Slashdot Mirror

I'll agree that the kinesis keyboards are great - though they take a bit of time to adapt to. But once you do so, you never want to go back to a standard type again. Since they were always out of my price range, I instead went for a KeyTronic FlexPro (mid-90s) keyboard. This keyboard has an adjustable wrist rest *and* an adjustable keyboard elevation angle. For my money it was a great investment 13yrs ago - and still going strong albeit with a 5pin (AT) -> PS/2 adapter at home, and a 5pin->PS/2->USB adapter combination at work. I'm not the only one who thinks highly of these keyboards: http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/04/24/other_aadehidhca_ia/ jerry

I edited my registry and haven't looked back since! It's bliss not worrying about the dreaded reboot.

http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/01/11/vuln_aacgja hfig_ib/

1. A spammer sets up a "bot-net" of compromised Windows computers, sometimes in the thousands.
2. The spammer configures the zombies to send out about 1,000 spams a day, which most computers can handle without the user noticing.
3. By using thousands of zombies, a spammer can send out millions of viagras a day, at almost no cost to himself.
4. If 99.9% of the spam is filtered or ignored, it doesn't matter to the spammer, as the .1% represents thousands of sales per day.

The trick is to target the one vulnerability all spammers have: A website to sell their goods. All spam messages have a link where you click to buy the viagra, invest in Nigerian hedge funds, etc.

This vulnerability could be renlentessly attacked by ISPs, where each filtered spam generates an automatic "opt out" message to the website contained in the email. Kind of like bluefrog, with attitude. The beauty of it is, unlike bluefrog, there is no single point the spammers can attack, since individual ISPs would be generating the opt out requests instead of a single website.

Right now, a spammer only has to process the requests from the spam that actually gets through and is responded to. If this is implemented, the spammer would have to process (or ignore) every spam sent out by one of his zombies. Kind of a Self-Denial of Service attack.

When you have to process 18,000 requests a day, your hardware and bandwidth costs are minimal. If you had to process all 18,000,000 your zombies sent out, your costs would be considerably higher, and it might make spamming somewhat less profitable.

1. A spammer sets up a "bot-net" of compromised Windows computers, sometimes in the thousands.
2. The spammer configures the zombies to send out about 1,000 spams a day, which most computers can handle without the user noticing.
3. By using thousands of zombies, a spammer can send out millions of viagras a day, at almost no cost to himself.
4. If 99.9% of the spam is filtered or ignored, it doesn't matter to the spammer, as the .1% represents thousands of sales per day.

The trick is to target the one vulnerability all spammers have: A website to sell their goods. All spam messages have a link where you click to buy the viagra, invest in Nigerian hedge funds, etc.

This vulnerability could be renlentessly attacked by ISPs, where each filtered spam generates an automatic "opt out" message to the website contained in the email. Kind of like bluefrog, with attitude. The beauty of it is, unlike bluefrog, there is no single point the spammers can attack, since individual ISPs would be generating the opt out requests instead of a single website.

Right now, a spammer only has to process the requests from the spam that actually gets through and is responded to. If this is implemented, the spammer would have to process (or ignore) every spam sent out by one of his zombies. Kind of a Self-Denial of Service attack.

When you have to process 18,000 requests a day, your hardware and bandwidth costs are minimal. If you had to process all 18,000,000 your zombies sent out, your costs would be considerably higher, and it might make spamming somewhat less profitable.

I didn't see mention of what internal software was used, but a lot of NAS devices use Samba and won't work properly with Vista. Check out this link.

That's the problem with NAS devices; Microsoft loves to change its network protocols with each new version of Windows, breaking countless NAS devices that are past vendor support.

There are a number of NAS devices designed to work with Windows 2000 that don't work well with windows XP; the vendors won't provide updates and would rather you just chuck it and buy a new NAS device.

That's strange, although I have heard others echo similar comments. I can't verify this at all, since my XP computer at work is set to "notify me only" and it does just that -- a popup windows appears saying "new updates are available, please click here to start downloading". If I do nothing and reboot, the same keeps happening until I finally choose to install.

I guess this thread is to what you are referring, or something similar. Again, I have never seen this firsthand.

http://www.antivirus.comodo.com/ But read this http://www.emailbattles.com/archive/battles/securi ty_aadgdfdddh_ah/

FYI: Techworld linkjacked the article from Email Battles. Read the original at http://www.emailbattles.com/archive/battles/email_ aaddhghiad_ih/.

No. If you RTFL in TFA ... You see that they hit 4 of yahoo's mx records "mx#.mail.yahoo.com" (divide by 4, that gives us 2 per minute per server), and each of these has multiple IP addresses (on average, 4, so divide by 4 again). So in reality, they were hitting a physical machine *once every two minutes*. Or, as they put it in TFL:

"Next, we took measurements every two minutes for half an hour. That's 15 separate readings of each of 16 IP addresses, for a total of 240 readings. The results were surprising."

SenderID is an attempt by Microsoft to hijack a working open standard called SPF. At this point it is effectively dead because of Microsoft's cynical manipulation of Meng Wong's altruistic attempt to help everyone.

You will note I'm not normally a MS-basher, but in this case it's well deserved. SPF was ramping up into a system that would make email forgery impractical for spammers and virii, but Microsoft (with help from Yahoo and AOL, I guess) muddied the waters to the point where the anti-forgery community couldn't get a clear message out. Now SPF is still going, but very slowly, which is a shame since it is a practical thing you can do today that makes a real difference. If comcast (for one example) took the five freakin' minutes that would be required to publish SPF in their DNS, the world would be a better place for it.

Implement SPF. Laugh at the rotting corpse of SenderID.

Um, no. They said to download and notify before installing. MS just went right ahead and installed and rebooted the computer for them. http://www.emailbattles.com/archive/battles/vuln_a acfhddccc_de/

... but a massive hack attack certainly shouldn't be considered a legitimate way to seek a six-figure job opportunity.

• It conflicts with existing, open projects with the same goal.
  So What? I think its great that there are multiple proposals out for the same goal, may the best one win. Or is there going to be a boycott-photoshop.org since Adobe is writing software that conflicts with GIMP?
• It is patent-license encumbered.
  Doesn't look to "encumbered" to me. Its free for anybody to use, even in GPL code, as long as you pass along the license agreement. Or wait, would that be considered "Viral licensing" like the GPL itself? :)
• It is not the de-facto standard
  WTF? Its not the standard - in other words, they are trying to innovate! We wouldn't want someone come up with a new way of doing things. Were these people around in 1994 saying "who needs HTTP/HTML, gopher/archie/wais is the de-facto standard".
  Also, SPF is quite far from being "the standard". It might have 10,000 hosts, but how many users send mail through those hosts? Face it, until aol/yahoo/hotmail pick something, it wont be the standard.
• It is not an RFC
  Read this article which points out that boycott-email-caller-id.org is biased, and wrong. That article links to this msg from microsoft where they say they are working on submitting it.
• It is more verbose
  I'm no expert on either of these formats, but it appears that hotmail is sending back a lot more data (unique IP addresses). Thats more a server-config issue for hotmail.com vs aol.com than any comment on the protocol. Obviously XML has more overhead, but this example is contrived. A real apples-to-apples comparison would be returning the exact same data in each format...
• This site is not affiliated with any anti-spam solution. How dare they even claim that? The site is so obviously shilling for SPF its rediculous.