenig Gesprächsstoff Has this made it to the press/news anywhere? It doesn't look like. I'll submit it to symlink.ch. Regards Peter ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Eines der ersten Urteile gegen Spamer ist draussen
Alexandre Suter schrieb: In the judgment posted by Xaver [3], on page 3 the judge considers that the "or" in the list of elements means that only one criteria needs to be satisfied: as long as either the sender is correctly identified or they tell you how to opt-out, it's ok. (At least that's how I understand their arguments, I'm not a native German speaker...) Of course, this contradicts what they say just before, when they describe "an opt-in mechanism". Such a judgment could have implications on future cases.. Yes, I also got told that all elements have to be satisfied. Otherwise the new law simply did not change anything since a valid opt-out was always required (with the flaw, that no recipient will ever be able to know if that opt-out-mechanism in this particular case really works and is not abused for address verification). Regards Peter ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] SMS alerting solution
Hi Daniel Kamm schrieb: On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 14:01 +0200, Peter Guhl wrote: Major drawback: If your link is broken, you won't get alarmed! Of course. Something like this would be nice: if (aspsms available) send_via_aspsms else send_via_attached_gsm That's easy to script. Start with the cheapest possibility and go over to more expensive ones if needed. 1st: A provider in the internet 2nd: A solution over normal phone lines (like the swisscom number) 3rd: GSM (GSM card, attached cellular...) 2nd and 3rd may be swapped - depending on the price. If a GSM-Solution is less expensive you can leave the Swisscom service out anyway. I have seen (and am using) triband-cards (GSM, EDGE, GPRS...) for PCMCIA-Slots (Option Globetrotter, Merlin...). They are not only capable to send SMS but they can also establish a wireless internet link nearly everywhere in the world. If those are existing for PCI too your problem should be easy to solve. Or you consider adding a PCMCIA-Slot to the server; depends on the price, of course. Regards Peter ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] SMS alerting solution
Hello Per Jessen schrieb: Philip Iezzi wrote: TAP/UCP protocol, attached ISDN-Modem [...] It's a little expensive if you have many SMS'es - does anyone know who to contact (e.g. at Swisscom) to get a package-deal with a direct TCP interface? There's a service provider called "aspsms" we used in the company I worked before. AFAIK they provide direct socket connections and reasonable costs. Probably you find their website in Google. Regards Peter ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] AS6730 unreachable from some parts of the net ??
Hi Ammann, Marc schrieb: Something is going on Some traffic drop since 16:00 Let me know if you have some additional info's (private mail would be preferred) No config changes today :-/ That's the internet. If you don't break it yourself somebody else will be glad to do it for you :-> Regards Peter ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] AS6730 unreachable from some parts of the net ??
Hi Philippe Strauss schrieb: AS6730 is unreachable for at least us (DFi, AS12333) and anonymouse.org. I've tried our both upstreams AS702 and AS5511 with the same result. verified using www.romandie.com (195.141.38.35) and www.sunrise.ch as (195.141.106.96) target adresses. BGP table looks fine. Anyone else? From here (hispeed) ricardo.ch is unreachable. Probably the same problem. Regards Peter ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] AS6730 unreachable from some parts of the net ??
Hi Philippe Strauss schrieb: AS6730 is unreachable for at least us (DFi, AS12333) and anonymouse.org. I've tried our both upstreams AS702 and AS5511 with the same result. verified using www.romandie.com (195.141.38.35) and www.sunrise.ch as (195.141.106.96) target adresses. BGP table looks fine. Anyone else? From here (hispeed) ricardo.ch is unreachable. Probably the same problem. Regards Peter ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
[swinog] novell.com down?
Hello I have some urgent work to do needing Novell's website. A traceroute looks like that: 5 62-2-74-177.static.cablecom.ch (62.2.74.177) 6.714 ms 4.109 ms 4.693 ms 6 * * * 7 * * * 8 ch-gva01a-ra1-so-0-0-0.aorta.net (213.46.171.1) 16.105 ms 18.989 ms 18.040 ms 9 fr-par02a-rd1-pos-1-0.aorta.net (213.46.160.25) 40.928 ms 35.799 ms 35.768 ms 10 us-was02a-rd1-pos-1-0.aorta.net (213.46.160.106) 119.989 ms 122.670 ms 116.672 ms 11 us-was02a-ri1-ge-0-0-0-0.aorta.net (213.46.190.190) 131.806 ms 122.311 ms 115.893 ms 12 4.79.168.201 (4.79.168.201) 110.311 ms 109.805 ms 109.514 ms 13 att-level3-oc192.Washington1.Level3.net (4.68.127.154) 111.181 ms att-level3-oc192.Washington1.Level3.net (209.244.219.142) 139.298 ms att-level3-oc192.Washington1.Level3.net (4.68.127.154) 111.104 ms 14 tbr1-p014001.wswdc.ip.att.net (12.123.8.98) 184.822 ms 184.428 ms 229.119 ms 15 tbr1-cl4.sl9mo.ip.att.net (12.122.10.30) 189.862 ms 187.768 ms 201.821 ms 16 tbr1-cl1886.dvmco.ip.att.net (12.122.10.221) 256.620 ms 253.457 ms 184.966 ms 17 gar1-p360.slkut.ip.att.net (12.122.2.237) 182.611 ms 183.261 ms 182.628 ms 18 12.127.106.34 (12.127.106.34) 186.215 ms 184.805 ms 186.362 ms 19 192.94.118.253 (192.94.118.253) 187.123 ms 186.472 ms 183.902 ms [...] 56 192.94.118.253 (192.94.118.253) 189.795 ms 193.477 ms 189.856 ms 57 192.94.118.253 (192.94.118.253) 188.096 ms 189.535 ms 192.687 ms 58 192.94.118.253 (192.94.118.253) 204.426 ms 196.524 ms 194.274 ms 59 192.94.118.253 (192.94.118.253) 189.640 ms 190.107 ms 191.890 ms 60 192.94.118.253 (192.94.118.253) 190.288 ms 193.465 ms 190.228 ms 61 192.94.118.253 (192.94.118.253) 193.451 ms 189.614 ms 190.231 ms 62 192.94.118.253 (192.94.118.253) 190.349 ms 189.512 ms 190.270 ms 63 192.94.118.253 (192.94.118.253) 190.314 ms 189.552 ms 189.553 ms 64 192.94.118.253 (192.94.118.253) 191.027 ms 191.566 ms 200.842 ms Line 19 to 64 are identical. How on earth can this be done? Wrong netmask maybe? 192.94.118.253 is already at Novell - therefore it's probably slightly OT, in here. But still... maybe somebody from Novell is reading this and is able to help. Regards Peter -- Wer arbeitet macht Fehler. Wer viel arbeitet macht viele Fehler. Wer nicht arbeitet macht keine Fehler. Wer keine Fehler macht wird befördert! ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] bluewin.ch down?
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 05:29:40PM +0200, Nik Hug wrote: > >>Tested from magnet/cyberlink. > > > >It seems to be like that right now: > >Cablecom: No chance > > yeap there is somethink ongoing. > traceroutes outbound from ip+ in direction cablecom/former solpa stopped > at i79tix-015-xxx1-1.bb.ip-plus.net Former Solpa... yes, that would explain our problem. But it doesn't explain the ones from our customer having IP+. Apparently it's fixed now. I wonder if we ever hear what it was. Regards Peter -- Wer arbeitet macht Fehler. Wer viel arbeitet macht viele Fehler. Wer nicht arbeitet macht keine Fehler. Wer keine Fehler macht wird bef?rdert! ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] bluewin.ch down?
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 05:17:22PM +0200, Marcel Prisi wrote: > Cablecom is mostly down ... try calling their support ! I have no problems reaching Cablecom Websites and our own Servers through SolNet. I don't think SolNet is connected to Cablecom - but I might be wrong. Regards Peter -- Wer arbeitet macht Fehler. Wer viel arbeitet macht viele Fehler. Wer nicht arbeitet macht keine Fehler. Wer keine Fehler macht wird bef?rdert! ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] bluewin.ch down?
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 05:17:22PM +0200, Marcel Prisi wrote: > Richard Klingler a ?crit : > > Matthias Hertzog schrieb: > >> Is anyone out there able to connect to www.bluewin.ch? Even their ADSL > >> seems to be down / unreachable. > > Nope... > > > Cablecom is mostly down ... try calling their support ! It doesn't seem to be that easy. The customer I mentioned has got IPPLUS Uplink. He has problems to reach the outside; some websites work, others don't. Some of the unreachable ones are international... not hosted by cablecom. Regards Peter -- Wer arbeitet macht Fehler. Wer viel arbeitet macht viele Fehler. Wer nicht arbeitet macht keine Fehler. Wer keine Fehler macht wird bef?rdert! ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] bluewin.ch down?
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 05:01:54PM +0200, Richard Klingler wrote: > > Is anyone out there able to connect to www.bluewin.ch? Even their ADSL > > seems to be down / unreachable. > > Nope... [...] > Tested from magnet/cyberlink. It seems to be like that right now: Cablecom: No chance SolNet: Extremely Slow; too slow for Webbrowsers Sunrise: Works without problems Regards Peter -- Wer arbeitet macht Fehler. Wer viel arbeitet macht viele Fehler. Wer nicht arbeitet macht keine Fehler. Wer keine Fehler macht wird bef?rdert! ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] bluewin.ch down?
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 04:31:01PM +0200, Matthias Hertzog wrote: > Is anyone out there able to connect to www.bluewin.ch? Even their ADSL > seems to be down / unreachable. Same here. Neither bluewin.ch nor swisscom.ch nor ipplus.ch can be reached. A customer having IPPLUS-Uplink is down too. His routers can't be reached over cablecom (business or private). I managed to reach them through SolNet, but it took around 10 minutes for the traceroute to get there. Regards Peter -- Wer arbeitet macht Fehler. Wer viel arbeitet macht viele Fehler. Wer nicht arbeitet macht keine Fehler. Wer keine Fehler macht wird bef?rdert! ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Formmailer-Scripts and Spam
On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 05:35:26PM +0200, Matthias Hertzog wrote: > We're facing a growing amount of automatically generated HTTP POST > requests, all containing spamvertising links like We all do... > a) Spamfilter of recipient shall filter that If you are the only recipient and your spamfilter is good... but it doesn't take the load off the server and the net. > b) Web-user has to enter a unique number (generated image) in the form to > prove, he's a human being. Quite a problem to keep accessibility for blind users. > c) Badword-Filtering in the formmail-script, some reqular expressions a.s.o. I prefer bayes filtering for that. My way to do it is available at https://sourceforge.net/projects/spfgb (public domain). I used it for a guestbook but the system can be adapted (Quit ugly code yet, but working quite well!). Regards Peter -- Wie finde ich heraus wie ich etwas herausfinde: http://sourcepole.ch/sources/tips/antwort-findungs-howto.html http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Selling hardware...
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:46:42PM +0200, Martin Ebnoether wrote: > On the Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 05:35:55PM +0200, Tonnerre LOMBARD blubbered: > > I think we should open up a new list called swinog-sales@ where > > companies can advertise their products to each other. Of course, > > Make it an RSS-Feed then. That way, those streamfreaks who Do we need anything else if we have ch.market.comp? :-) Regards Peter -- Wie finde ich heraus wie ich etwas herausfinde: http://sourcepole.ch/sources/tips/antwort-findungs-howto.html http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
[swinog] Policy of blocking spam vs. flagging
Hello all Our customers strictly want to get their mail - so we prefer flagging over blocking. Looking around in my server logs (and postmaster accounts) makes me feel that most ISPs today are much more in blocking. Don't they all have huge problems with people complaining? We already have... Regards Peter -- Wie finde ich heraus wie ich etwas herausfinde: http://sourcepole.ch/sources/tips/antwort-findungs-howto.html http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
