setting up lax security on one ethernet interface while leaving theother strict

I have an ubuntu (7.04) box with two ethernet interfaces.

I would like to leave one of them secure, but make the other one very
insecure --- maybe even allow telnet over it. (The insecure one is
to be networked to one old computer for which i can't get a recent
version of ssh.)

Can this be done through the gui?

Or is there some single configuration file i can change to make it
happen?

Thanks in advance for any info.

dan

On Sep 26, 1:05*pm, ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) wrote:

> NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
> reduces the chance of your post being seen. *Find a real news server.

So as far as I can tell, the risk is raised to precisely zero. I have
used groups.google.com for years and have never had a post that was
not seen.

As for "Find a real news server", this is a confusion that you
maintain deliberately, despite having been corrected numerous times.
News is a service, not a protocol. Web servers that serve news are
"real news server"s.

DS

David Schwartz wrote:
> On Sep 26, 1:05 pm, ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) wrote:
>
>> NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
>> reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.
>
> So as far as I can tell, the risk is raised to precisely zero. I have
> used groups.google.com for years and have never had a post that was
> not seen.
>
> As for "Find a real news server", this is a confusion that you
> maintain deliberately, despite having been corrected numerous times.
> News is a service, not a protocol. Web servers that serve news are
> "real news server"s.

It seems that you did not get the point:

Due to the amount of crap in the Google service, many readers
intentionally ignore everything from groups.google.com;
it has nothing to do with the protocol or service itself.

--

Tauno Voipio

The real question is how may people just IGNORE google crap

David Schwartz wrote:
>
> On Sep 26, 1:05 pm, ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) wrote:
>
>> NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
>> reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.
>
> So as far as I can tell, the risk is raised to precisely zero. I have
> used groups.google.com for years and have never had a post that was
> not seen.
>
> As for "Find a real news server", this is a confusion that you
> maintain deliberately, despite having been corrected numerous times.
> News is a service, not a protocol. Web servers that serve news are
> "real news server"s.
>
> DS

On Sep 27, 3:01*am, Send <S...@Nospam.com> wrote:

> The real question is how may people just IGNORE *google crap

A question for which we don't know the answer.

DS

On Sep 27, 7:43*pm, ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) wrote:

> >> So as far as I can tell, the risk is raised to precisely zero. I have
> >> used groups.google.com for years and have never had a post that was
> >> not seen.

> Where have you been looking? *On google? *Wow, google doesn't filter
> posts from google - there's a surprise. *I'd bet if you looked harder,
> you would find specific *public* news servers that block posts from
> groups.google.com, never mind non-public servers (like those run
> by my or my wife's employers).

Ah, so in your world, a post that doesn't go to every news server is
"not seen". In that case, every post is "not seen" and *nothing*
increases the changes that a post will be "not seen" since there is no
way to raise the probability beyond a certainty.

> >> News is a service, not a protocol.


> >> Web servers that serve news are "real news server"s.
>
> Are they serving news on port 119 or 563?

Ah, so the *port* a news server serves news on is what makes a news
server "real". You know that's nonsense.

>*Do they follow RFC0977,
> RFC1036, or RFC3977? * Or do they alter news posts - as google does.

As I said, news is a service not a protocol. Are you going to ignore
that argument or address it?

> >The real question is how may people just IGNORE *google crap

> Given the fact that many news readers can filter on the Message-ID:
> header, and everyone and their goat has published simple instructions
> on how to do so, it's rather difficult to guess how many ignore google
> _crap_ *verses how many ignore all posts from google (whether in one
> or all newsgroups they may read).

So, in other words, you have no idea.

DS

On Sep 26, 11:59*pm, Tauno Voipio <tauno.voi...@INVALIDiki.fi> wrote:

> > As for "Find a real news server", this is a confusion that you
> > maintain deliberately, despite having been corrected numerous times.
> > News is a service, not a protocol. Web servers that serve news are
> > "real news server"s.

> It seems that you did not get the point:

> * Due to the amount of crap in the Google service, many readers
> * intentionally ignore everything from groups.google.com;

Right, and those readers will not see your post. But those who don't
will see them. So the post will be seen, just not by some people.
There is no risk that your post will "not be seen". No post will be
seen by those who choose to filter it out.

> * it has nothing to do with the protocol or service itself.

I know that and you know that. But Moe Trin does not, despite the fact
that it's been explained to him many times now. He seems to think that
a "real news server" is one that serves news using a particular
protocol on a particular port. He honestly believes that news is a
protocol, not a service.

DS

On Sep 29, 1:02*pm, ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) wrote:

> >Ah, so in your world, a post that doesn't go to every news server is
> >"not seen".

> Twisting the meaning rather hard, aren't you? The note I include says
> that it REDUCES THE CHANCE of a post being seen.

And yet, every such post is in fact seen.

> Do you feel that if
> a news server doesn't carry any posts from group.google.com, or the
> fairly well documented (posted in newsgroups - such as
> news.software.readers) evidence that some people really do block,
> delete, or filter posts simply can't be true? *And therefore filters
> must not exist. *How do you know this is or is not the case?

Actually, from anecdotal evidence, I think it's not true. I see people
who claim they filter out all posts from google responding to posts
from google. I'm sure there actually are some servers and some readers
who filter such posts, but I have no idea what the number is. Do you
have any idea?

The only evidence I have suggests that it's very, very small. If you
have contrary evidence, please share.

But again, the anecdotal evidence I have is that people who claim to
filter such posts always see them.

> >In that case, every post is "not seen" and *nothing* increases the
> >changes that a post will be "not seen" since there is no way to raise
> >the probability beyond a certainty.

> Ah, nothing anyone can say can change your mind. *And anything that is
> posted that you disagree with...

You are the one making the claim. You have a burden of proof.

> >>>> News is a service, not a protocol.

> like the RFCs you decided are not relevant... *why, they simply must not
> exist. * I'll bet the posts to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet and/or
> news.admin.net-abuse.policy discussing the banning of Google (which
> strangely, groups.google.com doesn't seem to have available on their
> search engine) don't exist in your view either.

Please either address this argument or don't. Are you maintaining that
only NNTP is news? Are you saying that if it doesn't arrive on port
119/563 it's not news or not real news?

> >>>> Web servers that serve news are "real news server"s.

> >> Are they serving news on port 119 or 563?

> >Ah, so the *port* a news server serves news on is what makes a news
> >server "real". You know that's nonsense.

> >>Do they follow RFC0977,
> >> RFC1036, or RFC3977? <A0> Or do they alter news posts - as google does..

> >As I said, news is a service not a protocol. Are you going to ignore
> >that argument or address it?

> Are you going to ignore RFC0977? RFC3977? *Are you going to ignore
> any post that disagrees with you?

Okay, you're going to ignore my argument. That's fine. I'll just point
out, again, for everyone watching that you continue to repeat these
arguments even though you know they are incorrect.

On the off chance you actually think these RFCs somehow say that news
is a protocol (which is almost unimaginable, but just in case):

This document specifies the Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP),
which is used for the distribution, inquiry, retrieval, and posting
of Netnews articles using a reliable stream-based mechanism.

So NTTP is a protocol that transfers news. How can this be so if news
itself is a protocol?

For example, HTTP is not a web page. HTTP is a protocol for getting a
web page from one place to another. The web page is the service.

You might as well argue that satellite customers don't have "real web
access" since the protocol by which they get web pages is not HTTP.

> >>> The real question is how may people just IGNORE <A0>google crap
>
> >> Given the fact that many news readers can filter on the Message-ID:
> >> header, and everyone and their goat has published simple instructions
> >> on how to do so, it's rather difficult to guess how many ignore google
> >> _crap_ <A0>verses how many ignore all posts from google (whether in one
> >> or all newsgroups they may read).
>
> >So, in other words, you have no idea.
>
> And you know it's not significant, or doesn't happen at all?

I suspect it's not significant. But, again, I'm not making a claim.
You are.

> No - it's simply that nothing anyone can say or write will change your
> mind. You feel that groups.google.com is a news server and EVERYONE must
> see every post that originates there.

It is a news server. Your argument that it's not a "real news server"
is genuine idiocy.

As for whether everyone sees every post that originates there, I'm
pretty certain 100% is not possible. But if you think it's, say, less
than 90%, you've provided no evidence to support that view. And
certainly no evidence to support the bizarre claim that that
"significantly reduces" that chances a post "will be seen".

> Others disagree, but that's not
> significant to you. *I suppose you think that because you see ads from
> google, everyone else should and can't imagine why people might take
> steps to avoid seeing them. *That those steps might reduce the chance
> of a post from groups.google.com - whether spam or not - from being
> seen by everyone who views these groups obviously can't be important.

You: Black and white are the same color.

Me: That's crazy.

You: What kind of idiot doesn't know that railroad crossings are both
black and white?

Me: ?!

So do you retract your original claim that posting from google
"dramatically
reduces the chance of your post being seen" and now replace it with an
argument about chances that your post may not be "seen by everyone who
views these groups"? Of course no news provider can assure that every
post is seen by every viewer.

DS

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:38:34 -0700 (PDT), David Schwartz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sep 29, 1:02Â*pm, ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) wrote:
>
>> >Ah, so in your world, a post that doesn't go to every news server is
>> >"not seen".
>
>> Twisting the meaning rather hard, aren't you? The note I include says
>> that it REDUCES THE CHANCE of a post being seen.
>
>And yet, every such post is in fact seen.
>
>> Do you feel that if
>> a news server doesn't carry any posts from group.google.com, or the
>> fairly well documented (posted in newsgroups - such as
>> news.software.readers) evidence that some people really do block,
>> delete, or filter posts simply can't be true? Â*And therefore filters
>> must not exist. Â*How do you know this is or is not the case?
>
>Actually, from anecdotal evidence, I think it's not true. I see people
>who claim they filter out all posts from google responding to posts
>from google. I'm sure there actually are some servers and some readers
>who filter such posts, but I have no idea what the number is. Do you
>have any idea?
>
>The only evidence I have suggests that it's very, very small. If you
>have contrary evidence, please share.
>
>But again, the anecdotal evidence I have is that people who claim to
>filter such posts always see them.

Nah, what we who filter do see is the first non-google reply to such
a message, and none of that leakage has convinced me I'm missing any
traffic worth reading

Grant.
--
http://bugsplatter.id.au:8080/ dodo, for internet that dies