(OS) The thing I hate most about Microsoft Windows.

Linonut · External Since: Mar 31, 2006 Posts: 3492

After takin' a swig o' grog, Oliver Wong belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> "Linonut" <linonut.RemoveThis@bone.com> wrote in message
> news:xY-dnVrNzcTL2YDYnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> But the last thing in the world I care about is carrying a basically
>> empirical argument into the realm of philosophy, which is what Wong
>> seems to be doing.
>
> Sorry. When we started arguing about whether one could "trust" the
> compiler, I thought we were already in the realm of philosophy. FWIW, (in
> case this is what the argument was about for you,) if trust were the primary
> concern, I'd certainly favor open source over closed source.

Trust is best gained by observation.

A community reinforces trust!

--
Speak softly and carry a cellular phone.

Mike · External Since: Sep 19, 2006 Posts: 83

<thad01.DeleteThis@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote in message
news:efjiap$dqt$1@tux.glaci.com...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike <no.DeleteThis@where.man> wrote:
>>
>> Sure, there are Windows machines sending spam. So what? Since "Linux
>> controls the internet", it's all going thru Linux machines, right? Why
>> isn't the "superior" Linux catching it and stopping it?
>
> Linux is certainly up to the task on my server. We receive a
> helacious amount of spam, most of it chucked in the bit bucket
> by procmail.

Funny, I never get any "spam"! What do I have to do to get it? Run
Linux?

Mike

Mike · External Since: Sep 19, 2006 Posts: 83

"Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann RemoveThis @t-online.de> wrote in message
news:efk6k6$epj$01$1@news.t-online.com...
> Mike wrote:
>
>> <thad01 RemoveThis @tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote in message
>> news:efjiap$dqt$1@tux.glaci.com...
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike <no RemoveThis @where.man> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sure, there are Windows machines sending spam. So what? Since "Linux
>>>> controls the internet", it's all going thru Linux machines, right?
>>>> Why
>>>> isn't the "superior" Linux catching it and stopping it?
>>>
>>> Linux is certainly up to the task on my server. We receive a
>>> helacious amount of spam, most of it chucked in the bit bucket
>>> by procmail.
>>
>> Funny, I never get any "spam"! What do I have to do to get it? Run
>> Linux?
>>
>> Mike
>
> Oh, looky looky!
> Another windows user who "never gets any virus/spam/you name it"

Oh looky looky! Another dumb ass Linux user who thinks *all* computer
users get viruses/spam/you name it!

Mike

Linonut · External Since: Mar 31, 2006 Posts: 3492

After takin' a swig o' grog, Peter Köhlmann belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> Mike wrote:
>
>> <thad01.RemoveThis@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote in message
>> news:efjiap$dqt$1@tux.glaci.com...
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike <no.RemoveThis@where.man> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sure, there are Windows machines sending spam. So what? Since "Linux
>>>> controls the internet", it's all going thru Linux machines, right? Why
>>>> isn't the "superior" Linux catching it and stopping it?
>>>
>>> Linux is certainly up to the task on my server. We receive a
>>> helacious amount of spam, most of it chucked in the bit bucket
>>> by procmail.
>>
>> Funny, I never get any "spam"! What do I have to do to get it? Run
>> Linux?
>>
>> Mike
>
> Oh, looky looky!
> Another windows user who "never gets any virus/spam/you name it"
>
> It is sooooo believable.

Simply put, Mike is an idiot.

--
"These changes do mean that we are not pursuing a separate delivery of
WinFS .... With most of our effort now working towards productizing mature
aspects of the WinFS project into SQL and ADO.NET, we do not need to deliver
a separate WinFS offering. -- Quentin Clark on the WinFS Team Blog

Peter Köhlmann · External Since: Jun 27, 2005 Posts: 795

Mike wrote:

> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:efk6k6$epj$01$1@news.t-online.com...
>> Mike wrote:
>>
>>> <thad01.TakeThisOut@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote in message
>>> news:efjiap$dqt$1@tux.glaci.com...
>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike <no.TakeThisOut@where.man> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, there are Windows machines sending spam. So what? Since
>>>>> "Linux controls the internet", it's all going thru Linux machines,
>>>>> right? Why
>>>>> isn't the "superior" Linux catching it and stopping it?
>>>>
>>>> Linux is certainly up to the task on my server. We receive a
>>>> helacious amount of spam, most of it chucked in the bit bucket
>>>> by procmail.
>>>
>>> Funny, I never get any "spam"! What do I have to do to get it? Run
>>> Linux?
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>> Oh, looky looky!
>> Another windows user who "never gets any virus/spam/you name it"
>
> Oh looky looky! Another dumb ass Linux user who thinks *all* computer
> users get viruses/spam/you name it!
>
> Mike

Nope, Mike, not *all* computer users get viruses. All *windows* *users* get
them.
And not even all computer users get spam. Only those connected to the net
get them. And receiving spam has absolutely nothing to do with the OS one
runs

But then, you are a windows user. Way too dimwitted to recognize the
differences
--
My other computer is your windows box

Mike · External Since: Sep 19, 2006 Posts: 83

"Peter KÃ¶hlmann" <peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:eflb7u$ofu$01$1@news.t-online.com...
> Mike wrote:
>
>> "Peter KÃ¶hlmann" <peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de> wrote in message
>> news:efk6k6$epj$01$1@news.t-online.com...
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>> <thad01.TakeThisOut@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:efjiap$dqt$1@tux.glaci.com...
>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike <no.TakeThisOut@where.man> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, there are Windows machines sending spam. So what? Since
>>>>>> "Linux controls the internet", it's all going thru Linux machines,
>>>>>> right? Why
>>>>>> isn't the "superior" Linux catching it and stopping it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Linux is certainly up to the task on my server. We receive a
>>>>> helacious amount of spam, most of it chucked in the bit bucket
>>>>> by procmail.
>>>>
>>>> Funny, I never get any "spam"! What do I have to do to get it? Run
>>>> Linux?
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>
>>> Oh, looky looky!
>>> Another windows user who "never gets any virus/spam/you name it"
>>
>> Oh looky looky! Another dumb ass Linux user who thinks *all* computer
>> users get viruses/spam/you name it!
>>
>> Mike
>
> Nope, Mike, not *all* computer users get viruses. All *windows* *users*
> get
> them.

Nope, none here in 15 years of Windows use. You're simply wrong.

> And not even all computer users get spam. Only those connected to the net
> get them. And receiving spam has absolutely nothing to do with the OS one
> runs

Nope, none here.

> But then, you are a windows user. Way too dimwitted to recognize the
> differences

But then, you're a linux user. Way too pretentious and overzealous to
recognize the truth.

Mike

DFS · External Since: Jun 07, 2005 Posts: 3577

Mike wrote:
> "Peter KÃ¶hlmann" <peter.koehlmann RemoveThis @t-online.de> wrote in message

>> Nope, Mike, not *all* computer users get viruses. All *windows*
>> *users* get
>> them.
>
> Nope, none here in 15 years of Windows use. You're simply wrong.

He's not wrong - he's a slow-witted liar.

The Ghost In The Machine · External Since: Aug 04, 2005 Posts: 3878

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Peter Köhlmann
<peter.koehlmann DeleteThis @t-online.de>
wrote
on Sat, 30 Sep 2006 10:53:38 +0200
<eflb7u$ofu$01$1@news.t-online.com>:
> Mike wrote:
>
>> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann DeleteThis @t-online.de> wrote in message
>> news:efk6k6$epj$01$1@news.t-online.com...
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>> <thad01 DeleteThis @tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:efjiap$dqt$1@tux.glaci.com...
>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike <no DeleteThis @where.man> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, there are Windows machines sending spam. So what? Since
>>>>>> "Linux controls the internet", it's all going thru Linux machines,
>>>>>> right? Why
>>>>>> isn't the "superior" Linux catching it and stopping it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Linux is certainly up to the task on my server. We receive a
>>>>> helacious amount of spam, most of it chucked in the bit bucket
>>>>> by procmail.
>>>>
>>>> Funny, I never get any "spam"! What do I have to do to get it? Run
>>>> Linux?
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>
>>> Oh, looky looky!
>>> Another windows user who "never gets any virus/spam/you name it"
>>
>> Oh looky looky! Another dumb ass Linux user who thinks *all* computer
>> users get viruses/spam/you name it!
>>
>> Mike
>
> Nope, Mike, not *all* computer users get viruses. All *windows*
> *users* get them.

Pedant Point: All Windows users are *at risk* of getting
them. I can state with some confidence that my Win98
installation has never gotten infected, for example --
although much of that is because it's behind a good
firewall, and I don't grab Email using it.

However, I for one feel far safer using Linux. Smile

> And not even all computer users get spam. Only those connected to the net
> get them. And receiving spam has absolutely nothing to do with the OS one
> runs
>
> But then, you are a windows user. Way too dimwitted to recognize the
> differences

--
#191, ewill3 DeleteThis @earthlink.net
Q: "Why is my computer doing that?"
A: "Don't do that and you'll be fine."

Peter Köhlmann · External Since: Jun 27, 2005 Posts: 795

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Peter Köhlmann
> <peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de>
> wrote
> on Sat, 30 Sep 2006 10:53:38 +0200
> <eflb7u$ofu$01$1@news.t-online.com>:
>> Mike wrote:
>>
>>> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de> wrote in message
>>> news:efk6k6$epj$01$1@news.t-online.com...
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <thad01.TakeThisOut@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:efjiap$dqt$1@tux.glaci.com...
>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike <no.TakeThisOut@where.man> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure, there are Windows machines sending spam. So what? Since
>>>>>>> "Linux controls the internet", it's all going thru Linux machines,
>>>>>>> right? Why
>>>>>>> isn't the "superior" Linux catching it and stopping it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linux is certainly up to the task on my server. We receive a
>>>>>> helacious amount of spam, most of it chucked in the bit bucket
>>>>>> by procmail.
>>>>>
>>>>> Funny, I never get any "spam"! What do I have to do to get it? Run
>>>>> Linux?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> Oh, looky looky!
>>>> Another windows user who "never gets any virus/spam/you name it"
>>>
>>> Oh looky looky! Another dumb ass Linux user who thinks *all* computer
>>> users get viruses/spam/you name it!
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>> Nope, Mike, not *all* computer users get viruses. All *windows*
>> *users* get them.
>
> Pedant Point: All Windows users are *at risk* of getting
> them. I can state with some confidence that my Win98
> installation has never gotten infected, for example --
> although much of that is because it's behind a good
> firewall, and I don't grab Email using it.
>
> However, I for one feel far safer using Linux. Smile

>

Well, one could also exclude some windows installs not connected to any
network. *And* where no media from the outside are *ever* inserted
For those the risk is low. For all three or four of them
For all the others though...

--
Accident, n.:
A condition in which presence of mind is good, but absence of body is
better.

[H]omer · External Since: Apr 21, 2006 Posts: 2134

Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

>> Pedant Point: All Windows users are *at risk* of getting
>> them. I can state with some confidence that my Win98
>> installation has never gotten infected, for example --
>> although much of that is because it's behind a good
>> firewall, and I don't grab Email using it.
>>
>> However, I for one feel far safer using Linux. Smile

> Well, one could also exclude some windows installs not connected to any
> network. *And* where no media from the outside are *ever* inserted
> For those the risk is low.

Only "low"? Wouldn't it be zero? Unless Windows itself somehow came
preinstalled with Viruses. Hmmm, OK good point.

> For all three or four of them

That many? Actually don't they *all* need to be permanently connected
via umbilical cord to the mothership, for "activation" and WGA
spying^H^H^H^H^H^H monitoring?

> For all the others though...

0wn3Ð.

--
K.
http://slated.org - Slated, Rated & Blogged

..----
| L.A. town is falling down, while the ground moves around.
| We won't let it get us down; we're Californians!
`----
- Animaniacs ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=XKcgTnfoM9Q )

Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.16-1.2133_FC5
02:15:47 up 107 days, 2:32, 4 users, load average: 0.57, 1.14, 0.83

nobody · External Since: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 11

This message is not archived

Tim Smith · External Since: Apr 26, 2004 Posts: 2707

In article <pan.2006.10.29.23.41.11.331854 DeleteThis @ncoldns.com>,
Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason DeleteThis @ncoldns.com> wrote:
> I run a mail server. It handles several thousand users, in something like
> 150 domains. One domain, in particular, has _no_ legitimate users in it;
> it exists _solely_ for the purpose of spam-detection.
>
> Guess what? On a typical day, several hundred distinct email addresses in
> that domain receive spam. Several hundred, a total of _zero_ of which are
> legitimate addresses.
>
> So how'd the spammers get these addresses, since nobody is using them,
> nobody is posting from them, the accounts don't even exist?

We had a domain at work like that--no users, no email addresses, a ton
of spam. Even more annoying, some spammer picked it as one of their
domains to use for their forged return addresses, so we were also
getting a ton of bounces for spams--around 20000 a day.

Finally, I suggested that we set its MX record to 127.0.0.1. That
helped a lot. Smile

--
--Tim Smith

Peter Köhlmann · External Since: Jun 27, 2005 Posts: 795

nobody.RemoveThis@nowhere.nonet wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de> spewed this unto the Network:
> [ snip ]
>> And not even all computer users get spam. Only those connected to the net
>> get them. And receiving spam has absolutely nothing to do with the OS one
>> runs
>
> Not all net-connected computer users get spam. Only those whose
> e-mail addresses have fallen into the hands of spammers get
> spam.
>

This is complete bullshit
Spammers aslo permutate the addresses. Even if 99% of the resultant
addresses are non-existant, they still have found enough
After all, they don't worry about the returned mail. That one will get to
the hapless real owner of the faked email addy the spammer used
--
Windows isn't unstable. It's spontaneous.

Hadron Quark · External Since: Sep 10, 2006 Posts: 1621

Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de> writes:

> Mike wrote:
>
>> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de> wrote in message
>> news:efk6k6$epj$01$1@news.t-online.com...
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>> <thad01.TakeThisOut@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:efjiap$dqt$1@tux.glaci.com...
>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike <no.TakeThisOut@where.man> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, there are Windows machines sending spam. So what? Since
>>>>>> "Linux controls the internet", it's all going thru Linux machines,
>>>>>> right? Why
>>>>>> isn't the "superior" Linux catching it and stopping it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Linux is certainly up to the task on my server. We receive a
>>>>> helacious amount of spam, most of it chucked in the bit bucket
>>>>> by procmail.
>>>>
>>>> Funny, I never get any "spam"! What do I have to do to get it? Run
>>>> Linux?
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>
>>> Oh, looky looky!
>>> Another windows user who "never gets any virus/spam/you name it"
>>
>> Oh looky looky! Another dumb ass Linux user who thinks *all* computer
>> users get viruses/spam/you name it!
>>
>> Mike
>
> Nope, Mike, not *all* computer users get viruses. All *windows* *users* get
> them.

No. Only fools like you who don't understand the basics of gateways and
common sense virus protection.

> And not even all computer users get spam. Only those connected to the net
> get them. And receiving spam has absolutely nothing to do with the OS one
> runs

Did you figure that out? You have to be connected to the net? Well done!

>
> But then, you are a windows user. Way too dimwitted to recognize the
> differences

Thank god you were here to explain how one must connect to the net to
get spam!

--
innunendo, n.:
Italian enema.

Peter Köhlmann · External Since: Jun 27, 2005 Posts: 795

Hadron Quark wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de> writes:
>
>> Mike wrote:
>>
>>> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de> wrote in message
>>> news:efk6k6$epj$01$1@news.t-online.com...
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <thad01.RemoveThis@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:efjiap$dqt$1@tux.glaci.com...
>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike <no.RemoveThis@where.man> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure, there are Windows machines sending spam. So what? Since
>>>>>>> "Linux controls the internet", it's all going thru Linux machines,
>>>>>>> right? Why
>>>>>>> isn't the "superior" Linux catching it and stopping it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linux is certainly up to the task on my server. We receive a
>>>>>> helacious amount of spam, most of it chucked in the bit bucket
>>>>>> by procmail.
>>>>>
>>>>> Funny, I never get any "spam"! What do I have to do to get it? Run
>>>>> Linux?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> Oh, looky looky!
>>>> Another windows user who "never gets any virus/spam/you name it"
>>>
>>> Oh looky looky! Another dumb ass Linux user who thinks *all* computer
>>> users get viruses/spam/you name it!
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>> Nope, Mike, not *all* computer users get viruses. All *windows* *users*
>> get them.
>
> No. Only fools like you who don't understand the basics of gateways and
> common sense virus protection.
>

Oh, Hadron, "linux kernel hacker", who needs virus protection
For his windows machine, the one he *only* uses for gaming.
ALl serious work is done on linux, right, Hadron?

Now tell us: What "virus protection" is the right one for linux?
After all, there are currently (since years) exactly *zero* linux viruses in
the wild.
But then, I have to protect myself against those extremely dangerous linux
viruses, right, Hadron? Would you mind tell us more about this extremely
sensitive stuff? You seem soooo knowledgeable about linux viruses

>> And not even all computer users get spam. Only those connected to the net
>> get them. And receiving spam has absolutely nothing to do with the OS one
>> runs
>
> Did you figure that out? You have to be connected to the net? Well done!
>

Oh, you could not find the line I was responding to?
Nevermind, comes time you will grow your very first working brain cell

>>
>> But then, you are a windows user. Way too dimwitted to recognize the
>> differences
>
> Thank god you were here to explain how one must connect to the net to
> get spam!
>

Well, after all Mike thinks *all* computer users get spam.
This certainly would include those computers never connected to the net

Time to "hack linux kernels", Hadron.
You are so much more effective doing that than trolling
And you are a complete, utter failure at linux

But you certainly dearly love and use linux day in and out.
And you are certainly the *only* "linux advocate" in this group
All others are "me too" Roy followers. Or so

The only people worth having a nice chat with are flatfish, wjbell and DFS,
right, Hadron?
DFS and flatfish being vile racists makes them certainly nice company
Flatfish and wjbell being petty software thiefs are clearly more endearing
to a "linux advocate" of your caliber than those actually using it

Yes, I certainly can see how you are the great "linux advocate", the only
true one ("choice is bad") and "kernel hacker"
--
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice which can be equally well
explained by stupidity

Sinister Midget · External Since: Jun 17, 2006 Posts: 746

On 2006-10-29, nobody.DeleteThis@nowhere.nonet <nobody.DeleteThis@nowhere.nonet> posted something concerning:
> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann.DeleteThis@t-online.de> spewed this unto the Network:
> [ snip ]
>> And not even all computer users get spam. Only those connected to the net
>> get them. And receiving spam has absolutely nothing to do with the OS one
>> runs
>
> Not all net-connected computer users get spam. Only those whose
> e-mail addresses have fallen into the hands of spammers get
> spam.

Or ones they guess. I have an email address I've never used. Never,
ever, ever. It gets spam. No more than a couple a month AFAIK (I have
really good filtering). But it still gets spam.

--
Windows: When you haven't been abused enough by the IRS.

Mike · External Since: Nov 04, 2006 Posts: 43

In article <ei3fti$heq$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
Peter KÃ¶hlmann <peter.koehlmann.DeleteThis@t-online.de> wrote:

> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
> > Peter KÃ¶hlmann <peter.koehlmann.DeleteThis@t-online.de> writes:
> >
> >> Mike wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Peter KÃ¶hlmann" <peter.koehlmann.DeleteThis@t-online.de> wrote in message
> >>> news:efk6k6$epj$01$1@news.t-online.com...
> >>>> Mike wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> <thad01.DeleteThis@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:efjiap$dqt$1@tux.glaci.com...
> >>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike <no.DeleteThis@where.man> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sure, there are Windows machines sending spam. So what? Since
> >>>>>>> "Linux controls the internet", it's all going thru Linux machines,
> >>>>>>> right? Why
> >>>>>>> isn't the "superior" Linux catching it and stopping it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Linux is certainly up to the task on my server. We receive a
> >>>>>> helacious amount of spam, most of it chucked in the bit bucket
> >>>>>> by procmail.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Funny, I never get any "spam"! What do I have to do to get it? Run
> >>>>> Linux?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mike
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh, looky looky!
> >>>> Another windows user who "never gets any virus/spam/you name it"
> >>>
> >>> Oh looky looky! Another dumb ass Linux user who thinks *all* computer
> >>> users get viruses/spam/you name it!
> >>>
> >>> Mike
> >>
> >> Nope, Mike, not *all* computer users get viruses. All *windows* *users*
> >> get them.
> >
> > No. Only fools like you who don't understand the basics of gateways and
> > common sense virus protection.
> >
>
> Oh, Hadron, "linux kernel hacker", who needs virus protection
> For his windows machine, the one he *only* uses for gaming.
> ALl serious work is done on linux, right, Hadron?
>
> Now tell us: What "virus protection" is the right one for linux?
> After all, there are currently (since years) exactly *zero* linux viruses in
> the wild.
> But then, I have to protect myself against those extremely dangerous linux
> viruses, right, Hadron? Would you mind tell us more about this extremely
> sensitive stuff? You seem soooo knowledgeable about linux viruses
>
> >> And not even all computer users get spam. Only those connected to the net
> >> get them. And receiving spam has absolutely nothing to do with the OS one
> >> runs
> >
> > Did you figure that out? You have to be connected to the net? Well done!
> >
>
> Oh, you could not find the line I was responding to?
> Nevermind, comes time you will grow your very first working brain cell
>
> >>
> >> But then, you are a windows user. Way too dimwitted to recognize the
> >> differences
> >
> > Thank god you were here to explain how one must connect to the net to
> > get spam!
> >
>
> Well, after all Mike thinks *all* computer users get spam.
> This certainly would include those computers never connected to the net

I said no such thing. I said *I* don't get spam.

Reading is *so* important.

Mike

Kelsey Bjarnason · External Since: Sep 12, 2006 Posts: 1022

[snips]

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 21:27:42 +0100, Hadron Quark wrote:

>> Nope, Mike, not *all* computer users get viruses. All *windows* *users*
>> get them.
>
> No. Only fools like you who don't understand the basics of gateways and
> common sense virus protection.

WTF has a *gateway* got to do with virus protection?

Yeesh...

The Ghost In The Machine · External Since: Aug 04, 2005 Posts: 3878

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason.TakeThisOut@ncoldns.com>
wrote
on Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:17:45 -0800
<pan.2006.10.30.22.17.45.550165.TakeThisOut@ncoldns.com>:
> [snips]
>
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 21:27:42 +0100, Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>>> Nope, Mike, not *all* computer users get viruses. All *windows* *users*
>>> get them.
>>
>> No. Only fools like you who don't understand the basics of gateways and
>> common sense virus protection.
>
> WTF has a *gateway* got to do with virus protection?
>
> Yeesh...
>

Viruses can come in through ports such as 445, 137, 139.
A router not allowing outside packets through from these
and other ports will drop the packets on the floor,
neutralizing the dangers thereof (if any). Unless an
upstream router sends an explicit response for some reason
upon a timeout, the sender will see nothing.

Of course if one opens portholes in the router for various
reasons (the most useful one is 22 for ssh access; 80
and 443 might be used as well if one really wants to do
a Web server over a relatively dinky DSL/cable line Smile

;
26000 UDP might be of interest to gamers) the packets
can then get in...but Linux won't respond to them either
unless a daemon opens the ports on the local host side.
I know of few Linux daemons who care about port 445.

That router is a form of protection, and many Windows users
will be protected if they sign up for, say, Earthlink's
DSL [*], which gives them the following:

[1] A modem which has built-in NAT capability.
[2] A phone cord.
[3] An Ethernet cable.
[4] A small power transporter/battery eliminator.
[5] Small low-pass filter units to reduce the noise
through PSTN equipment (phones, answering machines, etc.).
[6] The usual contract verbiage. Smile

Presumably, cable modems have similar capabilities.
The only subscribers really vulnerable are new subscribers
with dialup-only (53k/PSTN) capabilities, or existing
subscribers who haven't gotten a modem upgrade and do not
have modems with NAT/port block capabilities.

It is possible the malware writers might start targeting
these devices. Of course, the E-mail infection vector
is still a problem -- all of the protections in the world
against incoming nasties won't help if one goes out, picks
up the mail, takes it in, opens it, and it surreptitiously
sneezes into one's central air while he's looking at the
enclosed contents trying to figure out where the nekkid
videos wandered off to.

(Yes, that's a contrived analogy. Smile

Of course most
central air units don't do double duty as broadcast
transmitters, either, nor do things in the vent have
access to the thermostat and/or breaker controls, so
it's an imperfect analogy to boot...)

[*] I'll admit it's reasonably good service (except for
unsupported Usenet, hence my TeraNews account), but I'm
not affiliated with Earthlink apart from being a customer;
this is not intended to be spam, either. I've now got
3 modems from them, plus I have a bunch of other modems
from elder days -- including a 1200 baud unit. Wink

Maybe
I should open a museum... Wink

--
#191, ewill3.TakeThisOut@earthlink.net
New Technology? Not There. No Thanks.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Kelsey Bjarnason · External Since: Sep 12, 2006 Posts: 1022

[snips]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:03:14 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

>> WTF has a *gateway* got to do with virus protection?
>>
>> Yeesh...
>>
>>
> Viruses can come in through ports such as 445, 137, 139. A router not
> allowing outside packets through from these and other ports will drop the
> packets on the floor

It would also block all other services on those ports - essentially being
a firewall.

Now, let's open it up so it's actually allowing traffic _through_ on those
ports. It's still a gateway... but now has *zero* effect on viruses
coming through on those ports.

So I repeat: WTF has a *gateway* got to do with virus protection?

Answer: nothing. A firewall can provide minimal protection against some,
as can, say, a NAT router. A gateway, _as_ a gateway, does nothing.

(OS) The thing I *hate* most about Microsoft Windows.

(OS) The thing I hate most about Microsoft Windows.