response 18 of 111:

Jun 28 06:05 UTC 2003

re#13:  That is cute but really pretty stupid when you think about it.
More often than not it is a stupid program that is trying to figure out
the service version so while it will not give away the exact suite of
exploits to deploy it does flag the site for investigation by a human.
The key is to not be noticed or be noticed wrong.  You are far better
off having a service lie and return a legitimate version on a different
architecture than amuse yourself over how clever you are.  At the very
least you should lie and return the most current version especially as
it is likely a clever scanner knows yer OS anyway.  You don't really
want to be seen as a challenge by folk that probably also spend a lot of
time playing games and so would regard you as an interesting one.
Don't play the game in the first place.  Don't spend your stockholder's
money playing the game against someone who likely as not lives at home
with his parents and has a small allowance - its really irresponsible. 
(pardon me for being so irresponsible as to give such away for free that
I usually charge good money for but I couldn't resist.)

response 20 of 111:

Jun 29 02:37 UTC 2003

AAAAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHH! No.

response 22 of 111:

Jun 29 14:58 UTC 2003

Could get http://www.aophe.fsnet.co.uk to work :-(

response 24 of 111:

Jun 29 15:13 UTC 2003

http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/

response 26 of 111:

Jun 30 12:49 UTC 2003

re resp:19: You're using the apostrophe to alert your reader to the 
upcoming "s", which is not necessary.

But it doesn't matter.  If someone writes of using too many Ps or P's, 
it conveys the same information.

People are too uptight about aged rules of grammar.  Just be 
appreciative when people can make themselves understood -- it's hard 
enough to do that for too many people.  Anyway, the language is going 
to change and evolve.  So are rules of spelling, grammar and 
punctuation.

Drew in resp:16 provides a great example of when to "break" the rules 
as they've been taught to you.  If you can make a sentence more clear, 
then that should trump a formal rule, every time and without 
hesitation.  

response 28 of 111:

Jun 30 15:45 UTC 2003

Services on my servers tend to be pretty quiet about their version
numbers.  I suppose it could be argued that having my Exim mail server
return, say, some old version of Sendmail would be better than having it
just give a bare minimum connection banner, but given the number of
sites around that blatently advertise that they're running a buggy
version of sendmail I figure most script kiddies will just move on to
easier targets.

response 30 of 111:

Jun 30 16:17 UTC 2003

Re #26:  Best to use an apostrophe to pluralize letters, I think.  An
added "s" without the apostrophe tends to make things pretty ambiguous and
hard-to-read.  Consider:

        Always dot your is and cross your ts.  (confusing, looks weird)
        Always dot your i's and cross your t's.  (much clearer)

        The sentence contains several us.  (huh?)
        The sentence contains several u's.  (oh...)

response 32 of 111:

Jun 30 17:32 UTC 2003

What, you don't think jep will be sending his kids out with directions
to study and capture the latest examples of emerging slang in the wild
so he can publish his latest book, "Even more English Slang"?

response 34 of 111:

Jun 30 19:05 UTC 2003

(It should be "If a person *that* usually doesn't......"      /bug)

response 36 of 111:

Jun 30 20:10 UTC 2003

I've already been through language assaults.  When my older boy was in 
2nd grade, he'd actually catch himself saying something normal, then 
change it to sound like his friends.  For example, "I prefer chocolate 
ice ... oops, I mean, I'm *like* chocolate ice cream."

It grated on me.  I'll be going through it again soon, I suppose, and 
it'll grate on me all over again.  Parenting is the process of being 
grated on until you can be sprinkled like cheese.  (Hmm, that doesn't 
mean anything, does it?)

response 38 of 111:

Jun 30 23:44 UTC 2003

Re #35: both are correct. You are using the non-restrictive or
non-defining relative pronoun who, and I used the restrictive or defining
relative pronoun that. Notice the necessity of your using a comma, while
what I wrote never uses a comma.

The restrictive is somewhat better, as "...a person, who usually doesn't
make errors..." can imply that *every* "a person" usually doesn't make
errors, which is untrue. However if it were specific, say "...Mr. 
Dumbledore, who usually doesn't make errors...", and we know who Mr. 
Dumbledore is, then it is OK.

response 40 of 111:

Jul 1 05:30 UTC 2003

"...for all intensive purposes..."   WRONG!
"...for all intents and purposes..."    RIGHT!