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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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, [EMAIL PROTECTED],) 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 11:51 PM > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: [OT]: UUCP > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Joris Lambrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- John Conover Tel. 408.370.2688 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 631 Lamont Ct. Cel. 408.772.7733 http://www.johncon.com/ Campbell, CA 95008 Fax. 408.379.9602 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
