I'd like to see people start citing instances in which SPEWS instated a large level-1 block without cause or provocation. Of course, I'd also like to see those who claim that X would be faster without network transparency cite benchmarks. Unfortunately, it seems that the knee-jerk reactions are in full effect here.
I'm not sure the detractors can, as many seem unable to get past the fact that they disagree with the listing criteria. For the most part, SPEWS actually follows their listing criteria. There were a few mistakes, many obviously human error typos and such, but were corrected quickly when it was mentioned in n.a.n-a.e.
Yes. Blocklists can reject the message as the SMTP protocol level. It's possible to literally drop the TCP/IP link before even the first headers gets sent. Any content filter solution (header or body of the email) will require receipt of the full message. At that point, the spammer has already wasted your bandwidth resources, and is now going to waste even more of your CPU resources in filtering it.
Maybe I'm unusual, but I would guess I'm not the only one that does this. It no different than using a DVR or TIVO for it. This is not a new threat to advertisers.
Try this with 40 shows, many syndicated and on 3 different networks, keep those tapes organized, don't forget to put a fresh one in every 6 hours. Keep the entire schedule in your head, too. At that point, you might... just might... be approaching the functionality of a DVR. Of course, with all this organizing you're doing you might just be better off watching the shows.
No. This is invariably the problem with trying to explain a DVR to someone who has not owned one. The DVR truly changes how you watch TV. Your whole perspective changes after using it awhile. These things are much, much more than just a digital VCR.
Only us nerds care about comparing. To 95% of users, a computer is a tool. A tool that they turn on, do a job, and get on with their lives. Deciding on which tool to buy is a horrifying chore. They would rather balance their checkbook on paper than do that.
The media has never discussed this part. Is the old teleco going to be able to charge me for use of this number after I move to the new teleco? I ask this because many telecos offered pseudo number portability by offering call forwarding, for a monthly fee on top of new teleco's bill.
Very interesting, the first time I read it that is
on
The Worst Jobs in Science
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
I gave up in favor of SpamAssassin and Mozilla's spam filtering, which turned out to be far more effective.
That depends on your goal. You apparently want to not see the spam after it's sent, but don't care about paying for it's transmission. Some people care about the latter and view the spam problem as a social one that must be addressed.
The main article here was either so badly written, or so badly mangled by the editor, that I don't think the original point they were trying to make is salvagable. Give up folks. You'll never stop the Slashdot horde from righteous indignation at a corporate-type "controlling audio standards" on this one. To many post-only accounts, not enough read.
Is it really fair to call it technological regression? There's more to flight than raw speed. The Concordes were notoriously inefficient. I think an argument can be made that some of Boeing's latest offerings are technologically more advanced.
So true! The true innovation of the jet engine was not that it was faster. It was because it reduced vibration as compared to props and was more efficient. Faster was merely a side benefit. The physics involved in commercial supersonic travel just don't make it economical enough.
Unfortunately, it wasn't the cost of the plane but the cost of operation. Building them in bulk wouldn't have reduced that cost significantly. The real issues are that you can't operate the thing over populated areas, making it only useful for transoceanic flights. And, more importantly, the market of people who are willing to pay 3 to 5 times the price for a ticket, to save themselves 6 hours of flying time, is extremely small.
What everyone is dancing around is the students changing the name of the site. Now we all know, in reality, the University knows there is no confusion as to who runs the site but dislikes the content. That's the true tragedy. Trademark law doesn't mean you can't ever mention someone's trademark, but is there to prevent confusion of brands. (Meatspace spoofing)
So these students have two options. They can change their domain, which I believe to be unnecessary, or they can put a clear disclaimer on the site that they don't represent the university in any official capacity.
I suggest you take a closer look at your bills. "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." The bills must be accepted for the payment of debts, services, etc., by U.S. law. You cannot pick which bills you will or will not accept, under U.S. law.
A common misinterpretation of the text. If you think carefully, it implies no obligation for me to accept it. Why can't I pay for my $150 grocery bill in pennies? That's "legal tender."
No, it's legal tender in that it can be used. Not that it must be accepted.
I didn't mean legitimate provider, I meant legitimate content
Sorry. You don't get to decide what is legitimate traffic across my networks and what is not. Thanks for your opinion, though.
The provider is simply a channel. Should they get rid of spammers if it's in their power? Yes. Should they be punished if they don't? No.
Absolutely they should. Otherwise, they continue to profit while their peers clean up the mess their abusive customers make. This behavior was unknown 10 years ago, then it became common with ignorant ISP startups. It will no longer be tolerated, and the DNSbls are starting to proliferate enough to make them reform.
Boycotting is not only the correct thing to do, but essential. No amount of baysian-filtering-touting idiots, resdesign-SMTP fools, or technophobe congresscritters are going to fix the spam problem without social pressure against rogue providers. It's a social problem, not a technical one.
If you want to block spam, that's fine... but you just can't convince me that blocking thousands of legit servers, just because they're close to spam servers, is in any way a good practice.
I don't have to convince you, because you don't get to decide my blocking criteria.
You seem to have a different definition of "legitimate" than I do. I do not consider legitimate any provider who does not take action against abusers on their system.
I think the way that some blacklists go about it is very much wrong and harmful to innocent bystanders, and they really should be held more accountable than they are.
I can assume you don't like some of the blocklists listing criteria. May I suggest you not use their lists for blocking, then?
Not even close. I choose to come to slashdot, where his opinion is stored, and get it (even if I filter it on server-side). This is not quite the same as him trying to push it onto my system without my permission. It's a subtle point lost on those who don't understand the procotols HTTP vs. SMTP.
In this case, the owner of the bandwidth and server storage is slashdot. And, they've made it abundantly clear they want most peoples opinions on the topics.
You don't get free storage on my machine or free bandwith without my permission.
The article was very entertaining, but I noticed something that no one else has seemed to.
10 hours? Ojala I had such a window of opportunity. It's 4 hours per week, if we're lucky, and usually right after class when we haven't had time to formulate enough of an opinion to ask decent questions.
Re:They needed three days to figure this out?
on
Spam Meeting Wrap-up
·
· Score: 1
I agree -- a completely backward compatible re-write of the SMTP specification, and getting people to deploy it is exactly what's needed.
And just how is a rewrite of SMTP going to tell whether the incoming mail is spam or not? The real problem is that it's an authentication issue. Unless there's some "trusted authority" to say "this is spammer" or "this is not spammer", you're right back where you started. Who decides?
We already have trusted authorities. DNSbl blacklists, or filters, or Brightmail, or whatever. How is changing to a new protocol going to change it? It's not.
You, and people like you, have a complete misunderstanding of the problem.
Spam would stop if nobody bought anything from spammers.
True. However, the spammers cost-shift their advertising costs onto the end user. Since they can steal from the consumer they have the ability to reduce their costs so much that a previously unrealized business model becomes possible.
Their entire business model is based on that one sucker out of 1 million who buys. There's no way you're going to get the word out to everyone in sufficient quantity to even come close to making a dent in the spammer's income. No... calls for a "spammer boycott" feel really good, but are a waste of effort better spent in other endeavors.
Why wouldn't a nationwide 'do not email' list work?
Because I own my mailbox/machine/network and my premptive decision is that marketers don't get to use it without explicit permission (opt-in). The default is "you don't use my network without my permission", not "you can use it unless I tell you not to."
The last step of this medium is owned by me; not the television networks, not radio networks, but me. The consumer pays the majority of the cost for transmission on the internet, they get to say how it's used and decide who's abusing it. They made their decision a long time ago.
However, when a full month is given to accept/decline the changes, along with (really easy) instruction on declining, I tend to relax a little.
But, do they actually let you decline?
I ask this because, starting in 1999, my privacy preferences were explicitly violated by them. Over the next 2 years I tried to stop being a customer of eBay, to no avail. Including attempting to email decline@ebay.com. It didn't work, they kept sending me email.
The whole sordid thing only ended once the old email address I used back then expired. Only then. I can conclusively say their privacy policy isn't worth a thing and I can back it up with documentation.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to see people start citing instances in which SPEWS instated a large level-1 block without cause or provocation. Of course, I'd also like to see those who claim that X would be faster without network transparency cite benchmarks. Unfortunately, it seems that the knee-jerk reactions are in full effect here.
I'm not sure the detractors can, as many seem unable to get past the fact that they disagree with the listing criteria. For the most part, SPEWS actually follows their listing criteria. There were a few mistakes, many obviously human error typos and such, but were corrected quickly when it was mentioned in n.a.n-a.e.
Am I missing something here?
Yes. Blocklists can reject the message as the SMTP protocol level. It's possible to literally drop the TCP/IP link before even the first headers gets sent. Any content filter solution (header or body of the email) will require receipt of the full message. At that point, the spammer has already wasted your bandwidth resources, and is now going to waste even more of your CPU resources in filtering it.
I got one the other day that was the coversheet, followed by every odd page.
Maybe I'm unusual, but I would guess I'm not the only one that does this. It no different than using a DVR or TIVO for it. This is not a new threat to advertisers.
Try this with 40 shows, many syndicated and on 3 different networks, keep those tapes organized, don't forget to put a fresh one in every 6 hours. Keep the entire schedule in your head, too. At that point, you might... just might... be approaching the functionality of a DVR. Of course, with all this organizing you're doing you might just be better off watching the shows.
No. This is invariably the problem with trying to explain a DVR to someone who has not owned one. The DVR truly changes how you watch TV. Your whole perspective changes after using it awhile. These things are much, much more than just a digital VCR.
One distro can never compare to hundreds of them.
Here's where you get tripped up: compare.
Only us nerds care about comparing. To 95% of users, a computer is a tool. A tool that they turn on, do a job, and get on with their lives. Deciding on which tool to buy is a horrifying chore. They would rather balance their checkbook on paper than do that.
The media has never discussed this part. Is the old teleco going to be able to charge me for use of this number after I move to the new teleco? I ask this because many telecos offered pseudo number portability by offering call forwarding, for a monthly fee on top of new teleco's bill.
Too bad someone didn't already post this before
.Would it have been detected?
A better question, assuming it was detected, is:
Would the consumers at risk have even been told about the attempt?
I gave up in favor of SpamAssassin and Mozilla's spam filtering, which turned out to be far more effective.
That depends on your goal. You apparently want to not see the spam after it's sent, but don't care about paying for it's transmission. Some people care about the latter and view the spam problem as a social one that must be addressed.
The main article here was either so badly written, or so badly mangled by the editor, that I don't think the original point they were trying to make is salvagable. Give up folks. You'll never stop the Slashdot horde from righteous indignation at a corporate-type "controlling audio standards" on this one. To many post-only accounts, not enough read.
Is it really fair to call it technological regression? There's more to flight than raw speed. The Concordes were notoriously inefficient. I think an argument can be made that some of Boeing's latest offerings are technologically more advanced.
So true! The true innovation of the jet engine was not that it was faster. It was because it reduced vibration as compared to props and was more efficient. Faster was merely a side benefit. The physics involved in commercial supersonic travel just don't make it economical enough.
Unfortunately, it wasn't the cost of the plane but the cost of operation. Building them in bulk wouldn't have reduced that cost significantly. The real issues are that you can't operate the thing over populated areas, making it only useful for transoceanic flights. And, more importantly, the market of people who are willing to pay 3 to 5 times the price for a ticket, to save themselves 6 hours of flying time, is extremely small.
What everyone is dancing around is the students changing the name of the site. Now we all know, in reality, the University knows there is no confusion as to who runs the site but dislikes the content. That's the true tragedy. Trademark law doesn't mean you can't ever mention someone's trademark, but is there to prevent confusion of brands. (Meatspace spoofing)
So these students have two options. They can change their domain, which I believe to be unnecessary, or they can put a clear disclaimer on the site that they don't represent the university in any official capacity.
I suggest you take a closer look at your bills. "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." The bills must be accepted for the payment of debts, services, etc., by U.S. law. You cannot pick which bills you will or will not accept, under U.S. law.
A common misinterpretation of the text. If you think carefully, it implies no obligation for me to accept it. Why can't I pay for my $150 grocery bill in pennies? That's "legal tender."
No, it's legal tender in that it can be used. Not that it must be accepted.
I didn't mean legitimate provider, I meant legitimate content
Sorry. You don't get to decide what is legitimate traffic across my networks and what is not. Thanks for your opinion, though.
The provider is simply a channel. Should they get rid of spammers if it's in their power? Yes. Should they be punished if they don't? No.
Absolutely they should. Otherwise, they continue to profit while their peers clean up the mess their abusive customers make. This behavior was unknown 10 years ago, then it became common with ignorant ISP startups. It will no longer be tolerated, and the DNSbls are starting to proliferate enough to make them reform.
Boycotting is not only the correct thing to do, but essential. No amount of baysian-filtering-touting idiots, resdesign-SMTP fools, or technophobe congresscritters are going to fix the spam problem without social pressure against rogue providers. It's a social problem, not a technical one.
If you want to block spam, that's fine... but you just can't convince me that blocking thousands of legit servers, just because they're close to spam servers, is in any way a good practice.
I don't have to convince you, because you don't get to decide my blocking criteria.
You seem to have a different definition of "legitimate" than I do. I do not consider legitimate any provider who does not take action against abusers on their system.
I think the way that some blacklists go about it is very much wrong and harmful to innocent bystanders, and they really should be held more accountable than they are.
I can assume you don't like some of the blocklists listing criteria. May I suggest you not use their lists for blocking, then?
Foe'ing him is the same as filtering spam.
Not even close. I choose to come to slashdot, where his opinion is stored, and get it (even if I filter it on server-side). This is not quite the same as him trying to push it onto my system without my permission. It's a subtle point lost on those who don't understand the procotols HTTP vs. SMTP.
In this case, the owner of the bandwidth and server storage is slashdot. And, they've made it abundantly clear they want most peoples opinions on the topics.
You don't get free storage on my machine or free bandwith without my permission.
Last time I checked, there were rights to know your accuser and the right to a speedy and public trial.
True. I think the authors point is that, under normal circumstances, that takes place after the arrest.
The difference is that if SPEWS lists my IP, they're effectively declaring that I am spamming. This is libellous; I never spam.
Incorrect assumption. In fact, SPEWS is very careful to declare no such thing.
That you infer this meaning on it means nothing and does not make it libel.
The article was very entertaining, but I noticed something that no one else has seemed to.
10 hours? Ojala I had such a window of opportunity. It's 4 hours per week, if we're lucky, and usually right after class when we haven't had time to formulate enough of an opinion to ask decent questions.
I agree -- a completely backward compatible re-write of the SMTP specification, and getting people to deploy it is exactly what's needed.
And just how is a rewrite of SMTP going to tell whether the incoming mail is spam or not? The real problem is that it's an authentication issue. Unless there's some "trusted authority" to say "this is spammer" or "this is not spammer", you're right back where you started. Who decides?
We already have trusted authorities. DNSbl blacklists, or filters, or Brightmail, or whatever. How is changing to a new protocol going to change it? It's not.
You, and people like you, have a complete misunderstanding of the problem.
Spam would stop if nobody bought anything from spammers.
True. However, the spammers cost-shift their advertising costs onto the end user. Since they can steal from the consumer they have the ability to reduce their costs so much that a previously unrealized business model becomes possible.
Their entire business model is based on that one sucker out of 1 million who buys. There's no way you're going to get the word out to everyone in sufficient quantity to even come close to making a dent in the spammer's income. No... calls for a "spammer boycott" feel really good, but are a waste of effort better spent in other endeavors.
Why wouldn't a nationwide 'do not email' list work?
Because I own my mailbox/machine/network and my premptive decision is that marketers don't get to use it without explicit permission (opt-in). The default is "you don't use my network without my permission", not "you can use it unless I tell you not to."
The last step of this medium is owned by me; not the television networks, not radio networks, but me. The consumer pays the majority of the cost for transmission on the internet, they get to say how it's used and decide who's abusing it. They made their decision a long time ago.
However, when a full month is given to accept/decline the changes, along with (really easy) instruction on declining, I tend to relax a little.
But, do they actually let you decline?
I ask this because, starting in 1999, my privacy preferences were explicitly violated by them. Over the next 2 years I tried to stop being a customer of eBay, to no avail. Including attempting to email decline@ebay.com. It didn't work, they kept sending me email.
The whole sordid thing only ended once the old email address I used back then expired. Only then. I can conclusively say their privacy policy isn't worth a thing and I can back it up with documentation.