I would like to be able to post to a binary newsgroup like abpw while I
am on the road and connected through various proxies, vpns, hotel
networks, etc. The only way I know to do this is with a web client.
Do you have any experiences with newsgroup providers that have web
interface and support posting to binary groups? I expect this will be
a commercial answer and I am willing to pay for a subscription. I'm
interested in recommendations based on experience, if possible.
Bob
"Enoch Root" wrote in message
> But you aren't really arguing that people aren't being prosecuted for
> unauthorized use, and you aren't arguing that that's not what they are
> doing. So I'm assuming you are merely reassuring yourself that it'd
> never happen to you. Is that correct?
Could it also be that even though the WAP owner may classify it as
"unauthorized use", it is not specifically illegal because it is wireless
and the emissions are being sent into public airwaves where they can be
picked up if not encrypted to preclude use?
Witness the lack of laws regarding intercepting wireless signals from nanny
cams and other wireless devices.
I am not saying that it is ethical ... just that a good case can be made
that once these emissions leave your property you may really have no legal
control over them.
WEP is too damn available and easy to implement to not protect any WAP, if
you indeed want protection from "unauthorized use".
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05
B A R R Y wrote:
> Enoch Root wrote:
>
>>
>> Once you access someone elses network without authorization, any access
>> of any web server page is subject to many of these laws, federal and
>> state.
>>
>> But you aren't really arguing that people aren't being prosecuted for
>> unauthorized use, and you aren't arguing that that's not what they are
>> doing. So I'm assuming you are merely reassuring yourself that it'd
>> never happen to you. Is that correct?
>>
>
> Not at all. Intent is a big part of most any law.
>
> I use legal, freely available, public WAP's all the time that require me
> to simply boot up with DHCP enabled. My own hometown has it all over
> the downtown area, thanks to Cisco, a local university, and the local
> chamber of commerce. I log into nothing, I decrypt nothing, I hack
> nothing, I don't make any attempt to hide my use.
>
> How do I know I'm on the wrong network if it grabs a signal from the
> apartment above the parking space I'm in?
But you were recommending that someone "steal" another's bandwidth, and
I think that was your stated intent as you did it yourself. So you
would plead ignorance?
er
--
email not valid
Bob wrote:
> I would like to be able to post to a binary newsgroup like abpw while I
> am on the road and connected through various proxies, vpns, hotel
> networks, etc. The only way I know to do this is with a web client.
> Do you have any experiences with newsgroup providers that have web
> interface and support posting to binary groups? I expect this will be
> a commercial answer and I am willing to pay for a subscription. I'm
> interested in recommendations based on experience, if possible.
>
> Bob
it's not www via browser operated, but if you go to www.forteinc.com
you'll find both a top rated news client (agent) and a top rated news
service (agent premium news)... assuming you're on windows....
install both of those and you'll be set up to connect from about
anywhere, I bet.
In article <[email protected]>, Bob says...
>
>I would like to be able to post to a binary newsgroup like abpw while I
>am on the road and connected through various proxies, vpns, hotel
>networks, etc. The only way I know to do this is with a web client.
>Do you have any experiences with newsgroup providers that have web
>interface and support posting to binary groups? I expect this will be
>a commercial answer and I am willing to pay for a subscription. I'm
>interested in recommendations based on experience, if possible.
>
>Bob
>
Lurker here but I've been using Newsguy's web interface to read and occasionally
post text and binaries for a few years with no problems. I have one of the
cheaper accounts at $40 a year and would recommend them.
Lee
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
Bob wrote:
> I would like to be able to post to a binary newsgroup like abpw while I
> am on the road and connected through various proxies, vpns, hotel
> networks, etc. The only way I know to do this is with a web client.
In my travels, the only problem I ever had using a standard newsreader
involved my corporation's VPN.
The answer? DON'T use the VPN while you access USENET. Boot up the
computer, open a browser, and log on to the WAP
I've never seen a hotel, airport, subscription, or free public WAP that
blocked news ports, or much else, for that matter. Heck, I've even used
unsecured wireless ports while sitting outside a building in the car. <G>
The VPN is usually provided to get you INSIDE a company network, on the
private side of the firewalls. You only need it when accessing mail or
shared drives (ex:// Exchange servers), and private intranet (vs.
Int_e_rnet resources), and private instant messaging. Most any computer
in the world should access the public internet pretty much by default.
Find a free access point close to home before you leave and give it a try!
Barry
"Bob" wrote in message
> I could have sworn I asked about newsgroup services. This turned into
> another one of those never ending legal arguments among woodworkers -
> the world's worst shade-tree lawyers. I'm filing suit for
> message-thread theft using a WEP while shopping at Lowe's.
You don't have a leg to stand on ... we'll countersue for posting off-topic
to start with. ;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05
Enoch Root wrote:
>
> Try not to get angry as you read the fear-mongering absurdity
> (sniggering is probably okay):
>
> <URL:http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/04/State/Wi_Fi_cloaks_a_new_br.shtml>
> <URL:http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/07/technology/personaltech/wireless_arrest/>
> <URL:http://www.techweb.com/wire/mobile/183702832;jsessionid=NTSHVLC1K2BUQQSNDBNSKH0CJUMEKJVN>
> <URL:http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3108461>
I did notice that 3 of 4 mention that the users did illegal or immoral
things like place desktop icons, hack other systems, etc.. One guy was
actually screwing with Lowes corporate network!
Then again, If I was going to do it, I don't think I'd sit in the same
driveway while the owner kept coming outside. <G>
Enoch Root wrote:
> B A R R Y wrote:
>> Heck, I've even used
>> unsecured wireless ports while sitting outside a building in the car. <G>
>
> Because there are (stupid) laws that criminalize that behavior, you
> should be very careful whose network you do that to.
Which law?
It's an unencrypted, unsecured, radio signal that travels to me, and I'm
not using said signal to break laws, harrass people, impersonate someone
else, etc...
For all I know, I'm receiving a public signal, just like the one my
hometown Chamber of Commerce, small airports, coffee shops, libraries,
universities, etc... freely make available.
I'm not busting your stones, I really would like to see a citation.
Thanks!
Enoch Root wrote:
>
> But you were recommending that someone "steal" another's bandwidth, and
> I think that was your stated intent as you did it yourself. So you
> would plead ignorance?
If I boot up my laptop, and it syncs to a freely available signal,
available to me on public property, using nothing more than the
box-stock OS, that neither asks me for a login ID, or requires my PC to
have some other sort of unique or private information, like a discreet
code, key, etc... to temporarily use for legal purposes, I'm not so
sure I'm stealing it in the first place, and I certainly don't think
it's hacking.
Would it be wrong to use a wireless signal from an adjacent apartment on
a regular basis, or to get inside a network, maybe sniff it and/or poke
around the elements? I absolutely think so. Stopping the car, flipping
my screen up and checking my email for 2-3 minutes, if I found an
anonymous signal that required no effort, special configuration, or
nefarious software for me to use? A very different question.
I see that we're probably toward some sort of semantic pissing contest.
I'm not interested in that, so I may or may not respond to further
comments from you on the subject. Please don't take it personally if I
choose not to respond.
Swingman wrote:
> "Enoch Root" wrote in message
>
>
>>But you aren't really arguing that people aren't being prosecuted for
>>unauthorized use, and you aren't arguing that that's not what they are
>>doing. So I'm assuming you are merely reassuring yourself that it'd
>>never happen to you. Is that correct?
>
>
> Could it also be that even though the WAP owner may classify it as
> "unauthorized use", it is not specifically illegal because it is wireless
> and the emissions are being sent into public airwaves where they can be
> picked up if not encrypted to preclude use?
>
> Witness the lack of laws regarding intercepting wireless signals from nanny
> cams and other wireless devices.
>
> I am not saying that it is ethical ... just that a good case can be made
> that once these emissions leave your property you may really have no legal
> control over them.
>
> WEP is too damn available and easy to implement to not protect any WAP, if
> you indeed want protection from "unauthorized use".
FWIW, I don't see anything wrong with it if you aren't losing bandwidth
to some pr0n-starved perv in the alley.
But the laws expose you to risk if you do it, and that's what I've been
pointing out. It is another one of those that, if someone should decide
they don't like you, they could use against you.
I don't think this is why we have laws, and I find it objectionable, and
remarkable.
er
--
email not valid
Enoch Root wrote:
>
> Once you access someone elses network without authorization, any access
> of any web server page is subject to many of these laws, federal and state.
>
> But you aren't really arguing that people aren't being prosecuted for
> unauthorized use, and you aren't arguing that that's not what they are
> doing. So I'm assuming you are merely reassuring yourself that it'd
> never happen to you. Is that correct?
>
Not at all. Intent is a big part of most any law.
I use legal, freely available, public WAP's all the time that require me
to simply boot up with DHCP enabled. My own hometown has it all over
the downtown area, thanks to Cisco, a local university, and the local
chamber of commerce. I log into nothing, I decrypt nothing, I hack
nothing, I don't make any attempt to hide my use.
How do I know I'm on the wrong network if it grabs a signal from the
apartment above the parking space I'm in?
B A R R Y wrote:
> Enoch Root wrote:
>
>> B A R R Y wrote:
>>
>>> Heck, I've even used
>>> unsecured wireless ports while sitting outside a building in the
>>> car. <G>
>>
>>
>> Because there are (stupid) laws that criminalize that behavior, you
>> should be very careful whose network you do that to.
>
>
> Which law?
>
> It's an unencrypted, unsecured, radio signal that travels to me, and I'm
> not using said signal to break laws, harrass people, impersonate someone
> else, etc...
>
> For all I know, I'm receiving a public signal, just like the one my
> hometown Chamber of Commerce, small airports, coffee shops, libraries,
> universities, etc... freely make available.
>
> I'm not busting your stones, I really would like to see a citation.
If you feel confident you could convince a judge to adopt your
interpretation, then more power to you. I agree there is no crime if
you look beyond the law, but there is enough of law in place regarding
"Unauthorized Access" of a computer system, and written ambiguously
enough to cause you trouble and time if someone got it in their head
that they would like to do that to you.
Try not to get angry as you read the fear-mongering absurdity
(sniggering is probably okay):
<URL:http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/04/State/Wi_Fi_cloaks_a_new_br.shtml>
<URL:http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/07/technology/personaltech/wireless_arrest/>
<URL:http://www.techweb.com/wire/mobile/183702832;jsessionid=NTSHVLC1K2BUQQSNDBNSKH0CJUMEKJVN>
<URL:http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3108461>
er
--
email not valid
"Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1144695301.734351.238360
@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> I would like to be able to post to a binary newsgroup like abpw while I
> am on the road and connected through various proxies, vpns, hotel
> networks, etc. The only way I know to do this is with a web client.
> Do you have any experiences with newsgroup providers that have web
> interface and support posting to binary groups? I expect this will be
> a commercial answer and I am willing to pay for a subscription. I'm
> interested in recommendations based on experience, if possible.
A newsserver that lets you _post_ by http might be hard to find.
Most people interested in using their browsers are interested in
looking at/downloading pictures, not uploading them.
You might try looking at Easynews and Newsguy. Newsguy I know
has a web interface for posting, but I don't know if it handles
binaries. Easynews has a web reader for binaries, but I don't
know if it handles posting. Both companies are reasonably
competent, at least.
John
"Gooey TARBALLS" <[email protected]> wrote in news:xOP_f.4998$wH1.3471
@trnddc03:
> OK, DUMB QUESTION, tolerance, please.
>
> I read this thread and went to look at Forte as recommended and it looks
> like the Interface I have with Outlook Express
> http://www.forteinc.com/agent/screenshot.php
Other way around, actually - OE copied the Forte Agent interface.
> I seem to be able to read and post from home using Outlook.
>
> How is Forte different from Outlook Express?
Supports yEnc encoding (useful if you want to do binaries),
properly handles quoting and sigs in accordance with Usenet
traditions, can't be misconfigured to post in HTML (as far
as I know), has various features to make using newsgroups
(as opposed to email) more convenient.
Mostly, tho, the advantage of Agent is that it's not subject
to most of the security holes, viruses, etc, that target OE.
If you're willing to learn a different interface, XNews is
a superior newsreader to Agent. But if you want to stick
with an OE style interface, Agent is a pretty good reader.
John
B A R R Y wrote:
> Enoch Root wrote:
>
>>
>> Try not to get angry as you read the fear-mongering absurdity
>> (sniggering is probably okay):
>>
>> <URL:http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/04/State/Wi_Fi_cloaks_a_new_br.shtml>
>> <URL:http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/07/technology/personaltech/wireless_arrest/>
>>
>> <URL:http://www.techweb.com/wire/mobile/183702832;jsessionid=NTSHVLC1K2BUQQSNDBNSKH0CJUMEKJVN>
>>
>> <URL:http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3108461>
>
>
>
> I did notice that 3 of 4 mention that the users did illegal or immoral
> things like place desktop icons, hack other systems, etc.. One guy was
> actually screwing with Lowes corporate network!
>
> Then again, If I was going to do it, I don't think I'd sit in the same
> driveway while the owner kept coming outside. <G>
If you are going to give someone problems... you'll accuse them of
everything. There is a lot of "interest" in giving these laws teeth.
Lowes network had absolutely no security, what makes you think they're
going to be able to tell what illegal things he did to their network?
Because they said so? Are those things illegal? (moving icons,
"screwing" with a network?) Is directing a dhcp server "screwing" with
a network? The laws (unauthorized computer access) are about as clear
on what is illegal as that phrase "screwing with the network".
Once you access someone elses network without authorization, any access
of any web server page is subject to many of these laws, federal and state.
But you aren't really arguing that people aren't being prosecuted for
unauthorized use, and you aren't arguing that that's not what they are
doing. So I'm assuming you are merely reassuring yourself that it'd
never happen to you. Is that correct?
er
--
email not valid
OK, DUMB QUESTION, tolerance, please.
I read this thread and went to look at Forte as recommended and it looks
like the Interface I have with Outlook Express
http://www.forteinc.com/agent/screenshot.php
I seem to be able to read and post from home using Outlook.
How is Forte different from Outlook Express?
"John McCoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1144695301.734351.238360
> @t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I would like to be able to post to a binary newsgroup like abpw while I
>> am on the road and connected through various proxies, vpns, hotel
>> networks, etc. The only way I know to do this is with a web client.
>> Do you have any experiences with newsgroup providers that have web
>> interface and support posting to binary groups? I expect this will be
>> a commercial answer and I am willing to pay for a subscription. I'm
>> interested in recommendations based on experience, if possible.
>
> A newsserver that lets you _post_ by http might be hard to find.
> Most people interested in using their browsers are interested in
> looking at/downloading pictures, not uploading them.
>
> You might try looking at Easynews and Newsguy. Newsguy I know
> has a web interface for posting, but I don't know if it handles
> binaries. Easynews has a web reader for binaries, but I don't
> know if it handles posting. Both companies are reasonably
> competent, at least.
>
> John