I got more details from GoDaddy as I talked to their abuse department on the phone. This is what they told me:
1) Some person (a person I do not know) sent out an email to a bunch of people with their newsletter, and included a link to their message board that was hosted by ProBoards. 2) Another person received a copy of that email, and took it as spam (it may have been -- although the email looks like a newsletter). 3) That person SpamCop report, and contacted GoDaddy regarding it. 4) I deleted that message board account about 2 days prior to GoDaddy disabling my domain name. 5) GoDaddy disabled the domain because it was "associated" with spam.
Now let me make this clear if you don't understand it: Some person out there on the Internet sent an email to another person out there on the Internet and because that email mentioned my domain name in the body of it, my domain was disabled for being associated with spam.
The email did NOT originate from my servers, it was not sent by me or a member of my staff. It is just like if I opened up my mail program and sent an email to a hundred people mentioning somewhere in the email "slashdot.org" and then/.'s registrar disables their domain by changing their name servers.
To top the entire situation off, GoDaddy charged me a $250 fee to get my domain name back! I am now looking to transfer my domain names to a new registrar, so time to start looking - and time to start considering legal action.
Sounds like the 80's when it was, "Remember, since you're paying monthly for cable TV the cable only stations won't need to play commercials."
You make it sound like because you pay for your Internet access, all Web sites should be free. You made the one big mistake of forgetting that you did not send payment to the Web site you are visiting, you paid the person who let you get there.
It's like using a toll road to get to a restaurant. You paid money to use the roads, but you still have to pay for the restaurant.
Re:Apache is damned good.
on
Apache Cookbook
·
· Score: 4, Informative
You may want to check out webmin, it has a useful GUI interface for Apache and everything else on your system.
If your laptop survived, get another one of the same bag. $20 bag saves $1,500 laptop, I'd stock up on 10 of those instead of hoping your next bag does as good a job.
That would be the slashdot lameness filter making sure that there is no string of characters too long in a row. Try it. Example of a bunch of the letter a:
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
It is one thing if you yourself block ads using your hosts file or some program, but this program did quite the opposite. When you browse the Web, it adds additional advertisements to Web sites you are visiting, and displays ads for competitors. 99.9% of the idiots who install Gator or other software don't read the EULA or even understand that this other software is being installed as well.
Think about it this way. You have a business selling computer parts. Someone goes to your site, and then all of the sudden they get a popup ad going straight to a competitor of yours. This can hamper your ability to make a sale with your customer and impacts you financially. It's a Bad Thing(TM).
It isn't right, and it is unfortunate that the judge ruled this way.
The notice tells the owner of the site to stop offering for download a few specific items that the letter claims were on it's site. There was nothing in the letter which stated the entire site must be taken down.
I can understand ROM images to some extent, but 25 year old coin-op operator/tech manuals?
Read the letter. It doesn't say to take down any manuals. The person who shut down this site shut it down on their own accord. They could have just removed those specific items for download and they would be in the free-and-clear.
Did anyone else see the banner ad for overclockers.com that was running on/.? I saw it within the last 48 hours or so, and now we have a story here that is about an article on their site... coincidence? Buy your own/. story today, only $49.95!
This is not going to be the next-gen popup ads. Webmasters have to balance between what their users view to be acceptable ads, and making money. There is a very fine line. Most Internet users (read: not/. users) are not terribly bothered by popups - they can live with them. When you cross the line into the unacceptable area, these people will simply stop going to your Web site.
Any sites that use this technique (which is just a simple javascript command), will find that the people that once visited their site will no longer be there, and their site will simply die out from lack of traffic.
If I was an advertiser, I would not want this method of advertising done. I want to know how many people were genuinely interested in the ad, not how many people happened to move their mouse over the ad on the way to the X button.
I don't think advertisers OR publishers will go for this type of system. C|Net is just building hype on something that is not there.
Personally, I run a Web site that gets around 2 million pageviews a day, and I would never use a system like that for the ads.
BTW, the code for the popups would be simple, such as:
You are obviously "new" to the web I have been online for 7 years now. I have read/. for over 3 years now, and I am well aware of what goes on in this online world.
The internet was BUILT on the foundation of sharing information... FOR FREE I am well aware of that.
YOUR commercialized internet is NOT my internet. I don't NEED your information. I may find it interesting, but chances are, there is some alturistic person out there willing to GIVE it to me for free Then you should only browse sites that offer this content for free, sites that don't ask for something in return - eg sites that do not ask for your moment of time to view their ad. You shouldn't need an ad stopper in this case.
If I don't want to watch something on TV, something I find offensive, I TURN THE GOD DAMNED TV off That is a bad analogy on your part. Turning off the TV is more akin to not going to a Web site in the first place. A better analogy is using an ad blocker is more like having a 30 second fast forward switch on your TV - set to skip through the commercials that help fund the show.
YOU, sir, are stealing my time from me, I am stealing NOTHING from you You, my friend, are the one stealing my bandwidth without paying for it. Paying for it would mean viewing the ad that I have placed on the page. You fail to view the ad, you have stolen from me. Plain and simple.
I agree. I personally prefer when site's utilize popunders (as opposed to popups) as to not distract focus from the page you are trying to view. Also, I don't support when pages do multiple popups or try to lock you into popup hell. Those are instances where ads are simply not appropriate.
FYI, this site is a great resource for information on detecting popup killers.
Now, onto getting myself flamed out of existence.
I run a Web site hosting over 60,000 message boards. The service is free for anyone who wants to use it. Yes, it comes with ads - banners and popunders. Those who wish to not have the ads have the option to pay for our ad-free service, much like/. does here -- micropayments.
Now, many of you have stated that you are under no contract to have popups come up, so they shouldn't come up. But what about everything else on the page? Did you enter into a contract to view the content of the Web page you are viewing? No? But you are still viewing the content of the page, so why are you not viewing the ads that came with it?
When you download a Web page that someone puts online, they send you the layout (images, etc), the content, and yes, even the ads. You should respect the fact that the person who has put this content online has put effort into creating it, and you are repaying them with a moment of your time by closing an ad window.
It seems to be the general sentiment here that you should just do micropayments for everything online. What about the people who do not want to do this? There are many people who are less fortunate than many people here at/. who simply can not afford this, and/or are not interested in this.
So what do you do for these people? Advertisements. The ads that you view help pay for servers, bandwidth, employees, etc. Personally to run my Web site I spend around $3,500 a month on expenses (servers, etc). Most of my money does comes from ads, because most people are not interested in paying for a free service like mine. I do make quite a bit of money off of these so called "micropayments" from people who want ad-free.
If I ever wanted to switch to a paid-only service model, I know I could do that successfully without a problem, and probably make around the same amount of money. But do I want to do this? No. I would isolate the majority of the people that go to my site and piss off a lot of people. I'd rather keep the community atmosphere that my site has with the ads, than go to paid only and kick 90% of the people out who are not interested in paying.
When you view an ad, you are compensating the owner of the Web site for their efforts. Downloading a page and preventing the ads from displaying is stealing. Webmasters who let you download a page that has an ad are letting you have access to that content because you are doing something for them in return. They give you content, you view the ad. The Internet is not a one sided deal. You don't get your cake and eat it too.
When the US has control over a territory, we never want to let it go. Why would we even let these guys do this?
Take a look at this for some examples of territories we (the US) have made claim to. We've faught wars to protect these territories. You think that we would just give up some of it to a bunch of idealists who think they can make the perfect society?
So the whole idea is to use up all the bandwidth available by some company you don't like, or crash their servers by sending too many people to their Web site, costing them potentially thousands of dollars?
ThinkGeek has been selling the "Cappuccino TX-3" mini-PC from this same company for a while now. How much do you want to bet that they're making a commission on all sales that come in today at the Cappuccino PC Web site?
Slashdot Mirror
I got more details from GoDaddy as I talked to their abuse department on the phone. This is what they told me:
/.'s registrar disables their domain by changing their name servers.
1) Some person (a person I do not know) sent out an email to a bunch of people with their newsletter, and included a link to their message board that was hosted by ProBoards.
2) Another person received a copy of that email, and took it as spam (it may have been -- although the email looks like a newsletter).
3) That person SpamCop report, and contacted GoDaddy regarding it.
4) I deleted that message board account about 2 days prior to GoDaddy disabling my domain name.
5) GoDaddy disabled the domain because it was "associated" with spam.
Now let me make this clear if you don't understand it: Some person out there on the Internet sent an email to another person out there on the Internet and because that email mentioned my domain name in the body of it, my domain was disabled for being associated with spam.
The email did NOT originate from my servers, it was not sent by me or a member of my staff. It is just like if I opened up my mail program and sent an email to a hundred people mentioning somewhere in the email "slashdot.org" and then
To top the entire situation off, GoDaddy charged me a $250 fee to get my domain name back! I am now looking to transfer my domain names to a new registrar, so time to start looking - and time to start considering legal action.
You make it sound like because you pay for your Internet access, all Web sites should be free. You made the one big mistake of forgetting that you did not send payment to the Web site you are visiting, you paid the person who let you get there.
It's like using a toll road to get to a restaurant. You paid money to use the roads, but you still have to pay for the restaurant.
You may want to check out webmin, it has a useful GUI interface for Apache and everything else on your system.
If your laptop survived, get another one of the same bag. $20 bag saves $1,500 laptop, I'd stock up on 10 of those instead of hoping your next bag does as good a job.
the site is already /.ed. Wow.
And I thought I was friends with the real Saddam Hussein :'(
Today I use an Athlon XP 2400, 80GB HD, 512K RAM.
;-)
Sorry, but I'd rather go with your 33Mhz with 8Mb of ram. At least it may be able to boot DOS
Post it online, wait to get sued.
That would be the slashdot lameness filter making sure that there is no string of characters too long in a row. Try it. Example of a bunch of the letter a:
a aa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?Ar
It's Paul Thurrott, not Thurott.
It is one thing if you yourself block ads using your hosts file or some program, but this program did quite the opposite. When you browse the Web, it adds additional advertisements to Web sites you are visiting, and displays ads for competitors. 99.9% of the idiots who install Gator or other software don't read the EULA or even understand that this other software is being installed as well.
Think about it this way. You have a business selling computer parts. Someone goes to your site, and then all of the sudden they get a popup ad going straight to a competitor of yours. This can hamper your ability to make a sale with your customer and impacts you financially. It's a Bad Thing(TM).
It isn't right, and it is unfortunate that the judge ruled this way.
The notice tells the owner of the site to stop offering for download a few specific items that the letter claims were on it's site. There was nothing in the letter which stated the entire site must be taken down.
I can understand ROM images to some extent, but 25 year old coin-op operator/tech manuals?
Read the letter. It doesn't say to take down any manuals. The person who shut down this site shut it down on their own accord. They could have just removed those specific items for download and they would be in the free-and-clear.
Sorry for replying to my own post, I just saw the ad, here is the URL.
f
/. for advertising is now having an article that focuses on their site..
http://images.slashdot.org/banner/over0001en.gi
Now tell me that this is not a coincidence that someone paying
Did anyone else see the banner ad for overclockers.com that was running on /.? I saw it within the last 48 hours or so, and now we have a story here that is about an article on their site... coincidence? Buy your own /. story today, only $49.95!
Network Gaming Marathon (LAN Party, except for an entire weekend)
You mean normal LAN parties aren't supposed to take an entire weekend?
Follow their example by taking 3 years to put out the game? Yeah, great.
NWN Coming To Linux -- August 8, 1999.
This is not going to be the next-gen popup ads. Webmasters have to balance between what their users view to be acceptable ads, and making money. There is a very fine line. Most Internet users (read: not /. users) are not terribly bothered by popups - they can live with them. When you cross the line into the unacceptable area, these people will simply stop going to your Web site.
; ">
Any sites that use this technique (which is just a simple javascript command), will find that the people that once visited their site will no longer be there, and their site will simply die out from lack of traffic.
If I was an advertiser, I would not want this method of advertising done. I want to know how many people were genuinely interested in the ad, not how many people happened to move their mouse over the ad on the way to the X button.
I don't think advertisers OR publishers will go for this type of system. C|Net is just building hype on something that is not there.
Personally, I run a Web site that gets around 2 million pageviews a day, and I would never use a system like that for the ads.
BTW, the code for the popups would be simple, such as:
<IMG SRC="blah.gif" onMouseOver="self.location='http://slashdot.org/'
"I may still be a plain old physics student"
Enough said. Ms. Kalamara here has a Ph.D in Quantum Gravity. I think she knows more on the subject more than a plan old physics student.
You are obviously "new" to the web /. for over 3 years now, and I am well aware of what goes on in this online world.
I have been online for 7 years now. I have read
The internet was BUILT on the foundation of sharing information... FOR FREE
I am well aware of that.
YOUR commercialized internet is NOT my internet. I don't NEED your information. I may find it interesting, but chances are, there is some alturistic person out there willing to GIVE it to me for free
Then you should only browse sites that offer this content for free, sites that don't ask for something in return - eg sites that do not ask for your moment of time to view their ad. You shouldn't need an ad stopper in this case.
If I don't want to watch something on TV, something I find offensive, I TURN THE GOD DAMNED TV off
That is a bad analogy on your part. Turning off the TV is more akin to not going to a Web site in the first place. A better analogy is using an ad blocker is more like having a 30 second fast forward switch on your TV - set to skip through the commercials that help fund the show.
YOU, sir, are stealing my time from me, I am stealing NOTHING from you
You, my friend, are the one stealing my bandwidth without paying for it. Paying for it would mean viewing the ad that I have placed on the page. You fail to view the ad, you have stolen from me. Plain and simple.
Patrick Clinger
I agree. I personally prefer when site's utilize popunders (as opposed to popups) as to not distract focus from the page you are trying to view. Also, I don't support when pages do multiple popups or try to lock you into popup hell. Those are instances where ads are simply not appropriate.
Patrick Clinger
FYI, this site is a great resource for information on detecting popup killers.
/. does here -- micropayments.
/. who simply can not afford this, and/or are not interested in this.
Now, onto getting myself flamed out of existence.
I run a Web site hosting over 60,000 message boards. The service is free for anyone who wants to use it. Yes, it comes with ads - banners and popunders. Those who wish to not have the ads have the option to pay for our ad-free service, much like
Now, many of you have stated that you are under no contract to have popups come up, so they shouldn't come up. But what about everything else on the page? Did you enter into a contract to view the content of the Web page you are viewing? No? But you are still viewing the content of the page, so why are you not viewing the ads that came with it?
When you download a Web page that someone puts online, they send you the layout (images, etc), the content, and yes, even the ads. You should respect the fact that the person who has put this content online has put effort into creating it, and you are repaying them with a moment of your time by closing an ad window.
It seems to be the general sentiment here that you should just do micropayments for everything online. What about the people who do not want to do this? There are many people who are less fortunate than many people here at
So what do you do for these people? Advertisements. The ads that you view help pay for servers, bandwidth, employees, etc. Personally to run my Web site I spend around $3,500 a month on expenses (servers, etc). Most of my money does comes from ads, because most people are not interested in paying for a free service like mine. I do make quite a bit of money off of these so called "micropayments" from people who want ad-free.
If I ever wanted to switch to a paid-only service model, I know I could do that successfully without a problem, and probably make around the same amount of money. But do I want to do this? No. I would isolate the majority of the people that go to my site and piss off a lot of people. I'd rather keep the community atmosphere that my site has with the ads, than go to paid only and kick 90% of the people out who are not interested in paying.
When you view an ad, you are compensating the owner of the Web site for their efforts. Downloading a page and preventing the ads from displaying is stealing. Webmasters who let you download a page that has an ad are letting you have access to that content because you are doing something for them in return. They give you content, you view the ad. The Internet is not a one sided deal. You don't get your cake and eat it too.
Deal with the ads, they aren't going to kill you.
Bring on the flames.
Patrick Clinger
ProBoards.com
When the US has control over a territory, we never want to let it go. Why would we even let these guys do this?
Take a look at this for some examples of territories we (the US) have made claim to. We've faught wars to protect these territories. You think that we would just give up some of it to a bunch of idealists who think they can make the perfect society?
Yeah, right.
So the whole idea is to use up all the bandwidth available by some company you don't like, or crash their servers by sending too many people to their Web site, costing them potentially thousands of dollars?
No, I don't see a lawsuit coming...
ThinkGeek has been selling the "Cappuccino TX-3" mini-PC from this same company for a while now. How much do you want to bet that they're making a commission on all sales that come in today at the Cappuccino PC Web site?
Yeah, but what button do I press to send my laundry over the Internet to go straight to the machine?