On 4/12/06, Gabriel Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have an open mind, but if I hear "two.oh" one more time this year, I'm
> going to barf.
2pointO!!
/me pukes
Justin
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the p
Have her please contact me. I may have some VERY good leads for her.
Nathan Nelson
(801) 580-0293
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joel
Finlinson
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 4:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; plug@plug.org
Subject: Re: [OT]
Wow I must be seriously out of the loop, last time I checked Godaddy
was using some loud mouthed DJ.
On 4/12/06, Wade Preston Shearer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yeah, what are your moral reasons against Godaddy? Because they are
> > to big?
> >
> > I think you are morally opposing the wrong pe
Yeah, what are your moral reasons against Godaddy? Because they are
to big?
I think you are morally opposing the wrong people. Godaddy are the
ones that have been in legal battles with big brother ( VeriSign )
Lots of examples of good things they have done. Didnt know they
were the bad gu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I may be wrong, but I believe the moral issue stems from GoDaddy's
adverting methods, particularly in regards to commercials shown during
the SuperBowl both this year and last year.
- --
Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of chang
Yeah, what are your moral reasons against Godaddy? Because they are to big?
I think you are morally opposing the wrong people. Godaddy are the ones
that have been in legal battles with big brother ( VeriSign )
Lots of examples of good things they have done. Didnt know they were
the bad guys.
On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 22:45 -0600, Scott Paul Robertson wrote:
> "Democracy 2.0: How open source can make our democracy democratic."
I have an open mind, but if I hear "two.oh" one more time this year, I'm
going to barf.
--
Gabriel Gunderson
http://gundy.org/
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on
I have a domain with aplus.net. It's been fine. They don't have too much in
way of tools, but if you host your DNS yourself or with someone else (
zoneedit.com), then they are fine.
Jared
On 4/12/06, Andrew Jorgensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi folks, I got an expiry notice from GoDaddy, w
Pete Ashdown's running for Senate? I'm a republican, but he's still
got my vote!
Too bad I can't go to the meeting though, prior obligations :(
On 4/12/06, Scott Paul Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All,
>
> Tomorrow (Thursday) Night the BYU-UUG is hosting Pete Ashdown, the
> Democratic Se
I understand, but what I don't see is the moral objection...
In other words what did they or or not do that seems to be the problem?
Sorry to be nosey, I'm just always curious as to why people choose
company x over company y assuming value is the same.
On 4/12/06, Andrew Jorgensen <[EMAIL PROTECTE
All,
Tomorrow (Thursday) Night the BYU-UUG is hosting Pete Ashdown, the
Democratic Senate Canidate, Founder of Xmission, and Linux Geek. He will
be presenting for our meeting.
The meeting will be at 7:30pm in room 250 of the Crabtree. Please note
that this is not our normal location, but down a f
On 4/12/06, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I dunno I still like godaddy alot, what's the issue you're having,
> just out of curiousity?
It's a moral objection, not a technical one. I'm voting with my
dollars by taking my business elsewhere.
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Hans Fugal wrote:
I don't know if you have to be a customer otherwise, but I think
XMission is doing domain registration now.
XMission is a reseller for Tucows (opensrs.net)
Jonathan
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mail
On 4/12/06, Carl Youngblood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I too am using Arrival Telecom and have been very impressed with their
> call quality. They even are able to do faxing over IP, which is a
> good test for whether or not you have good voip.
>
Faxing problems with VOIP is usually caused by
I too am using Arrival Telecom and have been very impressed with their
call quality. They even are able to do faxing over IP, which is a
good test for whether or not you have good voip.
On 4/6/06, Barry Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 09:10:51AM -0600, Kenneth Burgene
I dunno I still like godaddy alot, what's the issue you're having,
just out of curiousity?
On 4/12/06, Charles Curley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 03:20:04PM -0600, Andrew Jorgensen wrote:
> > Hi folks, I got an expiry notice from GoDaddy, which reminded me that
> > their
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 03:20:04PM -0600, Andrew Jorgensen wrote:
> Hi folks, I got an expiry notice from GoDaddy, which reminded me that
> their marketing strategies have convinced me it's time to switch to a
> more wholesome registrar. Obviously one doesn't interact with the
> registrar often,
I don't know if you have to be a customer otherwise, but I think
XMission is doing domain registration now.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 at 15:20 -0600, Andrew Jorgensen wrote:
> Hi folks, I got an expiry notice from GoDaddy, which reminded me that
> their marketing strategies have convinced me it's time
I've used namecheap.com for several years. They charge $8.88 per
year. The original webmaster for the site worked for me previously, so I
moved to them from Dotster and Net Sol. They are a reseller of enom,
but the interface operates nearly the same which is one of the better
ones I've seen;
Andrew Jorgensen wrote:
> Hi folks, I got an expiry notice from GoDaddy, which reminded me that
> their marketing strategies have convinced me it's time to switch to a
> more wholesome registrar. Obviously one doesn't interact with the
> registrar often, so usability isn't key. The question I'd
Yahoo Domains (Yahoo Small Business) hooked me in to buying a domain
with them (you get the first .com with them for only 2.99). Regular
price with them is 9.99 a year. Worked decently and it's not godaddy.
Chris
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mai
On Wednesday 12 April 2006 15:20, Andrew Jorgensen wrote:
> Hi folks, I got an expiry notice from GoDaddy, which reminded me that
> their marketing strategies have convinced me it's time to switch to a
> more wholesome registrar. Obviously one doesn't interact with the
> registrar often, so usabi
Verio is $9.95 a year. The interface is a tad better than godaddy, but
still not super-fantastic.
Greg
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
Hi folks, I got an expiry notice from GoDaddy, which reminded me that
their marketing strategies have convinced me it's time to switch to a
more wholesome registrar. Obviously one doesn't interact with the
registrar often, so usability isn't key. The question I'd like to
throw out is who's cheap
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 01:07:02PM -0700, Blake B. wrote:
>
> >It's not uncommon for me to ssh into my own machine 10 or more times
> >in a 60 second period. I know people that do twice or thrice that.
>
> I can see a few scenarios where this would happen (scripts, sync
> jobs, etc.) but ove
On Apr 12, 2006, at 12:19 PM, Andrew McNabb wrote:
Yeah, I just love it when I can't log in to my own machine! It's just
great.
It's not uncommon for me to ssh into my own machine 10 or more
times in
a 60 second period. I know people that do twice or thrice that.
I can see a few scenari
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 01:36:33PM -0600, Gregory Hill wrote:
>
> I didn't justify bad etiquette, except when I purposely top-posted,
> didn't trim, and made a sarcastic joke about it. :)
>
Hey, am I top-posting, bottom-posting, both, or neither?
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 01:36:33PM -0600, Grego
> Now there's a _stupid_ idea: justify bad etiquette by saying, "It's
your
> fault for being poor or efficient."
I didn't justify bad etiquette, except when I purposely top-posted,
didn't trim, and made a sarcastic joke about it. :)
Greg
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsub
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 10:44:09AM -0600, Bryan Sant wrote:
> >
> > Anything that hits port 22 more than 4 times within 60 seconds gets
> > blocked.
>
> Cool. I didn't know you could do this with netfilter. Oh, netfilter,
> is there no end to your goodness?
>
Yeah, I just love it when I can't
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 11:56:25AM -0600, Gregory Hill wrote:
> Since when did list netiquette involve personally attacking someone who
> didn't obey some rather arbitrary mailing list advice?
It's been that way as long as I can remember!
> A simple "most people would prefer if you trimmed your
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Scott Paul Robertson wrote:
Scroll mice? Scroll mice!?!
How can you suggest such a hideous thing? Have you even tried using a
scroll in a terminal. Doesn't work too well, and I know mutt doesn't
support it.
Suggesting that we just "get a scroll-mice" is offensive to the
te
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 11:56:25AM -0600, Gregory Hill wrote:
> Since when did list netiquette involve personally attacking someone who
> didn't obey some rather arbitrary mailing list advice?
>
> A simple "most people would prefer if you trimmed your message" would've
> sufficed, IMO. Either tha
On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 11:57 -0700, Gary Thornock wrote:
> I like the automatic blocking idea behind DenyHosts, particularly
> given its sync functionality and its automatic cleanup of old
> blocks. I wish it were trivial to set it up to update my pf
> rules instead of just hosts.deny for ssh. I a
--- Chris Carey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree wholeheartedly. What I meant is that its futile to
> block individual IPs. For every one you block, two more will
> appear. For an Internet connected device, one should put a
> policy for security in place that covers all IPs.
Blocking individua
On Apr 12, 2006, at 9:51 AM, Chris Carey wrote:
On 4/12/06, Blake B. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree with that completely. But I like simplicity. I just use
rate-limiting, I get maybe 2 or 3 attempts at SSH on port 22 a day.
With this method they give up very quickly.
sudo iptables -I I
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Jordan S. Jones
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 PM
To: Provo Linux Users Group Mailing List
Subject: Re: Buy/Trade: Cisco 678
Jeff Nyman wrote:
> I've got one. Email me off list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
I
Jeff Nyman wrote:
I've got one. Email me off list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I like how you responded to the list to tell him to respond to you off
list. Sorry, but I couldn't resist.
Jordan
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't
Since when did list netiquette involve personally attacking someone who
didn't obey some rather arbitrary mailing list advice?
A simple "most people would prefer if you trimmed your message" would've
sufficed, IMO. Either that, or buy one of those fandangled scroll-mice
and quit caring how people
More pain for the user, but another layer of security can be added by using
port knocking.
With port knocking you could probably get away without any of the fancy ip
blocking rules and log watchers, since your port is not even open until you
give the magic knock, and then only to the originati
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Carey wrote:
> Let me apologise again for not snipping my response enough. It must
> have caused your scrolling finger some pain to motivate you to make a
> personal attack on me.
>
Nah, doesn't take much at all, especially when it comes to lis
On 4/12/06, Stuart Jansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> First: Trim your responses! I don't care if you're using gmail, many of
> us aren't and we resent having to scroll forever to get to your
> response. Show a little consideration.
OK sorry.
> Second: Temporarily blacklisting IPs that are mak
Justin Findlay wrote:
On 4/11/06, Wade Preston Shearer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My server can get up ~12,000 [1] failed log in attempts recorded in
my server's logs in one day. How much of a concern should this be? I
am aware of restricting shell access to certain IPs. Will that
restrict the h
On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 11:16 -0600, Bryan Sant wrote:
> ... And then ... Stuart bursts into flames ... AAAaaahhh!!!
See, even though Java has rotted his brain, Bryan remembers to trim. ;-)
--
Stuart Jansen e-mail/jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
goog
On 4/12/06, Stuart Jansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First: Trim your responses! I don't care if you're using gmail, many of
> us aren't and we resent having to scroll forever to get to your
> response. Show a little consideration.
>
> Second: Temporarily blacklisting IPs that are making repeated
On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 10:46 -0600, Chris Carey wrote:
> On 4/12/06, Chris Carey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I agree wholeheartedly. What I meant is that its futile to block
> > individual IPs. For every one you block, two more will appear. For an
> > Internet connected device, one should put a p
On 4/12/06, Blake B. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I agree with that completely. But I like simplicity. I just use
> rate-limiting, I get maybe 2 or 3 attempts at SSH on port 22 a day.
> With this method they give up very quickly.
>
> sudo iptables -I INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -i eth0 -m state --s
On 4/12/06, Chris Carey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/12/06, Michael Halcrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 08:22:16AM -0600, Chris Carey wrote:
> > > Though, you could spend your whole life fighting this losing battle.
> > > My opinion is to set your security in place,
On 4/12/06, Blake B. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with that completely. But I like simplicity. I just use
> rate-limiting, I get maybe 2 or 3 attempts at SSH on port 22 a day.
> With this method they give up very quickly.
>
> sudo iptables -I INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -i eth0 -m state --sta
I've got one. Email me off list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Brandon Beattie
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 10:32 AM
To: plug@plug.org
Subject: OT: Buy/Trade: Cisco 678
Looking for a Cisco 678 in working condition, anyo
On 4/12/06, Michael Halcrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 08:22:16AM -0600, Chris Carey wrote:
> > Though, you could spend your whole life fighting this losing battle.
> > My opinion is to set your security in place, and forget about it.
>
> Some of the tactics suggested in t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Halcrow wrote:
> ... your adversaries are cleverer than you are.
But what if I'm clevererer?
- --
Jayce^
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFEPSzlA10/0O8cAHgRAj/FAJ9AjbVWAhwFeUoQ+FXJb+q9hiQhdgCfVDmy
LjAI5sGdVu
Looking for a Cisco 678 in working condition, anyone looking to part
with one?
--Brandon
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 10:27 -0600, Wade Preston Shearer wrote:
> > No, probably "service iptables stop". That will always flush all the
> > iptables and set every rule default to accept.
>
> Do you then need to start it?
Depends. If you modified /etc/sysconfig/iptables, then yes you need to
servi
No, probably "service iptables stop". That will always flush all the
iptables and set every rule default to accept.
Do you then need to start it?
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/optio
On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 10:13 -0600, Wade Preston Shearer wrote:
> > If you used /sbin/iptables, you would have needed to flush your rules
> > first otherwise the broken old rules continue to have precedence.
>
> Ah, with "service iptables save"?
No, probably "service iptables stop". That will alwa
If you used /sbin/iptables, you would have needed to flush your rules
first otherwise the broken old rules continue to have precedence.
Ah, with "service iptables save"?
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http:
On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 10:07 -0600, Wade Preston Shearer wrote:
> Hmm… that's what I did first and it didn't do anything.
If you modified /etc/sysconfig/iptables, you would have need to reboot
or reload the config by running /etc/init.d/iptables restart.
If you used /sbin/iptables, you would have
That would have worked had you either edited the /etc/sysconfig/
iptables
file and added those lines to it, or ran those lines
using /sbin/iptables.
Hmm… that's what I did first and it didn't do anything.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 08:22:16AM -0600, Chris Carey wrote:
> Though, you could spend your whole life fighting this losing battle.
> My opinion is to set your security in place, and forget about it.
Some of the tactics suggested in this thread *are* setting security in
place. And you should *neve
On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 09:52 -0600, Wade Preston Shearer wrote:
> > Has a similar command worked for you in the past?
>
> No, this is my first time trying.
>
> > While it is impossible to be sure without knowing more about your
> > firewall, I'm fairly certain that is not what you want. You'll
On 4/12/06, Gary Thornock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Denyhosts looks like an interesting alternative, though. I think
> I'll try it out :)
On 4/12/06, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Too bad there isn't a global blacklist a person could subscribe to,
> that way if you notice that you need to
Has a similar command worked for you in the past?
No, this is my first time trying.
While it is impossible to be sure without knowing more about your
firewall, I'm fairly certain that is not what you want. You'll
probably have more luck with something like
That didn't work either. Not unt
On Apr 12, 2006, at 7:22 AM, Chris Carey wrote:
If you want a very nice dynamic port blocker , try Port Scan Attack
Detector (PSAD) http://www.cipherdyne.com/psad/
Though, you could spend your whole life fighting this losing battle.
My opinion is to set your security in place, and forget abou
On 4/12/06, Gary Thornock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So far, I've just added the offending hosts to a table in
> /etc/pf.conf and denied them access to all ports, something like:
>
> #
> table { \
> 24.222.2.26, 24.232.121.93, 24.48.67.72, 61.206.117.59, \
> 61.63.10.210, 61.71.120
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Steve wrote:
Too bad there isn't a global blacklist a person could subscribe to,
that way if you notice that you need to add someone to your block
list, you could notify some service and they would add it to the
global blacklist. Then anyone subscribing to the blacklist cou
65 matches
Mail list logo
