Gene Heskett wrote:
...
> This library is a joke, the librarian is scared shitless of copyright
> law. When I retired, I had an 18 year collection of McGraw-Hill's
> Electronics magazine, from which anybody that could read, could get
> himself the equ of the best education in electronics availa
On Thursday 27 February 2020 10:07:18 Lee wrote:
> On 2/27/20, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:25:53PM -0500, Lee wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> You're advertising your web server in your sig. The "other side"
> >> ALREADY KNOWS you have a web server there.
> >
> > If that
On 2/27/20, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 10:07:18AM -0500, Lee wrote:
>> On 2/27/20, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:25:53PM -0500, Lee wrote:
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> >> You're advertising your web server in your sig. The "other side"
>> >> ALREADY KN
On Thursday, February 27, 2020 09:35:44 AM Gene Heskett wrote:
> This may well be true. But I still doubt its available AT THAT LIBRARY.
> Basically she insists on haveing a receipt that proves the library has
> legally purchased anything offered to lend.
I wonder why she does that? I wonder if
to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 09:35:44AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > This may well be true. But I still doubt its available AT THAT LIBRARY.
>
> I was talking about the Wikipedia article. Recommended.
> There must be alternatives. For example Barnes & Noble has it here [1]
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 10:07:18AM -0500, Lee wrote:
> On 2/27/20, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:25:53PM -0500, Lee wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> You're advertising your web server in your sig. The "other side"
> >> ALREADY KNOWS you have a web server there.
> >
> > If th
On 2/27/20, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:25:53PM -0500, Lee wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> You're advertising your web server in your sig. The "other side"
>> ALREADY KNOWS you have a web server there.
>
> If that "other side" is reading your emails, that is.
>
> Not a likely scena
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 09:35:44AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Thursday 27 February 2020 09:18:55 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
[...]
> > Had you followed my advice, you'd know by now that the lowest layer
> > of your network stack in Linux will throw away any packets arriving
> > from the other si
On Thursday 27 February 2020 09:18:55 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 08:22:53AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Thursday 27 February 2020 03:56:07 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:59:27PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > What i
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 08:22:53AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Thursday 27 February 2020 03:56:07 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:59:27PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > What if they ignore that RST too?
> >
> > Read -- at least skim that wikipedia a
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 08:18:03AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Thursday 27 February 2020 03:50:34 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
[...]
> > Alternatively go to your paper library [...]
> This library is a joke, the librarian is scared shitless of copyright
> law [...]
> No, that librarian gets no
On Thursday 27 February 2020 03:56:07 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:59:27PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > What if they ignore that RST too?
>
> Read -- at least skim that wikipedia article (oh, I forgot the ref
> in my other mail upthread, sorry. Here it is:
>
>
On Thursday 27 February 2020 03:50:34 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 04:40:45PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > My reasoning too. I'd much druther be a black hole that doesn't even
> > have any Hawking Radiation.
>
> The bigger the hole, the less Hawking radiation :)
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:59:27PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
[...]
> What if they ignore that RST too?
Read -- at least skim that wikipedia article (oh, I forgot the ref
in my other mail upthread, sorry. Here it is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Control_Protocol
Cheers
-- t
sig
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:25:53PM -0500, Lee wrote:
[...]
> You're advertising your web server in your sig. The "other side"
> ALREADY KNOWS you have a web server there.
If that "other side" is reading your emails, that is.
Not a likely scenario if that "other side" is some malware
running in
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 04:40:45PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
[...]
> My reasoning too. I'd much druther be a black hole that doesn't even have
> any Hawking Radiation.
The bigger the hole, the less Hawking radiation :)
[...]
> In that event, and given that a /24 rule caught them, how many ou
On Wednesday 26 February 2020 23:25:53 Lee wrote:
> On 2/26/20, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Wednesday 26 February 2020 16:00:35 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 09:54:09PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> >> > Hi.
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 01:50:40PM -0500, Lee wrote:
> >>
> >
On 2/26/20, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 February 2020 16:00:35 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 09:54:09PM +0300, Reco wrote:
>> >Hi.
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 01:50:40PM -0500, Lee wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > > Have you considered REJECT instead of DROP?
>
On Wednesday 26 February 2020 16:00:35 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 09:54:09PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 01:50:40PM -0500, Lee wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > Have you considered REJECT instead of DROP?
> >
> > A neat idea for your LAN. A bad idea
On Wednesday 26 February 2020 14:57:18 deloptes wrote:
> Gene Heskett wrote:
> > over the last 90 days or so, we seem to have been plauged with a new
> > breed of bots scanning our web pages, and they are not just indexing
> > our web pages I don't mind that, but they are ignoring our
> > robots.t
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 09:54:09PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 01:50:40PM -0500, Lee wrote:
[...]
> > Have you considered REJECT instead of DROP?
>
> A neat idea for your LAN. A bad idea in this case.
Exactly.
> You *want* that other side to retry, wasting their
Gene Heskett wrote:
> over the last 90 days or so, we seem to have been plauged with a new
> breed of bots scanning our web pages, and they are not just indexing our
> web pages I don't mind that, but they are ignoring our robots.txt and
> are mirroring anything apache2 can reach, including stuff
On 2/26/20, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 February 2020 13:50:40 Lee wrote:
>
>> On 2/26/20, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> > over the last 90 days or so, we seem to have been plauged with a new
>> > breed of bots scanning our web pages, and they are not just indexing
>> > our web pages I don't m
On Wednesday 26 February 2020 14:21:31 Reco wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 02:15:18PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Wednesday 26 February 2020 13:54:09 Reco wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 01:50:40PM -0500, Lee wrote:
> > > > On 2/26/20, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > >
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 02:15:18PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 February 2020 13:54:09 Reco wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 01:50:40PM -0500, Lee wrote:
> > > On 2/26/20, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > over the last 90 days or so, we seem to have been plauged wit
On Wednesday 26 February 2020 13:54:09 Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 01:50:40PM -0500, Lee wrote:
> > On 2/26/20, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > over the last 90 days or so, we seem to have been plauged with a
> > > new breed of bots scanning our web pages, and they are not just
On Wednesday 26 February 2020 13:50:40 Lee wrote:
> On 2/26/20, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > over the last 90 days or so, we seem to have been plauged with a new
> > breed of bots scanning our web pages, and they are not just indexing
> > our web pages I don't mind that, but they are ignoring our
> >
On Wednesday 26 February 2020 10:43:13 Roger Price wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > This just showed up this morning, but no clue what it might be.
> > Blocked it anyway. 46th rule.
> >
> > coyote.coyote.den:80 91.160.218.196 - - [25/Feb/2020:19:06:58 -0500]
> > "-" 408 0 "-"
Hi.
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 01:50:40PM -0500, Lee wrote:
> On 2/26/20, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > over the last 90 days or so, we seem to have been plauged with a new
> > breed of bots scanning our web pages, and they are not just indexing our
> > web pages I don't mind that, but they are ig
On 2/26/20, Gene Heskett wrote:
> over the last 90 days or so, we seem to have been plauged with a new
> breed of bots scanning our web pages, and they are not just indexing our
> web pages I don't mind that, but they are ignoring our robots.txt and
> are mirroring anything apache2 can reach, inc
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020, Gene Heskett wrote:
This just showed up this morning, but no clue what it might be. Blocked it
anyway. 46th rule.
coyote.coyote.den:80 91.160.218.196 - - [25/Feb/2020:19:06:58 -0500] "-"
408 0 "-" "-"
No clue, butt dial? PROXAD.net someplace in France.
That's my ISP.
On Wednesday 26 February 2020 08:27:33 Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 03:57:51AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > over the last 90 days or so, we seem to have been plauged with a new
> > breed of bots scanning our web pages, and they are not just indexing
> > our web pages I don't mi
On Wednesday 26 February 2020 06:40:39 Roger Price wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > If you find yourself needing to add lots more rules, you might want
> > to generate a "set" instead of individual rules:
> >
> > http://ipset.netfilter.org/
> > https://www.linuxjournal.com/conte
Roger Price wrote:
> I find ipsets the natural way of setting up rules. I run a script which
> blocks whole countries, taking the country data from
> http://ipverse.net/ipblocks/data/countries/
Not a bad idea, but the database is sometimes wrong. Examples:
Duplicates (shall not be possible, but
Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 February 2020 04:05:53 john doe wrote:
>
> > On 2/26/2020 9:57 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > Be my guest folks, reclaim the net, we are paying for the bandwidth
> > > these jerks are burning up.
> >
> > The above is the way the OP has choosen to go about it b
On Wednesday 26 February 2020 04:21:09 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Gene Heskett (2020-02-26 09:57:51)
>
> > over the last 90 days or so, we seem to have been plauged with a new
> > breed of bots scanning our web pages, and they are not just indexing
> > our web pages I don't mind that, but t
On Wednesday 26 February 2020 04:05:53 john doe wrote:
> On 2/26/2020 9:57 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > over the last 90 days or so, we seem to have been plauged with a new
> > breed of bots scanning our web pages, and they are not just indexing
> > our web pages I don't mind that, but they are ign
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 03:57:51AM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> over the last 90 days or so, we seem to have been plauged with a new
> breed of bots scanning our web pages, and they are not just indexing our
> web pages I don't mind that, but they are ignoring our robots.txt
I can believe this.
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020, Dan Ritter wrote:
If you find yourself needing to add lots more rules, you might want to
generate a "set" instead of individual rules:
http://ipset.netfilter.org/
https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/advanced-firewall-configurations-ipset
might be useful.
I find ipsets t
Gene Heskett wrote:
> over the last 90 days or so, we seem to have been plauged with a new
> breed of bots scanning our web pages, and they are not just indexing our
> web pages I don't mind that, but they are ignoring our robots.txt and
> are mirroring anything apache2 can reach, including st
Quoting Gene Heskett (2020-02-26 09:57:51)
> over the last 90 days or so, we seem to have been plauged with a new
> breed of bots scanning our web pages, and they are not just indexing
> our web pages I don't mind that, but they are ignoring our robots.txt
> and are mirroring anything apache2 ca
On 2/26/2020 9:57 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> over the last 90 days or so, we seem to have been plauged with a new
> breed of bots scanning our web pages, and they are not just indexing our
> web pages I don't mind that, but they are ignoring our robots.txt and
> are mirroring anything apache2 can r
over the last 90 days or so, we seem to have been plauged with a new
breed of bots scanning our web pages, and they are not just indexing our
web pages I don't mind that, but they are ignoring our robots.txt and
are mirroring anything apache2 can reach, including stuff thats there
but not reac
43 matches
Mail list logo
