-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 05:28:07AM -0500, Antonio Rodriguez wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 07:33:05PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:56:57PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
> > > I do pop3-ssl with comcast. But I don't know how to
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:41:28 + (UTC)
M.Kirchhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to DSLreports.org, the "bridged" type ADSL connections no
> longer exist. All new ADSL installations are of the PPPoE breed. If
> their information is accurate (http://www.dslreports.com/faq/1416),
> that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:41:28PM +, M.Kirchhoff wrote:
> According to DSLreports.org, the "bridged" type ADSL connections no
> longer exist. All new ADSL installations are of the PPPoE breed. If
> their information is accurate (http://www.dslrep
Paul Johnson ursine.ca> writes:
> PPPoE is a classic sign
> that the ISP is deliberately overselling their network and needs a
> convienent way to "drop" your connection when you've been online "too
> long."
>
According to DSLreports.org, the "bridged" type ADSL connections no longer
exist. All
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 05:25:32AM -0500, Antonio Rodriguez wrote:
> The only problem with that is that you have to have a fairly stable ip
> number, so that your incoming mail knows where to go. But if yur ip
> number changes every-so-often, then, no
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 07:33:05PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:56:57PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
> > I do pop3-ssl with comcast. But I don't know how to configure it for
> > exim/smtp.
>
> Just install exim-tls and don't bother setting up a smarthost except
> for those
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:55:02PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 09:39:33PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote:
> > I do! But when you need a message that
> > absolutely-positively-can't-get-lost because of routing errors, poor DSL
> > connects, no backup MX, or power outage, it h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 07:48:03PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 07:33:05PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > Just install exim-tls and don't bother setting up a smarthost except
> > for those that give you problems. If anybody wants
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 07:33:05PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Just install exim-tls and don't bother setting up a smarthost except
> for those that give you problems. If anybody wants to see how to get
> around that in exim4, let me know and I'll post it here and someplace
> on my site.
exim-tl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:56:57PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
> I do pop3-ssl with comcast. But I don't know how to configure it for
> exim/smtp.
Just install exim-tls and don't bother setting up a smarthost except
for those that give you problems. If
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 09:34:24PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:31:04PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > What difference does it make? Quality mail providers give you
> > IMAP4-SSL and POP3-SSL anyway...
> >
> >
> Any major ISP's do this? My RBOC doesn't for DSL.
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 09:39:33PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote:
> I do! But when you need a message that
> absolutely-positively-can't-get-lost because of routing errors, poor DSL
> connects, no backup MX, or power outage, it helps to have someone el
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:37:18PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 09:34:24PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:31:04PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > > What difference does it make? Quality mail providers give you
> > > IMAP4-SSL and POP3-SSL anywa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 09:34:24PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:31:04PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > What difference does it make? Quality mail providers give you
> > IMAP4-SSL and POP3-SSL anyway...
> >
> Any major I
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:31:04PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> What difference does it make? Quality mail providers give you
> IMAP4-SSL and POP3-SSL anyway...
>
>
Any major ISP's do this? My RBOC doesn't for DSL.
> You're almost 10 years behind on your knowledge about cable
> networks, it see
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:56:52PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote:
> True. But plain-text POP3 passwords (or heck, your PPPoE login) are more
> likely to be sniffed in that 'local loop' than anywhere else. Assessing
> risk is a factor in who to trust.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:23:07PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:53:04PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote:
> > But can you tell if encryption is on?
>
> What difference does it make? It's still going to hit a fairly public
> network not protected by the hardware after the v
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:53:04PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote:
> But can you tell if encryption is on?
What difference does it make? It's still going to hit a fairly public
network not protected by the hardware after the very first hop anyway.
Fo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:39:49PM -0600, Aaron Hall wrote:
> I used to work for Cox, and I don't recall hearing any complaints at
> all in terms of speed or latency issues.
I used to work for @Home, which gave bandwidth and support to Cox (and
many o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:12:21PM +, M.Kirchhoff wrote:
> We'll soon be picking up DSL soon. Is there a particular DSL/PPPoE "KillerApp"
> that is easy to setup and use?
Yes. Boycott all ISPs that employ this in your area. Find one not
trying
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 06:41:29PM -0600, Kent West wrote:
> Jeff McAdams wrote:
>
> >Nano Nano wrote:
> >
> >>Could a device in theory record every channel simultaneously?
> >
> >
> >Yes.
> >
> >>Could it in practice?
> >
> >
> >Depends on what you consider "practical", I guess.
> >
> >I would sa
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:39:49PM -0600, Aaron Hall wrote:
[snip]
> Of course, BPI only works (I believe) if the modem is DOCSIS 1.1
> compliant or better. Older modems won't be able to use it. In those
> cases, Cox falls back to ordinary unencrypted transmission.
>
But can you tell if encryption
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004, Brett Carrington wrote:
> But how? The lines are -still- shared, they didn't change the entire
> infastructure. Is each user's cable connection now encrypted
> end-to-end? I imagine any amount of secure encryption would really
> hurt people trying to play bandwidth-heavy game
Paul Johnson ursine.ca> writes:
>
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 10:47:33AM -0500, John Kerr Anderson wrote:
> > We're thinking of switching to charter cable internet, but rumour is
> > they're partnered with Micro$oft. Any recommendations???
>
> Actually, they're not partnered with Microsoft. Pau
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:36:01 -0500, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
> Brett Carrington wrote:
>
> That is not too difficult. The [U.S.] military (and others, I'm sure)
> use wide-band recorders for some applications (not sure what, as it is
> not my field of expertise). Essentially, they record onto 1"
Bijan Soleymani wrote:
Let's assume there are 100 channels. That means that if you wanted to
do it with analog technology, VHS, you'd need 100 times the capacity.
Either 100 tapes in parallel (imagine having to synchronize 100 VCRs),
tape rolling at 100 times the speed (tape would wear out, each ta
On Sunday 18 January 2004 5:41 pm, Kent West wrote:
> Or with a fast enough processor (does it exist?) controlling the
> tuner, sample each channel in real time, like a couch potato surfing
> through the channels and getting a fair idea of everything that's on,
> only much much faster. It'd have t
Jeff McAdams wrote:
Nano Nano wrote:
Could a device in theory record every channel simultaneously?
Yes.
Could it in practice?
Depends on what you consider "practical", I guess.
I would say "no."
Your typical TV or VCR has one or two "receivers" or "tuners" in it.
A receiver or tuner is c
Brett Carrington wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:05:02PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 04:56:53PM -0500, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
[snip]
Yes all the channels and the traffic are coming on the same wire. Each
channel is at a different frequency (kind of like for regular antenna
re
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 06:35:02PM -0500, Antonio Rodriguez wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:05:02PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
> Another theoretical question: Is it possible to receive and decode in your
> computer the tv channels that are coming through to your house? Or the
> cable modem allows
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:05:02PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 04:56:53PM -0500, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > Yes all the channels and the traffic are coming on the same wire. Each
> > channel is at a different frequency (kind of like for regular antenna
> > recept
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:05:02PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
> Could a device in theory record every channel simultaneously?
Yes.
> Could it in practice?
No.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:05:02PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 04:56:53PM -0500, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > Yes all the channels and the traffic are coming on the same wire. Each
> > channel is at a different frequency (kind of like for regular antenna
> > recept
Nano Nano wrote:
Could a device in theory record every channel simultaneously?
Yes.
Could it in practice?
Depends on what you consider "practical", I guess.
I would say "no."
Your typical TV or VCR has one or two "receivers" or "tuners" in it. A
receiver or tuner is capable of receiving or tun
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:05:02PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 04:56:53PM -0500, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > Yes all the channels and the traffic are coming on the same wire. Each
> > channel is at a different frequency (kind of like for regular antenna
> > recept
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 04:56:53PM -0500, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
[snip]
>
> Yes all the channels and the traffic are coming on the same wire. Each
> channel is at a different frequency (kind of like for regular antenna
> reception), and the tv picks out whichever channel you want.
Could a device
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 01:40:46PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 04:18:48PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote:
> [snip]
> > I'd guess the cable modems are ignoring data not meant for you
> > specifically. The actual cable line still carries all data however and
> > it's just a simpl
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 01:42:06PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Probably just turned on switching on the headend, and giving everyone
> a virtual segment.
>
See Nano Nano's response which seems to make my argument moot then. But
I recall the cable system is like this:
H H H H
| |
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 04:35:37PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 01:26:29PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 01:07:04PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
> > > I don't know how it's done, but it's totally true: everything on your
> > > cable modem can be inte
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 04:35:37PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote:
> But how? The lines are -still- shared, they didn't change the entire
> infastructure. Is each user's cable connection now encrypted end-to-end?
> I imagine any amount of secure encrypt
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 04:18:48PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote:
[snip]
> I'd guess the cable modems are ignoring data not meant for you
> specifically. The actual cable line still carries all data however and
> it's just a simple matter of modulating/demodulating it.
Just how much bandwidth are
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 01:26:29PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 01:07:04PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
> > I don't know how it's done, but it's totally true: everything on your
> > cable modem can be intercepted easily by people on your same subnet.
>
> Not these days. Cable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 04:18:48PM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote:
> I'd guess the cable modems are ignoring data not meant for you
> specifically. The actual cable line still carries all data however and
> it's just a simple matter of modulating/demodu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 01:07:04PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
> I don't know how it's done, but it's totally true: everything on your
> cable modem can be intercepted easily by people on your same subnet.
Not these days. Cable companies got a bit more
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 01:07:04PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:57:59PM -0600, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote:
> [snip]
> > In anycase, it is pointless paranoia. A much more plausible scenario
> > is a disgruntled employee at any of the computers between you and the
> > destinatio
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:57:59PM -0600, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote:
[snip]
> In anycase, it is pointless paranoia. A much more plausible scenario
> is a disgruntled employee at any of the computers between you and the
> destination sniffing packets. Or someone hacking those
> computers/routers.
I
Quoting Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[snip]
> You're sharing bandwidth, as in, the same spectrum on the cable line.
> If you sit on your cable modem with a packet sniffer, you'll see
> broadcasts for the IP subnet you're on and packets destined for you
> only. Watch the light on the modem fli
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 11:14:23AM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote:
> I wouldn't recommend cable for the pure fact that you are sharing the
> cable line with everyone on your block. Kiddie MP3 trader guys will sap
> your bandwidth but malicious hacker #4
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 10:47:33AM -0500, John Kerr Anderson wrote:
> We're thinking of switching to charter cable internet, but rumour is
> they're partnered with Micro$oft. Any recommendations???
Actually, they're not partnered with Microsoft. Pau
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004, at 11:14 -0500, Brett Carrington wrote:
> I wouldn't recommend cable for the pure fact that you are sharing the
> cable line with everyone on your block. Kiddie MP3 trader guys will
> sap your bandwidth but malicious hacker #434 can sniff anything on
> that line.
I don't th
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004, at 10:47 -0500, John Kerr Anderson wrote:
> We've been using SBC Yahoo Dsl, but were so outraged at their
> arrogance, poor quality service, and lack of support that we decided
> to cancel. Can anyone recommend an ISP that is actually good?
>
> We're thinking of switching
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 11:14:23AM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote:
>
> Barring everything else, if you'd like a Linux/server-friendly and
> reasonable DSL provider check out .
I have had SpeakEasy for about 1-year and have been very satisfied. They
are one of the few ISP's that offer static IP's a
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 10:39:05AM -0600, Mac McCaskie wrote:
> For security, a $40 - $60 router/hub/firewall works wonders and I have
> no complaints with mine.
>
>
That router/hub/firewall is giving you no data security. Since you share
your cable line ANYONE can see ANY DATA (including unencry
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 11:14:23AM -0500, Brett Carrington wrote:
> I wouldn't recommend cable for the pure fact that you are sharing the
> cable line with everyone on your block. Kiddie MP3 trader guys will sap
> your bandwidth ...
In every real case, you still end up with more than 128K, which
I've had very good luck with Road Runner cable. I used to have SBC DSL
but after they kept dialing down my speed (I'm at the edge of the
service radius) and the 2nd modem burned up I went with RR. They did
have problems (DNS server issue, they said) this fall locally, but they
eventually got
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 10:47:33AM -0500, John Kerr Anderson wrote:
> We've been using SBC Yahoo Dsl, but were so outraged at their arrogance,
> poor quality service, and lack of support that we decided to cancel. Can
> anyone recommend an ISP that is actually good?
>
> We're thinking of switchin
Hi everybody!
We've been using SBC Yahoo Dsl, but were so outraged at their arrogance,
poor quality service, and lack of support that we decided to cancel. Can
anyone recommend an ISP that is actually good?
We're thinking of switching to charter cable internet, but rumour is
they're partnered wi
57 matches
Mail list logo
