On Fri, 10 Apr 1998, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > There were some fairly substantial changes that occur in 2.0.30 that were > not fully fixed in 2.0.31 or 2.0.32. 2.0.33 is better, but I've still found > 2.0.29 to be even more reliable. Unfortunately 2.0.29 is also susceptable to LAND, TCP frag and a few other minor attacks whcih can hang the box. > I don't know that you see many funnies specific to nntpcache. Most likely > though it will just trash kernel buffers from time to time, especially if > you get `tear-dropped' or random lockups, especially under high load. Losing the network card and/or suddenyl having ping times across the ethernet jump to > 900ms spring to mind under 2.0.29 > Persoanlly, I'm getting rather sick of hacing to find workarounds and fixes > for all the shitty broken MacOS and Windows software out there written by > people who obviously don't pay much attention to the specs, SMTP is by far > the worst. <rant> I've just discovered that MicroShaft want serious amounts of money to "upgrade" from Exchange 5.0 to Exchange 5.5 - there is no way whatsoever that Exchange 5.0 can be configured to prevent unauthorised SMTP relaying and M$ are still supplying 5.0 as the standard mailserver in the NT small business server. I have 4 clients who want permanent connections and plan to use Exchange 5.0 as their mailserver. It's simply a matter of time before spammers find and abuse their smtp ports. </rant> Anyone remember their slovenly response to NT newsservers reinjecting thousands of old Usenet articles with new message-IDs in 1996? AB
