To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 3396
3395  |  3397
Subject: 
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Sat, 8 Jan 2000 04:57:40 GMT
Viewed: 
2634 times
  
On Sat, 8 Jan 2000 04:08:45 GMT, mattdm@mattdm.org (Matthew Miller)
wrote:
Jasper Janssen <jasper@janssen.dynip.com> wrote:

Yes. But doing so without Todd's knowledge, _while keeping it up tom
date_, is next to impossible.

Wouldn't be without his knowledge. He'd just be powerless to stop it without
blocking large numbers of legitimate users. Not that I'm advocating such a
thing in any way.

IPblocking such a thing would not block very many legitimate users.
Unless you start doing things like spoofing IPs (which can be detected
at a firewall level), morphing ISP accounts, etc.etc.
Come to think of it, IPblocking of spoofed packets would require root
- which Todd don't have.

Then there is the fact that by far not everything in lugnet is public
- the CGI and other various bits-o-script holding the thing together aren't
publically available.

Yes that's again true.

And I would argue that they are what makes lugnet lugnet.

A constantly updated copy of the original would be essentially a
mirror - and assuming that you copy the ability to post as well, and
gateway both ways, it might actually make sense to do something like
that, someday. With Todd's consent, of course.

This is a different topic entirely of course. It certainly would be
possible, and something I'd really like to see. Not that I think Todd is
doing a bad job, but I don't like the single-point-of-failure thing.

I think we may be diverging again - a single-point-of-hardware-failure
is a bad thing, yes, but I wouldn't want to see something that could
operate on without Todd's consent. There simply needs to be an iron
fist when necessary.

Jasper



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
(...) Not so at all. I'd just use a dialup account (plenty of bandwidth to deal with the discussion traffic) at one or several major ISPs. I don't think Todd wants to break Earthlink or AOL access for all of Boston. (...) Spoofing IPs probably (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
 
(...) Wouldn't be without his knowledge. He'd just be powerless to stop it without blocking large numbers of legitimate users. Not that I'm advocating such a thing in any way. (...) Yes that's again true. (...) This is a different topic entirely of (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR