I think it's great that they're going to hold a study on this topic -- the study will PROVE that violence in video games does NOT cause people to be violent.
I don't believe so.
The only way to "prove" that would be to take groups of kids and allow certain groups to play "violent" video games while the other kids are not allowed to.
Since we probably won't be doing that... this "study" will find the exact "findings" that the people pushing it want it to find.
This isn't about any real research into this. This is all about "supporting" their views so that they can get more laws passed.
This is where you find out that the Democrats are the other political party and not "liberal" by definition.
They're just following the most basic of political teachings: It's easier to get people to vote if they're "protecting" their "children" from the "bad people".
You don't hate the children, do you? You don't support the bad people, do you?
The only way to prevent this from happening is by writing letter to your Congress Critters and telling them exactly how you feel about the issues and that they will lose your vote (and the votes of anyone you can convince) if they do not vote against those bills.
Then you just have to convince enough of your friends/family to become an active voting bloc with you.
Freedom is not free. At the minimum, it takes time and effort.
Instead of throwing out unrelated acronyms, why not start where all such projects are supposed to start?
Step #1. Define the requirements. What do you want to transmit? How do you want to transmit it? Do you need guaranteed delivery? Do you need authentication? Do you need encryption? Do you need anonymity? Do you need X? Do you need Y? Do you need Z?
Right now, SMTP over port 25... the only thing you can really verify is the IP address of both machines (if you have pipelining turned off). Everything else can be faked (although faking the RCPT is kind of silly).
So, most of the spam defenses right now are based around IP addresses. Other than that, it's some sort of content check.
If we're looking at the next-gen email system, do we even need it to be tied to specific outbound email servers? Would a requirement be that I could send email from any server, anywhere and the verification would be my public/private key or some such? Would we want to have the server check a public key server before accepting email that it would then deliver to another server?
THAT is how to go about this discussion. Not spewing random terms in the hopes that something you've said accidentally gets incorporated into whatever the new model is.
Build an electronic identity. Encode, hash, encrypt, compress, sign, and provide a novel way to share keys when needed, for example. I don't know how this will all turn out, but perhaps yEnc, MD5, AES, H.264, and GPG are some potential technologies that could be used together.
So, he doesn't know how to fix email, but here is a list of acronyms to get you excited about it.
Sorry, but to be taken seriously, you'd at least have to have a basic framework already thought out. Just claiming that it's broken and maybe one of these TLA's that you've heard of might be used to fix it... that's just junk.
Go back, think about it and then write a real article.
The problem with a "surveillance state" is that the collected information can be abused by the people that collect it. And worse: over-zealous law enforcement can find sufficient evidence of a crime anywhere they want, given the vagueness of many statutes.
Does anyone seriously believe there are fewer rapes per capita in (insert totalitarian country of your choice) than in the US?
"Big Brother" does not prevent crime.
"Big Brother" just changes who commits the crimes and then protects them from prosecution.
If you're in a company and a "virus" takes out one of the system files on one of your servers... but the data is safe, you have less of a problem than if a "virus" leaves the server intact, but deletes all of your data.
It's always about the security of the data.
Which is why part of the OS's job is to restrict the ability of regular users as much as possible.
When all that is in danger is your personal home directory, that's really as good as the OS can be.
If we're talking single user/home machines... the risk is greater that your hard drive will fail before you get a "virus" on your Linux box. With a failed hard drive (and no backup), you've lost all your data. At some point, it is up to the admin (the user in this case) to back-up his/her data. There is a point at which the OS/app's responsibility ends and the admin's begins.
I was an Internet postmaster when your mother was still wiping shit off your butt.
Sure you were.
You see how confused you are?
No, why don't you explain it?
Double-opt-in (which, by the way, is a SPAMMER term, so who's the spammer here?) is the industry standard for ensuring that a mailing list does not spam.
Let's see, I would say that the spammer was the one of us who was listed by SpamCop.
Oh, you don't like the terms I use? I guess that is too bad for you.
I'm not the one listed by SpamCop, you are.
So, a spambot forges email to a mailing list subscription address from one of your sooper-sekrit spamtraps. My mailing list software sends a confirmation email to your spamtrap, and I'm blocked for 24 hours. Why? For following the industry-standard practice of confirming all subscriptions.
Yep.
Now, the question is... why is a spammer wasting machine time (that could be used to send spam) subscribing SpamCop spamtrap addresses to your mailing list?
What's the point?
All that will be accomplished is SpamCop learning which spamtraps have been compromised.
So what if your list is blocked for 24 hours by people who haven't read SpamCop's FAQ? That doesn't get more spam out for the spammer. That doesn't get more spam hits. That doesn't do anything for the spammer. Nor does it hurt SpamCop.
Yer an idiot, Khasim.
Maybe, but I'm not the one who is making claims he cannot support. Nor am I the one confused about the process of replying in a thread.
Either you were posting anonymously as that spammer or You can't tell which post is the GP or GGP to another post.
Those are the facts and I can substantiate them. In this thread.
You think that spamcop wants people to not use bl.spamcop.net?
It seems you have trouble comprehending basic English, too.
Of course SpamCop would like people to use their blacklists. Maybe you also have trouble reading exactly what they post on their site? Here it is: http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/291.html
We recommend that when using any spam filtering method, users be given access to the filtered mail - don't block the mail as documented here, but store it in a separate mailbox. Or tag it and provide users documentation so that they can filter based on the tags in their own MUA. We provide this information only for administrators who cannot use a more subtle approach for whatever reason.
They even tell you not to use it to block email.
I can read that. I can post that. I can understand that.
But you seem to have a problem.
They only tell people NOT to use it for legal cover -- cover that will last about ten seconds -- which is how long the judge will take to give it the good belly laugh that it deserves.
So their FAQ and their repeated instructions in their forums are all part of an elaborate ruse that only you have the intelligence to see through.
Yeah, sure. You're not wrong because even when it is plainly written in black and white and it contradicts you, well, they didn't really mean it. They just wrote that to keep the lawyers away.
They do have a legal defense fund. But I guess you'd find some way of rationalizing that away, too.
I've said in another thread (which you apparently didn't read) that Spamcop is trying to solve the wrong problem.
You've already claimed that their posted instructions (often repeated in their forums) are false. So why should I care to read what you believe they are doing "wrong" in pursuit of their true agenda?
It all comes down to one simple statement: Either you are the anonymous spammer or
You'll need to identify each application that is being used, where its data is being stored and what type of "backup" is needed for it.
Don't forget to include "backups" of the system software. There's nothing more annoying than having to rebuild a system, and you have a backup of the data, but you cannot find the install CD.
Older *nix systems were far easier than the "modern" PC-based servers. I could backup my old Sequent box to a bootable tape. If anything went wrong, I could boot the tape and re-write the system. This is somewhat supported now on some of the PC-based servers.
Anyway, back to the "backups". Once you have the systems identified, then you'll need to look at what scenarios you'll need to plan for.
#1. Server crash. The data on the disk is destroyed. The OS is destroyed. But the hardware is okay.
#2. The building burns down. All of your servers are now smoking heaps of plastic. So's your desk. And all the CD's you had.
#3. 5 years from now someone wants a critical policy that was deleted 3 years ago.
I spend most of my time kicking co-workers to get them to NOT just dump data any where that has free space and to NOT just throw up a new web server without telling me.
Kicking, punching and swinging every household object imaginable -- from frying pans and tennis rackets to pillowcases stuffed with soda cans -- they beat each other mercilessly in a garage in this bedroom community south of San Francisco.
What the fuck?
Hitting someone with a frying pan? What fool would take that?
Using your fists on someone... that I can see. The damage level is low (unless you're trained) and you get really tired really quickly.
But using a blunt object? If you're anything other than a spaz, you'll crush a few ribs the first time you connect. Then the fights over.
This isn't just about control. This is about jobs.
With any closed source software not written in your country, you're importing it and sending your money to another country.
If you pour some cash into your education system and train up your own programmers to modify the Open Source code to suit your needs, you're investing in your own people. The money stays in your country. Those programmers pay taxes to you on that money.
And you've got to realize that this is going to be a very important field in the future. Do you really want your people left behind?
NetWare would broadcast its serial number on the network.
It killed Netware completely by offering all the network functionality with an operating system! No more installing drivers (ie buying an OS and then buying a NOS, just buy NT and have both).
You could not install two NetWare boxes with the same serial number. They would kick out all the users. If you had a single license for 25 users, that's all you could have until you purchased more licenses.
NT did not broadcast its serial number. You could buy a single copy of NT and install it a thousand times. If you needed a new file server or a temporary file server, it was so much easier to setup another NT box.
Similarly, NT drove off commercial Unixes - you never hear about AIX or HPUX anymore.
Yes you do. But they're still in the organizations that had them before.
What has changed is that Windows servers swept through the smaller companies. Those companies never had a *nix box. They might have had LANtastic or NetWare or nothing, but they did not have *nix.
However, the factors that made the NT market (ie cheap whilst still being good enough for purpose) should be the factors that make Linux kill NT in just the same way.
Okay, I can agree with you on that.
The trouble is, that Linux doesn't provide all that - although its price trounces Windows, and its feature set is damn good, it just doesn't have the 'polish' or the standardisation that matters to a business.
I guess that depends upon what business segment you're talking about.
Linux has been showing double digit growth for the past 5 years (maybe longer). Businesses are deploying it. At the server level.
No business will go Linux for general purpose use (ie, if you standardise on a distro to run a particular app, then you're fine, but you have a controlled ecosystem) where users use it to do everything because it doesn't have the "shrink-wrapped" approach to apps.
Now you're talking about the desktop segment.
The corporate desktop segment is different than the corporate server segment.
And the biggest problem with the corporate desktop segment is all the Access databases that have been built over the years.
The 2nd problem is all the not-supported-or-sold-anymore Windows apps that users "absolutely must have to do my job" that they've acquired over the years.
Changing 10 servers is easier than changing 10 workstations for users who've spent 10 years with the company.
This is the big issue, and it keeps Linux in the realm of the hobbyist market (we'll ignore the outsourced, this-is-what-you'll-get approach from a big consultancy).
You might want to take a look at Google before you talk about "hobbyist market".
Once those 2 things are there, so I can take a binary package and install it on whichever distro I use (its Linuix after all, isn't it? - at least that's what Joe User will say) then Linux will be accepted a lot more readily.
I'll have to disagree with you on that.
While that would be nice, it is far more likely that one distribution will become dominant and that distribution's structure will become the de facto "standard".
And it seems we're already on that path with Red Hat and Ubuntu.
He may be confusing his post with the anonymous post to which I was replying.
Or he may be saying that he was the one who was posting anonymously.
I have great respect for his accomplishments and philosphy (see his web page) but wish he would change his mind about autoresponses (including NDRs).
I can agree with you on the NDR issue, but I haven't seen anything from Russ that would merit any respect from me. In fact, the opposite is in evidence in this thread. Another link http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=186884&cid=154 24442
After AOL, Yahoo, and Hotmail saw the light my backscatter spam load went down tremendously; now we just need to spread the word to the remaining few thousand mail admins still living in the 20th century.
:) Good luck with that. We have clients who's email servers HELO with "exchange_server". We have clients who don't accept email to "postmaster". We have one client who is running GroupWise 6.0 and won't even patch it. A few weeks ago, one of our clients was running an open relay.
The real issue (as I see it) is that people see email as someone else's problem. In every one of those instances above, I've been told by their IT department that there is no problem because they can send and receive email to/from everyone.
Which seems to be the same core issue that Russ Nelson has. As long as it isn't annoying him, it doesn't matter that it may be annoying someone else (look up "joe job"). And claiming it is "industry standard practice" is just more evidence that he does not know what he's talking about.
Particularly when he started this thread with confusion about his server vs his IP address and whether SpamCop had "blocked" him vs other email admins using SpamCop's blacklists.
I'm with you 100% on DNR's. But I believe Russ Nelson has only a superficial understanding of email and is ignorant of the depth of his ignorance.
Case in point: His SpamCop claims. If he was running a double-opt-in list, then his address would only have been flagged for 24 hours when he sent the verification email. And it would only have affected those users who's email admins blocked based off of that.
I don't know many admins that do that. Even SpamCop's FAQ says not to. I'm sure they're out there. But since he should be seeing the rejection notices, why not just send a note with a clip from SpamCop's FAQ to those admins?
So... (multiple choice): #1. He's wrong about how his mailing list works
#2. He's complaining about a tiny minority that he isn't doing anything to educate
One of the reasons I prefer Exim4 is that it is possible to kill all rNDR collateral spam by simply adding an X-header to my out-bound email and checking for such on any in-bound "NDR" messages.
I've installed it on two computers and had serious problems on both, and that was using the release candidate that came out just 8 days or so before the final release date of June 1.
Can you state what those problems were, specifically?
I've been running it for months now and the only "problem" I had was the built-in sound chip on my motherboard. I dropped in an old SoundBlaster and everything works fine now.
Of course, different people have different experiences with it and can over-generalize their experience to what all users will experience.
It's kind of hard to "over-generalize" having no problems.
I did file one feature request about their ADOdb package's dependencies and they did modify it. I don't know if that would count as a "problem", but it is been working perfectly for me now.
First off, that would mean that those spamtrap addresses had been compromised. So far no one has been able to demonstrate that. Just a lot of claims.
Double opt-in means when person X signs up with foo@bar.com as the email, the provider sends a "Click here to verify your subscription" link to foo@bar.com
But that does not match what the GP was claiming. From his (anonymous) claims:
I work at an EMail marketing company (no, not spam) and we have had our servers placed on blacklists multiple times... you know why? People who are competetors to our clients signup a spamtrap email to their lists, getting our mailserver blacklisted for sending mail to an address -- even though the mail is a "are you sure you wanna subscribe?" message?
Again:
Company A -- "EMail marketing company" Company B -- client of Company A Company C -- evil competitor of Company B
Somehow, it is claimed, Company C finds out that Company B hired Company A.
Then, Company C sends a subscribe request to Company A with the return address of a SpamCop spamtrap.
THIS IS WHERE THE STORY FAILS
It requires that Company C KNOW that Company B hired Company A. AND It requires that Company C KNOW the spamtrap addresses of SpamCop. AND It requires that Company A be running a regular double-opt in mailing list. AND It requires that Company A (an "EMail marketing company") be unable to check its own email logs to find the recent subscription requests.
This would make it susceptible to getting on a blacklist from a spamtrap style email account.
Yes it would.
IF you accept that EACH of those FOUR requirements is true.
Allow me to remind you of Rule #1: SPAMMERS LIE!
I don't know about you, but for me, it's easier to believe that the GP is lying about his "business" and SpamCop and everything else... rather than believe that some company making widgets just happens to KNOW the spamtraps that SpamCop uses and just happens to KNOW that Company B hired Company A and then subscribes Company A's mailing list to those spamtraps.
But if you want to believe a spammer when he says that such happens to him... that's your Right.
It seems that a lot of moderators also believe the spammer today.
1) An RIAA lobbyist writes some legislative atrocity and pays off a bunch of US congressmen to introduce it as a bill 2) The EFF catches wind of it, and uses an email marketing campaign targeted at its members who have asked to participate in such campaigns to ask its members to protest the RIAA-authored bill 3) The RIAA lobbyist, who has cleverly subscribed to the EFF's mailing list, reports the email to SpamCop 4)... 5) Profit! (For the RIAA)
You fail to realize that the messages would already be delivered by the time the RIAA managed to get the server listed on SpamCop, right?
No? You didn't realize that? Then maybe you should re-evaluate your supposed expertise on the material.
So what if the EFF's IP address is blocked AFTER the mailing?
Want more? That's easy. Not only would the listing not be in effect until AFTER the mailing, but it would only affect those people who's servers block in-bound email based off of that list.
In other words, the net effect would be NOTHING.
The listing would go into effect AFTER the mailings were already received AND The listing would only have affected those users who's email servers blocked based off of that listing PRIOR to accepting based off of a whitelist.
But I guess you didn't think of that before you flamed the grandparent to a crispy golden brown, huh.
You'd be wrong. I deal with this every day.
But I deal with it from the point of view of an email admin who is trying to reduce the in-bound spam while making sure that all the legitimate email is allowed through.
So I have a little bit more experience in this than some spammer who is just bitching that his site keeps getting listed on SpamCop.
In order for you to be correct:
#1. The RIAA would have to get the EFF's servers listed on SpamCop PRIOR to the mailing.
#2. The RIAA would have to get a significant percentage of the mail admins of the mail servers of the users receiving that mailing to use SpamCop.
#3. The RIAA would have to get those mail admins to implement a block based off of that listing.
#4. The RIAA would have to get that block set prior to any user level whitelists.
Yeah, keep believing that all of that can/will happen and that it is the poor "EMail marketing company" that is suffering.
For my part, I'll skip the conspiracy theories and keep blocking the anonymous spammer.
That someone who all but admits to being a spammer is mod'ed up 3 times (after posting anon)...
While the follow-ups criticising such are mod'ed down.
Seems like there are a lot of pro-spammer accounts with mod points today.
Anyway, you're still wrong.
#1. The "competitors" you're complaining about would have to have poisoned your "clients" email listing prior to you receiving those listings. That's just unrealistic. Either they'd have to have:
1a. Poisoned almost every company's email listings in which case SpamCop would be dead because every company would be listed on it each time it sent any mailings.
1b. Have someone inside your company telling them who your clients are and then poisoning them BEFORE you get the listing.
#2. Your competitors have lots of accounts that they use to report your sendings to SpamCop. If your competitors have that much expertise and time, then why are they wasting it blacklisting you?
#3. Your competitors already know the SpamCop spamtraps. Why aren't they making a LOT more money as real spammers with this knowledge? Why waste any time/effort on you? They can avoid the spamtraps themselves and get their spam out.
No. None of that makes any sense. You're a spammer and you're mad that SpamCop is being used to kill your spam business.
I understand you've never administrated services for a user base which you don't completely control?
That would depend upon what you mean by "completely control".
How is a conscientious administrator who wants to fix the problem supposed to identify the spamdrone-infected PC if Spamcop won't even give up a queue ID to search for in the logs?
#1. Block all outgoing traffic on port 25. Except for the mail servers that you control.
#2. Rate limit the out-bound traffic on those mail servers.
#3. MONITOR your servers. If someone's queue suddenly fills up with 10,000 messages, lock it and investigate it.
With a network where several thousand clients, such as student laptops and PCs in dorms, are not under centralised administration (and thus get infected by spyware because their users run with default administrator privileges enabled), this is a real problem.
See above.
Don't focus on trying to get the info out of SpamCop.
Focus on identifying the spammer behaviour on your network BEFORE it gets to SpamCop.
Once the email's been sent by the client it gets processed by your outgoing mail gateways, and suddenly Spamcop blacklists your outgoing mail relays.
Yep. So the idea is to limit the out-going rate by user and to monitor those queues.
The problem is not sending email to a SpamTrap address.
The problem is sending out thousands of spam emails.
The SpamTrap address is just a tool to identify when an address is probably sending out thousands of spam emails.
And unless the spamdrone sent enough email to really make an impact on your traffic, and it actually sent its email straight to your mail gateways and not a subordinate mail server which normally has a lot of traffic, and relays through your mail gateways.
If you don't have the authority to correctly design the network and mail servers, then it is not your problem. It is the problem of whomever does have that authority.
10,000 messages at 4KB is "only" 40MB. You'll see more traffic than that in mp3 shares. So don't focus on the "traffic" on your network.
Again, limit the out-going email rate per account. Then monitor those queues.
If you cannot do that because you aren't allowed to, then it is not your problem.
Technical details of permanent failure: PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (state 9): 550 5.7.0 Your server IP address is in the SpamCop database, bye
With Exim4, I can customize the rejection messages so that they include the phrase:
Please call email admin at (NNN) NNN-NNNN
Spam zombies and such won't ever call. But if you're a person, and your email server is halfway decent, you'll see the rejection notice and you can call me and I can add you to whomever's whitelist. Or you can call that person directly and s/he can add you to his/her whitelist.
Technology rocks, but people should never over-estimate it.
Always include some alternate means for a legitimate person to easily contact you to resolve the problem. Phone, fax, IM, whatever.
I work at an EMail marketing company (no, not spam) and we have had our servers placed on blacklists multiple times... you know why?
Yes, it is spam.
Fuck you you little shit sucking worm. You and your "business" is the reason that SpamCop and others are necessary. And every single shit for brains like you will always start their posts "I don't send spam".
Yes you do. And I have to spend time finding ways to stop you from filling up my end users' mailboxes with your spam.
People who are competetors to our clients signup a spamtrap email to their lists, getting our mailserver blacklisted for sending mail to an address -- even though the mail is a "are you sure you wanna subscribe?" message?
So....... your competitors know which addresses are spamtraps... but you don't.
Sure they do.
Your casual attitude toward "oh well, shouldn't have sent email to $secretspamtrap" without telling us *what* email or giving us details on how to avoid it in the future (like maybe adding your spamtrap domains to our lists that trigger "oh no, spammer" in our checks), you end up making RBLs more useless, and my job harder.
Here's a free clue. I don't give a rat's ass how fucking hard I make your job.
Company A = you Company B = your client Company C = evil competitor
You were talking about working at an "EMail marketing company"... but then you seem to be saying that the addresses you get from Company B have been previously compromised by Company C.
Right............
So... when Company B sends out email to those addresses, they don't get blacklisted. Or so you would seem to be saying.
Otherwise, you're taking email addresses from a blacklisted company and sending "not spam" ads to them.
And you expect me to believe that or have sympathy for you?
Google runs GMail's system so that their servers are the LAST verifiable IP address in the chain.
What that means is if I upload a message to a GMail server, their headers will NOT include the IP address of my machine.
So SpamCop has no way of identifying the IP address that originally sent the spam to the GMail server.
So SpamCop reports the GMail server as the "source" of the spam. And that IP address gets blacklisted.
Personally, I believe that the "free" email services should assign people to work with the various blacklists. Even if Google won't change the behaviour of their servers, they should still be able to help SpamCop find the correct IP address via the unique message ID of each email. And also correctly identify the IP addresses of their mail servers so SpamCop wouldn't have to guess if it was a legit GMail server or not.
I've had to whitelist GMail, HotMail, Yahoo! and even AOL's mail servers at the SMTP level because of this. And it is NOT easy finding which IP addresses belond to their mail servers. They still run through SpamAssassin (because of the Nigerian royalty scams) but they are always accepted.
It's a "solution" and it mostly works for me. I just with the "free" email services would run their own RBL's so I could verify the IP addresses of servers that HELO with *.google.com or just gmail.com.
Do you think anybody at spamcop cares about false positives?
Yes, I think they care a lot.
My server was blocked by spamcop this past week.
No, your IP address may have been included on one of the blacklists, but your server was not "blocked".
The person controlling the server that your server was trying to send a message to was using a SpamCop blacklist as a rejection list.
If you want to complain, complain to that person.
Why? I have no idea, and no way to correct the problem, because when they block you, all they say is "You sent email to one of our secret addresses."
The reason to keep those addresses secret is because if the spammers found them, they would not be useful anymore.
If you have a static IP address, the problem is you. Someone with access to your out-bound email is sending spam.
If you have a dynamic IP address, you need to get a static address.
If you cannot get a static address, do not expect your email to always be delivered. You must monitor your logs for the rejection notices and then take whatever actions are necessary to get that site to whitelist your messages.
Don't blame SpamCop for the situation that results in your IP address being reported to them. No one is forced to used SpamCop's blacklists. They choose to use them because they believe they are useful in reducing spam.
Hmmmmm.... yet you had previously asked what those numbers would be. You're exact words were:
And before you start off on taxes, how much will this cost? Do you have a good estimate?
So, you wanted an estimate from me... so you could say that it was "wrong"... but you haven't shown any numbers to support your claim that I am "wrong".
Yep, typical Fascist behaviour.
And then you continue on about how it won't be so expensive because it will magically get cheaper as you index more people.
What was was it that you had previously said?
And before you start off on taxes, how much will this cost?
Again, taxes WOULD go up. Whether you want to argue the numbers or not, taxes WOULD go up.
So, taxes go up... but it only helps in a tiny fraction of a fraction of cases. What do you say to that?
But even with your bad numbers, $100 billion is small compared to the total law enforcement budget.
Yeah, so you're comparing the TOTAL budget for law enforcement to the INCREASED cost of MAYBE solving a tiny fraction of a fraction of the crimes committed.
What was that that you said earlier?
No one has yet suggested to me a downside that compares with the upside.
No, your Fascist nature will not allow you to see the downside.
You think that this would be a good idea because it suits your Fascist nature. Despite the costs. Despite the logistics of indexing 200 million adults. Despite the Freedom issues.
The problem lies within you.
It is your outlook that is flawed and that is the reason you cannot understand what you are being told.
Slashdot Mirror
The only way to "prove" that would be to take groups of kids and allow certain groups to play "violent" video games while the other kids are not allowed to.
Since we probably won't be doing that
This isn't about any real research into this. This is all about "supporting" their views so that they can get more laws passed.
This is where you find out that the Democrats are the other political party and not "liberal" by definition.
They're just following the most basic of political teachings: It's easier to get people to vote if they're "protecting" their "children" from the "bad people".
You don't hate the children, do you?
You don't support the bad people, do you?
The only way to prevent this from happening is by writing letter to your Congress Critters and telling them exactly how you feel about the issues and that they will lose your vote (and the votes of anyone you can convince) if they do not vote against those bills.
Then you just have to convince enough of your friends/family to become an active voting bloc with you.
Freedom is not free. At the minimum, it takes time and effort.
Instead of throwing out unrelated acronyms, why not start where all such projects are supposed to start?
... the only thing you can really verify is the IP address of both machines (if you have pipelining turned off). Everything else can be faked (although faking the RCPT is kind of silly).
Step #1. Define the requirements.
What do you want to transmit?
How do you want to transmit it?
Do you need guaranteed delivery?
Do you need authentication?
Do you need encryption?
Do you need anonymity?
Do you need X?
Do you need Y?
Do you need Z?
Right now, SMTP over port 25
So, most of the spam defenses right now are based around IP addresses. Other than that, it's some sort of content check.
If we're looking at the next-gen email system, do we even need it to be tied to specific outbound email servers? Would a requirement be that I could send email from any server, anywhere and the verification would be my public/private key or some such? Would we want to have the server check a public key server before accepting email that it would then deliver to another server?
THAT is how to go about this discussion. Not spewing random terms in the hopes that something you've said accidentally gets incorporated into whatever the new model is.
Sorry, but to be taken seriously, you'd at least have to have a basic framework already thought out. Just claiming that it's broken and maybe one of these TLA's that you've heard of might be used to fix it
Go back, think about it and then write a real article.
"Big Brother" does not prevent crime.
"Big Brother" just changes who commits the crimes and then protects them from prosecution.
If you're in a company and a "virus" takes out one of the system files on one of your servers ... but the data is safe, you have less of a problem than if a "virus" leaves the server intact, but deletes all of your data.
... the risk is greater that your hard drive will fail before you get a "virus" on your Linux box. With a failed hard drive (and no backup), you've lost all your data. At some point, it is up to the admin (the user in this case) to back-up his/her data. There is a point at which the OS/app's responsibility ends and the admin's begins.
It's always about the security of the data.
Which is why part of the OS's job is to restrict the ability of regular users as much as possible.
When all that is in danger is your personal home directory, that's really as good as the OS can be.
If we're talking single user/home machines
Sure you were.
No, why don't you explain it?
Let's see, I would say that the spammer was the one of us who was listed by SpamCop.
Oh, you don't like the terms I use? I guess that is too bad for you.
I'm not the one listed by SpamCop, you are.
Yep.
... why is a spammer wasting machine time (that could be used to send spam) subscribing SpamCop spamtrap addresses to your mailing list?
Now, the question is
What's the point?
All that will be accomplished is SpamCop learning which spamtraps have been compromised.
So what if your list is blocked for 24 hours by people who haven't read SpamCop's FAQ? That doesn't get more spam out for the spammer. That doesn't get more spam hits. That doesn't do anything for the spammer. Nor does it hurt SpamCop.
Maybe, but I'm not the one who is making claims he cannot support. Nor am I the one confused about the process of replying in a thread.
Either you were posting anonymously as that spammer
or
You can't tell which post is the GP or GGP to another post.
Those are the facts and I can substantiate them. In this thread.
It seems you have trouble comprehending basic English, too.
Of course SpamCop would like people to use their blacklists. Maybe you also have trouble reading exactly what they post on their site? Here it is: http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/291.html
They even tell you not to use it to block email.
I can read that. I can post that. I can understand that.
But you seem to have a problem.
So their FAQ and their repeated instructions in their forums are all part of an elaborate ruse that only you have the intelligence to see through.
Yeah, sure. You're not wrong because even when it is plainly written in black and white and it contradicts you, well, they didn't really mean it. They just wrote that to keep the lawyers away.
They do have a legal defense fund. But I guess you'd find some way of rationalizing that away, too.
You've already claimed that their posted instructions (often repeated in their forums) are false. So why should I care to read what you believe they are doing "wrong" in pursuit of their true agenda?
It all comes down to one simple statement:
Either you are the anonymous spammer
or
This will take a LOT of research on your part.
You'll need to identify each application that is being used, where its data is being stored and what type of "backup" is needed for it.
Don't forget to include "backups" of the system software. There's nothing more annoying than having to rebuild a system, and you have a backup of the data, but you cannot find the install CD.
Older *nix systems were far easier than the "modern" PC-based servers. I could backup my old Sequent box to a bootable tape. If anything went wrong, I could boot the tape and re-write the system. This is somewhat supported now on some of the PC-based servers.
Anyway, back to the "backups". Once you have the systems identified, then you'll need to look at what scenarios you'll need to plan for.
#1. Server crash.
The data on the disk is destroyed. The OS is destroyed. But the hardware is okay.
#2. The building burns down.
All of your servers are now smoking heaps of plastic. So's your desk. And all the CD's you had.
#3. 5 years from now someone wants a critical policy that was deleted 3 years ago.
I spend most of my time kicking co-workers to get them to NOT just dump data any where that has free space and to NOT just throw up a new web server without telling me.
Look at the position of the leg with regards to the arm.
If it was a straight in kick, his leg would be tangled up with his opponent's hand.
If it was a side kick, his leg would be connecting with his opponent's shoulder. Look how his kicking foot is outside of both their bodies.
Hitting someone with a frying pan? What fool would take that?
Using your fists on someone
But using a blunt object? If you're anything other than a spaz, you'll crush a few ribs the first time you connect. Then the fights over.
Not enough room for the final "s" in the subject.
... and it may even be applicable for short term goals.
... we build the tools we use. If the tools that suit your philosphical ideals are not sufficient to the task, then make them sufficient.
Anyway, this "Use the best tool for the job, regardless of philosophical ideal" sounds nice
BUT
It's only code. And governments have the money to hire the people to write the code that is the tools.
If there isn't an Open Source tool that will work for the project due next Friday, that's one thing.
But if you never start writing the tools as Open Source, they will never be available. You know what tools you use.
This isn't just about control. This is about jobs.
With any closed source software not written in your country, you're importing it and sending your money to another country.
If you pour some cash into your education system and train up your own programmers to modify the Open Source code to suit your needs, you're investing in your own people. The money stays in your country. Those programmers pay taxes to you on that money.
And you've got to realize that this is going to be a very important field in the future. Do you really want your people left behind?
NT did not broadcast its serial number. You could buy a single copy of NT and install it a thousand times. If you needed a new file server or a temporary file server, it was so much easier to setup another NT box.Yes you do. But they're still in the organizations that had them before.
What has changed is that Windows servers swept through the smaller companies. Those companies never had a *nix box. They might have had LANtastic or NetWare or nothing, but they did not have *nix.Okay, I can agree with you on that.I guess that depends upon what business segment you're talking about.
Linux has been showing double digit growth for the past 5 years (maybe longer). Businesses are deploying it. At the server level.Now you're talking about the desktop segment.
The corporate desktop segment is different than the corporate server segment.
And the biggest problem with the corporate desktop segment is all the Access databases that have been built over the years.
The 2nd problem is all the not-supported-or-sold-anymore Windows apps that users "absolutely must have to do my job" that they've acquired over the years.
Changing 10 servers is easier than changing 10 workstations for users who've spent 10 years with the company.You might want to take a look at Google before you talk about "hobbyist market".I'll have to disagree with you on that.
While that would be nice, it is far more likely that one distribution will become dominant and that distribution's structure will become the de facto "standard".
And it seems we're already on that path with Red Hat and Ubuntu.
He may be confusing his post with the anonymous post to which I was replying.
Or he may be saying that he was the one who was posting anonymously.I can agree with you on the NDR issue, but I haven't seen anything from Russ that would merit any respect from me. In fact, the opposite is in evidence in this thread. Another link http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=186884&cid=15
:)
Good luck with that. We have clients who's email servers HELO with "exchange_server". We have clients who don't accept email to "postmaster". We have one client who is running GroupWise 6.0 and won't even patch it. A few weeks ago, one of our clients was running an open relay.
The real issue (as I see it) is that people see email as someone else's problem. In every one of those instances above, I've been told by their IT department that there is no problem because they can send and receive email to/from everyone.
Which seems to be the same core issue that Russ Nelson has. As long as it isn't annoying him, it doesn't matter that it may be annoying someone else (look up "joe job"). And claiming it is "industry standard practice" is just more evidence that he does not know what he's talking about.
Particularly when he started this thread with confusion about his server vs his IP address and whether SpamCop had "blocked" him vs other email admins using SpamCop's blacklists.
I'm with you 100% on DNR's. But I believe Russ Nelson has only a superficial understanding of email and is ignorant of the depth of his ignorance.
Case in point: His SpamCop claims. If he was running a double-opt-in list, then his address would only have been flagged for 24 hours when he sent the verification email. And it would only have affected those users who's email admins blocked based off of that.
I don't know many admins that do that. Even SpamCop's FAQ says not to. I'm sure they're out there. But since he should be seeing the rejection notices, why not just send a note with a clip from SpamCop's FAQ to those admins?
So
#1. He's wrong about how his mailing list works
#2. He's complaining about a tiny minority that he isn't doing anything to educate
#3. He really is a spammer
Yes, you are completely correct. It is spam.
t eral.html
But you will not change his opinion. I believe he is the anonymous "EMail marketing company" from earlier in this thread.
He claims that "This is an industry standard practice..." but that phrase means whatever anyone wants it to mean.
That practice has been vilified for YEARS as "collateral spam". Here is a reference from FIVE YEARS AGO http://www.ja.net/CERT/JANET-CERT/mail/junk/colla
Again, always remember Rule #1.
Spammers lie. He is a spammer. He lies.
One of the reasons I prefer Exim4 is that it is possible to kill all rNDR collateral spam by simply adding an X-header to my out-bound email and checking for such on any in-bound "NDR" messages.
I've been running it for months now and the only "problem" I had was the built-in sound chip on my motherboard. I dropped in an old SoundBlaster and everything works fine now.It's kind of hard to "over-generalize" having no problems.
I did file one feature request about their ADOdb package's dependencies and they did modify it. I don't know if that would count as a "problem", but it is been working perfectly for me now.
Company A -- "EMail marketing company"
Company B -- client of Company A
Company C -- evil competitor of Company B
Somehow, it is claimed, Company C finds out that Company B hired Company A.
Then, Company C sends a subscribe request to Company A with the return address of a SpamCop spamtrap.
THIS IS WHERE THE STORY FAILS
It requires that Company C KNOW that Company B hired Company A.
AND
It requires that Company C KNOW the spamtrap addresses of SpamCop.
AND
It requires that Company A be running a regular double-opt in mailing list.
AND
It requires that Company A (an "EMail marketing company") be unable to check its own email logs to find the recent subscription requests.Yes it would.
IF you accept that EACH of those FOUR requirements is true.
Allow me to remind you of Rule #1:
SPAMMERS LIE!
I don't know about you, but for me, it's easier to believe that the GP is lying about his "business" and SpamCop and everything else
But if you want to believe a spammer when he says that such happens to him
It seems that a lot of moderators also believe the spammer today.
No? You didn't realize that? Then maybe you should re-evaluate your supposed expertise on the material.
So what if the EFF's IP address is blocked AFTER the mailing?
Want more? That's easy. Not only would the listing not be in effect until AFTER the mailing, but it would only affect those people who's servers block in-bound email based off of that list.
In other words, the net effect would be NOTHING.
The listing would go into effect AFTER the mailings were already received
AND
The listing would only have affected those users who's email servers blocked based off of that listing PRIOR to accepting based off of a whitelist.You'd be wrong. I deal with this every day.
But I deal with it from the point of view of an email admin who is trying to reduce the in-bound spam while making sure that all the legitimate email is allowed through.
So I have a little bit more experience in this than some spammer who is just bitching that his site keeps getting listed on SpamCop.
In order for you to be correct:
#1. The RIAA would have to get the EFF's servers listed on SpamCop PRIOR to the mailing.
#2. The RIAA would have to get a significant percentage of the mail admins of the mail servers of the users receiving that mailing to use SpamCop.
#3. The RIAA would have to get those mail admins to implement a block based off of that listing.
#4. The RIAA would have to get that block set prior to any user level whitelists.
Yeah, keep believing that all of that can/will happen and that it is the poor "EMail marketing company" that is suffering.
For my part, I'll skip the conspiracy theories and keep blocking the anonymous spammer.
That someone who all but admits to being a spammer is mod'ed up 3 times (after posting anon)...
While the follow-ups criticising such are mod'ed down.
Seems like there are a lot of pro-spammer accounts with mod points today.
Anyway, you're still wrong.
#1. The "competitors" you're complaining about would have to have poisoned your "clients" email listing prior to you receiving those listings. That's just unrealistic. Either they'd have to have:
1a. Poisoned almost every company's email listings in which case SpamCop would be dead because every company would be listed on it each time it sent any mailings.
1b. Have someone inside your company telling them who your clients are and then poisoning them BEFORE you get the listing.
#2. Your competitors have lots of accounts that they use to report your sendings to SpamCop. If your competitors have that much expertise and time, then why are they wasting it blacklisting you?
#3. Your competitors already know the SpamCop spamtraps. Why aren't they making a LOT more money as real spammers with this knowledge? Why waste any time/effort on you? They can avoid the spamtraps themselves and get their spam out.
No. None of that makes any sense. You're a spammer and you're mad that SpamCop is being used to kill your spam business.
#2. Rate limit the out-bound traffic on those mail servers.
#3. MONITOR your servers. If someone's queue suddenly fills up with 10,000 messages, lock it and investigate it.See above.
Don't focus on trying to get the info out of SpamCop.
Focus on identifying the spammer behaviour on your network BEFORE it gets to SpamCop.Yep. So the idea is to limit the out-going rate by user and to monitor those queues.
The problem is not sending email to a SpamTrap address.
The problem is sending out thousands of spam emails.
The SpamTrap address is just a tool to identify when an address is probably sending out thousands of spam emails.If you don't have the authority to correctly design the network and mail servers, then it is not your problem. It is the problem of whomever does have that authority.
10,000 messages at 4KB is "only" 40MB. You'll see more traffic than that in mp3 shares. So don't focus on the "traffic" on your network.
Again, limit the out-going email rate per account. Then monitor those queues.
If you cannot do that because you aren't allowed to, then it is not your problem.
Otherwise, do it.
Technology rocks, but people should never over-estimate it.
Always include some alternate means for a legitimate person to easily contact you to resolve the problem. Phone, fax, IM, whatever.
Fuck you you little shit sucking worm. You and your "business" is the reason that SpamCop and others are necessary. And every single shit for brains like you will always start their posts "I don't send spam".
Yes you do. And I have to spend time finding ways to stop you from filling up my end users' mailboxes with your spam.So
Sure they do.Here's a free clue. I don't give a rat's ass how fucking hard I make your job.
Company A = you
Company B = your client
Company C = evil competitor
You were talking about working at an "EMail marketing company"
Right
So
Otherwise, you're taking email addresses from a blacklisted company and sending "not spam" ads to them.
And you expect me to believe that or have sympathy for you?
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha
Google runs GMail's system so that their servers are the LAST verifiable IP address in the chain.
What that means is if I upload a message to a GMail server, their headers will NOT include the IP address of my machine.
So SpamCop has no way of identifying the IP address that originally sent the spam to the GMail server.
So SpamCop reports the GMail server as the "source" of the spam. And that IP address gets blacklisted.
Personally, I believe that the "free" email services should assign people to work with the various blacklists. Even if Google won't change the behaviour of their servers, they should still be able to help SpamCop find the correct IP address via the unique message ID of each email. And also correctly identify the IP addresses of their mail servers so SpamCop wouldn't have to guess if it was a legit GMail server or not.
I've had to whitelist GMail, HotMail, Yahoo! and even AOL's mail servers at the SMTP level because of this. And it is NOT easy finding which IP addresses belond to their mail servers. They still run through SpamAssassin (because of the Nigerian royalty scams) but they are always accepted.
It's a "solution" and it mostly works for me. I just with the "free" email services would run their own RBL's so I could verify the IP addresses of servers that HELO with *.google.com or just gmail.com.
The person controlling the server that your server was trying to send a message to was using a SpamCop blacklist as a rejection list.
If you want to complain, complain to that person.The reason to keep those addresses secret is because if the spammers found them, they would not be useful anymore.
If you have a static IP address, the problem is you. Someone with access to your out-bound email is sending spam.
If you have a dynamic IP address, you need to get a static address.
If you cannot get a static address, do not expect your email to always be delivered. You must monitor your logs for the rejection notices and then take whatever actions are necessary to get that site to whitelist your messages.
Don't blame SpamCop for the situation that results in your IP address being reported to them. No one is forced to used SpamCop's blacklists. They choose to use them because they believe they are useful in reducing spam.
Yep, typical Fascist behaviour.
And then you continue on about how it won't be so expensive because it will magically get cheaper as you index more people.
What was was it that you had previously said?Again, taxes WOULD go up. Whether you want to argue the numbers or not, taxes WOULD go up.
So, taxes go up
What was that that you said earlier?No, your Fascist nature will not allow you to see the downside.
You think that this would be a good idea because it suits your Fascist nature. Despite the costs. Despite the logistics of indexing 200 million adults. Despite the Freedom issues.
The problem lies within you.
It is your outlook that is flawed and that is the reason you cannot understand what you are being told.