ZA's big red padlock

[russell bretherton]

last night I hit STOP on ZA for the big red padlock before going to sleep. I
thought it was suppose to stop all network activity, but next day it showed
2 more hight-rated intrusion attempts had been blocked. To my thinking - if
it's still blocking intrusion's attempts while the padlock's on, then
network activity is still happening? ie. stuff's still trying to access my
pc. So better disable network connection to be sure?

ps. I can't reply to group. I get a button and tick box with no text and
nothing I select does anything. So I can send the reply. Any ideas??

[mikeFNB]

what's generating the button and tick box za?
the big red tit does stop all traffic in and out but ofcourse it cannot stop
the ubr sending info that za will monitor.
TBH i think you are being a bit paranoid here.
reading back thru the thread , I'd be inclined to shutdown your pc when at
work
save power and the environment

mike

Post by russell bretherton
last night I hit STOP on ZA for the big red padlock before going to sleep. I
thought it was suppose to stop all network activity, but next day it showed
2 more hight-rated intrusion attempts had been blocked. To my thinking - if
it's still blocking intrusion's attempts while the padlock's on, then
network activity is still happening? ie. stuff's still trying to access my
pc. So better disable network connection to be sure?
ps. I can't reply to group. I get a button and tick box with no text and
nothing I select does anything. So I can send the reply. Any ideas??

[Mark McIntyre]

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 16:31:30 GMT, "russell bretherton"

Post by russell bretherton
last night I hit STOP on ZA for the big red padlock before going to sleep. I
thought it was suppose to stop all network activity, but next day it showed
2 more hight-rated intrusion attempts had been blocked. To my thinking - if
it's still blocking intrusion's attempts while the padlock's on, then
network activity is still happening?

Your thinking is extremely muddled. Did you think that the padlock
"turned off" the internet? Of course not! Its still out there, still
sending stuff to your PC.

The padlock stops two things: firstly it stops all applications on
your Pc from talking to the internet, irrespective of whether you
normally allow them to or not; secondly it stops all inbound traffic,
irrespective of whether you normally allow that or not. Most of this
traffic is harmless, and so no entries appear in the FW logs. Some is
suspicious, so ZA logs it. This is normal.

Post by russell bretherton
ie. stuff's still trying to access my pc.
So better disable network connection to be sure?

If you *reallly* want to be secure, turn your PC off and unplug the CM
from the wall at night.

Don't take offense, but you're being paranoid.

Post by russell bretherton
ps. I can't reply to group. I get a button and tick box with no text and
nothing I select does anything. So I can send the reply. Any ideas??

Get a better newsreader. Seriously.

[Andy]

<snip>

Post by Mark McIntyre
Get a better newsreader. Seriously.

And munge your email address.

;-)

[patrickp]

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 21:52:50 GMT, "Andy" <andythorswell at msn dot

Post by Andy
<snip>

Post by Mark McIntyre
Get a better newsreader. Seriously.

And munge your email address.
;-)

Erm... I presume that's a throwaway address, Andy?

It's in clear in your headers, and my newsreader would have posted it
in clear if I hadn't altered it - anyone else replying to you probably
will, too.

Sorry to be picky, but a nasty little wannabe trollette just
deliberately unmunged my address and posted it in clear across 8
newsgroups - public, not ntl, ones. ;-)

Patrick

<***@5acoustibop.co.uk> - take five to email me...

[Andy]

Post by patrickp
Erm... I presume that's a throwaway address, Andy?
It's in clear in your headers, and my newsreader would have posted it
in clear if I hadn't altered it - anyone else replying to you probably
will, too.
Sorry to be picky, but a nasty little wannabe trollette just
deliberately unmunged my address and posted it in clear across 8
newsgroups - public, not ntl, ones. ;-)

Ho Ho Ho .......


Erm .. Who exactly is ***@msn.com ?

Not me !!

LOL

[Adrian]

Post by Andy
Ho Ho Ho .......
Not me !!
LOL

That changes things. It changes my perception of you from being somebody
who either has faith in his spam filters or is naive enough not to know
better to somebody who is a bit of a lowlife git.

I'm sure the *real* owner of that email address would LOVE to share the joy
you give him with you.

[Andy]

Post by Adrian

Post by Andy
Ho Ho Ho .......
Not me !!
LOL

That changes things. It changes my perception of you from being somebody
who either has faith in his spam filters or is naive enough not to know
better to somebody who is a bit of a lowlife git.
I'm sure the *real* owner of that email address would LOVE to share the joy
you give him with you.

OMG !

Before this gets out of hand how do I know whether this email address exists
or not - I made it up !

Similarly how do I know that ***@somewhere.com exists either ?

Sheesh !

[mikeFNB]

well as the gent says, not nice is it.
try sending a mail to it? see if it bounces? or comes up unable to send?

if someone used your car reg .......never mind

no comprendi

mike

Post by Andy

Post by Adrian

Post by Andy
Ho Ho Ho .......
Not me !!
LOL

That changes things. It changes my perception of you from being somebody
who either has faith in his spam filters or is naive enough not to know
better to somebody who is a bit of a lowlife git.
I'm sure the *real* owner of that email address would LOVE to share the joy
you give him with you.

OMG !
Before this gets out of hand how do I know whether this email address
exists or not - I made it up !
Sheesh !

[Andy]

Post by mikeFNB
well as the gent says, not nice is it.
try sending a mail to it? see if it bounces? or comes up unable to send?
if someone used your car reg .......never mind
no comprendi

Hi top poster

;-)

Course it's not nice - I guess I'm the only one in the world whose munged
email address actually matches a real one.

[patrickp]

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 23:02:34 GMT, "Andy" <andythorswell at msn dot

Post by Andy

Post by mikeFNB
well as the gent says, not nice is it.
try sending a mail to it? see if it bounces? or comes up unable to send?
if someone used your car reg .......never mind
no comprendi

Hi top poster
;-)
Course it's not nice - I guess I'm the only one in the world whose munged
email address actually matches a real one.

Except that it isn't munged, and it's almost certainly someone else's.
Ever tried to sign up for an email address with any large scale
provider? It almost never happens that you can get your name as such:
several other people will already have variations and you'll have to
settle for the name with a number or some such.

Patrick

<***@5acoustibop.co.uk> - take five to email me...

[Buzzbomb]

Post by patrickp
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 23:02:34 GMT, "Andy" <andythorswell at msn dot

Post by Andy

Post by mikeFNB
well as the gent says, not nice is it.
try sending a mail to it? see if it bounces? or comes up unable to send?
if someone used your car reg .......never mind
no comprendi

Hi top poster
;-)
Course it's not nice - I guess I'm the only one in the world whose munged
email address actually matches a real one.

Except that it isn't munged, and it's almost certainly someone else's.
Ever tried to sign up for an email address with any large scale
several other people will already have variations and you'll have to
settle for the name with a number or some such.
Patrick

The only "safe" address to use when your news reader insists on having
something that looks like a real email address is ***@example.com

example.com is explicitly defined by rfc2602 as a domain to be used
solely for documentation purposes. Mail will never get routed to a real
person.

Alternatively you can specify an invalid TLD, as I do. Bad practice
really. If ever .address is introduced as a TLD, I may then be using
someone elses real email address (guess I should go away and change it).

Othe TLD's that its safe to use are
.test
.example
.invalid
.localhost


If you want to know the effect of using a valid domain to munge your
address ask the admin of acme.com.

http://www.acme.com/mail_filtering

B.

[NickH]

Post by Buzzbomb

Post by patrickp
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 23:02:34 GMT, "Andy" <andythorswell at msn dot

Post by Andy

Post by mikeFNB
well as the gent says, not nice is it.
try sending a mail to it? see if it bounces? or comes up unable to send?
if someone used your car reg .......never mind
no comprendi

Hi top poster
;-)
Course it's not nice - I guess I'm the only one in the world whose munged
email address actually matches a real one.

Except that it isn't munged, and it's almost certainly someone else's.
Ever tried to sign up for an email address with any large scale
several other people will already have variations and you'll have to
settle for the name with a number or some such.
Patrick

The only "safe" address to use when your news reader insists on having
example.com is explicitly defined by rfc2602 as a domain to be used
solely for documentation purposes. Mail will never get routed to a real
person.
Alternatively you can specify an invalid TLD, as I do. Bad practice
really. If ever .address is introduced as a TLD, I may then be using
someone elses real email address (guess I should go away and change it).
Othe TLD's that its safe to use are
.test
.example
.invalid
.localhost
If you want to know the effect of using a valid domain to munge your
address ask the admin of acme.com.
http://www.acme.com/mail_filtering
B.

You can safely use ***@privacy.net. That is what it is there for. See this
link http://www.dslreports.com/faq/7319

[Mark McIntyre]

Post by Andy
Course it's not nice - I guess I'm the only one in the world whose munged
email address actually matches a real one.

Except that yours isn't munged, its a perfectly plausible real
address. If you want to munge it, make it clearly and definitely
munged, eg ***@spammersbiteme.and.die

since the .die suffix aint a legal suffix, this is pretty safe.

[Mark]

Post by Mark McIntyre

Post by Andy
Course it's not nice - I guess I'm the only one in the world whose munged
email address actually matches a real one.

Except that yours isn't munged, its a perfectly plausible real
address. If you want to munge it, make it clearly and definitely
since the .die suffix aint a legal suffix, this is pretty safe.

But this then spams the dns servers with bogus address requests.

Use a privacy.net or spam.org address as stated on their websites.

[Andy]

<yawn>

Well thanks for the intelligent posts ....... and the not so intelligent.

You know who you are .....

;-)

I must remember not to ever get stuck in a lift with you.

TTFN

[Mark McIntyre]

Post by Mark

Post by Mark McIntyre
since the .die suffix aint a legal suffix, this is pretty safe.

But this then spams the dns servers with bogus address requests.

Not really - unless of course your mailserver is horribly badly
misconfigured, there should be one attempt to lookup the domain. And
its no worse than using any other nonexistent domain.

Post by Mark
Use a privacy.net or spam.org address as stated on their websites.

Neither of these sites states this, unless they've hidden it well.
Unless you're talking about a subscription service that they may
offer, in which case you're not munging at all...