From Newsgroup: alt.bbs.synchronet

To: dragon
Subject: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible with Windows XP?
By: dragon to MRO on Mon Jul 11 2022 02:07 pm

what do you feel you accomplish by portscanning the whole internet and
making a list?

I think there are more than a few people that think what I'm doing has some value, but mainly it amuses me, which is really what matters.

I very much like your list and the statistics and resources on your page.

My BBS is constantly hit with attacks. Constantly. But it doesn't take long to figure out that they are scripts targeting Linux systems to get root access, hitting anything that answers telnet or ssh with any kind of login prompt. Nothing to do with your page.
---------------------------------------------------------
Sysop of Desert Rats Sanctuary --- https://bbs.kn6q.org

---
þ Synchronet þ Desert Rats Sanctuary --- https://bbs.kn6q.org
--- Synchronet 3.19c-Linux NewsLink 1.113
* Vertrauen - Riverside County, California - telnet://vert.synchro.net
--- Synchronet 3.19c-Linux NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: alt.bbs.synchronet

To: Tracker1
Re: Re: 3.19b not compatible
By: Tracker1 to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Jul 24 2022 04:14 pm

On 7/22/22 07:20, poindexter FORTRAN wrote:

That's cool... I've got a 4-port intel mini box that has 4x 2.5Gb
ports I'll be playing with next weekend.

I keep seeing people running high-powered boxes as routers and running pfSense as a VM, for the time being I'm sticking with my appliance router. Running OpenWRT it seems to do OK for my needs; a 64 bit ARM processor and 512 GB of RAM should suffice.

Yeah, when my home security system and cameras were added my router just doesn't seem to quite keep up, which is what brought the shift. May be using ProxMox on the device, and just map the other 3 ethernet ports
into a VM for the router/firewall software. That way I can more easily
run the couple other things I also want on there (pihole, wireguard, reverse-web proxy with https).

I did see an interesting youtube video about a thin client with a
PCI-e slot, for around $100 the tuber got the client, some cabling needed, and a 4-port gig ethernet card. 2.5ge a possibility, too. Tempting.

Yeah, those are pretty cool... One thing to watch out for, is some
devices that support 10g ports will only do 10g or 1g, not 2.5g, which
is kind of wild. Just bringing it up, depending on any switches/hubs
you plan to use.
--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1@roughneckbbs.com

I was wondering if it would be better to put all the cameras on their own managed switch and vlan to take the load off the core switch?

---
þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
--- Synchronet 3.19c-Linux NewsLink 1.113
* Vertrauen - Riverside County, California - telnet://vert.synchro.net
--- Synchronet 3.19c-Linux NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: alt.bbs.synchronet

To: Moondog
On 7/25/22 21:16, Moondog wrote:

I was wondering if it would be better to put all the cameras on
their own managed switch and vlan to take the load off the core
switch?

Am considering the same thing... I really wish they were all configured
as wired devices instead of wireless too. I get why it's better for the companies/installers this way, just not a fan at all.
--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1@roughneckbbs.com
---
ï¿­ Synchronet ï¿­ Roughneck BBS - roughneckbbs.com
--- Synchronet 3.19c-Linux NewsLink 1.113
* Vertrauen - Riverside County, California - telnet://vert.synchro.net
--- Synchronet 3.19c-Linux NewsLink 1.113