Searching \ for '[OT] PCB etching experience' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/pcbs.htm?key=pcb
Search entire site for: 'PCB etching experience'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] PCB etching experience'
2010\06\09@100255 by Rolf

flavicon
face
Hi Vitaliy.

Just for your records, when I click on your links (using Firefox), I get
warnings that your site is a "Reported Attack Page!"

See this for what I mean:

http://www.reportedattacksitehelp.com/

Rolf

On 26/02/2010 5:23 PM, Vitaliy wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2010\06\09@102055 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Rolf wrote:
> Hi Vitaliy.
>
> Just for your records, when I click on your links (using Firefox), I
> get warnings that your site is a "Reported Attack Page!"
>
> See this for what I mean:
>
> http://www.reportedattacksitehelp.com/

Please next time don't top post.  If you hadn't, it would have been easy to
include your quote of Vitaliy's links in this message.  The links Vitaliy
posted were just JPG files, which I don't think can contain malware as they
don't contain executable code or any kind of script.

In any case, the site you referenced is not technically a attack site, but
is long on hype and short on any real information other than trying to get
you to buy the book they're selling.  Seems rather more annoying than any
JPG to me.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\06\09@104947 by Isaac Marino Bavaresco

flavicon
face
Em 9/6/2010 11:21, Olin Lathrop escreveu:
> Rolf wrote:
>  
>> Hi Vitaliy.
>>
>> Just for your records, when I click on your links (using Firefox), I
>> get warnings that your site is a "Reported Attack Page!"
>>
>> See this for what I mean:
>>
>> http://www.reportedattacksitehelp.com/
>>    
> Please next time don't top post.  If you hadn't, it would have been easy to
> include your quote of Vitaliy's links in this message.  The links Vitaliy
> posted were just JPG files, which I don't think can contain malware as they
> don't contain executable code or any kind of script.
>  

Yes, JPG files may contain malware. Have you ever heard of buffer
overflow attack?
Several programs (and browsers) that display JPG (and other formats)
files are badly written and can be attacked by an expertly tailored file
that it is displaying.

Isaac

__________________________________________________
Fale com seus amigos  de graça com o novo Yahoo! Messenger
http://br.messenger.yahoo.com/

2010\06\09@112101 by Rolf

flavicon
face
Thanks for expressing your opinion. I am sure you think it is important.
As for it's value to the rest of us, it is limited.

You repeatedly express the 'Fact' that top posting is wrong. In fact,
you are sadly mistaken. While you, as an individual, may object to top
posting there is in fact absolutely no 'standard' or 'right' or 'wrong'
way to do it. There is not formal standard for top/bottom/interleaved
replies, but, Wikipedia provides at least an objective 'discussion' of
the alternatives.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style

As far as I can tell, the only 'objectionable' thing to do is to clutter
up mailing lists with complaints about top posting and bottom posting.
It is asinine and immature.

For the record, next time, please bottom post so that I don't have to
re-read stuff I wrote in order to find what your opinions are.

In any case, you added absolutely zero value in your response, in fact,
you did worse than not add value, you added mis-information. So I
believe the 'annoyingness' factor of having to read your reply, which
just criticises me for trying to be helpful, was substantial.

To correct your mis-information: the site I linked to is not supposed to
be an attack site.....   apparently, Vitaliy's site is an attack site,
and the site I linked to gives some information as to why Google may
think it is such. If you re-read my reply (which I put at the top of the
mail so that it is convenient to find) you will see that indeed the link
I put is not an attack site.... To quote what I said earlier (to Vitaliy):

Just for your records, when I click on your links (using Firefox), I get warnings that your site is a "Reported Attack Page!"



One last thing, before you continue in your quest on whining about 'the
right way' to do things in mailing lists, you really, really, really
should fix your mail systems so that you get your mail headers right.

After informing you years ago that you or your mail processing systems
truncate the mail headers in mailes with header lines longer than about
255 characters you have still not rectified your processes. I think your
response at the time was... hang on, I'll dig it up... ah, yest,
perfect.... This is a direct quote from you:

From you, Olin, dated 7 July 2008:
==== quote =====

Perfectly standards compliant and a good idea are two different things.  I
know that my POP3 server apparently truncates lines at 256 characters, and
that is wrong.  The standard guarantees 1024 if I remember right, but
"encourages" more.  So to be truly standards compliant, a mailer would still
have to deal with paragraphs that are longer than 1024 characters and break
them up somehow.

Once again, whether the standard says you need to or not, to write email
that the broadest possible audience can reliably read, send it in plain
ASCII text with lines not exceeding 80 characters unless necessary (like a
long URL, for example).  You can be right or you can be effective.  Pick
one.

==== End Quote =====

So, you freely admit that you know your mail system is not compliant,
and that you can be right or effective, and you chose (in your opinion)
effective. The fact is, you are wrong, and you are happy with that....

Most recently, even today, your mail client produced the message with
the headers:

Message-ID:<01b101cb0703$588b94b0$0300a8c0@main>
From: "Olin Lathrop"<spam_OUTolin_piclistTakeThisOuTspamembedinc.com>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public."<.....piclistKILLspamspam@spam@mit.edu>
References:<AANLkTilCX1w8YawNTqiGdXEonUCfppOEfdR1IQEmXus6spamKILLspammail.gmail.com><.....4C0CBBE4.4080602KILLspamspam.....radioway.org><EraseMEAANLkTinYqdv0hflc4PRG3-gqwVS1yIQPqJecmX3Y_XLHspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmail.gmail.com><005601cb0640$653421a0$0300a8c0@main>
       <AANLkTinRx_aC5gbo4AIxhnwuF_kKyiH_3TSTSnRmjcFB@mail
Subject: Re: [PIC] adc on usart
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 08:08:45 -0400


The 'References' Header in the above mail is incomplete because your
mail client, or some other component in your mail system, has truncated
it. Now, there really is a standard for e-mail, RFC2822, and it clearly
states three relevant things:
1. The longest valid line of text in an e-mail is 998 characters plus
the /r/n making a total of 1000 characters (see section 2.1.1 of
RFC2822). For the convenience of some mail readers it is suggested that
lines should not be longer than 78 characters (plus the /r/n).
2. If a header contains a large value this value may be 'folded' on
multiple lines (section 2.2.3) by continuing the value on subsequen
lines in the e-mail with the condition that these additional lines begin
with whitespace (either tab \t or space ' '). This allows for
arbitrarily large header values.
3. Specifically, the 'References' Header (as described in 3.6.4) is a
'structured' header, and it *should* consist of one or more message ID's
if the mail is a reply message.

Now, the message you sent above indicates that your mail software is not
compliant with RFC2822. Specifically, it appears that it failed to
process the unfolding of the References line of the message you replied
to. But, more significantly, your message does not contain a list of
valid Mail ID's as part of the References header, Specifically, the last
content of your message is an incomplete mailid, thus indicating that
your mail system is deficient.

So, When you sprout your opinions about the right and wrong way to
compose e-mail messages, you may want to first consider that you are
simply declaring your opinion as fact, and that it still remains just
your opinion. But, further, your own mail systems are incapable of
processing e-mails according to the very real, factual, and standardized
RFC2822.

Your opinions about Electrical Engineering are based on experience and
eduction that far exceeds mine, and I would never attempt to suggest you
were wrong in such matters, but, when it comes to e-mail messages (and
human interaction), I believe my qualifications are on at least a par
with yours, and that, in the case of e-mail etiquette and standards, you
are simply just plain wrong.

I believe I have pointed out your misunderstandings and
misconfigurations of e-mail etiquette before, and I have previously gone
to significant lengths to try to explain how your mail processing
systems are failing, but, it seems that you need reminding that your
track record of mail handling is abysmal.

Stick with what you know as fact.

Rolf

On 09/06/2010 10:21 AM, Olin Lathrop wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2010\06\09@112604 by Alex Harford

face picon face
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Rolf <rolfspamspam_OUTtuis.net> wrote:
> Hi Vitaliy.
>
> Just for your records, when I click on your links (using Firefox), I get
> warnings that your site is a "Reported Attack Page!"
>
> See this for what I mean:
>
> http://www.reportedattacksitehelp.com/
>
> Rolf

I think there is some malicious javascript inserted into the page.  It
looks like it was put through an obfuscator.

2010\06\09@114027 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Isaac Marino Bavaresco" <@spam@isaacbavarescoKILLspamspamyahoo.com.br>
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 3:49 PM
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <KILLspampiclistKILLspamspammit.edu>
Subject: Re: [OT] PCB etching experience

{Quote hidden}

Yes, JPGs can't execute code "by themselves" but can be used to target
vulnerabilities in software that displays them (like buffer overflow as
mentioned - headers can be falsified etc to cause this) Most decent software
*should* prevent such attacks, but you can never be 100% sure.




2010\06\09@114841 by Alex Harford

face picon face
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Oli Glaser <RemoveMEoli.glaserTakeThisOuTspamtalktalk.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>> The links Vitaliy
>>> posted were just JPG files, which I don't think can contain malware as
>>> they
>>> don't contain executable code or any kind of script.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, JPG files may contain malware. Have you ever heard of buffer
>> overflow attack?
>> Several programs (and browsers) that display JPG (and other formats)
>> files are badly written and can be attacked by an expertly tailored file
>> that it is displaying.
>>
>
> Yes, JPGs can't execute code "by themselves" but can be used to target
> vulnerabilities in software that displays them (like buffer overflow as
> mentioned - headers can be falsified etc to cause this) Most decent software
> *should* prevent such attacks, but you can never be 100% sure.

While I agree with the details about the JPG attacks being possible,
Firefox simply matches the *domain* with a blacklist, the warnings
aren't URL specific.  If you go to http://maksimov.org/ you get the
same warning.

2010\06\09@120151 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Rolf wrote:
> You repeatedly express the 'Fact' that top posting is wrong.

It is a fact that it's very annoying to many, and the majority of list
members if I remember right.

A: Top posters.
Q: Who are the most annoying people on a mailing list?

> To correct your mis-information: the site I linked to is not supposed
> to be an attack site.....

Right.  I never said it was, as we could all easily see if you kept my
statement right above your comment about it.

All I was saying was that the site you provided didn't give a lot of useful
information and was mostly trying to hype a book.

> After informing you years ago that you or your mail processing systems
> truncate the mail headers in mailes with header lines longer than
> about 255 characters you have still not rectified your processes.

Hmm.  I thought I increased the buffer last time I was in there a few months
ago.  Apparently not.

> The 'References' Header in the above mail is incomplete because your
> mail client, or some other component in your mail system, has
> truncated it.

I think it's my POP3 server that's doing it.  However, I have no use for the
references header so fixing this has a priority of about -2 on a scale of 0
to 10.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\06\09@120631 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Alex Harford wrote:
> While I agree with the details about the JPG attacks being possible,
> Firefox simply matches the *domain* with a blacklist, the warnings
> aren't URL specific.  If you go to http://maksimov.org/ you get the
> same warning.

That makes a lot more sense than the JPGs having a problem.  I seriously
doubt Vitaliy deliberately put malware on his site.  It would be interesting
to find out what exactly Google got upset about and how it got in there.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\06\09@122104 by Rolf

flavicon
face
Aha.... so, you relent and do inline posting, how novel.....

What's wrong with bottom posting? What, you mean it's not always the
best thing? So, maybe, there's like other ways to do it?

To quote you again:

I think it's my POP3 server that's doing it.  However, I have no use for the
references header so fixing this has a priority of about -2 on a scale of 0
to 10.

Well, this just goes to show you how narrow-minded you are about this
particular issue. If you were not so 'antiquated' in the way you use
e-mail you would discover that most mail clients (including Outlook) do
a remarkable job of 'threading' e-mail 'conversations'.

This 'evolutionary' ability means that you can get the context of an
e-mail message very conveniently, and that the structure of the message
thread is well defined. While it seems that you have not elected to use
this mail reading approach, I have (as well as many others ... your
fabled 'majority of the list' notwithstanding). Following on from that,
there are three things worth noting....:

1. If you thread e-mails then top posting is 'great' because the
'context' information you need is right there in your thread.
2. to comprehensively 'thread' an e-mail exchange the 'References'
header is used, and, since your references header is often broken, your
messages 'break' the threaded nature of conversations....
3. since you don't use threads you don't care, and it does not matter...
to you

This blatant, intentional and childish attitude is perfectly reflected
by the inverse of it when it comes to top/bottom posting....

Your attitude is 'I want bottom posting' so I will 'reprimand' anyone
who top posts..... but, people with threaded mail clients be damned
because "I don't care".

It all sounds very self-centered and immature to me.

Of course, I very much doubt you see the logical flaws in this issue.

Finally, if you can convince the 'admins' to agree that 'bottom posting'
is the only way to do things, then I guess I will have to relent, but,
until there is a formal 'rule' about such things then all you are is an
off-pitch vuvuzela.

'nuff said.

Rolf


On 09/06/2010 12:02 PM, Olin Lathrop wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2010\06\09@123515 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
Rolf wrote:
{Quote hidden}

This link, just above is automatically blocked. I have no AV and though
this laptop is 8 years and never re-installed, I've never had a virus or
root kit (there are forensic tools that can verify this), so I'm not
inclined to ignore the warning.

<<This web page at maksimov.org has been reported as an attack page and
has been blocked based on your security preferences.>>

Firefox 3.6.x

I rarely ever see that message.

I'm familiar with how a JPG can be used to attack, it requires a
vulnerable JPEG displaying program to be default viewer though. In
theory there are patches since for ages for the well known culprits.

See
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/297462
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms04-028.mspx

2010\06\09@124036 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Rolf wrote:
>  
>> You repeatedly express the 'Fact' that top posting is wrong.
>>    
>
> It is a fact that it's very annoying to many, and the majority of list
> members if I remember right.
>
> A: Top posters.
> Q: Who are the most annoying people on a mailing list?
>
>  
The most annoying people on the list IMO, are equally annoying no matter
where they reply: Top, middle or bottom.

Mostly it makes sense to add at the bottom. Sometimes it makes sense to
insert at the top. It's not by any means annoying compared to some of
the content.

However most of the list content is worth reading.

2010\06\09@124320 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Alex Harford wrote:
>  
>> While I agree with the details about the JPG attacks being possible,
>> Firefox simply matches the *domain* with a blacklist, the warnings
>> aren't URL specific.  If you go to http://maksimov.org/ you get the
>> same warning.
>>    
>
> That makes a lot more sense than the JPGs having a problem.  I seriously
> doubt Vitaliy deliberately put malware on his site.  It would be interesting
> to find out what exactly Google got upset about and how it got in there.
>  
Actually plenty of sites get the malware added by 3rd parties.
1) Malware laced Advertising. Which is why I no longer serve 3rd part
adverts on any of my sites.
2) Site hacked or some vulnerability of an application on it or
directory permission.

2010\06\09@131144 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Rolf wrote:
> Aha.... so, you relent and do inline posting, how novel.....

"Relent" is a strange word since I always do inline posting, with trimming
of course.  You should try it some time.  It would make your posts easier to
understand since there is just enough context above what you say to make
sense of it, but not so much that there is excessive stuff to wade thru.

Perhaps you thought I was advocating bottom posting, but if so, you need to
read what I said again.  Top posting is the most disliked by the most
people.  Bottom posting is only a little better, especially without
trimming.  Inline posting is the easiest to read by far.  It only takes a
little extra effort.  After you do it a bit it just comes naturally.

> To quote you again:
>
> I think it's my POP3 server that's doing it.  However, I have no use
> for the references header so fixing this has a priority of about -2
> on a scale of 0 to 10.

Another "standard" you might try is to mark quoted text with leading ">" or
something to make it visually obvious.  Most mail clients do this
automatically.  Even the ancient OE I'm using now does it.

> Well, this just goes to show you how narrow-minded you are about this
> particular issue. If you were not so 'antiquated' in the way you use
> e-mail you would discover that most mail clients (including Outlook)
> do a remarkable job of 'threading' e-mail 'conversations'.

So everyone who doesn't prefer a threaded view is narrow minded and
antiquated?

> 1. If you thread e-mails then top posting is 'great' because the
> 'context' information you need is right there in your thread.

Only in those cases where previous messages are kept and you happen to be
viewing the conversation in a threaded display.  Even then you can't see
which individual points are being replied to.  Since threaded viewing can
sometimes break and is certainly far from universal, doesn't it make sense
that providing just enough context so that each message largely stands by
itself is the best all around method?

Basically you are advocating a system that requires a threaded view to make
sense, and then only partially.  That's rather narrow minded.

> 2. to comprehensively 'thread' an e-mail exchange the 'References'
> header is used, and, since your references header is often broken,
> your messages 'break' the threaded nature of conversations....

Stuff gets mangled.  If threading is that fragile, even the more reason not
to assume everyone will view a message in thread context.  By the way, the
piclist.com server seems to put my message in the right place in the right
threads.  Obviously the information is there, so it sounds like the real
problem is that you're relying on something unreliable.

> Your attitude is 'I want bottom posting' so I will 'reprimand' anyone
> who top posts..... but, people with threaded mail clients be damned
> because "I don't care".

In line posting works for everyone, whether they view a message within a
thread or not.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\06\09@132332 by Marechiare

picon face
>> 1. If you thread e-mails then top posting is 'great'
> because the 'context' information you need is right
> there in your thread.
>
> Only in those cases where previous messages are
> kept and you happen to be viewing the conversation
> in a threaded display.  Even then you can't see which
> individual points are being replied to.  Since threaded
> viewing can sometimes break and is certainly far
> from universal, doesn't it make sense that providing
> just enough context so that each message largely
> stands by itself is the best all around method?

Good point in my opinion. It could even be much better if were written
in Olin's, not RM's style :-).

2010\06\09@141138 by Paul Hutchinson

picon face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: spamBeGonepiclist-bouncesspamBeGonespammit.edu On Behalf Of Olin Lathrop
>
<snip>
> It would be interesting to find out what exactly Google got
> upset about and how it got in there.

The "Why was this page blocked?" button on the Firefox block page goes to
this link:
safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?client=Firefo
x&hl=en-US&site=http://maksimov.org/

"What happened when Google visited this site?
Of the 2 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 2 page(s)
resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without
user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2010-06-06,
nd the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on
010-06-06."

My guess is that this a shared hosting server and one of the other customers
screwed up something allowing the server to get hacked.

Paul Hutch

2010\06\09@161858 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Rolf wrote:
> Hi Vitaliy.
>
> Just for your records, when I click on your links (using Firefox), I get
> warnings that your site is a "Reported Attack Page!"

Looks like it's a recent development. Thank you for bringing it to my
attention. I'm looking into it right now.

Vitaliy


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2010 , 2011 only
- Today
- New search...