Slashdot Mirror
Strict New Anti-Spam Regulations In Canada
An anonymous reader writes "David Reese provides an interesting analysis of just how far Canada's new anti-spam legislation goes, and its implications for business. This may provide a valuable template for citizens of other countries, and may also encourage Canadians to prepare for the inevitable push-back from spammers. It is not clear from this analysis whether the legislation would affect telemarketing, but even if it does not it provides a useful precedent for future regulation in that area."
About time, these companies that deem you to want to know about their "special offers" are a horrible blight on people who want relevant information. Too bad the U.S. government hates non-corporation people.
I live in Canada, and we still get tons of spam, telemarketing phones calls on home line and cel phone. They simply come from the USA now. Country laws are useless when crime has no more frontier.
seems they have been doing alot more right than wrong recently.
This will work !!
You know. The ones for political campaigning, well connected people, etc.
Every single one of these Anti-Spam laws come with them.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Will individuals see an effect once the new law is in force? Probably not. Most spam is being filtered out by Internet service providers and email services already. In this respect, the new law may be too late. Further, most spam originates from outside of Canada. Technically, the Canadian law applies to senders outside Canada that send electronic messages into Canada, but it remains to be seen how effective international cooperation will be in enforcing CASL in other countries, or how it will be achieved.
[...]
Although individuals may not notice the new laws, businesses certainly will. The new rules make commonplace marketing practise illegal, and create a mess of red tape to navigate. Social media strategies, including viral marketing, will need to be reviewed to ensure they are compliant with the legislation.
Individuals won't notice, (legitimate) businesses will go under, and actual spammers won't be affected. I hate spammers as much as any Canadian but I fail to see the 'good' in this law.
Any reply to this comment will be treated as unwanted spam.
Being Canadian, however, I feel the need to say that I'm sorry if my comment offended anyone.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
There are tons of regulations etc against spam in many countries. Guess what? The people running the spam/scan email systems simply do not care. There is zero enforcement of these rules, so why should adding more regulations make any difference?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Oh wait, that's happening already. Thanks for a useless law.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I expect that this will probably be about as frequently enforced at the USA's National Do Not Call List.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
About time, these companies that deem you to want to know about their "special offers" are a horrible blight on people who want relevant information. Too bad the U.S. government hates non-corporation people.
Or the U.S. government doesn't want to put the final nail in the U.S. Post Office's coffin.
They don't think that maybe email should be retired and replaced with a secure technology? Maybe they can get started legislature that will mandate more memory for the Atari 2600.
I think opt-in is the only way it should be done. Germany also has this i think, double opt-in via email is the method implemented, so you even have to confirm your opt-in. I dont think it will harm businesses as much as stated in the article as it is working elsewhere. What is interesting is the penalties. I think they should be percentage of gross earnings instead of a flat rate penalty. The biggest issue which is not addressed is not spam from canadian firms but spam coming from other countries where the canadian law does not apply.
No, I'm pretty sure there's a faction that has been actively trying to do exactly that for decades, irrespective of the existence of the internet.
Same holds for your post
Many businesses spam customers. Banks are especially bad about this. No I would not like a balance transfer.
I get so much dead tree junk mail that I'm surprised there aren't laws trying to stop it.
I used to just delete spam but one day I went through a whole bunch of them and clicked on unsubscribe. The amount of spam went down to almost nothing. Totally worth the 15 min of effort. Legitimate companies (who make up most of the spam I get these days) honor unsubscribe requests, the illegitimate ones will not care about any anti-spam laws anyway.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
victory is ours
Strict as in Canada's Do Not Call list, which only means once every 30 days you get telemarketers calling you, and you ask to be removed for the next 30 days. Also Strict in the sense that you still get hounded by charities and politicians calling you because they are exempt. And strict as in the sense that it's useless because I now get telemarketing from randomly generated phone numbers from foreign countries.
So yes, Canada implemented a useless regulation, again, yay.
The solution to spam is a good email client connected to a great email server. Running your own email server does not count. Creating a law does not work.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
The issue is, a lot of people DO opt-in to these spam 'news letters' without even realizing it. These are the same people who rapidly click through sign-ups, or enter contests (not on-line, IRL such as a local convenience store or at festivals). These things typically have a disclaimer stating that you will receive information regarding them or other companies. Or even on-line purchases usually have a checkbox auto-checked saying "Recieve Specials & Offers from so-so" Sure, these laws may help protect the consumer, but you can not protect the consumer from themselves.
I would think opt-in would help the post office, by pushing unsolicited mail back from email to paper. Or were you assuming an opt-in approach to the post office as well?
Hi. I'm in the anti-spam business. You got lucky.
A lot of spammers use fake unsubscribe links as a way of verifying your address and the fact that you read the message. Some questionable businesses have verification elements to their unsubscribe links that will note the fact that you visited the site but then due to a bug fail to process your unsubscribe attempt (thus netting the same effect).
I will sometimes unsubscribe from things, but that's because I want to see how successful it was (and I can deal with the trouble caused by attracting more spam). I do not suggest this for others. Use sites like myWOT to research the link before trusting it enough to follow it and perform the request. Use sites like SpamCop and KnujOn (and, if you're in France, Signal Spam, which has legal enforcement power) to report anything else as spam. All of those reporting agencies are tied to actual enforcement (in some way; KnujOn busts registrars, SpamCop informs network operators (and builds its blocklist), Signal Spam prosecutes if in France).
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
It's usually better to go with non-nebulous terms like Unsolicited Commercial Email. Annoying emails from banks and organizations which I have a connection with ARE Unsolicited Commercial Email if they are a) unsolicited, b) commercial and c) sent electronically. It doesn't matter if I have a bank account with them; I never told them I was interested in their other offerings. If we had any other conversations over their other offerings, it was me telling them I never wanted to hear about their credit card offerings. Interestingly, if *I* try to contact THEM about such things, they tell me that the credit card stuff comes from a different company held by their parent corporation. Which goes full circle to the fact that I don't have a relationship with that company, and so should not be receiving offers from them.
Hopefully this law will close that loophole.
Any bad companies sending spam will be off-shore and/or untraceable. The legitimate companies sending out emails that people subscribed to will be nailed for not following the exacting letter of the law. Just one more nail in the coffin of non mining businesses in Canada.
A simple predictive test for how effective laws of this type are in Canada would be the 3-5 calls I get per week where I have won a trip, can lower my CC rates, or have a problem with my "Windows" that I must immediately fix. Since the DNC came into effect I receive more, not less. This sucks because I am now answering zero long distance calls where I don't recognize the number.
Sounds very similar to the telemarketing Do Not Call List.
Same problems likely. Too many loopholes. No enforcement.
However it is a step in the right direction. Seems every now and again they might try and make an example of the very worst to make it look like they are actually doing anything about it.
Anyway got to start somewhere I suppose, even if useless and toothless. Typically this kind of legislation is setup to get at the worst offenders, while allowing a lot a pass for economic reasons mostly. Even if it isn't initially enforced, the law is in place that will allow it to be should the public make a big enough fuss about it politically.
Too bad this law can't stop non-Canadian phone-spammers from claiming to be "Canadian Pharmacy."
This legislation was sssented to 2010-12-15. It still hasn't been enacted. It likely never will, but every couple of months someone comes along and rediscovers it.
No they don't. Spam is unsolicited and from criminals 100% of the time.
Annoying emails from banks and organizations which you have a connection with are NOT spam. Annoying, yes, but spam they are not.
Oh, and those ones from Citibank aren't actually from Citibank. They're spam from criminals.
Actually, it is
I get monthly mailings separately from Rogers Wireless (I haven't had a Roger's cell in years), Rogers Cable TV, and Rogers Hi-Speed Internet, offering their latest/greatest bundle. I did not opt-in to marketing-spam, and this new law covers that, meaning that if I get letters from them now offering services I repeatedly tell them I don't want, then I can sue them (or at least rat them out and get them a huge fine).
Similarly I get monthly mailings separately from Bell for Wireless "As an existing customer" (I've never had Bell for wireless) and Bell Satellite TV (again, never had dealings with them). Both of these mailings come from a door-to-door marketing firm running through the neighborhood, for whom I opened the door and confirmed I'm the resident (they subsequently signed me up for all of their BS)
The only correspondence I might care about from Rogers is a notice of increase in my existing Cable TV rates (they are legally obligated to send those notifications, so I have time to cancel my service before it goes into effect), or default on payment (which I've never done, but I'd still like to know if I ever do), and I want no correspondence from Bell, ever.
Part of this new law is "Opt-In" is mandatory, instead of "Opt-Out".
I, for one, look forward to our new lack of unsolicited snail-mail.
I guarantee you that you did in fact opt-in to these, even if you aren't aware of it. If there is an opt-out which works, which is the case with practically every legitimate business on the planet, including Rogers, it is not spam.
Your post advocates a
( ) technical (X) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(X) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(X) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(X) Asshats
(X) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of spam
(X) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(X) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Problem is that the spammers spam from countries that have little or no spam legislation or enforcement: India, China, Estonia, Russia, Ukraine, Brazil, etc, etc.
There is little control to register a website or set up a mail server, and spammers also love to zombie a mail server that isn't theirs.
A solution needs to be global and enforced. If country X doesn't play along, wall them off. Screams of "1984"? Sorry, the scum and baddies have taken over the Internet. Something needs to be done - sooner rather than later.
I would be happy to pay an ISP and have to register, with ID, but in return get an Internet that is free of ads, spam, pron, tricksters, etc. Oops, there goes 99% of the www...
meaning that if I get letters from them now offering services I repeatedly tell them I don't want, then I can sue them (or at least rat them out and get them a huge fine).
The web page linked in TFA that talks about this law says nothing about letters, only electronic communications like email.
I, for one, look forward to our new lack of unsolicited snail-mail.
Citation required.
If a spammers can operate in nation X to target nation Y, no national anti-spam law is worth a damn. Killing off the local spammers (who will tend to operate under some sense of self-control) means a giant hole that international spammers with no conscience whatsoever will fill.
America's sickening war crimes against other nations mean that many countries are in no mood to recognise external authorities. When the biggest force on the Earth is the most murderous and criminal in Earth's history, who the hell is going to accept the concept of supra-national policing? No sane nation is going to willingly give more authority to America.
Thus, we are in a time of lawlessness on an international level. Gangsterism, of the sort typified by the USA, tends to create this situation. Banning spam then just becomes a cover for isolating a given nation's Internet- and this is what Canada's move is really about. "We want to protect you from spam, but those nasty foreign spammers are beyond our jurisdiction, so we are going to have to put up Internet 'border controls'. " Many Governments like that in Canada have already asked "why should the Internet bypass our border controls?"
Christ on a crutch. Just today, I got an e-mail from OnLive because some bot or idiot used one of my addresses to sign up with. I went to their opt-out page, and among other things was given the option to reroute their fucking newsletter to someone else's inbox without verification. In retrospect, I should have looked one of their executive e-mail addresses up and given it that.
Correct.
Ant that is why TFA itself says
Will individuals see an effect once the new law is in force? Probably not.
All this means is that Canadians won't spam (if the law is enforced).
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=44310431
* 100% Free & it works on known current spammers/phishers as it does on:
---
A.) DNS outages see above ( /. today Network Solutions hosted dns down):
B.) DNS abusing fastflux + dynDNS botnets in link above
C.) Vs. known current malicious code serving servers/exploited sites/adbanners/hosts-domains/malware etc.
D.) Better reliability vs. redirects/other online dns related attacks + downed dns (link above)
E.) More speed vs remote dns servers via a native locally cached 4 speed in RAM hosts file @ Ring 0/RPL 0/kernelmode operation - fastest there is via tcpip.sys + local kernelmode diskcaching subsystems vs. Ring 3/RPL 3/usermode based solutions such as AdBlock or Ghostery layered in over already slower usermode webbrowsers slowing 'em down more (adblock + ghostery = advertiser paid/owned & not fully effective by default "foxes guarding a henhouse" imo)
F.) Better anonymity (vs. DNS request logs + DNSBL you don't like).
---
& more - from a single file you already have...
* Less added moving parts = my doing the same job better = "doth good engineering make" via less complexity + intelligently working w\ what you've got natively is what it produces.!
(Vs. more layered on slowing things up = MORE messaging/memory/ i-o + processing added (in a slower privelege level of operations also))
This uses native drivers nature that's extensively refined for 44++ yrs. tcpip.sys native resolver & diskcache (both kerrnelmode subsystems - fastest possible software) locally doing a job better + versatile & ubiquitous vs. competing 'solutions', & via a custom hosts file filter 4 better speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.
APK
P.S.=> "The Premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature, & reprogram it to make it work for the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen, 'I AM LEGEND'...
... apk
The issue is, a lot of people DO opt-in to these spam 'news letters' without even realizing it. These are the same people who rapidly click through sign-ups, or enter contests (not on-line, IRL such as a local convenience store or at festivals). These things typically have a disclaimer stating that you will receive information regarding them or other companies. Or even on-line purchases usually have a checkbox auto-checked saying "Recieve Specials & Offers from so-so" Sure, these laws may help protect the consumer, but you can not protect the consumer from themselves.
There is no good reason for this post to be sitting at -1 right now. What he says is perfectly valid, if you have a problem with his post then present a counter-argument, don't just down-mod him for no reason.
...Is the mantra of the Harper government. This bill can be seen in the same light: Get real tough (millions of $'s) to punish the few, while still leaving it open for other non-intentional or honest people to get taken to court. If I had a business, I would not like having to ask people to send them emails, I would rather have an "opt-out" system where an initial contact was made with an easy way to say, no thanks. A simple link or button would do, which is less effort than it takes now to opt-out from most spammers and seems to be a more sensible approach.
Society use your Sciences
If you're using SpamCop you might have noticed that more and more ISPs just bounce such reports... Contacting such ISPs via Facebook just gets you list washed (in my experience). The real problem, IMO, are the ISPs that just care more about paying customers than a whining geek bitching about spam.
I don't dispute any of that. SpamCop does not listwash and does not condone listwashing. (I can't speak for Facebook, but they do have a good presence at the last remaining anti-spam conference and they do care.) SpamCop is not really an enforcement mechanism because it has no legal weight. Responsible network admins will be notified, those who ignore or otherwise don't play fair won't. That's merely the first pass; there's also the blocklist. Not perfect, but at least there can be some repercussion (so keep on reporting! Even if it seems like it's not doing anything, we may just not be getting critical mass for action, which can change over time).
We're basically set up to plug right into a legal body for real enforcement. Hint hint.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
2nd: mx mail data isn't handled by hosts files (I never said it was): My program's for end users & blocks known malicious spammers/phishers/sites-servers-hosts-domains known to be malscripted or serving malware with data from 12 reputable sources in the security community. If you can't touch links the idiots send in email (since they're known & blocked off via custom hosts files)? Connections you speak of = impossible since "What you can't touch, can't hurt you". A hosts file that's "too big" 4 Windows native faulty with larger hosts files dns clientside cache service? You cut the dns clientside cache service (saving cpu cycles, ram, & other forms of I/O it used). Local kernelmode diskcache subsystem will cache hosts! 37mb's a partial set only! You show you don't even understand how big the data is with custom hosts out there. You're also not very observant: My program can automatically update custom hosts file data it gathers every 12 hours (see screenshot). In the end you look quite stupid here. You did it to yourself (it's "notorious", not how you misspelled it).
APK
P.S.=> I love it when you amateurs like you here *try* to "condescend to me" when 9/10ths haven't even begun to achieve what I've done in the art & science of computing since 1994 professionally to decent acclaim a few times (dozen or so) while you were most likely still in DIAPERS & I have something to show for myself that works and does exactly what I state it does, & it's far from the "most complex" thing I've ever written but it does "do the job" & with what I state it does on its download page, guaranteed! It's only 1 of around 40 apps I've done & put online since 1996 or so that've done well in respected computing trade publications, technical show contests (like MS-TechEd 2000-2002 where some of my work was a 2 yrs. in a row finalist in the hardest category there "SQLServer Performance Enhancement"). How about you by comparison, big talker?... apk
Didn't go that way here for you did it http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44320393 (prove me wrong with technical facts, not your weak failed attempts @ ad hominem attacks thinly veiled & under ac posts now too, lol). You were so techincally WRONG on a great many points, I merely corrected you. Prove me wrong. Sorry, but you did end up sounding stupid sounding off on something you have no idea on from your own mistakes evidencing it. I only stated facts he nor yourself, can disprove. Is that you posting ac now "Sword"/"Blade"? On your attempt to bust on my app: Hey - That's how often I have it do it based on updates I've seen over the past 15++ yrs. from various reputable sources I've seen: That's their average rate overall over 15 total sources. However, it works, it's VERY ACCURATE, & yes it works also vs. spam/phish and a HELL OF A LOT MORE, too... So again - I'll ask you, Mr. Critic: Where yours? Solely yours YOURS?? Zero! Don't think so. Mine even speeds you up. Does yours?? Doubt it. If anything it adds weight/complexity using bayesian filters built on regexp I'd guess, lol... cat vs. mouse forever game too. Bottom-Line though: I can back everything I state with facts via the result of the program, hosts, gives you in added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent - it's all I need. Sometimes, tunes for example, are say, Pink Floyd (complex), other times, they're AC/DC (less complex) - both good. That's all I can say about your ac rib on my program.
Where's yours? Solely, yours, that is - not built with a team. That's all... lol! The program's NOT the good part of my app - the resulting custom hosts file, is. On a lot of levels. I can say I am President Obama too, Mr. totally ac : I nearly guarantee I could walk into your place of employ, especially in DB work of ANY KIND on ANY LEVEL from dev to DBA & do the same (I've worked in the Fortune 100-500 before on large enterprise class systems around db engines of various kinds on various platforms)... so "been there done that", & I wager while you were still in diapers (considering your 'pure ac masked man' post)...
APK
P.S.=> Don't attempt to condescend to me or make me look like the "bad guy" here: That fool Khoresh (whatever) said he was going to rip me apart - too bad it went otherwise (prove me wrong with facts, not ad hominem attacks & alleged status you have on the job).... apk
Does it 'filter' spam? It blocks access to links posted in phish/spam mails that lead to malicious exploits. My tool doesn't let you get to place they try lead you to. IP Addresses are BY FAR less used because of "FastFlux" &/or "Dynamic DNS" based botnets (by far, like 99% to 1% since IP addressed threats are EASILY KILLED whereas fastflux or dynDNS based threats can "live again" & be reincarnated easily due to the nature of DNS they exploit). I don't have to claim anything other than the truth & it's there on spam above (and far more that your product doesn't even TOUCH). My program's data is always as up to date as a dozen sources for custom hosts file data make it, every day. I don't NEED resumes anymore really - I am no longer a fulltime dev (was from 1994-2009) & then went part time since I run a business as well of my own. Your programs solely for spam filtering. Mine does it to an extent, but it also blocks out a lot more threats than just spam, it speeds you up 1 of 2 ways (hardcodes & adblocking), makes you more reliable (vs. redirect poisoned or downed DNS), & even more anonymous to an extent (vs. DNS request logs + gets you around DNSBL's you may not like).
APK
P.S.=> Mine can do spam/phish, but it does a LOT MORE that yours? Can't even BEGIN to touch... apk
Jeremy Reimer/arstechnica caught impersonating me "Anyway the "APK" registered here is just an affectionate clone of the original. In fact I prefer him to the original." - Jeremy Reimer - March 25, 2005
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22OSY%22+and+%22affectionate+clone%22+and+%22Reimer%22&btnG=Search
& here (Windows IT Pro magazine forums):
http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/internals-and-architecture/the-memory-optimization-hoax#feedbackAnchor
On his forums admitted it @ Windows IT Pro (on his forums before he was removed from them by his hosting provider to another hosting provider & started again + he was caught spamming/harassing me, making edited photos of me & more by his ISP Shaw Canada, & his hosting provider + Jay Little kicked their sites off (CrystalTech.com). Think arstechnica doesn't pull that kind of crap using sockpuppets to do it? /. too whom I caught lying on who he was & he agreed w/ 99% of what I wrote. Reimer's a known troll online who can't even begin to understand this tech @ the level. He brought his "henchmen"? Got nuked like you here! Neither could "the good doctor" Mr. Russinovich & I challenged him repeatedly directly (& I've corrected HIS work too pagedefrag.exe which he thanked me for too).
Knocked the SNOT outta his pal Jay Little (on Exchange Servers which he claimed to be "expert" on,lol, being unfrozen/sped up by memopttech in article former co-worker of mine Dr. Mark Russinovich wrote (whom I shot down easily w/ MS' own documentation)) + Ramdisks too! Same vs. a doctoral candidate pal of his too who posts here as "StarKruzr" on
Worst of all you defeat yourself attempting to "knock me" via failing illogical off-topic ad hominem attack attempts!
Above all else:
When you've got successful commercial software to YOUR NAME/CREDIT as I do from decades ago while you were still in diapers that YOU wrote YOURSELF?
Then, you can talk down to me or as a PEER, but not until then!
Lastly - Iirc, here you asked WHY I'd run my app resident all the time?? Protection of the hosts file via readonly protection applied every 1/2 second is why. Impossible to undo while it runs. Locked: Fact: I am doing FAR MORE WITH LESS (good engineering) vs. layering on MORE complexity like you do, but I do roughly the same job on spam you do protecting users (complimenting apps like yours in fact clientside), plus a hell of a lot more, your more "moving parts" solution can't even BEGIN to offer in increased speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity.
(Check SuperSpeed.com's Eric Dickman on MS Tech Ed 2000-2002 finalist placement 2 yrs. in a row hardest category "SQLServer Performance Enhancement" w/ techniques 4 caching & SSD usage that only now are being "stumbled upon" in industrial use by youngsters like you @ exchange server, terminal server, + db server level decades later)
APK
P.S.=> "Nobody rules these streets at night but me: NOBODY: The Atomic PunK" - Van Halen
Your product does not block spam and will not help with inbox volume. It will not help protect against non-domain-based payloads in the slightest.
You have failed to provide evidence that your product can compete with URIBLs in any way other than anonymity (also, can you name an end-user product that doesn't let you disable "DNSBL's you may not like?").
APK Hosts File's 12 hour updates are way too slow to handle most phish or malware (or snowshoe, or fast-flux) links. If you dispute that, you'll have to back your argument. Demonstrate your effectiveness in some way.
Do blocks of bad links in email protect you vs. spam/phish? Yes! That's the most important part vs exploit. It's free - is your companies'? I never say mine cleans inboxes: It removes a threat though! The most important part. Fact: My app does more by far vs. your companies' too, clientside (actually compliments yours) by a mile (from "little ole' me" only) in terms of gaining users added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity & less moving parts than other solutions do, period! QUESTION: How many of the things my app lists it does which nobody can disprove, does yours do? ANSWER = ~ not even 1/16th! I was also right as rain you don't have squat to show for yourself that you did yourself whereas by way of comparison? I have them by the score & as far back as when you were in dapers boy - despite your failed illogical attempts @ ad hominem attacks on myself here http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44328987 on me (that I turned aside with FACTS!).
Evidence? Please - If you can't touch a malicious link? You can't be hurt by it which is what my app's resultfile yields for users...lol, common-sense is all you need here! You can manually do more than the automated updates every 12 hours you know (or I could alter the rate but its optimal for 12 custom hosts data sites already).
My app stops spam & other online threats (yours doesn't on the latter & doesn't completely stop the former) no questions asked, in any malicious links they use. Again: That's the important part - eliminating the malicious threat. Bottom-line: My free app does more than your companies' does by far! Offering better speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity (and yes, spam/phish protection too) & from a single fellow using native parts fast as possible in kernelmode already present in the OS itself: Fact/period/no questions asked. It compliments your companies' app clientside extremely efficiently via its results file operating in the fastest mode possible: Kernelmode. Is yours free too?
APK
P.S.=> You fail despite stating you'd "rip me apart" & you blew it on tech here - better hope I don't apply at your company: I'd take your job from you, based on your poor tech fact performance here:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44320393
You FAIL in weak attempts @ ad hominem attacks that I easily dusted on Jeremy Reimer the troll in the 1st link above + on tech facts all thru this debate vs. yourself... lol, it was "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'"... apk
Repeatedly Here http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44320393 , here http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44324495 & here http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44326627 lastly here http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44328987
* Learn to RESPECT your elders & BETTERS, boy! By NOT doing so? You've been "shown up" badly by "yours truly", bigtime, no denying it. So much for your +5 rating - it's going to attract others to see just how you operate, and your poor results! I love it, you had it coming for how you started out on me calling me a 'spammer'!
Especially since I was completely correct on tons of tech points correcting YOUR blatant tech MISTAKES in the links above, despite your "rip me apart" comment b.s.you burnt yourself on in those links above & I did things you've not managed while you were STILL IN DIAPERS in the art & science of computing! Very DUMB of you there, not realizing you may have run into someone that's done more, & has more experience (decades of it in computing since 1982 & 1994 professionally on nearly every level possible).
Fact: I also knew I was right that you have NO independent efforts of your own that did any good (proving you must not be that good essentially) as mine have repeatedly for decades (ontop of professional development duties on the job before I got into real estate) in commercially sold successful server & workstation wares, shareware/freeware, & technical trade show competitions etc./et al!.
Bottom-line: Your failed illogical attempts @ ad hominem attack (last link above)?
Useless!
Especially after the results in the links above before thelast one, & your technical mistakes in them!
(Young fools - you're ALL the same, every single time you "try" me, you fail, badly. Lots of "talk" too, but yet no personal accomplishments on their own in this field that did well, & failing illogical ad hominem attacks on me I dusted easily using facts (documented, verifiable, & undeniable), but NOTHING you've done personally by yourself seems to have made "good waves" in the art & science of computing (whereas I have many times by way of comparison)).
Not only was the last link above a failing illogical ad hominem attack attempt on me personally, BUT, Your 1st post to me called me a spammer too - do you even KNOW who got caught impersonating me here on /. on THAT account? Look no farther than another "corporate stooge" technically weak fool named Jeremiah Cornelius -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3934725&cid=44187445 (caught in his lies too, lol).
APK
P.S.=> Your result? You grabbed a "Cyberian Tiger" by the tail, & lost - badly, & on many accounts! Shouldn't have opened your mouth saying "you'd rip me apart" (when I did that to you, repeatedly & especially on TECH areas (or, don't those links above prove that much? Yes, they do...)):
Face facts boy - "Nobody rules these streets at night but me: NOBODY - The Atomic PunK" - Van Halen
= ad-hominem/"to-the-man" illogical off topic attack of myself!
Don't feed me crap on who started what here http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44318811 & the poor means used on HIS part!
( & a failed 1 at that as I also utterly totalled the rest of his off topic illogical FAILING ad hominem attacks b.s. easily with concrete, verifiable & undeniable evidence here too http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44328987 & his BLATANTLY ERRONEOUS "so-called 'tech points'" in the rest of my replies - easily!)
Fact: The VERY SECOND you young rookies resort to that, "to-the-man" failed ad hominem attacks of MYSELF, vs. my points? Is the very second I KNOW I have you "on the ropes" failing badly on YOUR end!
---
LMAO 1 relevant point vs. spam? Easy: Block the malicious links in spam/phish mails @ hosts level?? You're protected - common sense, & there you are.
My app does that using kernelmode/ring 0/rpl 0 using roughly 44 & 23 yr. proven & refined kernelmode subsystems to do it (tcpip.sys & diskcaching).
Bottom-line of HOW & WHY my app works: A simple principle, per my earlier quote of the film character in my 1st reply to Khopesh (which he attacked me ad hominem style on in reply - illogical, off topic, and with TONS OF TECHNICAL ERRORS ON HIS PART TOO):
"The Premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature, & reprogram it to make it work for the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen, 'I AM LEGEND'...
I.E.-> "You can't get burned if you don't go into the kitchen"
---
Credentials? Khopesh spewed HIS (oddly as ac + FAR INFERIOR TO MY OWN), but "that's ok", right??
Wrong -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44324117 by AC POST too no less (gosh I wonder WHY he did that by AC admittedly? He was LOSING BAD is why, lol, & that's his attempt @ hiding it!).
* Thank-You for YET another "notch on my belt" vs. young ROOKIE level wannabes on /.!
---
Lastly: What makes me laugh MOST?
The FACT that My app does MORE than his does by FAR on far more levels for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity even & it's free + works just as I state it does, effectively & VERY efficiently (best part) - even complimenting ones like his, clientside!
(Additional thanks - For making me look good, & yourself? LMAO - "not so good' -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44331237 )
APK
P.S.=> Your end result? You grabbed a "Cyberian Tiger" by the tail, & lost - badly, & on many accounts! Shouldn't have opened your mouth saying "you'd rip me apart" (when I did that to you, repeatedly & especially on TECH areas (or, doesn't the last link consolidating your FAILS prove that much? Yes, it does...)):
Face facts boy - "Nobody rules these streets at night but me: NOBODY - The Atomic PunK" - Van Halen
WTF? Whose methodologies can't be fully examined?? QUESTION:
If a fire was burning in a room, and I stopped you from entering it, would you be harmed by it???
Answer that!
However - you already DID, here:
"Yes, you theoretically block links from being visited once a spam has been read. How effectively? How promptly?" - http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44329541
How promptly? LOCALLY FAST vs. remote stuff like you have is how fast... lol, right outta RAM, kernelmode drivers processing is how fast - fast as it gets. You? Don't.
You FAIL, just on common-sense a CHILD could understand... lol, give up already! You're posting as ac too admittedly Khopesh - > http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44324117 Why? Hell, easy to explain that too:
You KNOW you fucked up calling me a spammer off the bat here - and then you fucked up on tech stuff all over the place too... rookie.
(Obvious loud mouthed arrogant little rookie... lol! That's right: I am NOT pulling any punches with you anymore - not after your starting up with me in your 1st reply to me.
* Who am I fooling - you won't even answer my other questions or confront my other points, since they UTTERLY FLOORED YOU all thru this debate exchange, easily!
APK
P.S.=> You DID admit the above already though, that if you can't touch the fire, you can't be burned (which IS exactly what hosts block entries allow vs. not only spam/phishing, all your program does essentially, but also ALL KINDS of OTHER THREATS ONLINE + it speeds you up too 2 ways, & adds reliability + anonymity as well)...
... apk
What on-topic points have you made? What citations of efficacy? You can't just say "you're protected" and leave it at that. That's no argument.
I understand how hosts files work. You appear to have a clever system to work around the size limits and make it work efficiently. Great. How performant is your data against live threats? What's your miss rate? How does it compare to URIBLs? How do you deal with non-link threats delivered via email (e.g. 419, attached virus)?
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
Now you're just recycling arguments and renewing your own ad hominem attacks while complaining about hominem attacks.
Please demonstrate how your product measures up against its perceived competition (pros and cons). Demonstrate how your product protects against non-link payloads (we're talking about spam, after all). Demonstrate how your product updates quickly enough to handle fast-flux, phish, or malware. Demonstrate how your data allows your product to catch what others miss.
Certainly you are not arguing that your product contains every possible "bad" domain that its users might click on (even the ones registered in the last few hours), so you must have some way of measuring what your coverage is and how it compares to URIBLs in a live spam feed?
This will be my last post to this thread unless you start talking coherently and on-topic, without further attacks or recitations of yesteryear. No unnecessary all-caps or bold, no movie quotes, no distractions. Answer my challenges, repeated for you earlier in this comment.
"SpamAssassin is free and therefore open source. APK Host File is merely a free download whose methodologies can't be fully examined." - by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 19, 2013 @07:01PM (#44333415)
Write MalwareBytes' hpHosts Mr. Steven Burn: services@it-mate.co.uk New News/NewsFlash/Clue - He's seen my sourcecode, & yes, is a respected part of the security community for more than a decade++ now! I've had the security community "vet" & test my stuff - had to: They are "super-paranoid" about apps, & ought to be - they get sent them by malware makers quite a lot as well as getting DDoS'd (why hpHosts is on AMAZON AWS now in fact). You fail - quit while you're behind, before you "bury yourself" even more, rookie noob. He's also seen me dispute & disprove the likes of McAfee, Norton/Symantec, Comodo, ArcaVir/ArcaBit, Trend Micro, & ClamAV on false positives (and others per jotti & VirusTotal online scanners) on this app also - you don't *want* to *try* to "take me on" in technicals boy... I'll floor you & have many times already here. Done the same to folks @ Microsoft too (Dr. Mark Russinovich per the links earlier I showed you, & also the former VP of MS "Windows Client Performance Division" Richard Russell who posts here as FOREDECKER - he conceded flaws I noted in the IP stack regarding hosts, albeit only eventually once facts floored him too that I discovered MS messed up on badly!).
APK
P.S.=> Based on your poor tech results here especially? Ok - I'll tell you another thing about you "Open sores" rookies from this debate - you're just that: Noobz & Rookies, or were YOU "technically accurate" here -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44320393 Right off the bat? Answer = hell no & yes, your 1st post used illogical off-topic ad homiinem failed attack attempts on myself, calling ME a "spammer"
... apk
Keep making me laugh: Especially after this -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44320393 which dusted you right off the bat on your initial reply full of tech screwups... you have the NERVE to call yourself a computing pro after that? Please... lol!
Recycling arguments? You mean the fact I am stating things you CAN'T DISPROVE that favor my app vs. yours & that show my app does more? That repeatedly SHOW YOUR TECH SCREWUPS TOO?? Absolutely. Yes, I am doing that, rubbing it in & stressing it, since that all shows you're ROOKIE/NOOB @ best/most.
* :)
Anyone is FREE to read this entire exchange & decide "what is what" & anyone sane + computer saavy is NOT going to "go your way", no way, no how.
Are YOU stating you have EVERY POSSIBLE SPAM blocked? You're really "reaching now" & don't realize I can send that RIGHT BACK AT YA... lol, too easy.
Attacks?? Who called WHO a "spammer" you failed idiot that's posting as ac now, hmmm? See here -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44318811
You're a fool: One that can't accept I handed you your ASS on a plate easily + wrote a simple app that does FAR MORE THAN YOURS DOES for users, period...
(Far more on a plethora of useful levels in more security, speed, reliability, & anonymity (and fights spam/phish too like yours serverside,albeit clientside - "bonus!")).
APK
P.S.=> Face facts: Your program? It doesn't do a FRACTION of what mine does for folks in added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity - period... Thus, your program is clearly on those grounds, INFERIOR + not as versatile & ubiquitous... apk
Are you stupid? Again - If a bad link is blocked, can it harm you?? No. That's as effective vs. spam/phish as needed vs. their payload threat links... this compliments serverside apps like yours, albeit clientside, by the way!
In fact - I was going to STATE THAT last part, until you called me "spammer" (I prove WHO was doing those on /. too) - that's RIGHT when you "grabbed the 'Cyberian Tiger' by the tail, me, & you got MAULED for it on technical levels, but moreso via your sockpuppet ac posts and tech fails.
The rest you did for me starting here technically -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44320393
Calling me a "spammer" too http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985441&cid=44318811 ? You're nothing but an ignorant little rookie noob (especially after that 1st link above where you don't show you know much @ all).
APK
P.S.=> Face facts: Your program? It doesn't do a FRACTION of what mine does for folks in added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity - period... Thus, your program is clearly on those grounds, INFERIOR + not as versatile & ubiquitous... apk
Jeremiah Cornelius spammed masquerading as apk http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3581857&cid=43276741 so how idiotic do you feel now Khopesh? Is your spamfilter that inaccurate also you utter moron?? You ripped yourself to shreds for being an idiot.