RE: [OT]: UUCP : sidenote - terrorism etc.
I d'uno. /etc/services says 540 is UUCP over TCP/IP, (its an IANA
allocated/registered number for both tcp and ucp.)
With secretary software, who knows.
John
BTW, I -P DENY in ipchains for input and output, and 540 isn't open on
the Linux boxes that I use to MASQ the secretaries from the
I-vandals. No DENYs on 540 in /var/syslog, ever. You might have
something else going on.
I do block a lot of port 137 broadcasts, though, (like everyone else
that cares.)
Joris Lambrecht writes:
> Interesting, port 540 is frequently sending traffic on my windoze machine,
> i'm not running anything remotely fancy (besides the O.S.) and it seemed to
> me like some irregular port-traffic was going on. Is this true or is it just
> something not to take into account ?
>
> on a side note, since we're talking about I-vandals, theregister.co.uk
> reports that hackers in the UK are now legaly treated as Terrorists, the
> disruption of a computer-system is legaly considered terrorism ...
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Conover [mailto:conover@rahul.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 10:25 AM
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: RE: [OT]: UUCP
>
>
>
> I've used, (and still do use,) uucp for email for all my domains. The
> Taylor uucp which comes standard with Debian, (which has a mailing
> list, taylor-uucp@gnu.org,) does work well over tcp/ip to port 540,
> (but be advised, if you use it over the Internet, it uses a telnet
> like login-as in ASCII login: and password:,) and works well with ssh
> tunnels, (from anywhere on the planet to your ISP, or home box,) so
> you can use a 10.x.x.x for your remote IP, and gather up mail for
> multiple users, accounts, or machines on demand, (and handles Bcc:'s
> and Fcc:'s correctly.)
>
> It is perfectly compatible with exim, qmail, and sendmail, for
> receiving email for a domain of machines and users, and handles domain
> addressing, (as well as "bam" addressing.)
>
> It is a reasonably secure way of handling email for a domain, and is
> rock solid-and doesn't require exposing any ports to the I-vandals, or
> spammers.
>
> Unfortunately, uucp providers are becoming few and far between.
>
> John
>
> Joris Lambrecht writes:
> > Thanks for your corrections, i'm feeling kind of melancholic every time i
> > talk/think/read about uucp.
> > Maybe i should dig up that uucp manual and start playing around :-)
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: miquels@cistron-office.nl [mailto:miquels@cistron-office.nl]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 11:51 PM
> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> > Subject: Re: [OT]: UUCP
> >
> >
> > In article <[🔎] 471B774D9F9BD411B93E00508BB087A644E81B@BE020-EX11>,
> > Joris Lambrecht <jlambrec@landis.be> wrote:
> > >UUCP stands for Unix-to-Unix-CoPy
> > >
> > >I've used it nearly 8 yrs ago in a specific situation, even then it was
> > >considered out-dated. I figure it's mostly replaced by TCP/IP on all
> > >devices. From what i remember (did not use it since then) it's easy
> (what's
> > >in a word) to set up but only support serial/modem lines, hence is rather
> > >slow.
> >
> > Hmm. In fact, UUCP runs fine _over_ TCP/IP. It just needs a transport,
> > a serial line will do, a TCP connection will do too.
> >
> > Actually running UUCP over a serial line is probably a lot faster
> > than running PPP over it and TCP/IP on that.
> >
> > >NFS is also one of the protocols wich started replacing UUCP back then in
> > >19993/1994.
> >
> > NFS relaced UUCP? Hmm. That's like saying the microwave has
> > replaced the bicycle.
> >
> > >I must add this has been a real long time and i'm not up-to-speed with
> > >eventual current UUCP features/implementations but i suggest you take a
> > look
> > >at it from an historical point of view :-)
> >
> > UUCP still has it's merits, even today. The only problem is that
> > people _view_ it as outdated and forget about it. So there's not
> > much expertise around, unfortunately.
> >
> > Mike.
> > --
> > I live the way I type; fast, with a lot of mistakes.
> >
> >
> > --
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> > listmaster@lists.debian.org
> >
> >
> > --
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
> --
>
> John Conover Tel. 408.370.2688 conover@rahul.net
> 631 Lamont Ct. Cel. 408.772.7733 http://www.johncon.com/
> Campbell, CA 95008 Fax. 408.379.9602
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
--
John Conover Tel. 408.370.2688 conover@rahul.net
631 Lamont Ct. Cel. 408.772.7733 http://www.johncon.com/
Campbell, CA 95008 Fax. 408.379.9602
Reply to: