Hello
I know that the preferred way of controlling access is to use whitelists, but for my case I'd like to use IP blacklisting. Now using a script like #!/bin/bash
if [ -f badips.txt ] then for BAD_IP in `cat badips.txt` do iptables -A INPUT -s $BAD_IP -j DROP done else echo "Can't read badips.txt" fi
I have like 96 banned IPs so far. I am wondering about the possible performance hit on my system, and the limits of iptables. What if I have thousands?
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:24:56 -0500, Michael Yep myep@remotelink.com opined:
Hello
I know that the preferred way of controlling access is to use whitelists, but for my case I'd like to use IP blacklisting. Now using a script like #!/bin/bash
if [ -f badips.txt ] then for BAD_IP in `cat badips.txt` do iptables -A INPUT -s $BAD_IP -j DROP done else echo "Can't read badips.txt" fi
I have like 96 banned IPs so far. I am wondering about the possible performance hit on my system, and the limits of iptables. What if I have thousands?
At some point it affects performance. There are some workarounds. What problem are you trying to solve? What causes you to block an IP?
If what you want to do is to block offending IPs, let's say IPs who try to hack your systems, you would better use
denyhosts
yum install denyhosts vi /etc/denyhosts.conf
It will automatically put the offending IPs on the /etc/hosts.deny for some time (you can configure that time)
:) regards, Guillermo.
On 7/18/06, David Cary Hart Fedora@tqmcube.com wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:24:56 -0500, Michael Yep myep@remotelink.com opined:
Hello
I know that the preferred way of controlling access is to use whitelists, but for my case I'd like to use IP blacklisting. Now using a script like #!/bin/bash
if [ -f badips.txt ] then for BAD_IP in `cat badips.txt` do iptables -A INPUT -s $BAD_IP -j DROP done else echo "Can't read badips.txt" fi
I have like 96 banned IPs so far. I am wondering about the possible performance hit on my system, and the limits of iptables. What if I have thousands?
At some point it affects performance. There are some workarounds. What problem are you trying to solve? What causes you to block an IP?
-- Do NOT Send Email to <spam trap> Fedora@TQMcube,com Our DNSRBL - Eliminate Spam at The Source: http://www.TQMcube.com Don't Subsidize Criminals: http://boulderpledge.org
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
I have heard of this method, but I thought it was better to stop them at the firewall level. right?
Guillermo Garron wrote:
If what you want to do is to block offending IPs, let's say IPs who try to hack your systems, you would better use
denyhosts
yum install denyhosts vi /etc/denyhosts.conf
It will automatically put the offending IPs on the /etc/hosts.deny for some time (you can configure that time)
:) regards, Guillermo.
On 7/18/06, *David Cary Hart* <Fedora@tqmcube.com mailto:Fedora@tqmcube.com> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:24:56 -0500, Michael Yep <myep@remotelink.com <mailto:myep@remotelink.com>> opined: > Hello > > I know that the preferred way of controlling access is to use > whitelists, but for my case I'd like to use IP blacklisting. > Now using a script like > #!/bin/bash > > if [ -f badips.txt ] > then > for BAD_IP in `cat badips.txt` > do > iptables -A INPUT -s $BAD_IP -j DROP > done > else > echo "Can't read badips.txt" > fi > > I have like 96 banned IPs so far. I am wondering about the possible > performance hit on my system, and the limits of iptables. > What if I have thousands? > At some point it affects performance. There are some workarounds. What problem are you trying to solve? What causes you to block an IP? -- Do NOT Send Email to <spam trap> Fedora@TQMcube,com Our DNSRBL - Eliminate Spam at The Source: http://www.TQMcube.com Don't Subsidize Criminals: http://boulderpledge.org -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com <mailto:fedora-list@redhat.com> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
denyhosts will do the job for you!
:) regards, Guillermo.
On 7/18/06, Michael Yep myep@remotelink.com wrote:
I have heard of this method, but I thought it was better to stop them at the firewall level. right?
Guillermo Garron wrote:
If what you want to do is to block offending IPs, let's say IPs who try to hack your systems, you would better use
denyhosts
yum install denyhosts vi /etc/denyhosts.conf
It will automatically put the offending IPs on the /etc/hosts.deny for some time (you can configure that time)
:) regards, Guillermo.
On 7/18/06, *David Cary Hart* <Fedora@tqmcube.com mailto:Fedora@tqmcube.com> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:24:56 -0500, Michael Yep <myep@remotelink.com <mailto:myep@remotelink.com>> opined: > Hello > > I know that the preferred way of controlling access is to use > whitelists, but for my case I'd like to use IP blacklisting. > Now using a script like > #!/bin/bash > > if [ -f badips.txt ] > then > for BAD_IP in `cat badips.txt` > do > iptables -A INPUT -s $BAD_IP -j DROP > done > else > echo "Can't read badips.txt" > fi > > I have like 96 banned IPs so far. I am wondering about thepossible
> performance hit on my system, and the limits of iptables. > What if I have thousands? > At some point it affects performance. There are some workarounds. What problem are you trying to solve? What causes you to block anIP?
-- Do NOT Send Email to <spam trap> Fedora@TQMcube,com Our DNSRBL - Eliminate Spam at The Source: http://www.TQMcube.com Don't Subsidize Criminals: http://boulderpledge.org -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com <mailto:fedora-list@redhat.com> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list-- Michael Yep Development / Technical Operations RemoteLink, Inc. 26W161 Plank Rd Naperville, IL 60563-3422 Website: www.remotelink.com Direct: 800-362-9446 x164 Fax: 630-983-0364 GPG Key 0x126439D9
Your Link to Effective Business Communications! Specializing in telecommunications and Internet technology. If it helps connect you with your customers, remote employees and colleagues we do it. We put you in control of today's technology. From Teleconferencing, WebConferencing, Auto Attendant and Broadcast messaging to Custom data collection, ecommerce, CTI and IVR services.
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guillermo Garron schrieb:
denyhosts will do the job for you!
:) regards, Guillermo.
Guillermo,
though using gmail with a default, please learn to not top-post and especially to avoid unnecessary quoting.
denyhosts does not use iptables, but tcp-wrappers.
If it is just about SSH login attempts by script kids I can say from long experience that changing the SSHD port to something non default (so far) keeps them at the gates, means no special blocking setup is required. Though it can be a good decision to use pam_abl to cover other cases and protect all services using PAM (as Nicolas already mentioned).
Alexander
Sorry I do not know what top posting is. I run Thunderbird 1.5.0.4, and this is the default setup with a signature. I this the incorrect format ?
Alexander Dalloz wrote:
Guillermo Garron schrieb:
denyhosts will do the job for you!
:) regards, Guillermo.
Guillermo,
though using gmail with a default, please learn to not top-post and especially to avoid unnecessary quoting.
denyhosts does not use iptables, but tcp-wrappers.
If it is just about SSH login attempts by script kids I can say from long experience that changing the SSHD port to something non default (so far) keeps them at the gates, means no special blocking setup is required. Though it can be a good decision to use pam_abl to cover other cases and protect all services using PAM (as Nicolas already mentioned).
Alexander
Michael Yep schrieb:
Sorry I do not know what top posting is. I run Thunderbird 1.5.0.4, and this is the default setup with a signature. I this the incorrect format ?
No. You provide your additional comment to a previous list posting at top of it. That is what top-posting means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting
It makes following a topic more difficult than it would have to be. If you reply to a list posting you nearly always want to contribute (ask, add, ...) to specific parts of the previous post(s). Doing that on top of the mail does not make clear to which part of the previous communication this belongs. This leads directly to the following aspect: top-posters typically do not strip what they quote. On a list like this it is not necessary to repeat the complete previous content by quoting all. Interested readers can thread the list, list archives organize their access to in a threaded way. TOFU (=top-posting + fully quoting) is thus annoying in 2 ways: it makes it harder to see the discussion / argument threads and it wastes bandwidth + storage space.
This isn't meant personally, trying to explain by giving arguments.
The Fedora Wiki has a page with "rules" written down: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MailinglistGuidelines
Regards
Alexander
From: "Alexander Dalloz" ad+lists@uni-x.org
Michael Yep schrieb:
Sorry I do not know what top posting is. I run Thunderbird 1.5.0.4, and this is the default setup with a signature. I this the incorrect format ?
No. You provide your additional comment to a previous list posting at top of it. That is what top-posting means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting
It makes following a topic more difficult than it would have to be. If you reply to a list posting you nearly always want to contribute (ask, add, ...) to specific parts of the previous post(s). Doing that on top of the mail does not make clear to which part of the previous communication this belongs. This leads directly to the following aspect: top-posters typically do not strip what they quote. On a list like this it is not necessary to repeat the complete previous content by quoting all. Interested readers can thread the list, list archives organize their access to in a threaded way. TOFU (=top-posting + fully quoting) is thus annoying in 2 ways: it makes it harder to see the discussion / argument threads and it wastes bandwidth + storage space.
This isn't meant personally, trying to explain by giving arguments.
The Fedora Wiki has a page with "rules" written down: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MailinglistGuidelines
Alex, rules are for pedantics, tyrants, Democrats, and religious fanatics. Humans should be adaptable. But I do agree that bottom posting is somewhat easier to read and should be RECOMMENDED but not insisted upon.
{^,-} Joanne winking and sticking her tongue out in your general direction.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
jdow wrote:
From: "Alexander Dalloz" ad+lists@uni-x.org
[...]
The Fedora Wiki has a page with "rules" written down: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MailinglistGuidelines
Alex, rules are for pedantics, tyrants, Democrats, and religious fanatics.
Of course, that's why the wiki uses the term guidelines, knowing the tendency of free software to attract the anarchist types. :)
Humans should be adaptable. But I do agree that bottom posting is somewhat easier to read and should be RECOMMENDED but not insisted upon.
Lbh jbhyq nterr gubhtu gung pbzzba thvqryvarf ner tbbq guvatf, yrfg jr nyy hfr bhe bja ynathntr naq or hanoyr gb pbzzhavpngr. Vg'f gur snfpvfgf (glenagf, Qrzbpengf, naq eryvtvbhf snangvpf) jub unir abguvat jbegu yvfgravat gb gung qrznaq jr sbyybj gurve ehyrf. Gur erfg bs hf bayl nfx naq ubcr gung jung jr unir gb funer znxrf gur erdhrfg jbegu juvyr. :)
- -- Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xD654075A | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ====================================================================== Foxes prefer rabbits with short claws. -- Nadja Adolf
Todd Zullinger wrote:
Lbh jbhyq nterr gubhtu gung pbzzba thvqryvarf ner tbbq guvatf, yrfg jr nyy hfr bhe bja ynathntr naq or hanoyr gb pbzzhavpngr. Vg'f gur snfpvfgf (glenagf, Qrzbpengf, naq eryvtvbhf snangvpf) jub unir abguvat jbegu yvfgravat gb gung qrznaq jr sbyybj gurve ehyrf. Gur erfg bs hf bayl nfx naq ubcr gung jung jr unir gb funer znxrf gur erdhrfg jbegu juvyr. :)
Hmm, couldn't figure out how to get Thunderbird to do a ROT13. Hadda write a little C program. I suppose a script with tr in it would do the job, but I find C easier.
Agree with the sentiment, though.
Mike
Mike McCarty schrieb:
Todd Zullinger wrote:
Lbh jbhyq nterr gubhtu gung pbzzba thvqryvarf ner tbbq guvatf, yrfg jr nyy hfr bhe bja ynathntr naq or hanoyr gb pbzzhavpngr. Vg'f gur snfpvfgf (glenagf, Qrzbpengf, naq eryvtvbhf snangvpf) jub unir abguvat jbegu yvfgravat gb gung qrznaq jr sbyybj gurve ehyrf. Gur erfg bs hf bayl nfx naq ubcr gung jung jr unir gb funer znxrf gur erdhrfg jbegu juvyr. :)
Hmm, couldn't figure out how to get Thunderbird to do a ROT13. Hadda write a little C program. I suppose a script with tr in it would do the job, but I find C easier.
Agree with the sentiment, though.
Mike
echo "rapelcgvba ol bofphevgl" | tr 'a-zA-Z' 'n-za-mN-ZA-M'
:P
Alexander
From: "Alexander Dalloz" ad+lists@uni-x.org
Mike McCarty schrieb:
Todd Zullinger wrote:
Lbh jbhyq nterr gubhtu gung pbzzba thvqryvarf ner tbbq guvatf, yrfg jr nyy hfr bhe bja ynathntr naq or hanoyr gb pbzzhavpngr. Vg'f gur snfpvfgf (glenagf, Qrzbpengf, naq eryvtvbhf snangvpf) jub unir abguvat jbegu yvfgravat gb gung qrznaq jr sbyybj gurve ehyrf. Gur erfg bs hf bayl nfx naq ubcr gung jung jr unir gb funer znxrf gur erdhrfg jbegu juvyr. :)
Hmm, couldn't figure out how to get Thunderbird to do a ROT13. Hadda write a little C program. I suppose a script with tr in it would do the job, but I find C easier.
Agree with the sentiment, though.
Mike
echo "rapelcgvba ol bofphevgl" | tr 'a-zA-Z' 'n-za-mN-ZA-M'
I chose to shut up on the young kid (at least mentally) who resorted to name calling as his argument. He rather made my case for me.
{^_-}
jdow schrieb:
The Fedora Wiki has a page with "rules" written down: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MailinglistGuidelines
Alex, rules are for pedantics, tyrants, Democrats, and religious fanatics. Humans should be adaptable. But I do agree that bottom posting is somewhat easier to read and should be RECOMMENDED but not insisted upon.
{^,-} Joanne winking and sticking her tongue out in your general direction.
As I read your smiley as a request for comment: there was a reason why I quoted the word rules when pointing to the wiki page. And the page content itself reads as "guidelines", which from my reading is not that strong as "rules" would be. Can a native English speaker agree to this? :)
Kind regards Joanne (^_~)
Alexander
Alexander Dalloz wrote:
As I read your smiley as a request for comment: there was a reason why I quoted the word rules when pointing to the wiki page. And the page content itself reads as "guidelines", which from my reading is not that strong as "rules" would be. Can a native English speaker agree to this? :)
I agree. The term "rules" generally has a connotation of being very strict, whereas "guidelines" are usually recommendations that *should* be followed, but *may* be changed or adapted to a given situation.
On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 15:09 -0700, Peter Gordon wrote:
Alexander Dalloz wrote:
As I read your smiley as a request for comment: there was a reason why I quoted the word rules when pointing to the wiki page. And the page content itself reads as "guidelines", which from my reading is not that strong as "rules" would be. Can a native English speaker agree to this? :)
I agree. The term "rules" generally has a connotation of being very strict, whereas "guidelines" are usually recommendations that *should* be followed, but *may* be changed or adapted to a given situation.
This is why the wiki page in question was renamed last November from MailingListRules to MailinglistGuidelines.
On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 14:45 -0700, jdow wrote:
Alex, rules are for pedantics, tyrants, Democrats, and religious fanatics. Humans should be adaptable. But I do agree that bottom posting is somewhat easier to read and should be RECOMMENDED but not insisted upon.
It's useful to bear in mind though that pedants like me tend to ignore people that repeatedly top-post despite being asked not to. So the top-posters are potentially missing out on sources of solutions to their problems.
On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 14:38 +1000, Steffen Kluge wrote:
On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 17:19 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
No one will die over top posting (well, not many).
I find trimming the quotation down to the bit you're actually replying to far more important than where to put it. If you do that in-line posting almost comes naturally.
A bottom-posted message that quotes two pages of stuff everybody has already read, then adds a line or two at the end can be just as annoying as turning the discussion flow upside down.
Hence: trim your quotations!
I couldn't agree more. I've seen people on this very list give netiquette lectures to people regarding top-posting, and in the very email containing the lecture, they don't trim out the irrelevant text such as everything below the last line of their reply. Rather hypocritical behaviour but the irony of it raises a smile :-)
Paul.
The obvious solution is: please don't quote from the previous message. It only annoys those of us who like neither top nor bottom posting. 8)
Regards, Mike Klinke
From: "Alexander Dalloz" ad+lists@uni-x.org
jdow schrieb:
The Fedora Wiki has a page with "rules" written down: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MailinglistGuidelines
Alex, rules are for pedantics, tyrants, Democrats, and religious fanatics. Humans should be adaptable. But I do agree that bottom posting is somewhat easier to read and should be RECOMMENDED but not insisted upon.
{^,-} Joanne winking and sticking her tongue out in your general direction.
As I read your smiley as a request for comment: there was a reason why I quoted the word rules when pointing to the wiki page. And the page content itself reads as "guidelines", which from my reading is not that strong as "rules" would be. Can a native English speaker agree to this? :)
Kind regards Joanne (^_~)
Guidelines are recommended but optional practice. Rules are generally taken as "must be obeyed" sort of things if you want to play the game.
Football, um both kinds I believe*, has rules. Life has social conventions such as being polite and opening the door for a person carrying a burden even if you're a woman and the other person's a man. I take that as trumping the old convention that men ALWAYS opened the door for the "helpless" woman. (Which in Victorian corsets helpless was very likely closer to the truth than most want to admit.)
{^_-}
now joanne...
are we going to talk about rules,top-posting or corsets...
rules.. don't really care about...
top posting... not that into the san fran stuff...
corsets... now we're talking!!!!!!
what kind.. do you have a web site??
yeah.. i'm laughing!
-----Original Message----- From: fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com]On Behalf Of jdow Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 3:11 PM To: For users of Fedora Core releases Subject: Re: [OT] TOP-POSTING
From: "Alexander Dalloz" ad+lists@uni-x.org
jdow schrieb:
The Fedora Wiki has a page with "rules" written down: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MailinglistGuidelines
Alex, rules are for pedantics, tyrants, Democrats, and religious fanatics. Humans should be adaptable. But I do agree that bottom posting is somewhat easier to read and should be RECOMMENDED but not insisted upon.
{^,-} Joanne winking and sticking her tongue out in your general direction.
As I read your smiley as a request for comment: there was a reason why I quoted the word rules when pointing to the wiki page. And the page content itself reads as "guidelines", which from my reading is not that strong as "rules" would be. Can a native English speaker agree to this? :)
Kind regards Joanne (^_~)
Guidelines are recommended but optional practice. Rules are generally taken as "must be obeyed" sort of things if you want to play the game.
Football, um both kinds I believe*, has rules. Life has social conventions such as being polite and opening the door for a person carrying a burden even if you're a woman and the other person's a man. I take that as trumping the old convention that men ALWAYS opened the door for the "helpless" woman. (Which in Victorian corsets helpless was very likely closer to the truth than most want to admit.)
{^_-}
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
bruce wrote:
now joanne...
are we going to talk about rules,top-posting or corsets...
rules.. don't really care about...
top posting... not that into the san fran stuff...
corsets... now we're talking!!!!!!
what kind.. do you have a web site??
yeah.. i'm laughing!
The Fedora Wiki has a page with "rules" written down: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MailinglistGuidelines
Alex, rules are for pedantics, tyrants, Democrats, and religious fanatics. Humans should be adaptable. But I do agree that bottom posting is somewhat easier to read and should be RECOMMENDED but not insisted upon.
{^,-} Joanne winking and sticking her tongue out in your general direction.
As I read your smiley as a request for comment: there was a reason why I quoted the word rules when pointing to the wiki page. And the page content itself reads as "guidelines", which from my reading is not that strong as "rules" would be. Can a native English speaker agree to this? :)
Kind regards Joanne (^_~)
Guidelines are recommended but optional practice. Rules are generally taken as "must be obeyed" sort of things if you want to play the game.
Football, um both kinds I believe*, has rules. Life has social conventions such as being polite and opening the door for a person carrying a burden even if you're a woman and the other person's a man. I take that as trumping the old convention that men ALWAYS opened the door for the "helpless" woman. (Which in Victorian corsets helpless was very likely closer to the truth than most want to admit.)
Geez people! Is Fedora working so well that we have nothing better to discuss? Let's get back to real issues, and stop bashing people who ask for help.
From: "Steven Ringwald" asric@asric.com
bruce wrote:
now joanne...
are we going to talk about rules,top-posting or corsets...
rules.. don't really care about...
top posting... not that into the san fran stuff...
corsets... now we're talking!!!!!!
what kind.. do you have a web site??
yeah.. i'm laughing!
The Fedora Wiki has a page with "rules" written down: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MailinglistGuidelines
Alex, rules are for pedantics, tyrants, Democrats, and religious fanatics. Humans should be adaptable. But I do agree that bottom posting is somewhat easier to read and should be RECOMMENDED but not insisted upon.
{^,-} Joanne winking and sticking her tongue out in your general direction.
As I read your smiley as a request for comment: there was a reason why I quoted the word rules when pointing to the wiki page. And the page content itself reads as "guidelines", which from my reading is not that strong as "rules" would be. Can a native English speaker agree to this? :)
Kind regards Joanne (^_~)
Guidelines are recommended but optional practice. Rules are generally taken as "must be obeyed" sort of things if you want to play the game.
Football, um both kinds I believe*, has rules. Life has social conventions such as being polite and opening the door for a person carrying a burden even if you're a woman and the other person's a man. I take that as trumping the old convention that men ALWAYS opened the door for the "helpless" woman. (Which in Victorian corsets helpless was very likely closer to the truth than most want to admit.)
Geez people! Is Fedora working so well that we have nothing better to discuss? Let's get back to real issues, and stop bashing people who ask for help.
I thought bashing was using the command line in Linux.
------->>>>>> Exiting stage left running {O,o}
On Tue, 2006-18-07 at 14:45 -0700, jdow wrote:
Alex, rules are for pedantics, tyrants, Democrats, and religious fanatics. Humans should be adaptable.
Try running a red light: lets prove those communist bastards wrong. Or, for that matter, make some toast while taking a bath: electricity and water are actually friends. I also suggest mowing the lawn with open toed shoes: who are these liberal shits that insist fast spinning blades and human flesh don't mix?
My conservative friend informed me that assaulting police officers is a rule brought in by pot loving hippy liberal turds: police officers actually like being spat on/kicked/punched/slapped.
But I do agree that bottom posting is somewhat easier to read and should be RECOMMENDED but not insisted upon.
Some things in life must be insisted upon. What those things are and their relative importance is left up to society. How one responds is up to, you guessed it, to the individual.
In my very humble opinion: top posting is the worst thing anyone could do to destroy a conversation, especially for archives. Those that do it harm themselves, and the wider community. I personally don't hammer this down anyone's throat: I just ignore them.
BTW: you suck.
Regards,
Ranbir
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006, Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote:
On Tue, 2006-18-07 at 14:45 -0700, jdow wrote:
for that matter, make some toast while taking a bath: electricity and water are actually friends. ...
Not according to Propane.
In my very humble opinion: top posting is the worst thing anyone could do to destroy a conversation, especially for archives. Those that do it harm themselves, and the wider community. I personally don't hammer this down anyone's throat: I just ignore them.
Top-posting per se isn't all that bad. A problem is that one rarely sees top-posting per se. Usually one sees aggravated top-posting. The top-poster almost never trims. He even quotes the boiler-plate. Even so, if one has the bandwidth (I do), a single level of top-posting isn't too bad. Often, there is more than one level of top-posting.
The problem with mail tools that start one at the beginning of the quoted article is not that one is inclined to start typing there. It's that it makes trimming less probable. If his tool started him at the end of a quoted article, this one expects that even the most fanatical top-poster would at least trim the boilerplate.
Also, if one places one's response after its inspiration, one is more inclined to think of things coming before it as clutter.
Taken literally bottom-posting isn't all that great either. Ideally responses closely follow their inspirations. Quoted material found uninspiring can be cut. What is cut and what is not should be the result of conscious decision-making. If you are willing to trim, but not willing to think about it very hard, here is a simple criterion for you: If it caused you to reply, keep it, otherwise cut it.
BTW: you suck.
Regards,
Ranbir
The preceding quotation intentionally not left blank.
Ed Greshko wrote:
jdow wrote:
Alex, rules are for pedantics, tyrants, Democrats, and religious fanatics.
Ahhh....now I understand the actions of GWB.
Does he top-post also?
Putting jdows candidates for rules in different words, in the same order, separated by the , sign
narrowly focused, cruel ruler, advocate for democracy, bound by vows with extreme enthusiasm?
On Tuesday 18 July 2006 20:12, Ed Greshko wrote:
jdow wrote:
Alex, rules are for pedantics, tyrants, Democrats, and religious fanatics.
Ahhh....now I understand the actions of GWB.
I think you have it backwards, Ed. For GWB, the rules obviously don't apply. According to GWB that is.
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 18 July 2006 20:12, Ed Greshko wrote:
jdow wrote:
Alex, rules are for pedantics, tyrants, Democrats, and religious fanatics.
Ahhh....now I understand the actions of GWB.
I think you have it backwards, Ed. For GWB, the rules obviously don't apply. According to GWB that is.
I do?
My logic was... If rules are for Democrats then Republican's don't have to follow the rules. GWB is Republican so for him following the rules doesn't apply.
On Tuesday 18 July 2006 22:55, Ed Greshko wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 18 July 2006 20:12, Ed Greshko wrote:
jdow wrote:
Alex, rules are for pedantics, tyrants, Democrats, and religious fanatics.
Ahhh....now I understand the actions of GWB.
I think you have it backwards, Ed. For GWB, the rules obviously don't apply. According to GWB that is.
I do?
My logic was... If rules are for Democrats then Republican's don't have to follow the rules. GWB is Republican so for him following the rules doesn't apply.
Ahh, I missed that fine point, do carry on. :-)
-- There's no time like the pleasant.
From: "Ed Greshko" Ed.Greshko@greshko.com
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 18 July 2006 20:12, Ed Greshko wrote:
jdow wrote:
Alex, rules are for pedantics, tyrants, Democrats, and religious fanatics.
Ahhh....now I understand the actions of GWB.
I think you have it backwards, Ed. For GWB, the rules obviously don't apply. According to GWB that is.
I do?
My logic was... If rules are for Democrats then Republican's don't have to follow the rules. GWB is Republican so for him following the rules doesn't apply.
1) Clinton and LBJ played by the rules? <choke giggle> 2) I did mention religious fanatics.
{^_^}
Alexander Dalloz schrieb:
Michael Yep schrieb:
Sorry I do not know what top posting is. I run Thunderbird 1.5.0.4, and this is the default setup with a signature. I this the incorrect format ?
No. You provide your additional comment to a previous list posting at top of it. That is what top-posting means.
[ ... ]
Sorry, you must think I am mad ;/ You asked "is this incorrect?" and I said "no" - but explained the opposite. Logically I would have had to say: yes, it is incorrect. Didn't want to confuse anybody, just did read too fast.
Alexander
Alexander
P.S. Maybe this is a good example to show you the difference and the advantage by not top-posting: my correction is inline and you can easily see what I like to comment on - even in a month when you find the mail in a list archive, you will not have to follow a whole thread to quickly get it. This demonstration wasn't intended :)
On 7/18/06, Alexander Dalloz ad+lists@uni-x.org wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting
It makes following a topic more difficult than it would have to be. If you reply to a list posting you nearly always want to contribute (ask, add, ...) to specific parts of the previous post(s). Doing that on top of the mail does not make clear to which part of the previous communication this belongs. This leads directly to the following aspect: top-posters typically do not strip what they quote. On a list like this it is not necessary to repeat the complete previous content by quoting all. Interested readers can thread the list, list archives organize their access to in a threaded way. TOFU (=top-posting + fully quoting) is thus annoying in 2 ways: it makes it harder to see the discussion / argument threads and it wastes bandwidth + storage space.
You are right, Sorry, i will keep in mind that! regards, Guillermo.
This isn't meant personally, trying to explain by giving arguments.
The Fedora Wiki has a page with "rules" written down: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MailinglistGuidelines
Regards
Alexander
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Michael Yep wrote:
Sorry I do not know what top posting is. I run Thunderbird 1.5.0.4, and this is the default setup with a signature. I this the incorrect format ?
Yes. IMHO, as well as the list guidelines[1]. It's unfortunate that this is the default in Thunderbird, I thought that they would do better than Outlook with little details like this. :)
For the many reasons that top posting is dicouraged, consider this short example from the Wikipedia entry on top posting[2]:
So it doesn't mess up the flow of reading. > How come? > > I prefer to reply inline. > > > What do you do instead? > > > > No. > > > > > Do you like top-posting?
No one will die over top posting (well, not many). But it is found to be highly annoying by many of the folks on the lists that are also the most likely to be in a position to offer help. So it's kind and wise to be aware of the things that vex them. :-)
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MailinglistGuidelines [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting
- -- Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xD654075A | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ====================================================================== A prejudice is a vagrant opinion without any visible means of support. -- Ambrose Bierce
On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 17:19 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
No one will die over top posting (well, not many).
I find trimming the quotation down to the bit you're actually replying to far more important than where to put it. If you do that in-line posting almost comes naturally.
A bottom-posted message that quotes two pages of stuff everybody has already read, then adds a line or two at the end can be just as annoying as turning the discussion flow upside down.
Hence: trim your quotations!
Cheers Steffen.
Michael Yep wrote:
Sorry I do not know what top posting is. I run Thunderbird 1.5.0.4, and this is the default setup with a signature. I this the incorrect format ?
Alexander Dalloz wrote:
Strange, every version of Thunderbird I have used startsthe reply at the bottom of the message you are replying to. If you want to start your reply at the top of the message, you have to scroll back up. I am not sure there is an option to start your reply at the top of the message.
Mikkel
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Michael Yep wrote:
Sorry I do not know what top posting is. I run Thunderbird 1.5.0.4, and this is the default setup with a signature. I this the incorrect format ?
Alexander Dalloz wrote:
Strange, every version of Thunderbird I have used startsthe reply at the bottom of the message you are replying to. If you want to start your reply at the top of the message, you have to scroll back up. I am not sure there is an option to start your reply at the top of the message.
Account Setting -> Composition & Addressing gives you the option of replying either before or after the quote. I believe before (AKA top posting) is default.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Strange, every version of Thunderbird I have used startsthe reply at the bottom of the message you are replying to. If you want to start your reply at the top of the message, you have to scroll back up. I am not sure there is an option to start your reply at the top of the message.
There is an option and it appears to be the default in the recent versions of Thunderbird that I've seen. :-(
Edit -> Account Settings -> Composition & Addressing
- -- Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xD654075A | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ====================================================================== Rupert! I told you to watch the bags! You were watching the boys again weren't you! -- Stewie Griffin
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Michael Yep wrote:
Sorry I do not know what top posting is. I run Thunderbird 1.5.0.4, and this is the default setup with a signature. I this the incorrect format ?
Alexander Dalloz wrote:
Strange, every version of Thunderbird I have used startsthe reply at the bottom of the message you are replying to. If you want to start your reply at the top of the message, you have to scroll back up. I am not sure there is an option to start your reply at the top of the message.
Mikkel
Yes, I may have selected the wrong setting
Michael Yep wrote:
Sorry I do not know what top posting is. I run Thunderbird 1.5.0.4, and this is the default setup with a signature. I this the incorrect format ?
Assuming Thunderbird under Linux (don't know about the Windows version), click Edit->Account Settings. Under the relevant account, click Composition & Addressing. Uncheck "Compose messages in HTML format", and check "Automatically quote the original message when replying" and select "Then, start my reply below the quote". That should fix you up.
Michael Yep wrote:
Sorry I do not know what top posting is. I run Thunderbird 1.5.0.4, and this is the default setup with a signature. I this the incorrect format ?
Assuming Thunderbird under Linux (don't know about the Windows version), click Edit->Account Settings. Under the relevant account, click Composition & Addressing. Uncheck "Compose messages in HTML format", and check "Automatically quote the original message when replying" and select "Then, start my reply below the quote". That should fix you up.
But doesn't that encourage putting the whole reply below the whole quoted message, which is not much of an improvement on top-posting?
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the intended purpose of putting the cursor above the quoted text was so that the replier could go through the whole quoted message, trimming out irrelevant parts and inserting reply text after what's being replied to, just the way the old-timers think it should be done. (No insult implied here -- I'm one of those old-timers myself.) People unfamiliar with this style assumed that "cursor before quoted text" implied "reply text before quoted text", hence the rise of top-posting.
Or do you not get properly marked quoted text (with >> at the side, or something similar) if you choose the "cursor above quoted text" option?
Just a though.
What you did and I am doing in reply because I am human and can adapt to fellow humans is called top posting. If you'd posted your comments inline and below the signature instead that is what the other folks who are pedantic about correct behavior and intolerant of differences insist is the one and only true way to post email. I sometimes get nasty with them.
Bottom posting is often a somewhat easier to read. So it is recommended. {^_-} Joanne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Yep" myep@remotelink.com
Sorry I do not know what top posting is. I run Thunderbird 1.5.0.4, and this is the default setup with a signature. I this the incorrect format ?
Alexander Dalloz wrote:
Guillermo Garron schrieb:
denyhosts will do the job for you!
:) regards, Guillermo.
Guillermo,
though using gmail with a default, please learn to not top-post and especially to avoid unnecessary quoting.
denyhosts does not use iptables, but tcp-wrappers.
If it is just about SSH login attempts by script kids I can say from long experience that changing the SSHD port to something non default (so far) keeps them at the gates, means no special blocking setup is required. Though it can be a good decision to use pam_abl to cover other cases and protect all services using PAM (as Nicolas already mentioned).
On Tue, 2006-18-07 at 14:43 -0700, jdow wrote:
What you did and I am doing in reply because I am human and can adapt to fellow humans is called top posting. If you'd posted your comments inline and below the signature instead that is what the other folks who are pedantic about correct behavior and intolerant of differences insist is the one and only true way to post email.
It's not intolerance. It's requesting that everyone help everyone else to make things easier. I see nothing wrong with that.
(Don't put words in my mouth or try to make me defend the actions of others: I can't. Everyone has the right to choose. What that choice is and how it effects the community is supposed to be weighed and measured by the individual.)
Regards,
Ranbir
P.S.
I'll stop my lecture now. :)
On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 20:00 -0400, Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote:
On Tue, 2006-18-07 at 14:43 -0700, jdow wrote:
What you did and I am doing in reply because I am human and can adapt to fellow humans is called top posting. If you'd posted your comments inline and below the signature instead that is what the other folks who are pedantic about correct behavior and intolerant of differences insist is the one and only true way to post email.
It's not intolerance. It's requesting that everyone help everyone else to make things easier. I see nothing wrong with that.
(Don't put words in my mouth or try to make me defend the actions of others: I can't. Everyone has the right to choose. What that choice is and how it effects the community is supposed to be weighed and measured by the individual.)
Hi Ranbir,
Normally, I do not like to comment on matters of style and guidelines, but I think your reply shows a kind of dangerous logic.
I think we need to be clear that there is a difference between actions that help others, and actions that prevent others from getting hurt. There is some overlap between the two, of course. But you are drawing a link between the two by saying that top posting is equivalent to assaulting a policeman or bathing with a plugged-in toaster!
Actions that hurt others should be sanctioned, but I hardly think that top-posting counts as hurtful in any way. There are literally legions of office workers who use Microsoft Outlook, which does top-posting by default, and though I think that is not an ideal way to communicate, I wouldn't stop people from using email because they did it (and I was a systems administrator before, and could have done it quite easily).
To use (abuse?) an analogy from jdow, regardless of what I think about corsets, I would neither support forcing all women to wear them nor outlawing them completely.
Breaking my "no more commenting rule"...
On Wed, 2006-19-07 at 09:39 +0800, Chong Yu Meng wrote:
Normally, I do not like to comment on matters of style and guidelines, but I think your reply shows a kind of dangerous logic.
I don't agree, though if that's how it came across, my apologies.
I think we need to be clear that there is a difference between actions that help others, and actions that prevent others from getting hurt. There is some overlap between the two, of course. But you are drawing a link between the two by saying that top posting is equivalent to assaulting a policeman or bathing with a plugged-in toaster!
I chose the extreme examples to make my point - you know, to illustrate how ridiculous jdow's statement was.
I was just trying to say that rules, almost always, have to be followed. If we don't we have problems. I mean, even simple rules, like saying "thank you" when someone holds a door open for you is important: if you don't you're soon labelled an ass, and rightly so! In this case (i.e. mailing lists), communicating can become more difficult than it has to be.
Actions that hurt others should be sanctioned, but I hardly think that top-posting counts as hurtful in any way. There are literally legions of office workers who use Microsoft Outlook, which does top-posting by default,
Yes. And like I said, everyone has the right to choose, and I can't/won't stop them from my choosing.
Outlook is my pet peeve. The damn thing not only top posts by default, but it breaks threading left, right, and centre. It really makes it a pain in the ass for me to follow the conversation when the person top posts AND breaks the thread.
The only good thing about Outlook is that all the thread breaking and top posting can give a decent indication of how many Windows users are on a mailing list. The xen-users and thinstation-general mailing lists are a good example of that. What a mess. Searching those mail list archives is quite difficult.
To use (abuse?) an analogy from jdow, regardless of what I think about corsets, I would neither support forcing all women to wear them nor outlawing them completely.
Same here. I suppose I'm different in that I've openly stated "not top posting" is good for everybody, a rule that should be followed.
Regards,
Ranbir
I have been cross trained in several different career paths. Each career area has its own peculiarities and attracts very different types of people. The IT world seems to attract types that can not accept someone else may have different way of doing things. And the intolerance and abuse that is often displayed when someone has a different way of accomplishing the same objective astounds me. I know I can follow most threads whether the individual postings are top bottom or even interspersed through the original posting. Norm On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 20:00 -0400, Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote:
On Tue, 2006-18-07 at 14:43 -0700, jdow wrote:
What you did and I am doing in reply because I am human and can adapt to fellow humans is called top posting. If you'd posted your comments inline and below the signature instead that is what the other folks who are pedantic about correct behavior and intolerant of differences insist is the one and only true way to post email.
It's not intolerance. It's requesting that everyone help everyone else to make things easier. I see nothing wrong with that.
(Don't put words in my mouth or try to make me defend the actions of others: I can't. Everyone has the right to choose. What that choice is and how it effects the community is supposed to be weighed and measured by the individual.)
Regards,
Ranbir
P.S.
I'll stop my lecture now. :)
Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu Linux 2.6.17-1.2141_FC4 i686 GNU/Linux 19:55:15 up 13:25, 3 users, load average: 0.09, 0.20, 0.18
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Norm wrote:
I have been cross trained in several different career paths. Each career area has its own peculiarities and attracts very different types of people. The IT world seems to attract types that can not accept someone else may have different way of doing things.
no, what we find it hard to accept is people doing things in a demonstrably *inferior* way that forces the rest of us to have to accommodate them. top-posting is not simply a different way of doing things, it is a *worse* way of doing things. deal with it.
And the intolerance and abuse that is often displayed when someone has a different way of accomplishing the same objective astounds me.
with all due respect, you're full of it. it's well-established history that, when someone top posts, they're normally reminded quite politely that that's kind of frowned upon and would they please not do that. most of the time, the reaction is, "oh, i'm sorry, i won't do it again," at which point life goes on and we all get back to work, fine-tuning our plans for world domination.
occasionally (and sadly), one encounters a complete butthead whose attitude is, "yeah, well i *like* top-posting and that's how i'm gonna do it and the rest of you can just live with it, so there!!" *those* are the people who get roasted, so you can drop that sanctimonious attitude of yours, norm.
most importantly, if it's a well-established principle that one does not top post, then it's counter-productive to get into an argument over it, particularly on a mailing list where you're asking other people for help. one would think that would have been obvious.
I know I can follow most threads whether the individual postings are top bottom or even interspersed through the original posting. Norm
good for you. and since all of those techniques would seem to be equally effective for you, you can just humour us and do it *our* way. then everybody's happy.
rday
p.s. and did i mention that you should trim your quotes, too? :-)
From: "Robert P. J. Day" rpjday@mindspring.com
p.s. and did i mention that you should trim your quotes, too? :-)
That is another good thing to do in general. Belaboring it to death is not. It causes more wasted time than the original "improper" post.
{^_^}
with all due respect, you're full of it. it's well-established history that, when someone top posts, they're normally reminded quite politely that that's kind of frowned upon and would they please not do that. most of the time, the reaction is, "oh, i'm sorry, i won't do it again," at which point life goes on and we all get back to work, fine-tuning our plans for world domination.
occasionally (and sadly), one encounters a complete butthead whose attitude is, "yeah, well i *like* top-posting and that's how i'm gonna do it and the rest of you can just live with it, so there!!" *those* are the people who get roasted, so you can drop that sanctimonious attitude of yours, norm.
I think you are right here, for me i am used to Top Post, so i can easily read a TOP POSTED email thread, or the other way. But here i repeat i agree with you, if the fashion way is not to TOP POST and the most of readers like that way and "you/me/he/she" become a member of this GREAT club of people who likes to help each others, the least one can do is to follow the guidelines of the "club". That is democracy and it is the best way of living (even in the ciberspace) :) ... If one think sometime could be good to TOP POST i think could be ok. in some special times. For instance, once a problem is solved the original poster could maybe reply (TOP POSTING) with a "Thanks all of you people for helping me" :). But maybe all the other times it is not difficult to follow the guidelines. Me myself uses Thunderbird under LInux and it is by default configured to reply at the bottom I had to reconfigure it to TOP POST in order to follow the guidelines of all the people i work with, who are used to OUTLOOK :) But it is not difficult to change my behaivor here in the list just to have everybody happy and willing to help me with my problems (For free in their precious time!!!)
p.s. and did i mention that you should trim your quotes, too? :-)
Yes this is really important, other way the mail keep growing and growing till the infinite! :)
Guillermo.
--
fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
On 7/19/06, Guillermo Garron guillermo.fedora@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
If one think sometime could be good to TOP POST i think could be ok. in some special times. For instance, once a problem is solved the original poster could maybe reply (TOP POSTING) with a "Thanks all of you people for helping me" :).
NO! You do top post in this instance either. You can summarize the problem and solution and thank the helpers then.
[snip]
p.s. and did i mention that you should trim your quotes, too? :-)
Yes this is really important, other way the mail keep growing and growing till the infinite! :)
And while you are it, please do not forget to trim the .sigs too.
ne...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Norm wrote:
I have been cross trained in several different career paths. Each career area has its own peculiarities and attracts very different types of people. The IT world seems to attract types that can not accept someone else may have different way of doing things.
no, what we find it hard to accept is people doing things in a demonstrably *inferior* way that forces the rest of us to have to accommodate them. top-posting is not simply a different way of doing things, it is a *worse* way of doing things. deal with it.
Demonstrably inferior way? BS! No one has been able to convince me that top posting is not superior and faster. Been hearing complaints about top-posting for 21+ years, and STILL don't see the problem with it. Norm is correct, you are just intolerant.
And the intolerance and abuse that is often displayed when someone has a different way of accomplishing the same objective astounds me.
with all due respect, you're full of it. it's well-established history that, when someone top posts, they're normally reminded quite politely that that's kind of frowned upon and would they please not do that. most of the time, the reaction is, "oh, i'm sorry, i won't do it again," at which point life goes on and we all get back to work, fine-tuning our plans for world domination.
Actually, I will continue to do it when replying to a message as a whole rather than interspersing comments point-by-point, because it is faster to read, easier to do and more efficient to post and read.
occasionally (and sadly), one encounters a complete butthead whose attitude is, "yeah, well i *like* top-posting and that's how i'm gonna do it and the rest of you can just live with it, so there!!" *those* are the people who get roasted, so you can drop that sanctimonious attitude of yours, norm.
By definition your attitude is sanctimonious. Just letting it be would save so much bandwidth and blood pressure medicine on your part.
I know I can follow most threads whether the individual postings are top bottom or even interspersed through the original posting. Norm
good for you. and since all of those techniques would seem to be equally effective for you, you can just humour us and do it *our* way. then everybody's happy.
I actually find top-posting faster to find, easier to read, and more efficient, so I will not do it *your way* unless I feel like it at the time.
P.S. I did trim quotes that were not needed.
Robert, are you just bored?
- -- Michael P. Brininstool
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 17:33:51 -0600, "Michael P. Brininstool" mikepb@hoplite.org wrote:
I actually find top-posting faster to find, easier to read, and more efficient, so I will not do it *your way* unless I feel like it at the time.
That's generally only true when the alternative is the worse habit of bottom posting without doing any trimming.
What we need is two lists, one for people that like to top post, reply to messages to start new threads, and who need munged reply-to headers because they can't be bothered to learn the difference between the reply and reply to all functions of their email client, and another list for those who don't.
I can't believe how much useless traffic has been generated because of this. Remind me not to ask non-linux questions.
On 7/20/06, Michael Yep myep@remotelink.com wrote:
I can't believe how much useless traffic has been generated because of this. Remind me not to ask non-linux questions.
And i think you sent that email because i top post.. :) sorry i will not do it anymore !!
:) Hope it stops someday .. :)
On 7/20/06, Guillermo Garron guillermo.fedora@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/20/06, Michael Yep myep@remotelink.com wrote:
I can't believe how much useless traffic has been generated because of this. Remind me not to ask non-linux questions.
And i think you sent that email because i top post.. :) sorry i will not do it anymore !!
:) Hope it stops someday .. :)
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Wow, how long will this topic continue you to come up.
From: "Matthew Benjamin" msbenjamin12@gmail.com
On 7/20/06, Guillermo Garron guillermo.fedora@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/20/06, Michael Yep myep@remotelink.com wrote:
I can't believe how much useless traffic has been generated because of this. Remind me not to ask non-linux questions.
And i think you sent that email because i top post.. :) sorry i will not do it anymore !!
:) Hope it stops someday .. :)
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Wow, how long will this topic continue you to come up.
<snicker> Should we go for a record?
------>>>>>>>>>>> Grinning, ducking, and running {O,o}
On 7/20/06, jdow jdow@earthlink.net wrote:
From: "Matthew Benjamin" msbenjamin12@gmail.com
On 7/20/06, Guillermo Garron guillermo.fedora@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/20/06, Michael Yep myep@remotelink.com wrote:
I can't believe how much useless traffic has been generated because
of
this. Remind me not to ask non-linux questions.
And i think you sent that email because i top post.. :) sorry i will
not
do it anymore !!
:) Hope it stops someday .. :)
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Wow, how long will this topic continue you to come up.
<snicker> Should we go for a record?
------>>>>>>>>>>> Grinning, ducking, and running {O,o}
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
LOL!!!
From: "Guillermo Garron" guillermo.fedora@gmail.com
On 7/20/06, Michael Yep myep@remotelink.com wrote:
I can't believe how much useless traffic has been generated because of this. Remind me not to ask non-linux questions.
And i think you sent that email because i top post.. :) sorry i will not do it anymore !!
:) Hope it stops someday .. :)
Knowing this group "Second Tuesday next week" comes to mind.
{^_-}
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Michael Yep wrote:
I can't believe how much useless traffic has been generated because of this. Remind me not to ask non-linux questions.
It's not all useless, though the heat/light ratio is rather high.
The morality of pounding on top-posters, even repeat offenders, is something each of us has to decide between himself, his conscience (if any), and his gods (if any).
I recommend that this discussion include the likelihood of success and the likelihood of making things worse.
The anti-top-posters cannot win the argument based on general utility because the top-posters are used to generating and reading top-posts. To them, it's obvious that top-posting is good enough. A claim that something else is better, *even if true*, does not justify insisting on the elimination of something that is good enough.
On the other hand, pounding on those who refuse to trim quoted material, especially repeat offenders, is definitely worth at least a little effort. It might even reduce one's time in purgatory. Quoting boilerplate is never evidence of intelligence or politeness.
When the bottom is on the same page as the top, maybe some top-posters would move their responses down a bit.
BTW we don't need the html attachments either.
From what I've read elsewhere,
a lot of senders of html attachments are unaware of the html or don't know how to prevent it.
From: "Michael Hennebry" hennebry@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Michael Yep wrote:
I can't believe how much useless traffic has been generated because of this. Remind me not to ask non-linux questions.
It's not all useless, though the heat/light ratio is rather high.
The morality of pounding on top-posters, even repeat offenders, is something each of us has to decide between himself, his conscience (if any), and his gods (if any).
It comes to mind that a plugin module for those MUAs that can support it that automatically parses and converts top posting or even mixed posting into "proper" bottom posting for those who are too weak minded to adapt would be a good thing. I wonder if it should be configured under accessibility or plugins.
{^_^} This started as a flip remark then it dawned on me it'd be a right clever little "almost AI" hack for someone.
From: "Michael Hennebry" hennebry@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu
It comes to mind that a plugin module for those MUAs that can support it
that automatically parses and converts top >posting or even mixed posting into "proper"
BS^^^^
bottom posting for those who are too weak minded to adapt would be a good
thing.
^^^^^^^^ who is more unwilling to adapt? Those who top post, bottom post, intersperse, whichever fits best for that post, or those who insist there is only one true way? You sound like a Microsoft person -- "gotta do it our way!" (Sorry for the low-blow!) ;-)
I wonder if it should be configured under accessibility or plugins.
It would have to be on the server, because, unlike this email, I usually use mutt -- no plugins
With the possible exception of some blank lines, I didn't write any of the following that Michael P. Brininstool seems to have atributed to me.
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Michael P. Brininstool wrote:
From: "Michael Hennebry" hennebry@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu
It comes to mind that a plugin module for those MUAs that can support it
Note the second ">" above.
that automatically parses and converts top >posting or even mixed posting
For some reason, probably related to long lines, the second ">" is missing here.
into "proper"
BS^^^^bottom posting for those who are too weak minded to adapt would be a good
thing.
^^^^^^^^ who is moreunwilling to adapt? Those who top post, bottom post, intersperse, whichever fits best for that post, or those who insist there is only one true way? You sound like a Microsoft person -- "gotta do it our way!" (Sorry for the low-blow!) ;-)
I wonder if it should be configured under accessibility or plugins.
It would have to be on the server, because, unlike this email, I usually use mutt -- no plugins
From: Michael Hennebry Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 12:41 PM
With the possible exception of some blank lines, I didn't write any of the
following that
Michael P. Brininstool seems to have atributed to me.
I sometimes use Outlook and a reply with outlook does NOT put ">" symbols in nor does it do the right thing. I tried to do it by hand and terribly botched the edit. My apologies!
From: "Bruno Wolff III" bruno@wolff.to
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 17:33:51 -0600, "Michael P. Brininstool" mikepb@hoplite.org wrote:
I actually find top-posting faster to find, easier to read, and more efficient, so I will not do it *your way* unless I feel like it at the time.
That's generally only true when the alternative is the worse habit of bottom posting without doing any trimming.
What we need is two lists, one for people that like to top post, reply to messages to start new threads, and who need munged reply-to headers because they can't be bothered to learn the difference between the reply and reply to all functions of their email client, and another list for those who don't.
What we need is more flexibility and courtesy. Then we need a lot less anal-retentive asininities about "one true way". You guys are starting to sound like religious extremists like say Jerry Falwell or Osama bin Laden about your "one true way." A simple "Please bottom post on this list since for our purposes it seems to be more readable" is sufficient. Just a little bit of social lubricant helps prevent worlds of social friction like this silliness about top and bottom posting.
{^_^}
On Thu, 2006-20-07 at 12:56 -0700, jdow wrote:
What we need is more flexibility and courtesy. Then we need a lot less anal-retentive asininities about "one true way". You guys are starting to sound like religious extremists like say Jerry Falwell or Osama bin Laden about your "one true way."
You really must stop dropping that bomb every where. Character assassination is cruel and dishonourable.
Sometimes there really is only one true way. But, like I said, I'm not going to force anyone to change. Live and let live.
Regards,
Ranbir
From: "Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu" m3freak@rogers.com
On Thu, 2006-20-07 at 12:56 -0700, jdow wrote:
What we need is more flexibility and courtesy. Then we need a lot less anal-retentive asininities about "one true way". You guys are starting to sound like religious extremists like say Jerry Falwell or Osama bin Laden about your "one true way."
You really must stop dropping that bomb every where. Character assassination is cruel and dishonourable.
Sometimes there really is only one true way. But, like I said, I'm not going to force anyone to change. Live and let live.
Sharia law under any guise is acceptable to some and not to others. I choose some degree of freedom, that's all. I find society works better if I don't try to force other people to what I see as the one true way and instead adapt to their foibles or necessities. Life's easier for me that way. It makes life more pleasant for most people.
(At least I have not started side posting again.)
{^_-}
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 17:59 -0700, jdow wrote:
From: "Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu" m3freak@rogers.com
On Thu, 2006-20-07 at 12:56 -0700, jdow wrote:
What we need is more flexibility and courtesy. Then we need a lot less anal-retentive asininities about "one true way". You guys are starting to sound like religious extremists like say Jerry Falwell or Osama bin Laden about your "one true way."
You really must stop dropping that bomb every where. Character assassination is cruel and dishonourable.
Sometimes there really is only one true way. But, like I said, I'm not going to force anyone to change. Live and let live.
Sharia law under any guise is acceptable to some and not to others. I choose some degree of freedom, that's all. I find society works better if I don't try to force other people to what I see as the one true way and instead adapt to their foibles or necessities. Life's easier for me that way. It makes life more pleasant for most people.
(At least I have not started side posting again.)
{^_-}
Ok, with this caveat. No one is forced to read your posts (when top posted) if they don't want to. They are also free to boycott bottom posted messages.
But sometimes community agreement on codes of behavior are useful. I had a landlady in grad school who believed a stop sign meant "look both ways before proceeding, but not stopping". Just because it is illegal should not stop out freedom of action.
jdow wrote:
--snippity---
(At least I have not started side posting again.)
{^_-}
note to self
*never* piss off SWMBO
On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 14:11 -0700, Norm wrote:
The IT world seems to attract types that can not accept someone else may have different way of doing things. And the intolerance and abuse that is often displayed when someone has a different way of accomplishing the same objective astounds me.
It's funny that you should mention it. The intolerant people you speak of in the IT industry (or at least, the IT industry in my part of the world) are normally the first to scream "fascist" (or worse) when someone tries to tell them to lose weight, dress properly,be more diplomatic, improve their personal hygiene, etc. But they go ahead and do the same thing to others on mailing lists.
Another funny thing about fanatics of all creeds, religious, cultural or technological, is that they do not explain the logic behind certain practices (if there is a logic at all) very well. The reasoning I have seen so far on this thread (which I hope will stop soon) is worthy of the Da Vinci code, and displays a lack of real-world experience. There is a time and place for bottom-posting, when it is absolutely ESSENTIAL to a proper understanding of a situation, and it goes like this:
Say that you are involved in contract negotiations for a project that is going to cost a lot of money. Most projects have critical nuances such as service levels, methods for determining success or failure, legal details, etc. It is standard practice to append replies to the FULL TEXT of the email you are replying to, not only for accountability reasons, but also when you suddenly need to get another individual involved in the middle of a discussion. If bottom-posting is followed, then the individual can literally read from top to bottom and understand the entire thread of the discussions. Imagine trying to skip around, which is what would happen if everybody top-posted. This can be a problem if there is a history of, say, 10 emails.
I have been in that kind of situation before, and it can be very frustrating. The ironic thing is that business and legal people almost ALWAYS top-post (because they use Outlook), and you cannot tell them to stop. What is worse, the matters they discuss are normally a lot more critical and have more impact (in a monetary sense) than, say, discussing why there is an IRQ conflict on one of the servers causing a daemon to fail to start.
If the Taliban of top-posting on this list had given this scenario as the reason, then I may have felt a little sympathy for them. But I'm pretty sure that most, if not all, of the intolerant emails have come from people who have never sat in a meeting with top-level business people *and* legal counsel, nor had to "accommodate" the less tech-savvy for the sake of the continued survival of their business.
Chong Yu Meng wrote:
(For Top-Posters) If you want it to stop soon, don't add any more fuel.
The reasoning I have seen so far on this thread (which I hope will stop soon) is worthy of the Da Vinci code, and displays a lack of real-world experience.
(For Bottom-Posters) If you want it to stop soon, don't add any more fuel.
On 7/19/06, Ed Greshko Ed.Greshko@greshko.com wrote:
Chong Yu Meng wrote:
(For Top-Posters) If you want it to stop soon, don't add any more fuel.
The reasoning I have seen so far on this thread (which I hope will stop soon) is worthy of the Da Vinci code, and displays a lack of real-world experience.
(For Bottom-Posters) If you want it to stop soon, don't add any more fuel.
Just GREAT!
From: "Chong Yu Meng" chongym@cymulacrum.net
It's funny that you should mention it. The intolerant people you speak
....
Very well stated, Sir. Thank you.
{^_^}
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 10:28:30 +0800, Chong Yu Meng chongym@cymulacrum.net wrote:
It's funny that you should mention it. The intolerant people you speak of in the IT industry (or at least, the IT industry in my part of the world) are normally the first to scream "fascist" (or worse) when someone tries to tell them to lose weight, dress properly,be more diplomatic, improve their personal hygiene, etc. But they go ahead and do the same thing to others on mailing lists.
The ettiquette for tech mailing lists is for the benefit of the people providing free tech support not (directly) for the people posting questions. Once it becomes clear someone asking for free help doesn't care about my time, they aren't getting any more free help.
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
The etiquette for tech mailing lists is for the benefit of the people providing free tech support not (directly) for the people posting questions. Once it becomes clear someone asking for free help doesn't care about my time, they aren't getting any more free help.
I think that you have given one of the better explanations of why you should follow the list guidelines. You are free to ignore the list guidelines, but we are free to ignore your questions.
Mikkel
a good point mikkel...
everyone is "free" to respond/not respond... so why do some feel the need to pound their preference...
if you don't like the fact that someone is top/bottom/side posting.. then don't respond..
your in action will be your protest!!!!
-----Original Message----- From: fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com]On Behalf Of Mikkel L. Ellertson Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 7:54 AM To: For users of Fedora Core releases Subject: Re: [OT] TOP-POSTING
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
The etiquette for tech mailing lists is for the benefit of the people providing free tech support not (directly) for the people posting
questions.
Once it becomes clear someone asking for free help doesn't care about my time, they aren't getting any more free help.
I think that you have given one of the better explanations of why you should follow the list guidelines. You are free to ignore the list guidelines, but we are free to ignore your questions.
Mikkel --
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
On Friday 21 July 2006 16:00, bruce wrote:
a good point mikkel...
everyone is "free" to respond/not respond... so why do some feel the need to pound their preference...
There's a difference between pointing out the list's preference once to someone who doesn't know about it, and 'pounding'.
Anne
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
The etiquette for tech mailing lists is for the benefit of the people providing free tech support not (directly) for the people posting questions. Once it becomes clear someone asking for free help doesn't care about my time, they aren't getting any more free help.
I think that you have given one of the better explanations of why you should follow the list guidelines. You are free to ignore the list guidelines, but we are free to ignore your questions.
um ... no. because if the poster in question is ignored en masse, you *know* that, in short order, you'll be seeing a followup posting of the form, "hey! how come no one is answering my question! huh?"
and for those people who are getting tired of seeing this thread come up on a regular basis, there's a simple solution -- make it clear that top-posting is not acceptable and be done with it.
this is ***not*** a debate we need to be having every month. if you desperately feel the need to express your creativity and individuality by bucking the norms, here's some advice -- bugger off. seriously. if you just can't live without top posting, then start your own forum or mailing list or what-have-you and go wild. until that happens, though, i think it's safe to say that most of us here are tired of this discussion. so don't top post. just don't. just like posting in HTML is bad, so is top posting. if you can't live with that, there's the door.
rday
p.s what particularly gripes my wagger are a number of the long-time citizens of this list who should know better, but are instead preaching tolerance and live and let live and that kind of rubbish. that's not helping anyone. all you're doing is giving the impression that bad habits are acceptable. so stop it.
On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 11:07 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
and for those people who are getting tired of seeing this thread come up on a regular basis, there's a simple solution -- make it clear that top-posting is not acceptable and be done with it.
Well, that would work if everyone agreed with your view.
this is ***not*** a debate we need to be having every month.
Great - how about leading by example?
Even though the original reply was given contained good advice for resolving the problem and also informed the poster in a nice way that posting after the message is easier to follow than posting a reply at the top of the message is to follow. The term top-posting was not known what it was by the poster. I guess top-posting is better known on this list than it is elsewhere.
Probably a few years ago, I stated that posting either above the message, within the message or below the message being replied to does not matter to me.
Maybe suggesting trimming out content not needed to reference the reply and putting the reply below the message if summarizing what was posted would be better.
Simply asking those to reply below the post instead of do not top post would be better understood. Also one would be direction while the other form would be telling someone what not to do.
It does not matter to me. This topic probably does not need a lot more discussion. My comments are probably too much also.
Jim
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
um ... no. because if the poster in question is ignored en masse, you *know* that, in short order, you'll be seeing a followup posting of the form, "hey! how come no one is answering my question! huh?"
Nothing is going to convince some people that following the guidelines of the list is a good idea. So for my piece of mind, I have started a filter that deletes their messages. After all, they have said they do not want my help. If the majority of the list feels that they don't need to follow the guidelines, then they should be changed. If I don't agree with the new guidelines, then I just leave the list. If too many people do that, the list dies. But at least the there are no more complaints about people not following the guidelines.
Mikkel
On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 14:11 -0700, Norm wrote:
I have been cross trained in several different career paths. Each career area has its own peculiarities and attracts very different types of people. The IT world seems to attract types that can not accept someone else may have different way of doing things. And the intolerance and abuse that is often displayed when someone has a different way of accomplishing the same objective astounds me. I know I can follow most threads whether the individual postings are top bottom or even interspersed through the original posting. Norm
My wife has the same idea. Interspersed is OK I guess. It is not by mail clients like Outlook that starts you at the top of the message.
I am sure you are an honest person but to say that you can read a mail message consisting of several messages and replies as easily with top posting as bottom posting is just plain silly.
As small children we learn to read pages from top to bottom. So that is the way e-mail messages should be constructed to be read.
Although my wife a tecnophobe refuses to believe this.
Norm wrote:
I have been cross trained in several different career paths. Each career area has its own peculiarities and attracts very different types of people. The IT world seems to attract types that can not accept someone else may have different way of doing things. And the intolerance and abuse that is often displayed when someone has a different way of accomplishing the same objective astounds me. I know I can follow most
The gall of those who post asking for free help, and when politely told "I prefer that you not top-post", blithely ignore the request, is astounding to me.
What I *can* follow, and what I'm *willing* to follow, when asked for free help, are two different things.
[snip]
Mike
Norm wrote:
I have been cross trained in several different career paths. Each career area has its own peculiarities and attracts very different types of people. The IT world seems to attract types that can not accept someone else may have different way of doing things. And the intolerance and abuse that is often displayed when someone has a different way of accomplishing the same objective astounds me. I know I can follow most threads whether the individual postings are top bottom or even interspersed through the original posting.
I have followed these arguments/discussions for quite a while. It has become quite obvious to me that there are basically two ways through this:
1. If you bottom post, remove extra quoting, and such you tend to get you questions answered.
2. If you do the opposite you get to be right about it, have lots of arguments and don't get your questions answered.
In my experience option 1 works and option 2 leads to no useful results.
I think this is one of those discussion that never ends,
It is like Soccer, football, baseball, discussions, you can "invent" a lot of ways of metering wich team is better. For instance in Argentina's Soccer (Boca Juniors Vs River Plate) One will say that the better is the team with more south american cups the other will say is the one with more Argentina's cups, and some other will say that the best is the one who won more matches between them. But the discussion will never end.
I think we have two option (maybe three) 1. Stop the discussion and accept the fact that you (both sides) will never convice the other, so as somebody said you have the right to top/botton post, and also have the right to answer to the posts you want.
2. Make this list a socity with rules, and vote in democracy, the loosers will have to accept what the winners decide.
3. Stop reading this thread :) unfotunaly the curiosity is BIG !!! :)
regards, Guillermo.
Guillermo Garron wrote:
I think this is one of those discussion that never ends,
Yes.
[snip]
I think we have two option (maybe three)
Here's one you didn't think of:
If you ask for free help, and the people responding with the free help ask you to follow a certain procedure in order to get the free help, then follow the procedure, whatever it may be.
In English, we call that "being polite". The opposite we call "being rude".
[snip]
Mike
On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 11:12, Mike McCarty wrote:
Here's one you didn't think of:
If you ask for free help, and the people responding with the free help ask you to follow a certain procedure in order to get the free help, then follow the procedure, whatever it may be.
A better one: if you give answers and are easily upset by trivial layout issues, be sure to give a complete answer on the first response. If a complete thread consists of one question and its final answer in the layout preferred by the person giving the answer, the issue can't ever come up again. So, responders - the burden is now on you to get it right the first time...
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 11:12, Mike McCarty wrote:
Here's one you didn't think of:
If you ask for free help, and the people responding with the free help ask you to follow a certain procedure in order to get the free help, then follow the procedure, whatever it may be.
A better one: if you give answers and are easily upset by trivial layout issues, be sure to give a complete answer on the first response. If a complete thread consists of one question and its final answer in the layout preferred by the person giving the answer, the issue can't ever come up again. So, responders - the burden is now on you to get it right the first time...
For this to work, the OP has to provide all the information needed to provide a complete answer. So I guess people that do not like top posting should not answer incomplete questions. No more requests for more information. If the OP does not know what information to provide so their question can be answered, too bad, right?
Mikkel
If there is no information in the first posting, delete it all when you respond the first time, and delete all of your first reply as you supply the answer. You can still get your preferred layout.
Any mailer that offers a threaded view of a conversation will supply more details than you want to know. Unless you are in the habit of feeding all old emails to squirrels.
Have to keep the squirrels fed - otherwise they eat the flowers!
On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 03:27:19PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Any mailer that offers a threaded view of a conversation will supply more details than you want to know. Unless you are in the habit of feeding all old emails to squirrels.
I like to drop in on the list, but I can't possibly keep up. So having context in messages is important, because I *do* periodically feed all the old messagges to rodents.
On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 17:18, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 03:27:19PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Any mailer that offers a threaded view of a conversation will supply more details than you want to know. Unless you are in the habit of feeding all old emails to squirrels.
I like to drop in on the list, but I can't possibly keep up. So having context in messages is important, because I *do* periodically feed all the old messagges to rodents.
Fortunately (or perhaps in this case unfortunately...) mailing list messages tend to be archived somewhere so you can track an obscure but lost reference if you need to. If you want to make it extremely easy, get a gmail account, join lists with it, and configure it to allow pop access but archive a copy as downloaded. Then you can read/reply/delete with your own favorite pop client and if you ever need to check backwards you can use the gmail web interface and their very nice search capability over anything you have received there - up to their 2 gig limit, which would take a lot longer to reach if everyone didn't quote everything every time.
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006, Les Mikesell wrote:
Then you can read/reply/delete with your own favorite pop client and if you ever need to check backwards you can use the gmail web interface and their very nice search capability over anything you have received there - up to their 2 gig limit, which would take a lot longer to reach if everyone didn't quote everything every time.
Which is even more annoying than top-posting. Of course, if everyone trimmed, the top and the bottom would be closer together.
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006, Les Mikesell wrote:
Any mailer that offers a threaded view of a conversation will supply more details than you want to know. Unless you are in the habit of feeding all old emails to squirrels.
How? What does it do to the squirrels?
Any mailer that offers a threaded view of a conversation will supply more details than you want to know. Unless you are in the habit of feeding all old emails to squirrels.
I would prefer that, provided the thread did not require a point-by-point interspersed response, or the whole email being quoted as a whole (for some reason) where a top-post is more appropriate. Allowing the thread-aware mail reader to handle the threading would be great!!! everyone would have to have a threaded mail reader, AND everyone would have to NOT QUOTE ANYTHING!!
I think the habit of top-posting comes from a long business use, where no one trims quoted material, because more addresses get added as time goes on, and the full contextual history is needed. So top-posting definitely has its proper use, and is not inherently "Wrong!" Having to scroll through pages and pages just to see the message changes your attitude very quickly. If you have not experienced this, then your email is just a toy.
What I find interesting is going back to the USENET postings from 15-20 years ago, before many mailing lists were used, it was not top-posting that brought out the net Nazi's, but CROSS-POSTING!!! There are always going to be those that absolutely insist that their limited horizon contains the whole world that matters. i.e. their way is the best, and there can't possibly be a reason for doing it a different way.
On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 07:54, magicus wrote:
- If you do the opposite you get to be right about it, have lots of
arguments and don't get your questions answered.
In my experience option 1 works and option 2 leads to no useful results.
I haven't seen the "don't get your questions answered" to be the case, but if you are having problems the reliable approach is to post the wrong way to do something instead of a question. Then you can be sure that any number of people will jump in to correct you even if it turns out that their way is not any better.
I agree. For people who carefully trim quoted text, in-line is nice to follow, but when someone leaves the full previous message in their reply, as I am currently doing, top-posting saves those following the whole thread from ready a LOT of material multiple times.
If I removed all the quoted text below, the net.nazi's would not care, but because I included it, I will catch heat for doing this. -- Michael
-----Original Message----- From: fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of jdow Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 3:43 PM To: For users of Fedora Core releases Subject: Re: [OT] TOP-POSTING
What you did and I am doing in reply because I am human and can adapt to fellow humans is called top posting. If you'd posted your comments inline and below the signature instead that is what the other folks who are pedantic about correct behavior and intolerant of differences insist is the one and only true way to post email. I sometimes get nasty with them.
Bottom posting is often a somewhat easier to read. So it is recommended. {^_-} Joanne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Yep" myep@remotelink.com
Sorry I do not know what top posting is. I run Thunderbird 1.5.0.4, and this is the default setup with a signature. I this the incorrect format ?
Alexander Dalloz wrote:
Guillermo Garron schrieb:
denyhosts will do the job for you!
:) regards, Guillermo.
Guillermo,
though using gmail with a default, please learn to not top-post and especially to avoid unnecessary quoting.
denyhosts does not use iptables, but tcp-wrappers.
If it is just about SSH login attempts by script kids I can say from long experience that changing the SSHD port to something non default (so far) keeps them at the gates, means no special blocking setup is required. Though it can be a good decision to use pam_abl to cover other cases and protect all services using PAM (as Nicolas already mentioned).
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 01:59:14PM -0600, Michael P. Brininstool wrote:
If I removed all the quoted text below, the net.nazi's would not care, but because I included it, I will catch heat for doing this. -- Michael
It takes only a few seconds to delete all the unnecessary text and it shows consideration for your readers.
Best regards,
---Kayvan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Agreed! ;-)
From: "Michael P. Brininstool" mikepb@hoplite.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Agreed! ;-) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEvpbocmhoHI+w/WcRAhfhAJ9+WBGYXOsl5KEqPiVNSVFckih70wCgiSMy GDCMdrl9bCuAaElpQeIVplM= =lzjd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
<Original body left in tact to demonstrate another failing>
"Me too" messages that include volumes of extra text around them should at least be humorously enclosed in <AOL></AOL> pseudo-tags.
{^_-}
On Wednesday 19 July 2006 19:12, jdow wrote:
"Me too" messages that include volumes of extra text around them should at least be humorously enclosed in <AOL></AOL> pseudo-tags.
{^_-}
Hoo boy, now that there is a low blow, Joanne. AOL indeed. :) Of course, AOL'ers deserve it occasionally too.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 15:01:40 -0500, Michael Yep myep@remotelink.com wrote:
I have heard of this method, but I thought it was better to stop them at the firewall level. right?
There isn't a lot of point to what you are doing. Generally you want the port blocked by default and use a white list to allow connections. Maintaining a blacklist is more work and generally doesn't gain you real security. It might pay in some cases to slow down password guessing, but your passwords should be chosen well enough to have even tens of thousands of guesses not have a significant chance of success. If you have other users you don't trust to have chosen strong enough passwords, then you might look at rules that block repeated tries from the same IP address.
I have been blocking some IPs because they are brute forcing my ssh port. I access this server from many different places so I cant really just add a few hosts. I'm talking about 36000 attempts in a short time from some IP addresses
David Cary Hart wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:24:56 -0500, Michael Yep myep@remotelink.com opined:
Hello
I know that the preferred way of controlling access is to use whitelists, but for my case I'd like to use IP blacklisting. Now using a script like #!/bin/bash
if [ -f badips.txt ] then for BAD_IP in `cat badips.txt` do iptables -A INPUT -s $BAD_IP -j DROP done else echo "Can't read badips.txt" fi
I have like 96 banned IPs so far. I am wondering about the possible performance hit on my system, and the limits of iptables. What if I have thousands?
At some point it affects performance. There are some workarounds. What problem are you trying to solve? What causes you to block an IP?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Michael Yep wrote:
I have been blocking some IPs because they are brute forcing my ssh port. I access this server from many different places so I cant really just add a few hosts. I'm talking about 36000 attempts in a short time from some IP addresses
You could run ssh on a different port. That stops the bulk of any automated bots that try to find weak passwords.
Also, if you don't already, lock out all password based authentication and require valid key based auth. Then only allow a few specific users. Finally, sleep restfully at night knowing the odds of someone hitting your non-standard ssh port, guessing one of the small number of valid accounts (root not being one of them), AND having the correct private key to get in are infinitesimal.
- -- Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xD654075A | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ====================================================================== The more you complain, the longer God lets you live.
Le mardi 18 juillet 2006 à 15:00 -0500, Michael Yep a écrit :
I have been blocking some IPs because they are brute forcing my ssh port. I access this server from many different places so I cant really just add a few hosts. I'm talking about 36000 attempts in a short time from some IP addresses
pam_abl (in extras) will work for you
The good thing is it works at the pam level and not by parsing logs retroactively like denyhosts. So they can do their attempts in whatever short time they want they'll get blacklisted anyway. And every pam-using service is protected.
The bad thing is it works at the pam level, it won't interface with iptables like denyhost so even if it's blocking something you'll still pay some processing time. However I rather like the fact the bad guys have no way to know they are blocked (unlike a firewall-level solution) so they can't optimise attacks by giving up on hosts which have detected them.
Of course if you never change your passwords and want to allow ssh logins from everywhere a low-intensity distributed brute-force attack is going to get you regardless of the solution used. But I don't think crackers are that deseperate (yet)
I blocked IPs from about 10 asian countries and that stopped about 90% of the brute force attempts. It came up to about 800 lines in iptables.
-----Original Message----- From: fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Michael Yep Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 2:00 PM To: For users of Fedora Core releases Subject: Re: IPTABLES question
I have been blocking some IPs because they are brute forcing my ssh port. I access this server from many different places so I cant really just add a few hosts. I'm talking about 36000 attempts in a short time from some IP addresses
David Cary Hart wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:24:56 -0500, Michael Yep myep@remotelink.com opined:
Hello
I know that the preferred way of controlling access is to use whitelists, but for my case I'd like to use IP blacklisting. Now using a script like #!/bin/bash
if [ -f badips.txt ] then for BAD_IP in `cat badips.txt` do iptables -A INPUT -s $BAD_IP -j DROP done else echo "Can't read badips.txt" fi
I have like 96 banned IPs so far. I am wondering about the possible performance hit on my system, and the limits of iptables. What if I have thousands?
At some point it affects performance. There are some workarounds. What problem are you trying to solve? What causes you to block an IP?
-- Michael Yep Development / Technical Operations RemoteLink, Inc. 26W161 Plank Rd Naperville, IL 60563-3422 Website: www.remotelink.com Direct: 800-362-9446 x164 Fax: 630-983-0364 GPG Key 0x126439D9
Your Link to Effective Business Communications! Specializing in telecommunications and Internet technology. If it helps connect you with your customers, remote employees and colleagues we do it. We put you in control of today's technology. From Teleconferencing, WebConferencing, Auto Attendant and Broadcast messaging to Custom data collection, ecommerce, CTI and IVR services.
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:00:28 -0500, Michael Yep myep@remotelink.com opined:
I have been blocking some IPs because they are brute forcing my ssh port. I access this server from many different places so I cant really just add a few hosts. I'm talking about 36000 attempts in a short time from some IP addresses
Please don't top post.
Denyhosts from extras will work.
Personally, I use a swatch to whack these on the first attempt Swatch executes a script that uses at to remove the IP from netfilter after six hours. Swatch is perl, denyhosts is python. Other than that, swatch offers more flexible configuration IMO.
David Cary Hart wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:24:56 -0500, Michael Yep myep@remotelink.com opined:
Hello
I know that the preferred way of controlling access is to use whitelists, but for my case I'd like to use IP blacklisting. Now using a script like #!/bin/bash
if [ -f badips.txt ] then for BAD_IP in `cat badips.txt` do iptables -A INPUT -s $BAD_IP -j DROP done else echo "Can't read badips.txt" fi
I have like 96 banned IPs so far. I am wondering about the possible performance hit on my system, and the limits of iptables. What if I have thousands?
At some point it affects performance. There are some workarounds. What problem are you trying to solve? What causes you to block an IP?
Michael Yep wrote:
I have been blocking some IPs because they are brute forcing my ssh port. I access this server from many different places so I cant really just add a few hosts. I'm talking about 36000 attempts in a short time from some IP addresses
David Cary Hart wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:24:56 -0500, Michael Yep myep@remotelink.com opined:
Hello
I know that the preferred way of controlling access is to use whitelists, but for my case I'd like to use IP blacklisting. Now using a script like #!/bin/bash
if [ -f badips.txt ] then for BAD_IP in `cat badips.txt` do iptables -A INPUT -s $BAD_IP -j DROP done else echo "Can't read badips.txt" fi
I have like 96 banned IPs so far. I am wondering about the possible performance hit on my system, and the limits of iptables. What if I have thousands?
At some point it affects performance. There are some workarounds. What problem are you trying to solve? What causes you to block an IP?
I second the suggestion about running SSHD on a different port. It's removed all my script kiddie attacks. See /etc/ssh/sshd_config to enable.
HA! I TOP-POSTED!!!! So SHOOT ME!
I know that the preferred way of controlling access is to use whitelists, but for my case I'd like to use IP blacklisting.
At some point it affects performance. There are some workarounds. What problem are you trying to solve? What causes you to block an IP?
I second the suggestion about running SSHD on a different port. It's removed all my script kiddie attacks. See /etc/ssh/sshd_config to enable.
Moving ssh to a different port seems to be the easiest way, but eventually the scripts find the new port and start whacking it instead -- iptables blocking is IMNSHO, a "better way" -- in that they can be logged -- useful when you call in the feds. (Of course honeypots are even better....)
This is what I have done to block over 2400 ip blocks with no performance hit measurable. Of course, I whitelist some very common blocks first, so they avoid any delays, and most everyone else SHOULD be blocked so a delay I care not about. Snippets only...
-A INPUT -i eth1 -d MY.EXTERNAL.IP -j ext_in
-A ext_in -p tcp -m tcp --dport 22 -j sshblock
-A sshblock -s G.0.0.D/I.P.BLCK.1 -j ACCEPT -A sshblock -s G.0.0.D/I.P.BLCK.2 -j ACCEPT -A sshblock -s 0.0.0.0/192.0.0.0 -j sshblock0 -A sshblock -s 64.0.0.0/192.0.0.0 -j sshblock64 -A sshblock -s 128.0.0.0/192.0.0.0 -j sshblock128 -A sshblock -s 192.0.0.0/224.0.0.0 -j sshblock192 -A sshblock -s 224.0.0.0/224.0.0.0 -j sshdrop -A sshblock -j ACCEPT
sshblock0 gets addresses in 0.0.0.0 through 63.255.255.255 sshblock64 gets addresses in 64.0.0.0 through 127.255.255.255 sshblock128 gets addresses in 128.0.0.0 through 191.255.255.255 sshblock192 gets addresses in 192.0.0.0 through 223.255.255.255 224.0.0.0 through 255.255.255.255 goes to sshdrop (which logs as "DROPPED_SSH_PACKET " and drops)
To help performance even further, the SYN flag can be added to the check for port 22 above, provided a "RELATED,ESTABLISHED" line exists in the same chain.
I forgot the URL, but there is a site that has a database of IP block assignments. I periodically go to that site and download the blocks for countries I NEVER want to receive email or ssh connections from, like CN, KR, MY, VN, FR, TW, BR, etc, and add them to the sshblock and smtpblock lists.
-- Michael
Draws largest size SuperSoaker filled with mixed Cranberry and Pomegranate juice and fires at point blank range while shouting "Better red than dead, eh?" Then she exists rapidly stage left.
From: "Michael P. Brininstool" mikepb@hoplite.org
HA! I TOP-POSTED!!!! So SHOOT ME!
I know that the preferred way of controlling access is to use whitelists, but for my case I'd like to use IP blacklisting.
At some point it affects performance. There are some workarounds. What problem are you trying to solve? What causes you to block an IP?
I second the suggestion about running SSHD on a different port. It's removed all my script kiddie attacks. See /etc/ssh/sshd_config to enable.
Moving ssh to a different port seems to be the easiest way, but eventually the scripts find the new port and start whacking it instead -- iptables blocking is IMNSHO, a "better way" -- in that they can be logged -- useful when you call in the feds. (Of course honeypots are even better....)
This is what I have done to block over 2400 ip blocks with no performance hit measurable. Of course, I whitelist some very common blocks first, so they avoid any delays, and most everyone else SHOULD be blocked so a delay I care not about. Snippets only...
-A INPUT -i eth1 -d MY.EXTERNAL.IP -j ext_in
-A ext_in -p tcp -m tcp --dport 22 -j sshblock
-A sshblock -s G.0.0.D/I.P.BLCK.1 -j ACCEPT -A sshblock -s G.0.0.D/I.P.BLCK.2 -j ACCEPT
Ah - really? I wonder what that G.0.0.D part does.
-A sshblock -s 0.0.0.0/192.0.0.0 -j sshblock0 -A sshblock -s 64.0.0.0/192.0.0.0 -j sshblock64 -A sshblock -s 128.0.0.0/192.0.0.0 -j sshblock128 -A sshblock -s 192.0.0.0/224.0.0.0 -j sshblock192 -A sshblock -s 224.0.0.0/224.0.0.0 -j sshdrop -A sshblock -j ACCEPT
sshblock0 gets addresses in 0.0.0.0 through 63.255.255.255 sshblock64 gets addresses in 64.0.0.0 through 127.255.255.255 sshblock128 gets addresses in 128.0.0.0 through 191.255.255.255 sshblock192 gets addresses in 192.0.0.0 through 223.255.255.255 224.0.0.0 through 255.255.255.255 goes to sshdrop (which logs as "DROPPED_SSH_PACKET " and drops)
That seems like a passing clever trick.
To help performance even further, the SYN flag can be added to the check for port 22 above, provided a "RELATED,ESTABLISHED" line exists in the same chain.
If you play with "recent" you can work some nice magic. But you also may want to alter your /etc/sshd.conf, too.
I forgot the URL, but there is a site that has a database of IP block assignments. I periodically go to that site and download the blocks for countries I NEVER want to receive email or ssh connections from, like CN, KR, MY, VN, FR, TW, BR, etc, and add them to the sshblock and smtpblock lists.
That would be rather handy. I'm all eyes for a message with that list.
This is the way I handle the problem. The core tool of my hand rolled iptables script (run each time adsl connects) is this three line ditty. ===8<--- $IPTABLES -A INPUT -p tcp --syn --dport 22 -m recent --name sshattack --set $IPTABLES -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 --syn -m recent --name sshattack \ --rcheck --seconds 180 --hitcount 2 -j LOG --log-prefix 'SSH REJECT: ' $IPTABLES -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 --syn -m recent --name sshattack \ --rcheck --seconds 180 --hitcount 2 -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset ===8<---
This means an attacker gets two connection attempts before he is shoved away for 3 minutes. (This is down from 3 failures and 2 minutes I used to allow until today.)
A discovery today led me to make a change to the login parameters. I still allow myself passworded logins. So I repaired an oversight that allowed too many simultaneous connection attempts. I uncommented and revalued these three lines in sshd_config to give crackers fewer chances to guess the passwords involved. ===8<--- LoginGraceTime 1m MaxAuthTries 2 MaxStartups 1 ===8<---
That means there are two tries at a password every three minutes with the IPTables rules above.
I have been culling the login attempts I catch for attempted ssh cracks. So far I have a VAST list of Asian, mostly Chinese and Korean, IP allocations blocked. I just today blocked a rather "smart" attempt from an ISP/registrar in the fortressitx.com block, 65.98.0.0/12. Until today all attacks made ONE password guess per connection attempt then tried again. This one managed more than one attempt per login attempt and seems to have tried as many as 10 connections at once. So cutting down the MaxStartups (how many simultaneous connection attempts are allowed) and MaxAuthTries to 2 seems to be the solution. If I am on the road and fumble my password twice in a row I have earned a three minute wait, I figure. I figure the chances of a lucky guess not being noticed over the multiyear process of repeat trials is rather small even under a botnet attack. And my machine and piddly slow DSL connection are not worth such an attack effort.
Of course, YMMV for your needs for foreign ssh connections.
{^_^} Joanne
-
Aaron Konstam -
Alexander Dalloz -
Anne Wilson -
Berna Massingill -
bruce -
Bruno Wolff III -
Chong Yu Meng -
David Cary Hart -
Ed Greshko -
Erik P. Olsen -
Gene Heskett -
Guillermo Garron -
Jay Cliburn -
jdow -
Jim Cornette -
Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu -
Kayvan A. Sylvan -
Les Mikesell -
magicus -
Matthew Benjamin -
Matthew Miller -
Michael Hennebry -
Michael P. Brininstool -
Michael Yep -
Mike Klinke -
Mike McCarty -
Mikkel -
ne... -
Nicolas Mailhot -
Norm -
Paul Howarth -
Peter Gordon -
Robert P. J. Day -
Steffen Kluge -
SternData -
Todd Zullinger -
Tony Placilla -
»Steven Ringwald«