test post - Security

This is a discussion on test post - Security ; testing a post...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 40

Thread: test post

  1. test post

    testing a post



  2. Re: test post

    On 2006-05-11, Digitalflaunt wrote:
    > testing a post


    Your test failed: it went to a non-test group. Next time try
    alt.test or some other test group.

    --keith

    --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom
    see X- headers for PGP signature information


  3. Re: test post

    Digitalflaunt said the following on 2006-05-12 00:37:
    > testing a post
    >
    >

    +----[ Standard "Subject: Test" reply #1 ]
    | The test failed,
    | Over 400 test newsgroups ending in .test and your post showed up here.

    |
    | Please use alt.test or misc.test .
    | For binary test use alt.binaries.test
    |
    | Please, before you post again, read
    | http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    | http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/
    | http://tgos.org/newbie/index2.html
    |
    | _Welcome to the group._
    +----

    --
    Jon Solberg (remove "nospam" from email address).

  4. Re: test post

    Keith Keller wrote:

    > On 2006-05-11, Digitalflaunt wrote:
    >> testing a post

    >
    > Your test failed: it went to a non-test group. Next time try
    > alt.test or some other test group.
    >
    > --keith
    >


    That assumes the poster HAS ACCESS to test groups. The server I post from
    has no test groups. There is no REQUIREMENT for test groups to be carried
    by NNTP servers that are run as "proxy" server for business and families
    that want to give limited access to the Internet to employees and children
    respectively. There is also no RFC that requires a poster to post test
    messages to "test" groups. To claim that a test post "failed" because you
    do not like the group it went to or because of some minor infraction of
    netiquette is just not right. If you want to get after the person, at least
    tell him the ACTUAL mistake he made: He posted a test message to a group
    you don't like hem posting test messages to.

  5. Re: test post

    Jon Solberg wrote:

    > Digitalflaunt said the following on 2006-05-12 00:37:
    >> testing a post
    >>
    >>

    > +----[ Standard "Subject: Test" reply #1 ]
    > | The test failed,
    > | Over 400 test newsgroups ending in .test and your post showed up here.
    >
    > |
    > | Please use alt.test or misc.test .
    > | For binary test use alt.binaries.test
    > |
    > | Please, before you post again, read
    > | http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    > | http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/
    > | http://tgos.org/newbie/index2.html
    > |
    > | _Welcome to the group._
    > +----
    >


    Message ID: <3eiej3-9hu.ln1@alta.sierrandays.org>



  6. Re: test post

    On Fri, 12 May 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.security, in article
    <3eiej3-9hu.ln1@alta.sierrandays.org>, matt_left_coast wrote:

    >Keith Keller wrote:


    >> Next time try alt.test or some other test group.


    >That assumes the poster HAS ACCESS to test groups. The server I post from
    >has no test groups.


    Sweat mother of Ghod! Matt, you've been whining about this crap for weeks
    now - first in alt.os.linux.mandrake, then in alt.os.linux, and now here.

    Nobody gives a flying fsck that your leafnode client doesn't carry the test
    groups. "news.rcn.net" which is the real server you are posting from DOES
    carry the test groups. Just because you don't feel like setting up a proper
    news _peer_ (rather than the _client_ you actually are using) doesn't mean
    the whole world doesn't have access to test groups. If you don't know how
    to set up a news server to support a test group, or configure leafnode to
    carry a test group with a zero day retention, then maybe you should be
    learning that instead of whining.

    Also, your inability to set up a test group on leafnode or any other client
    is not a security problem that concerns the general Linux community. Go
    whine over in the news.admin.hierarchies, or news.admin.misc which would be
    slightly less _inappropriate_ or in news.software.misc (assuming you can
    figure out how to subscribe to those groups).

    Old guy

  7. Re: test post

    Moe Trin said the following on 2006-05-13 18:47:
    > On Fri, 12 May 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.security, in article
    > <3eiej3-9hu.ln1@alta.sierrandays.org>, matt_left_coast wrote:
    >
    >> Keith Keller wrote:

    >
    >>> Next time try alt.test or some other test group.

    >
    >> That assumes the poster HAS ACCESS to test groups. The server I post from
    >> has no test groups.

    >
    > Sweat mother of Ghod! Matt, you've been whining about this crap for weeks
    > now - first in alt.os.linux.mandrake, then in alt.os.linux, and now here.
    >
    > Nobody gives a flying fsck that your leafnode client doesn't carry the test
    > groups. [..]


    Hear, hear.

    --
    Jon Solberg (remove "nospam" from email address).

  8. Re: test post

    matt_left_coast wrote:
    > That assumes the poster HAS ACCESS to test groups. The server I post from
    > has no test groups.


    The term for that would be "broken". Test groups are venerable and
    well-established. Ignoring common practice because you can't or won't
    or are too lazy or cheap or stupid to get a decent newsfeed does not
    make you correct. It makes you a jackass.


    > There is also no RFC that requires a poster to post test
    > messages to "test" groups.


    There's no rulebook for a lot of things in life. Again, ignoring
    netiquette and then yelling about how there's no law about it does not
    make you look any more correct.


    --
    Oh to have a lodge in some vast wilderness. Where rumors of oppression
    and deceit, of unsuccessful and successful wars may never reach me
    anymore.
    -- William Cowper

  9. Re: test post

    Moe Trin wrote:

    >>That assumes the poster HAS ACCESS to test groups. The server I post from
    >>has no test groups.

    >
    > Sweat mother of Ghod! Matt, you've been whining about this crap for
    > weeks now - first in alt.os.linux.mandrake, then in alt.os.linux, and now
    > here.


    You seem to have a problem with someone telling the truth. The fact of the
    matter is, I am correct. My leafnode is configured in a valid way that makes
    sense for me and my family. This is the type of FREEDOME that I want and
    need by using OSS. Also, My leafnode is NOT the only system that does not
    carry test groups. The fact that you and others seem to want to take away
    the FREEDOME for families and businesses to run configurations that best
    suite the needs of the family and business makes me wonder about your
    commitment to the freedom of OSS.



  10. Re: test post

    Jeremiah DeWitt Weiner wrote:

    > matt_left_coast wrote:
    >> That assumes the poster HAS ACCESS to test groups. The server I post from
    >> has no test groups.

    >
    > The term for that would be "broken".


    How so, TECHNICALLY? What is "broken"?

    > Test groups are venerable and
    > well-established.


    So? I am supposed to give up my freedome for what you consider "venerable
    and well-established."?

    > Ignoring common practice because you can't or won't
    > or are too lazy or cheap or stupid to get a decent newsfeed does not
    > make you correct.


    Nor does name calling make you correct. If you can give a legitimate
    technical reason (and "Test groups are venerable and well-established" is
    not a legitimate technical reason) that my system is broken, then do so.

    > It makes you a jackass.


    Oh, I see, you want to try to intimidate me, by into giving up the freedom
    I have of configuring my system the way that best meets my needs, the needs
    of my family and the needs of my business without giving any real technical
    reason.

    >




    >
    >> There is also no RFC that requires a poster to post test
    >> messages to "test" groups.

    >
    > There's no rulebook for a lot of things in life.


    That is correct, so why are you so emphatic about telling me how to run MINE
    and the systems *I* have? I have the FREEDOM to run my systems the way I
    see fit within the standards spelled out in the RFCs. IF TEST MESSAGES FROM
    MY SYSTEM BECOME A PROBLEM (as off yet, I can not see where anyone is
    bitching about test messsages coming from my system) I will take measures
    to deal with the situation. Till then, you can just buzz off. I will enjoy
    the FREEDOM OSS gives me and RUN MY SYSTEM THE WAY I SEE FIT.

    > Again, ignoring
    > netiquette and then yelling


    If people would learn to LISTEN the fist go round, I would not need to yell.

    > about how there's no law about it does not
    > make you look any more correct.


    And what makes YOU correct? A thing called "netiquette"? If you take a look
    at the document I responded to, you would find that it is a lecture on
    "netiquette" that is deceptively labled as a FAQ. How is deceptively
    labeling a post good "netiquette"? But the fact of the matter is,
    netiquette DOES NOT DETERMIN HOW I CONFIGURE MY SERVER ONLY POSTING 'TEST'
    MESSAGES. If you can point out how my system had been sending out a
    disturbing number of "test" posts to non-test groups, then, please do so.



    >
    >



  11. Re: test post

    Jon Solberg wrote:

    > Moe Trin said the following on 2006-05-13 18:47:
    >> On Fri, 12 May 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.security, in
    >> article <3eiej3-9hu.ln1@alta.sierrandays.org>, matt_left_coast wrote:
    >>
    >>> Keith Keller wrote:

    >>
    >>>> Next time try alt.test or some other test group.

    >>
    >>> That assumes the poster HAS ACCESS to test groups. The server I post
    >>> from has no test groups.

    >>
    >> Sweat mother of Ghod! Matt, you've been whining about this crap for
    >> weeks now - first in alt.os.linux.mandrake, then in alt.os.linux, and now
    >> here.
    >>
    >> Nobody gives a flying fsck that your leafnode client doesn't carry the
    >> test groups. [..]

    >
    > Hear, hear.
    >


    There, there.

    Message ID:

    It's all about FREEDOM. Should I be free to configure my system the way that
    *I* want, or should I give into usenet net nannies that want to take that
    freedome away?

  12. Re: test post

    matt_left_coast wrote:
    > Jeremiah DeWitt Weiner wrote:
    >
    >> matt_left_coast wrote:
    >>> That assumes the poster HAS ACCESS to test groups. The server I post from
    >>> has no test groups.

    >> The term for that would be "broken".

    >
    > How so, TECHNICALLY? What is "broken"?
    >
    >> Test groups are venerable and
    >> well-established.

    >
    > So? I am supposed to give up my freedome for what you consider "venerable
    > and well-established."?


    Perhaps everyone should dump their rubbish in front of your house? Not
    permitting us to would be contravening our freedom.


    >> Ignoring common practice because you can't or won't


    >> Again, ignoring
    >> netiquette and then yelling

    >
    > If people would learn to LISTEN the fist go round, I would not need to yell.


    Why don't you try listening instead?

    >> about how there's no law about it does not
    >> make you look any more correct.

    >
    > And what makes YOU correct? A thing called "netiquette"? If you take a look
    > at the document I responded to, you would find that it is a lecture on
    > "netiquette" that is deceptively labled as a FAQ. How is deceptively
    > labeling a post good "netiquette"? But the fact of the matter is,
    > netiquette DOES NOT DETERMIN HOW I CONFIGURE MY SERVER ONLY POSTING 'TEST'
    > MESSAGES. If you can point out how my system had been sending out a
    > disturbing number of "test" posts to non-test groups, then, please do so.


    Try having a read of the actual charter. Here is a link to the result of
    the vote to establish this group.
    http://groups.google.com/group/comp....3d73025aecd1c2
    It says what the group is for, and no where in that can I see anything
    about posting test messages as part of the definition.

    Perhaps everyone should test there mail server by sending you emails?
    --
    Flash Gordon, living in interesting times.
    Web site - http://home.flash-gordon.me.uk/
    comp.lang.c posting guidelines and intro:
    http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Intro_to_clc

  13. Re: test post

    On 2006-05-15, matt_left_coast wrote:
    >


    [More stupid selfish whiney crap]

    *plonk*




    --
    "Other people are not your property."
    [email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

  14. Re: test post

    matt_left_coast wrote:

    ...

    > It's all about FREEDOM. Should I be free to configure my system the way that
    > *I* want, or should I give into usenet net nannies that want to take that
    > freedome away?


    You keep prattling on and on about freedom. How about some mention of
    responsibility?

    --
    "Now are you talking about what it is you know
    or just repeating what it was you heard."
    Grace Slick
    To E-mail use: rpiotro(at)wi(dot)rr(dot)com

  15. Re: test post

    matt_left_coast wrote:
    > Jon Solberg wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Moe Trin said the following on 2006-05-13 18:47:
    >>
    >>>On Fri, 12 May 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.security, in
    >>>article <3eiej3-9hu.ln1@alta.sierrandays.org>, matt_left_coast wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Keith Keller wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>Next time try alt.test or some other test group.
    >>>>
    >>>>That assumes the poster HAS ACCESS to test groups. The server I post
    >>>>from has no test groups.
    >>>
    >>>Sweat mother of Ghod! Matt, you've been whining about this crap for
    >>>weeks now - first in alt.os.linux.mandrake, then in alt.os.linux, and now
    >>>here.
    >>>
    >>>Nobody gives a flying fsck that your leafnode client doesn't carry the
    >>>test groups. [..]

    >>
    >>Hear, hear.
    >>

    >
    >
    > There, there.
    >
    > Message ID:
    >
    > It's all about FREEDOM. Should I be free to configure my system the way that
    > *I* want, or should I give into usenet net nannies that want to take that
    > freedome away?


    Of course you should. The problem is, it's not about your personal
    server, but how any official servers should be configured! Please,
    Matt. Stop this nonsense and accept that your news-server (leafnode?)
    is private, not an official one.


  16. Re: test post

    matt_left_coast wrote:
    > Moe Trin wrote:
    >
    >>>That assumes the poster HAS ACCESS to test groups. The server I post from
    >>>has no test groups.

    >>
    >>Sweat mother of Ghod! Matt, you've been whining about this crap for
    >>weeks now - first in alt.os.linux.mandrake, then in alt.os.linux, and now
    >>here.

    >
    > You seem to have a problem with someone telling the truth. The fact of the
    > matter is, I am correct. My leafnode is configured in a valid way that makes
    > sense for me and my family. This is the type of FREEDOME that I want and
    > need by using OSS. Also, My leafnode is NOT the only system that does not
    > carry test groups. The fact that you and others seem to want to take away
    > the FREEDOME for families and businesses to run configurations that best
    > suite the needs of the family and business makes me wonder about your
    > commitment to the freedom of OSS.


    I'm sorry Matt, but you are *not* correct. Leafnode is *not* a proper
    news-server, it is primarily for off-line reading in a home and/or
    small office environment (see http://leafnode.sourceforge.net/). When
    you install "inn", a proper news-server, come back and talk to us.


  17. Re: test post

    On Mon, 15 May 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.security, in article
    , matt_left_coast wrote:

    >Moe Trin wrote:


    >> Sweat mother of Ghod! Matt, you've been whining about this crap for
    >> weeks now - first in alt.os.linux.mandrake, then in alt.os.linux, and now
    >> here.


    >You seem to have a problem with someone telling the truth. The fact of the
    >matter is, I am correct. My leafnode is configured in a valid way that makes
    >sense for me and my family.


    Matt, no one gives a fsck how your leafnode client is configured. It is
    a client - it is not, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise,
    a Usenet server. Want some proof (other than reading the documentation
    that comes with leafnode)? Fire up a packet sniffer, and watch the dialog
    your leafnode client has with news.rcn.net. Then compare it to what is
    happening on your loopback when you run KNode and talk to your "server".
    Funny - that's not the dialog of _peers_ which is apparently beyond your
    understanding. Maybe if you installed inn or at least dnews, and contracted
    with a news service for a peering arrangement, you might notice the
    difference.

    In the mean time - stop whining - you are destroying what little credibility
    you had, and are showing why other posters recommend killfiling you in a.o.l.m.

    >The fact that you and others seem to want to take away the FREEDOME for
    >families and businesses to run configurations that best suite the needs of
    >the family and business makes me wonder about your commitment to the
    >freedom of OSS.


    Wrong again Matt. I'll repeat it, so maybe it will get through to you. No one
    cares how you configure your news reader. If you want to configure it "your
    way" that's just fine. But recognize that your pretending that your setup
    is representative of how a news server is configured is quite wrong. Despite
    your fond wish to appear to be playing with the big boys, it's only in your
    imagination, because you are not. Peering is between more or less equals.
    Your leafnode client is not by any stretch of the imagination equal to even
    the smallest server run at a mom-and-pop ISP. Get over it.

    Old guy

  18. Re: test post

    Moe Trin wrote:

    [...] snip

    > In the mean time - stop whining - you are destroying what little credibility
    > you had, and are showing why other posters recommend killfiling you in a.o.l.m.


    Matt's sick.

    Let it go.

  19. Re: test post

    Flash Gordon wrote:

    > matt_left_coast wrote:
    >> Jeremiah DeWitt Weiner wrote:
    >>
    >>> matt_left_coast wrote:
    >>>> That assumes the poster HAS ACCESS to test groups. The server I post
    >>>> from has no test groups.
    >>> The term for that would be "broken".

    >>
    >> How so, TECHNICALLY? What is "broken"?
    >>
    >>> Test groups are venerable and
    >>> well-established.

    >>
    >> So? I am supposed to give up my freedome for what you consider "venerable
    >> and well-established."?

    >
    > Perhaps everyone should dump their rubbish in front of your house? Not
    > permitting us to would be contravening our freedom.


    Look, claiming that a test post has failed because it did not go to a test
    group is a LIE.

    It is interesting that you would come up with dumping trash in illegal
    places since you are supporting telling LIES.

  20. Re: test post

    Moe Trin wrote:

    > Matt, no one gives a fsck how your leafnode client is configured. It is
    > a client - it is not, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise,
    > a Usenet server.


    I never claimed it WAS. It is still a valid way to USE A ****ING SERVER. Are
    you really that stupid you can NOT UNDERSTAND THAT? It is used like a PROXY
    server to allow access to ONLY APPROVED GROUPS to employees and kids. I
    don't know how many times that has to be explained to you before you get
    it. I claim it to be a CLIENT to usenet, not a usenet server.

    It is also run the way many systems are in the business world "what is not
    specifically allowed is prohibited". Since nobody here AND AT THE
    BUSINESSES I HAVE SEEN THE SAME SETUP, want access to test groups, test
    groups are not on the servers.



+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast