Email isn't intended to be used as instant messaging but it is instant in most case's I've tested my email in the past againsed MSN Messenger and sometimes it's faster.
So it's easy to understand why user's assume that the email is instant (Altho their still wrong to assume so), most email delays I've gotten have been with large amounts of attachments
When set-up with good rules and RBLs it blocks at least 99% spam with very low false positives (I've never had a false positive).
Send anything tagged as spam to another account such as spam@domain (I do this) then you can manually check for false positives to further reduce the chance of losing legit email. (or if a user complains that an email they expected never arrived)
On the internet, everyone is an anonymous coward, and people behave differently when they have perfect anonymity. (It breeds asshats - check my posting history, I assure you that I have more kneejerk rants on this site than anyplace in the oxygenated world.)
And that's a good thing! I recently received this comment "haven't got the guts to show your face i see!! thats cos if i found you id KICK YOUR FUCKING ASS!!!"
for exercising my free speech. (Burning a US flag)
People just aren't responsible enough to be trusted with not having anonymity. Sure you get asshats and they piss me off as well but overall we are better off than if we didn't have the option of anonymity.
I'm sorry but I find it difficult to believe that you even have a faint clue what your talking about.
What the hell am I doing paying $300 a month when I can apparently get the service for free with a $15 domain name.
You claim that content providers should pay for their content and then sprout bullshit that they should obtain their service's for free. The problem is that is infrastructure isn't free at the end of the day someone has to pay.
The customer did not pay to operate a server (see the terms of service for virtually all residential Internet service). And the content provider did not pay for any service from the ISP at all. P2P isn't a server you obviously DON'T know what a server (or P2P) is.
The problem comes when content providers refuse to pay their freight. Did you know servers cost money? Check Wikipedia for "Bit Torrent Tracker"
This is the same straw man argument we see again and again from groups like "Save the Internet," which rave that the Internet and free speech I'm not an expert of voIP but the last I checked Skype can be used to communicate with other people and *Gasp* share idea's
Last I checked free-speech was not limited to text but also included video and other media that's far to large to be distributed via means other than bit torrent.
If you don't have the knowledge to publish something, That's just it more people can learn to publish via bit torrent than they can running their own server and at a fraction of the cost.
I will PayPal $20 to anyone who can explain to me how bit torrent is âoeTheft of Serviceâ Also if anyone has a server they can provide to me for free I need to distribute about 1.5 - 4Terrabytes per month I have a budget of $0
This is the fundamental contract of the privatized Internet: everyone pays his or her way to the backbone. Then where is the problem?
P2P is a method of (a) shifting costs and (b) avoiding the establishment of centrally located sites which can be shut down That's the advantage of it, Yes The Internet has always been about freespeech and allowing others to voice there opinions. Why should only the rich be allowed to distribute their content? Do you know what it cost to run a server? I don't know many people who could afford to do so let alone have the knowledge to manage the server.
he ISP doesn't pay anything, unless they are providing FREE service.
Yes, it does, because it is providing flat rate service. The user pays it no more money, but its costs go through the roof. Hence, the distributor of the content is setting up a server on their networks and taking service from them without compensation. Hang on, are you saying that the ISP shouldn't have to provide the service their customer paid for? I think most consumer protection laws would disagree with you.
I pay for my connection to the backbone and if my ISP doesn't let me use 100% of what I pay for they must compensate me in some way, or else they have committed fraud!
Where did this idea come that it's OK to make the user pay and than not deliver? I thought you argued the opposite just before. "everyone pays his or her way to the backbone." unless I misunderstood.
It's the best way to allocate limited resources. P2P breaks the asymmetrical bandwidth model not because it is any more efficient but rather because it allows the content provider's costs to be shifted from the content provider to the ISP. The ISP doesn't pay anything, unless they are providing FREE service.
But some content providers don't want to pay their freight. They want to shift the cost of distributing their content to someone else. How is a content provider who uses bit torrent NOT paying for distribution?
I know people who are paying hundreds of dollars a month to distribute via bit torrent. Bandwidth cost's money and if the user is happy to contribute some bandwidth towards distribution, then why shouldn't they? I see plenty of PayPal donation buttons on website's, how is bandwidth different.
100% of my website's and content (although it's been awhile now) are/where produced for free. I don't have thousands of dollars available to push terra-bytes of content across the Internet, especially when the content is free.
Bit torrent provides an Equal opportunity for content distribution, now you don't have to be Rupert Murdoch to deliver media to the masses.
Some companies that want to profiteer on it (e.g. BitTorrent, Inc.) are trying to get legitimate media outlets to use P2P, but it's unwise of them to do it; it might prevent crackdowns on piracy due to "substantial noninfringing uses." Um... That's the whole point.
P2P was intended for file sharing what was it's original purpose, but it always had problems due to residential users having a lower upload than download. Bit torrent was written to solve this problem and now people are capable of downloading and distributing huge amounts of data that would have previously been inconceivable.
P2P is a perfectly legal and legitimate way to distribute media and the more people we get on our side the more we can fight people who are trying to control our Internet use.
ISP's aren't putting money into their infrastructure otherwise they wouldn't have problems with bit-torrent. This just gives them another excuse to cheap out and when on-demand video becomes the main source of TV content..... well so much for net neutrality now they have natural (not sure what word to use) throttling to force users onto their service.
I might send it to my clients at 1am to avoid high server load. This will dramicically increase my server load since my clients will be grabbing the email all at once.
Also If I'm away and a client emails some documents to me its pretty important that they don't expire on the clients server.
Overall it's not a bad idea, just a few issue's that may need refining.
It seems rather hypocritical for US politicians to criticize censorship in China when they refuse to do anything to stop censorshop right here in the US and often support it. I am referring to the lack of action being taken on net neutrality and prohibuting corporations from censoring the internet. People think that because its a corporation its not a real threat, but it is. The United States is governed by corporate bodies as we have seen countless time in the past.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do RBLs suck?
You can't get on them unless your server sends spam.
Why would you take a client who has been blacklisted?
Someone's never heard of personal opinion I see.
Email isn't intended to be used as instant messaging but it is instant in most case's I've tested my email in the past againsed MSN Messenger and sometimes it's faster.
So it's easy to understand why user's assume that the email is instant (Altho their still wrong to assume so), most email delays I've gotten have been with large amounts of attachments
I cast my vote for SpamAssassin.
When set-up with good rules and RBLs it blocks at least 99% spam with very low false positives (I've never had a false positive).
Send anything tagged as spam to another account such as spam@domain (I do this) then you can manually check for false positives to further reduce the chance of losing legit email. (or if a user complains that an email they expected never arrived)
Why do people keep suggesting gmail as a viable option?
It's really not that good.
I link people to articles on .php pages all the time.
.php
MSN isn't blocking
So is the users ISP
So you need to have BOTH cell phone and Internet just to use Internet?
I fail to see the logic
I fail to see the problem
Why wouldn't you trust a total stranger with your neighbours credit card?
On the internet, everyone is an anonymous coward, and people behave differently when they have perfect anonymity. (It breeds asshats - check my posting history, I assure you that I have more kneejerk rants on this site than anyplace in the oxygenated world.)
And that's a good thing!I recently received this comment
"haven't got the guts to show your face i see!! thats cos if i found you id KICK YOUR FUCKING ASS!!!"
for exercising my free speech. (Burning a US flag)
People just aren't responsible enough to be trusted with not having anonymity. Sure you get asshats and they piss me off as well but overall we are better off than if we didn't have the option of anonymity.
What the hell am I doing paying $300 a month when I can apparently get the service for free with a $15 domain name.
You claim that content providers should pay for their content and then sprout bullshit that they should obtain their service's for free. The problem is that is infrastructure isn't free at the end of the day someone has to pay. The customer did not pay to operate a server (see the terms of service for virtually all residential Internet service). And the content provider did not pay for any service from the ISP at all. P2P isn't a server you obviously DON'T know what a server (or P2P) is. The problem comes when content providers refuse to pay their freight. Did you know servers cost money? Check Wikipedia for "Bit Torrent Tracker" This is the same straw man argument we see again and again from groups like "Save the Internet," which rave that the Internet and free speech I'm not an expert of voIP but the last I checked Skype can be used to communicate with other people and *Gasp* share idea's
Last I checked free-speech was not limited to text but also included video and other media that's far to large to be distributed via means other than bit torrent. If you don't have the knowledge to publish something, That's just it more people can learn to publish via bit torrent than they can running their own server and at a fraction of the cost.
I will PayPal $20 to anyone who can explain to me how bit torrent is âoeTheft of Serviceâ
Also if anyone has a server they can provide to me for free I need to distribute about 1.5 - 4Terrabytes per month I have a budget of $0
The Internet has always been about freespeech and allowing others to voice there opinions. Why should only the rich be allowed to distribute their content? Do you know what it cost to run a server? I don't know many people who could afford to do so let alone
have the knowledge to manage the server.
Yes, it does, because it is providing flat rate service. The user pays it no more money, but its costs go through the roof. Hence, the distributor of the content is setting up a server on their networks and taking service from them without compensation. Hang on, are you saying that the ISP shouldn't have to provide the service their customer paid for?
I think most consumer protection laws would disagree with you.
I pay for my connection to the backbone and if my ISP doesn't let me use 100% of what I pay for they must compensate me in some way, or else they have committed fraud!
Where did this idea come that it's OK to make the user pay and than not deliver? I thought you argued the opposite just before. "everyone pays his or her way to the backbone." unless I misunderstood.
I know people who are paying hundreds of dollars a month to distribute via bit torrent. Bandwidth cost's money and if the user is happy to contribute some bandwidth towards distribution, then why shouldn't they? I see plenty of PayPal donation buttons on website's, how is bandwidth different.
100% of my website's and content (although it's been awhile now) are/where produced for free. I don't have thousands of dollars available to push terra-bytes of content across the Internet, especially when the content is free.
Bit torrent provides an Equal opportunity for content distribution, now you don't have to be Rupert Murdoch to deliver media to the masses.
I paid for my connection!
Fortunatly in Australia we have consumer protection laws that protect us from fraud.
P2P was intended for file sharing what was it's original purpose, but it always had problems due to residential users having a lower upload than download. Bit torrent was written to solve this problem and now people are capable of downloading and distributing huge amounts of data that would have previously been inconceivable.
P2P is a perfectly legal and legitimate way to distribute media and the more people we get on our side the more we can fight people who are trying to control our Internet use.
ISP's aren't putting money into their infrastructure otherwise they wouldn't have problems with bit-torrent. This just gives them another excuse to cheap out and when on-demand video becomes the main source of TV content..... well so much for net neutrality now they have natural (not sure what word to use) throttling to force users onto their service.
What happens if I'm sending a mailing list?
I might send it to my clients at 1am to avoid high server load. This will dramicically increase my server load since my clients will be grabbing the email all at once.
Also If I'm away and a client emails some documents to me its pretty important that they don't expire on the clients server.
Overall it's not a bad idea, just a few issue's that may need refining.
Of course it makes them better at killing...
I mean um.... Healing
Gmail seems to get ALLOT more spam than other service's.
Because email is an open medium!
How do you suggest we change it?
Because right now your comment is no more useful than "We should fix it"
Or sewer clogged with garbage depends which way you look it it.
Because the "facts" can be proven.
Remember Linux comes in many flavors Microsoft get to pick and choose.
I'm sick of the whole "Web 2.0" buzz word that those media asshats keep spreading all over the place.
It almost as bad as "Information super highway"