Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2000:April:27 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2000/4/27-29 [Computer/Networking, Computer/SW/Unix] UID:18124 Activity:high 72%like:18122
4/26    I have one IP address on my DSL line.  I have three computers
        on my LAN.  I want to be able to telnet into any of these from
        an outside IP address.  How do I do this?  [Question re-phrased]
        [Does anyone know of a product that can route more than one domain
        on one ip?  I know this is possible with virtual hosting.  Im trying
        to set up three computers I can telnet to on my DSL line, which only
        comes with one static ip.]
        \_ This question makes no sense.  What you've seen is web virtual
           hosting but given that your DSL provider only provided you one
           IP address you cannot create 3 new IP addresses visible to the
           outside world.  The best you can do is create a subnet
           (192.168.*.*) and have a computer (Linux IPmasq, NAT, WinGate,
           whatever) perfrom some sort of network translation.  The reason
           why web server virtual hosting works is because it's really
           using the same IP address but the URL that the web browser sends
           to the server hints to which directory to look at.  For example,
                      suggest NAT software in which the telnet remaps are
           if I have a web page at I can request that
           dnai set up virtual hosting so that when a browser asks for
  it will actually return to the browser
  instead (although the person surfing the
           web can tell this).  How that's done is simply adding a DNS entry
           and reconfiguring the web serer.  But most services don't do
           that.  You cannot map a host name to an internal firewall's IP's
           port.  For example, you cannot create a DNS entry called
           <DEAD><DEAD> to map to <DEAD><DEAD>:22.
           If you want to be able to telnet to your three internal
           computers protected by the firewall, you can setup portforwarding
           which is supported by many OS's.  So you can have a port listenig
           on port 1234 of your firewall so that when you do a
           > telnet <DEAD><DEAD> 1234
           it will send all the packets to your internal computer.
        \_ I know Win2K server can do this, because I have it working now
           with your situation.  Incidentally, I asked the same question
           on the motd half a year ago and the responses I got were
           the equivalent of "huh, fux0r?" and "fux0r me".
                \_ Win2K isn't magic - any NAT software can do this, but
                   you'll have to map different ports to different hosts
                   (i.e. telnet NAT 23 goes to host a, telnet NAT 123 to
                    host b, telnet NAT 223 to host c)
                   \_ Yeah, but Win2K has it nicely dumbed down.  Please
                      suggest software in which the telnet remaps are
                      easy with the matching OS name.  Thanks! =)
           \_ uh, the "product" that can "route" more than one domain to
              one IP is called "DNS", and that doesn't stand for "Digital
              Nervous System" you stooge.  -tom
              \_ tom, as you've pointed out, the question has some problems.
                 Nevertheless, you can set up Win2K server to route
                 telnets to your single DSL IP to an IP in your internal LAN.
        \_ the question is stupid and will be deleted in about 20 minutes.
                \_ Don't be a doofus.  The guy just wants to know how to do
                   NAT.  Just because he doesn't know the exact right question
                   to ask doesn't make it a stupid question.  If he knew
                   what NAT was he probably wouldn't have had to ask how to
                   do it.
                   \_ No he doesn't you doofus. You cannot solve this with
                     NAT, because he stated he has ONE IP ADDRESS globally.
                     You need a reverse-proxy, or plug-gw, on a
                     real operating system.
                        \_ A real OS, NAT, and DNS and he's fine.  WTF's your
                           problem?  _I_ wasn't the one talking about win2k.
                           \_ Win2K is a real OS. Oh shit, no it isn't. Sorry.

                              his requirements with NAT.
                              You might want to actually READ the requirements
                              this time.
                              \_ Person A is mad about other people being mad;
                                 Person B is mad about "NAT" term usage.
        \_ how about a home gateway? 2 Wire is suppose to come out
           with something this spring:
           \_ Please tell me of inexpensive, easy port forwarding software
              for Windoze|Linux|Slowaris.  Thx.
                \_ does a nice job.
                   Otherwise, freebsd comes with ipfw and natd.  Linux
                   I believe  comes with some weird ipmasq stuff.  I've
                   found ipfilter (comes with a component called ipnat)
                   to be pretty fast and straightforward.  -John
                   \_ Thanks, John!  Now if only there weren't so many
                      root kits lying around for all the Unix boxes.
                      \_ Did you plan on installing and out-of-date UNIX
                         base system, with all of the default software
                         turned on, so one of these rootkits would actually
                         be a problem?
            \_ But of course, you'll be forwarding to port 22, since you
               should use ssh instead of telnet.
2000/4/27-5/2 [Uncategorized] UID:18125 Activity:nil
04/27 --==<        Tuesday, May 2nd, 5pm, 337 Soda Hall       >==--
           \         Fall 2000 Politburo Elections           /
2000/4/27-29 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:18126 Activity:high
4/26    Can anyone recommend an 8x write CD-RW drive?  Also, are those
        cheap SCSI cards that sometimes come with the retail model adequate?
        Thanks in advance.
        \_ Sony has a 8/4/32 IDE drive for like $260 or so.  Dunno if your
           spec demanded "8x REwrite" or just 8x write.  --sowings
        \_ Nothing beats Plextor. I'm doing 12X CD to CD while playing q3!
           \_ Nothing beats the high Plextor prices either.
              \_ Damn you people are cheap! Always bitching about
                 Plextor's prices and not even mentioning the quality. A
                 Plextor 20/8/2 internal SCSI drive is ~$300. How much
                 less do you want to pay?! It's not much more than HP,
                 \_ Well, what do you think of mini SCSI cards?
                 S&F, Sony, etc. (about $50). Do you want a *good* drive
                 or a *cheap* drive? --dim
                 \_ Quality?  You're either dreaming or using someone else's
                    money.  The parts are the same in every device.  My cheap
                    ass $99 brandless throw-away has *never* failed.  Maybe
                    I'd agree with you if I was spending someone else's
                    money, too.
2000/4/27-28 [Recreation/Dating, Reference/Law/Court, Transportation] UID:18127 Activity:nil
2000/4/27-28 [Transportation/Car] UID:18128 Activity:nil
2000/4/27-29 [Uncategorized] UID:18129 Activity:moderate
4/27    I just moved to Fremont and subsribed recycling service from BFI.
        How come they recycle newspaper separately from "mixed paper"?
        \_ Because BFI is an anagram for FBI and they're really in it
           to rumage through your trash.
        \_ Flowers By Irene
2000/4/27-29 [Consumer/CellPhone] UID:18130 Activity:high
4/27    There are plenty of companies making "hands-free" car cellphone
        adapters.  Are there any that have voice-activation as well ? As
        in, just press a button, say "Dial XXX-YYYY" and then talk ?
        \_ I have a Samsung that will record your voice, but it doesn't really
           do voice recognition.  It just compares a name you say to all
           of the recordings (max 20) in its memory.  -- mikeym
        \_ even hands free using a cell phone in a car is bad.  You still
           aren't paying attention ot the road.  And yes it is different than
           holding a conversation with a passenger.
          \_ bull sh*t - KnightRider
           \_ I agree.  It's very distracting to use a cell-phone
              and drive.  I park somewhere when I need to talk
              on the phone.  -- mikeym
           \_ depends very much on the driver.  one friend can hardly
              chew gum and steer, while another can do a slalom while
              shooting pop-up targets on the sidewalk and sequencing
              the spark-plug firing on a toggle-board on his dash.
              \_ I don't think that's the point.  Even a very good driver
                 still drives worse when talking on a cell-phone.  It's
                 normally not a big deal, but if you have to make a split-
                 second decision to avoid an accident, it might slow you
                 down just enough that you can't avoid it.  -- mikeym
                        \_ Yup. That's why there's a law in France that
                                bans the use of cellphones while driving.
                 \_ I can't wait until the stupid cell phone using bastards
                    start getting tickets for that stupid shit.  Pull over.
                    Nothing on your phone could be that important.  Cell
                    phone users have similar accident rates to DUI's.
                \_ OBGetaFuckingClue.  DUIs kill 18,000 per year.
                 \_ your risk analysis is flawed. there are all sorts of
                    things that inhibit driving ability, and there is
                    more variance in the licensed driver population than
                    caused by the phone. stupid/unwise people should
                    stop being allowed to drive.  i drive better w/ my
                    phone earbud than many do while doped up on their
                    cold medicine and/or antihistamines, for example.
        \_ Actually, I've used a fully handsfree cellphone in a car with
        voice recognition and find it's just like talking to a passenger,
        since you only talk, don't need to look away from the road and
        just have a conversation like that.  So I assume this product does
        not exist ... -eric
        \_ actually it isn't the same thing.  1) when talking to a passenger
           the passenger in the car is aware of the sitation around the
           vehicle.  They naturally stop talking when things look like
           they might get hairy.  2) People tend to pay less attention to
           the road when talking over a phone than when talking in person.
           Hands free operation has nothing to do with it.
                \_ When I am talking hands-free (never use the handset...)
                   and driving at the same time, sometimes I just say
                   "shut up i gotta drive" or some equivalent shorter
                   thing and let the person on the other end of the line
                   stew for a while. I don't think it's just like talking
                   with a passenger, but I try not to let passengers OR cell
                   phone conversants intrude on my conversation when I am
                   trying to drive.  -brg
2000/4/27-29 [Uncategorized] UID:18131 Activity:very high
4/27    Anybody read Michael Crichton's "Timeline"?  How was it?  And would
        you recommend it?  thanks.
        \_ I liked it. Easy reading, interesting storyline, lame physics talk,
           and abrubt ending.
        \_ this is trash, not high lit.  You just pick up a copy and see
           if you like it.  You need recomendations for a book that you will
           forget in a week?
        \_ It's VERY fast reading.  Sit down a couple of days at B&N and
           you'll finish it.  Not his best work, though.  The physics,
           as someone else mentioned, is lame.  The ending is ridiculous.
           He wrote himself into a corner and used a contrived plot
           gimmick to end.  Utterly predictable.
        \_ Stupid Americans.  Read real literature, like Dostoyevsky or
           \_ Reading lit obviously doesn't make you a better person.
           \_ Been there, done that.  Now let me get back to my NY Times
                \_ Eye of Argon is the only Literature I'll ever need.  -John
              \_ Please summarize the plot of Brothers Karamazov.  Feel
                 free to leave it in /tmp somewhere.  I am curious about
                 your claims.
                 \_ Why put in /tmp what you could put in motd.public?
                    Better yet, don't summarize; append the whole thing! --pld
                 \_ Pointless.  You can find this sort of stuff all over
                    the net.  Who is to say *you* ever read it either?  How
                    about you put your summary in /tmp?
                    \_ I trust you not to do that.  The offer still stands.
                        \_ You're an idiot.  No one needs to prove anything
                           to you and you haven't made an offer.
                           \_ Little man.  You have read nothing.
                                \_ You're an idiot.  Still trying to figure
                                   out why anyone would leave you a plot
                                   summary in /tmp.  Maybe you're just a
           \_ Shakespeare and Dostoyevsky?  How middle brow.  Can we be
              even more obvious?  How about a rainy afternoon with James
              Joyce and the Dubliners?  or chill with Nietzsche and
              Zarathustra when you've just been snubbed by the salesgirl
              at Macy's?  and for added contrast, some Edgar Allen Poe
              while sunbathing on the beach?  Ah, how pristine the bygone
              eras of unfeigned vulgarity when people read Lolita because
              they thought it was porn.
                \_ I read everyday.  Does that count?
              \_ Hey this is pretty funny.  You post like (fucker) but with
                 a stick up your ass.  -(fucker)'s #1 fan
                 \_ Better yet,  -John
2000/4/27-29 [Recreation/Dating] UID:18132 Activity:high
4/27    This guy has been using our color xerox late at night to make copies
        of quality porn. Should I report him, or share the wealth?
        \_ If they're of kchang, share the wealth.
        \_ does it really have better print quality than hustler?
           Either the guy is broke, or dumb, or he has a business
           seling cheaply printed porn on the side.
        \_ Anonymously turn his ass in.
           \_ but how will you convince him to sit on the xerox?
                \_ Point him towards  -John
2000/4/27-29 [Computer/SW/Languages, Computer/SW/Unix] UID:18133 Activity:high
4/27    "cat * > foo" in a directory containing < 50k produces a >10M file
        that exceeds my quota.  Whatup?
        \_ maybe it's hitting ".." too
        \_ does your directory include a file called foo perchance?
        \_ No.  redirecting to "bar" returns the same error.
         \_ Hint: * includes foo. --oj
        \_ No it does not.  if foo exists, the shell complains if i try to
        write to foo.  I'm trying to cat a bunch of numbered files (ie
        named 1, 2, 3,...) into a file of any given name.
           \_ Yes it does.  Try "ls * > foo" and you'll see foo being listed
              inside itself.  -- yuen
           \_ The shell creates "foo" with zero size before expanding '*'
              \_ depends on your shell. ksh under solaris, for example,
              \_ Depends on your shell. ksh under solaris, for example,
                 does the expansion FIRST. But then, ksh is generally
                 more intelligent than csh anyway.
        \_  you're creating an interesting feedback loop/race condition.  If
                                                    \_ foo
            you did it in a dir where foo was the first file listed by *
            then you might get nothing interesting. If theres enough in
            files listed before foo to fill your write cache, it goes
            into a loop of writing foo onto itself.  Until somethin like
            an over-quota error stops it.   This kind of thing is useful
            if you want to, for example, write a big file to a disk until
            it is completely full. -ERic
        \_ Aah, this makes sense.  I've done stuff like this before with no
                probs, but it was the number files screwing things up.
                Incidentally, `cat * > .foo` and cat * > %foo` worked fine.
            \_ dd if=/dev/zero of=largefile
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2000:April:27 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>