|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 293 responses total. |
russ
|
|
response 153 of 293:
| 
Feb 7 06:06 UTC 2002 |
twill/polytarp's actions were a crapflood attack, a type of DoS attack.
(I used to do the same thing as a counter-crapflood against the "last
item" crapfloods on M-Net, and oddly enough, some of the people saying
it's not a DoS attack here/now said it was there/then....)
Re #146: Your connection must be really fast, and you must have a lot
of time to spend waiting for the next item to come up. For some people
the extra time can be a large fraction of what they have available.
Those people are effectively denied service.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 154 of 293:
|
Feb 7 13:42 UTC 2002 |
I think what you did was, and what they did was. I'm at least consistent.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 155 of 293:
|
Feb 7 14:17 UTC 2002 |
A solution is Loss of Personality. Not just splatting an
account, but taking the account, locking the password, making the
account only readable to staff/root, redirecting mail to dev/null.
Does not allow account to be re-created. Offender cannot
use old account files easily in new account, mail does not bounce,
it disappears.
|
aruba
|
|
response 156 of 293:
|
Feb 7 14:30 UTC 2002 |
So they just create a new account.
|
slynne
|
|
response 157 of 293:
|
Feb 7 16:48 UTC 2002 |
So tpryan, if someone did that to you would it mean that you would lose
your personality? I like to keep my personality offline.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 158 of 293:
|
Feb 7 17:01 UTC 2002 |
...in a shoebox with some potpourri and special mementos?
|
oval
|
|
response 159 of 293:
|
Feb 7 17:16 UTC 2002 |
#157 -- i feel so decieved!!!
|
jazz
|
|
response 160 of 293:
|
Feb 7 17:45 UTC 2002 |
(on a side note, it's pretty easy to write a shell script to undo the
damage caused by someone flooding a large conference with responses;
regenerating the picospan information is a different story)
|
slynne
|
|
response 161 of 293:
|
Feb 7 17:47 UTC 2002 |
resp:158 You looked in my special shoebox didnt you!!!!!
|
happyboy
|
|
response 162 of 293:
|
Feb 7 18:20 UTC 2002 |
oops.
|
pgreen
|
|
response 163 of 293:
|
Feb 8 01:33 UTC 2002 |
#!/usr/bin/expect -f
set timeout -1;
set name twill
set host cyberspace.org
set password aqq1#y
proc login {phost user pass} {
spawn ssh $phost -l $user
expect "password:"
send "$pass\n"
return $spawn_id
}
set spawn_id [login $host $name $password];
expect "$ "
send "bbs\n"
set item
while {$item <= 146} {
expect "Ok: "
send "r $item\n"
send "
"
send "r\n"
expect ">"
send "Hi, I'm Twill!\n"
send ".\n"
incr item
}
|
morwen
|
|
response 164 of 293:
|
Feb 8 02:41 UTC 2002 |
resp:139 I don't mind free expression. Express yourself all you want,
just express yourself where I don't have to look if I don't want to,
thanks.
|
jp2
|
|
response 165 of 293:
|
Feb 8 03:11 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
janc
|
|
response 166 of 293:
|
Feb 8 03:25 UTC 2002 |
Is that an expect script? Seems like massive technological overkill. This
isn't a task requiring intelligence. How about this:
Open some kind of text editor window on your computer. Type
Hi, I'm Twill!
.
Hi, I'm Twill!
.
Hi, I'm Twill!
.
Hi, I'm Twill!
.
Copy those eight lines into your cut/paste buffer, including the newlines
at the end of each.
Telnet to Grex, and enter the bbs. Type
set noedalways
read all nor forceresponse
Hit the paste button repeatedly. Each click will probably post the message
to four items. Shouldn't take more than a few minutes to do the whole
conference. The whole job should take fewer keystrokes than typing the
expect script.
|
pgreen
|
|
response 167 of 293:
|
Feb 8 03:36 UTC 2002 |
Yeah, but that would have required me to gain knowledge of the commands shown
above. While it is certainly more efficient and quick to execute, neither of
those were included in my goals. Also, I use SSH!
|
gull
|
|
response 168 of 293:
|
Feb 8 03:49 UTC 2002 |
Besides, you know the sysadmin code. "If you have to do it more than
twice, automate it."
|
jep
|
|
response 169 of 293:
|
Feb 8 14:08 UTC 2002 |
For the last couple of days, the response box in Backtalk has been
using robot characters. I don't know what the font is, but it's a 60's
computer font looking type of character. The comma doesn't descend
below the line and looks like a miniature "L" on it's side...
I thought it was my computer, but realized this morning it's happening
for both my home and work computers, so it's probably not a change I
made.
I'd guess this is part of the upgrade to 1.1.11, and that it's not
intentional. Please fix it! Oh, my eyes...
|
gull
|
|
response 170 of 293:
|
Feb 8 14:51 UTC 2002 |
Hmm...the text entry boxes used to be Courier on my system. Now they
appear to be Lucidia Console. Interesting...I had no idea that font
could be controlled by anything but browser settings. Lucidia Console
isn't any worse looking then Courier, really, but it's an optional
Microsoft font and other systems may substitute one that isn't so
pleasant. Courier is less of a problem since pretty much every system
will have it.
|
jazz
|
|
response 171 of 293:
|
Feb 8 16:30 UTC 2002 |
CSS, baby, yo.
|
remmers
|
|
response 172 of 293:
|
Feb 8 18:33 UTC 2002 |
Yep. The source of backtalk pages now has a <STYLE> tag with
contents: TEXTAREA {font-family: monospace;}
|
jep
|
|
response 173 of 293:
|
Feb 8 19:13 UTC 2002 |
Is there any way to configure my browser to make it give me a more
reasonable choice for the font?
|
jazz
|
|
response 174 of 293:
|
Feb 8 19:40 UTC 2002 |
Most browsers have a setting to override a document's specified fonts
with whatever you have set; whether, and how, this works, depends on the
browser.
|
janc
|
|
response 175 of 293:
|
Feb 8 22:38 UTC 2002 |
Interesting. I discovered that there are now a lot of browsers that default
to using a proportional font in TEXTAREA boxes. (Mac versions of IE, for
example). This has really obnoxious effects, because responses are
*displayed* in a proportional font, but the input wrapping is based on a
proportional font. Really icky.
So I used a style sheet to force TEXTAREAs to use a monospaced font. It sets
the font to "monospace" rather than any monospaced fant in particular because
I was figuring that that would be whatever monospaced font is prefered by the
browser. Obviously Some browsers are doing something different. I shouldn't
be surprised.
This is easy to change to something different. I'm open to advice what
should be used. Courier?
|
pgreen
|
|
response 176 of 293:
|
Feb 9 00:46 UTC 2002 |
Wingdings.
|
other
|
|
response 177 of 293:
|
Feb 9 02:45 UTC 2002 |
I never noticed a difference (mac/NS4.7).
I use monaco-9pt. as my monospace font, and all the plain text on my
backtalk pages is displayed in it.
There is a setting in most browsers' options to determine what font and
size the browser uses for monospace and proportional defaults. You may
have other options, depending on your browser.
|
