Leo Bicknell wrote:
The applications can simply be debugged to use socket option
of REUSEPORT.
Simple is subjective.
To the problems of some applications that make thousands of
TCP connections in a short order eating up ports makes it a
nightmare to manage and debug, I gave you an
It is not accessible to with XMPP, yahoo google none of them is not accessible
from Iran.
I have not try obfsproxy but as a ordinary connection we do not have https :)
--
Regards,
Shahab Vahabzadeh, Network Engineer and System Administrator
PGP Key Fingerprint = 8E34 B335 D702 0CA7 5A81 C2EE
On 11/02/12 01:16, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Randy Bush wrote:
My $0.02 on this issue is if the message is rich text I hover over the link
and see where it actually sends me.
idn has made this unsafe
I pointed it out at IETF Munich in 1997 that with an example of:
MICROSOFT.COM
where
My $0.02 on this issue is if the message is rich text I hover over the link
and see where it actually sends me.
idn has made this unsafe
Techniques to deal with this sort of spoofing already exist: see
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/tld-idn-policy-list.html
for one quite effective
The internet was way cooler before that
chris
On Feb 11, 2012 12:09 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
My $0.02 on this issue is if the message is rich text I hover over
the link
and see where it actually sends me.
idn has made this unsafe
Techniques to deal with this sort of spoofing
On Feb 11, 2012, at 12:13 PM, chris wrote:
The internet was way cooler before that
Yes, and a lot of us could run open relays on our SMTP servers to help each
other out, and a full usenet feed fit on a plain ol' 9600 baud link.
But no way I could have at home the kind of bandwidth I can get
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 09:09:25 PST, Randy Bush said:
My $0.02 on this issue is if the message is rich text I hover over the
link
and see where it actually sends me.
idn has made this unsafe
Techniques to deal with this sort of spoofing already exist: see
Unfortunately that's not under control of those businesses. This plain text
email you sent comes across with clickable mailto and http links in your
signature in most modern email clients despite you having sent it in plain
text. Helpful email program defaults won't force people to copy and
FWIW: A colleague in Iran was able to connect to a server in the US
using HTTPS on a non-standard port (). It appears that the
Iranian government is not blocking TLS/HTTPS per se, but just port
443. So in principle, if there were just some HTTPS proxies using
non-standard ports, then people
On 2/11/2012 4:50 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
FWIW: A colleague in Iran was able to connect to a server in the US
using HTTPS on a non-standard port (). It appears that the
Iranian government is not blocking TLS/HTTPS per se, but just port
443. So in principle, if there were just some
Neil Harris wrote:
Techniques to deal with this sort of spoofing already exist: see
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/tld-idn-policy-list.html
It does not make sense that .COM allows Cyrillic characters:
http://www.iana.org/domains/idn-tables/tables/com_cyrl_1.0.html
i script of a
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu wrote:
You know, clickable objects in automated business communications are a
standard practice,
the larger the organization sending the message, the more complicated
and annoying their standard e-mail template full of HTML
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
(The actual policy for the .UA registrar is more subtle. They *do* in fact
allow U+0441 Cyrillic Small Letter ES which is visually a C to us
Latin-glyph
users. However, they require at least one character that's visually unique to
Cyrillic in the domain name.
Nice. Basically, unless the TLD registrar has a public policy that basically
says
We don't allow names with cyrillic C to collide with MICROSOFT, their
hostnames
all get displayed as xn--gobbledygook.
More or less. ICANN has been wrestling with the lookalike character
issue in domain names
On 12/02/12 00:09, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Neil Harris wrote:
Techniques to deal with this sort of spoofing already exist: see
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/tld-idn-policy-list.html
It does not make sense that .COM allows Cyrillic characters:
yes, domain names that cannot be typed in with any keyboard/charset on any
computer out there, excellent idea, devide and conquerer, i wonder who
came up with that idiotic plan again, probably the ITU or one of their
infiltrants in icann.
how about, we simply don't code any software or adjust
as if it wasn't annoying enough already that some n00bs are using URI's
with characters you can't type in (and in most cases don't even display
correctly), icann has a better idea! hostnames you can't type in!
all those struggeling regimes that want to keep local control over our
internets
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 03:47:24 GMT, Sven Olaf Kamphuis said:
(and that despite the fact that it's perfectly well possible to write -any
language out there- in the first 7 bits of ascii)
And it's *equally* possible to write any language out there using a
7-bit encoding of the Cyrillic character
Neil Harris wrote:
I'm not a flag-waver for IDN, so much as a proponent of ways to make IDN
safer, given that it already exists.
It's like trying to make DES safer.
Lots of people have thought about this quite carefully.
Not at all. They (including some Japanese) just wished IDN
work
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:25:53 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
(The actual policy for the .UA registrar is more subtle. They *do* in fact
allow U+0441 Cyrillic Small Letter ES which is visually a C to us
Latin-glyph
users. However, they require at least one
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
(and that despite the fact that it's perfectly well possible to write -any
language out there- in the first 7 bits of ascii)
Yes, any language including FORTRAN.
And it's *equally* possible to write any language out there using a
7-bit encoding of the Cyrillic
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:13 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:25:53 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
It's interesting how some people are insisting that the IDN code has to be
*perfect* and make it *totally* impossible to create a phishable
On 2/11/12 19:34 , Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
yes, domain names that cannot be typed in with any keyboard/charset on
any computer out there, excellent idea, devide and conquerer, i wonder
who came up with that idiotic plan again, probably the ITU or one of
their infiltrants in icann.
If it's
23 matches
Mail list logo
