Further into the article, it describes a study done on mice that implies a causal link.
You're second point is a good one, but you absolutely can log the IP which requested robots.txt. That's just a standard part of any http server ever, no JavaScript needed.
Be sure not to create an open resolver, something commonly used in DDoS attacks. https://serverfault.com/questions/573465/what-is-an-open-dns-resolver-and-how-can-i-protect-my-server-from-being-misused#573471
This makes perfect sense. Thank you!
That makes some amount of sense. I'm not sure exactly how each article is stitched together to create the full file. Do you happen to know if it's just put together sequentially or if there's XORing or more complex algorithm going on there? If it's only the former, they would still be hosting copyrighted content, just a bit less of it.
EDIT:
https://sabnzbd.org/wiki/extra/nzb-spec
This implies that they are just individually decoded and stitched together.
How does Usenet content not immediately get DMCA'd into oblivion?
For instance, say I search for "The Dark Knight" on my Usenet indexer. It returns to me a list of uploads and where to get them via my Usenet provider. I can then download them, stitch them together, and verify that it is, indeed, The Dark Knight. All of this costs only a few dollars a month for me.
My question is, why can't copyright holders do this as well? They could follow the same process, and then send takedown requests for each individual article which comprises the movie. We already know they try to catch people torrenting so why don't they do this as well?
I can think of a few reasons, but they all seem pretty shaky.
- The content is hosted in countries where they don't have to comply with takedown requests.
It seems unlikely to me that literally all of it is hosted in places like this. Plus, the providers wouldn't be able to operate at all in countries like the US without facing legal repercussions.
- The copyright holders feel the upfront cost of indexer and provider
Pretty good tool. I took the quiz out of curiosity, and the top result was my current distro
I think the point is that now he doesn't have to take the time to go around the house prying the batteries out and replacing them every year. A small chore to be sure, but one that I'd be happy to do any with.
Permanently Deleted
I, too, was initially bummed about Obsidian not being open source, but the offline mode and the stylish markdown rendering eventually sold me.
Plus, I set up SyncThing to sync my notes between my phone, server, and laptop. Now I have all my notes backed up and accessible on all my devices, without anything leaking to a 3rd party.
Just wanted to let you know I somewhat found a solution and edited my post to reflect that.
I'll check it out. Thanks!
Didn't work, unfortunately. Same exact issues
Rootless podman. The plan is to eventually move WG into a container once I get it working, but it's running on bare metal at the moment.
Nope. I can't ssh in either.
I do see the request. I'm running it inside a container so all the clients show up as the container's hostname.
Just one on the pihole box and using the local address of it for all LAN DNS.
It is in the DMZ. I also use the box for Jellyfin so I want it remotely accessible.
I just tried disabling it for a short while with the same result. It still gets blocked in the 10.14.0.* network.
Yes. And I set Pi-hole to respond to any interface. Plus, I can see the response being sent in Wireshark. It only gets blocked inside the wireguard interface.
No. I mean that my router doesn't forward requests for port 53 to my server. My server's firewall does allow access to port 53, and all my LAN devices are able to use it freely.
I am. Server IP is 192.168.1.xxx. DNS server is running on that machine. It already allows access from all interfaces. I just don't have port 53 natted from my router to avoid creating an open resolver.
Server blocking LAN responses over Wireguard VPN
I'm trying to setup Wireguard to use as a VPN on my server using this guide. I currently run Pihole on the same machine.
| LAN | 192.168.1.* |
| WG | 10.14.0.* |
| WG Server Addr | 10.14.0.1 |
| WG Client Addr | 10.14.0.10 |
The handshake succeeds, and I can even ping IP addresses. However, it doesn't receive DNS responses. I checked in Wireshark and see the following:
| WAN Client IP -> | Server IP | [Wireguard] |
| WG Client IP -> | Server IP | [DNS Request] |
| Server IP -> | Server IP | [DNS Request] |
| Server IP -> | Server IP | [DNS Response] |
| WG Server Addr -> | WG Client Addr | [DNS Response] |
| WG Client Addr -> | WG Server Addr | [ICMP Port unreachable] |
I'm admittedly pretty inexperienced when it comes to routing, but I've been at this for days with no success. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Edit
I now realize that it would have been relevant to mention
Look into Pi-hole. It's an easy-to-setup DNS server which can run on a Raspberry Pi (or a Linux desktop/server if you have one.) You can then set your devices' DNS servers to the local address where the Pi-hole is running. Since it would be running on your local network, any requests to it shouldn't go through your ISP in the first place. I'd still recommend getting your own router anyways because this kind of ISP fuckery is more common than you'd expect. Plus, your exact configurations follow you anywhere you move. If you do end up getting one, set the local DNS server in the DHCP settings of your router to avoid having to set it on each device.
R.I.P.D. 2
Hear me out. I watched the first R.I.P.D. on a flight, expecting it to be enjoyably bad, but it wasn't. Instead, it was just enjoyable. The whimsical lore of combining ancient prophecy with modern people and boring bureaucracy was pretty funny. Was it an absolutely fantastic movie? No, but it was good.
The sequel, however, explored none of the above any further. Instead, it tried to replace all that with a much more dramatic tone. So when I watched this one on the flight back, it wasn't even enjoyably bad. It was just simple and dull.