«

That is great. Could you please cc it to ? Thank you very much!
"you mean dutch?" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "William L. Sun" <> wrote in message
> news:Kg_Nd.11878$6u.5041@fed1read02...
> > Thank you very much for your help. Here is the english version. Please
> take
> > your time to do it.
>
> I'll send the translated FAQ to firewalls-
>
>
>
>

"William L. Sun" <> wrote in message
news:FrjOd.12297$6u.7174@fed1read02...
> That is great. Could you please cc it to ? Thank you very
much!

no. I'm not willing to send it by email anymore, not even a post in a
newsgroup.
Some people ( Jim Watt, winged ) are writing a lot of negative stuff about
your posting in other newsgroups. So, I did some research; joined some other
newsgroups. Yes, the next time I'm offering something I'll do that first.

You are not named on http://www.compuwar.net/pubs/fwfaq/ or
http://www.interhack.net/pubs/fwfaq/;
your email address isn't linked to interhack or compuwar, you are not a
contributor, etc.
There is a norwegian FAQ, but that one isn't post in the newsgroups!! I'm
not willing to translate 42 pages just for your fun. I thought it was
serious.

Thanks winged and Jim, you saved me a lot of translation time. I did read a
lot of the FAQ and I think it could be half the lenght as it is today. It
has a lot of Unix stuff in it and not much M$ (= windows) related. I don't
agree with the writings about DMZ or even about the firewall basics. There
must be information in the FAQ about the one way XP firewall ( a terrible
construction and why it's terrible. To much people say "I have a firewall
protecting me"; but have lots of active trojans on there pc because XP isn't
interested in blocking outgoing information. You could stop the M$
phone-home information ).
I miss the today's combination router and firewall; much attacks are
blocked by the router and not by the firewall. The FAQ gives a lot of
information about routers, but not enough ( VPN is missing ; wireless
security is missing)

>> We wrote this FAQ for computer systems developers and administrators (
FAQ 1.2 )

okee, but if there security knowledge is that low they should have end-user
privilages and NO administrator rights (never!).
I think the FAQ was good 10 years ago but not for today's security.

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:17:16 +0100, "ypu mean dutch?" <>
wrote:

>I think the FAQ was good 10 years ago but not for today's security.

Nothing against those who speak languages other than English
but newgroups are really for discussion rather than lengthy reference
material in multiple languages and machine translation generates
spam rather than useful information.
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com

In alt.computer.security Jim Watt <_way> wrote:
> Nothing against those who speak languages other than English
> but newgroups are really for discussion rather than lengthy reference
> material in multiple languages and machine translation generates
> spam rather than useful information.

Perhaps you ought to reconsider your definition of "spam."

It does not mean "stuff I do not want to read."

-E

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 09:01:25 -0600, wrote:

>In alt.computer.security Jim Watt <_way> wrote:
>> Nothing against those who speak languages other than English
>> but newgroups are really for discussion rather than lengthy reference
>> material in multiple languages and machine translation generates
>> spam rather than useful information.
>
>Perhaps you ought to reconsider your definition of "spam."

I know a lot about it and wrote a Spam analysis program
in 1969, errr what were you doing at the time?

>It does not mean "stuff I do not want to read."

The stuff posted is stuff nobody wants to read and is
inappropriate content.

--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com

In article <>,
Jim Watt <_way> wrote:
:On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 09:01:25 -0600, wrote:

:>Perhaps you ought to reconsider your definition of "spam."

:I know a lot about it and wrote a Spam analysis program
:in 1969, errr what were you doing at the time?

What were you doing writing a Spam analysis program before the
first spam existed?

http://www.multicians.org/thvv/mail-history.html

"There was an earlier mass electronic mail message sent to a large
community of unwilling readers [my definition of spam] that predates
the 1978 DEC spam. This message was sent using CTSS MAIL about 1971, at
a time of campus unrest and anti-war rallies."

The first IMPs weren't even delivered until August 1969, and though
MIT's single-system email system predates that, there is no
recorded history of spam before 1971, and no recorded history
of commercial spam before 1978.
--
Caution: A subset of the statements in this message may be
tautologically true.

In alt.computer.security Jim Watt <_way> wrote:
> I know a lot about it and wrote a Spam analysis program
> in 1969, errr what were you doing at the time?

You a time traveller?

Spam dates back at *best* to the late 70's.

I have personally been an ardent spamfighter since the mid 90's. I know
what the stuff is, and what it is not.

> >It does not mean "stuff I do not want to read."
>
> The stuff posted is stuff nobody wants to read and is
> inappropriate content.

"Inappropriate content" != "Spam."

Some inappropriate content is Spam. What you were complaining about was
not Spam. It was noise.

Such overuse of the label "Spam" dilutes the meaning of the term.

-Ed

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:42:52 -0600, wrote:

>In alt.computer.security Jim Watt <_way> wrote:

>> I know a lot about it and wrote a Spam analysis program
>> in 1969, errr what were you doing at the time?
>
>You a time traveller?
>
>Spam dates back at *best* to the late 70's.

1937 to be precise.

>I have personally been an ardent spamfighter since the mid 90's.

Ah a newcomer to computers.

>I know what the stuff is, and what it is not.

Clearly you don't.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,
`it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so
many different things.'
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com

Followup-To: set to comp.security.misc

In article <oqKdnR1yXJxYuJffRVn->, wrote:

>Perhaps you ought to reconsider your definition of "spam."

Why? There is a perfectly adequate on posted weekly to
news.admin.net-abuse.bulletins,
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,
news.admin.net-abuse.sightings,
news.admin.net-abuse.misc,
news.answers

called "FAQ: Current Usenet spam thresholds and guidelines" (all 162
lines of it). By that document, this junk didn't hit the definition of
spam, only because it was only spewed to a "few" groups. It's certainly
going to hit the BI=20 threshold if posted again (it's at 13 in seven
days by my count right now).

The idiot posted the same articles to multiple newsgroups, without
bothering to see if this was normal or on-topic for those groups, never
mind setting a followup header. I also notice that he doesn't seem to
have paid attention to earlier negative responses a week ago in the group
'comp.security.firewalls' where it probably was somewhat closer to being
on topic though equally unwanted. The fact that it seems to be a poorly
written document incompetently "translated" isn't relevant to the _spam_
issue though certainly relevant to the _abuse_ issue. But it's obviously
a classic example of wasted bandwidth.

He posted from a cable connection - hopefully Cox canceled his account
for abuse complaints - ignoring the fact that the documents are seen
world wide, and that some people don't have wide bandwidth connections,
and that some people AND COMPANIES pay for the number of bytes received.

Old guy

In alt.computer.security Jim Watt <_way> wrote:
> >I have personally been an ardent spamfighter since the mid 90's.
>
> Ah a newcomer to computers.

Nope. I've been using these things a lot longer than that. Apparently
reading comprehension is not your strong point.

> >I know what the stuff is, and what it is not.
>
> Clearly you don't.
>
> `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,
> `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
>
> `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so
> many different things.'

If you insist on making up new meanings for words that are at odds with
the accepted definitions, you will continue to have difficulty communicating
effectively with others.

-Ed