Considering lots of it is advertising US products in US units, the US is either the target and/or producer for an awful lot of spam...
I don't disagree. However, and speaking only for myself, the overwhelming majority of the spam I receive contains links to websites hosted in one of: China, Argentia, Brazil, Taiwan, Russia, or South Korea. Judging by Spamcop's statistics, I'm not the only one. The spam doesn't necessarily *originate* from there, but they are an integral part of the whole spam-support network.
Spammers can sneak into even the most STRINGENT anti-spam ISP network. A stolen credit card that works only once gets a spammer an account that can deliver many thousands of letters before they're shut down.
The question isn't whether or not spammers get on the network. Any system that allows people to sign up automatically with a credit card is vulnerable to that. The question is whether or not UUnet is willing to do anything about a spammer once he's brought to their attention. Although some of the SBL records for UUnet appear to be out of date, some spammers dating back at least to April 2003 are still present on their network.
UUnet isn't spam-friendly anymore than Rackspace is spam-friendly.
It's amusing that you mention Rackspace. I understand they appear to be cleaning up recently, but previously, they were more than happy to host spammers, so long as they paid their bills.
Spam is going nowhere until good authentication techniques are implemented internet-wide.
You'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath. IMHO, so long as there is a China, there will be spam. Until then, I'm going to keep using Spamcop and SPEWS.
And all he has to do with the brain dead SPEWS method is get a new IP which is free.
Which is why SPEWS increases the listing to encompass nearby IPs once the ISP has shows they are willing to tolerate spam. If an ISP is spam-friendly, then any email from their network has an increased probablity of being spam. SPEWS is essentially a quarantine of spam-infected areas of the 'Net.
And nuking villages is an excellent way to kill mosquitoes. It's stupid and ineffectual. And there are blantently obvious and more effective means of dealing with spam without doing more damage than the spammers as SPEWS does.
Stop with the hysterical overreaction and namecalling. No damage is being done to anyone. If you choose to do business with a spam friendly ISP, some of your emails might get rejected. If you choose to live in a crack house, the pizza joint might choose not to deliver to you, too.
To use your mosquito analogy, if those mosquitos were infected with the Ebola virus, it would be a good idea to fumigate not only that village, but the neighboring ones too, just to be on the safe side. That's what SPEWS is; a quarantine.
One of the greatest problems with spam is not the spammer himself, but the spam-friendly networks that are happy to take spammers' money and refuse to kick them off their servers. SPEWS attacks the spam problem at the ISP level, not the individual IP level. It is as much a boycott of those businesses as it is a DNSBL.
No one is forcing you to use SPEWS. If you don't like it, don't use it. In my experience, it helps stem the flood of spam I get, and has no downside, so I'm going to keep using it.
for perpetuating this myth that blocking IPs is an intelligent way of dealing with spam.
In my own experience, SPEWS is an excellent way of reducing the amount of spam I get. My filters use the Spamcop DNSBL and a few others, then SPEWS. By the time an email gets to the SPEWS list, it's probably already been tagged as spam by one of the others, but it does catch a few. And speaking only for myself, it has *never* had a false positive.
SPEWS is the only way to reduce the amount of spam at the root-cause level. SPEWS does not list spammers' IPs. SPEWS lists the IPs of spam-friendly ISPs. I know that, I understand that, and I choose not to block email from these parasitic bastards.
If you don't like the way that SPEWS runs their list, great. Don't use it. I like SPEWS, and will continue to use it.
I block domains.
I'm guessing by "domains" you mean you block on certain keywords in a URL in the body of an email. The problem with that method is that you have to first accept the entire email and filter it. That requires quite a bit more processing time than blocking at the SMTP level. And as soon as the return from buycheapviagra.com drops off, all the spammer has to do is switch to buycheapv1agra.com and getcheapviagra.com and reallycheapviagra.com and he's slipped right through your filters.
The CNN article and slashdot summary both say MS accused this kid of "copyright infringement," presumably because "Microsoft" is copyrighted. Is this just a mixup, and they meant "trademark violation," or is the word Microsoft an actually copyrighted work? I thought you couldn't copyright something that sort, with no actual creative intent behind it.
And by just using it twice, have I just made this post a derivative work?
How do you think submarines get their air? They waste a lot of H2, just to make a little O2.
Yes, and they use a great deal of energy to do it.
My original point is this: Hydrogen is not a clean fuel. Yes, at the location of combustion you generate only H2O (theoretically) and get energy out. However, there is no "free" way to generate H2.
The reason fossil fuels are used as a source of energy is that they are "free". Free as in you go dig a hole in the ground and get a very energy-rich fuel. The energy to create the fossil fuels was harnessed from the sun millions of years ago. You can't dig an H2 well. There just aren't pockets of H2 lying under the surface of the earth.
To create H2, you need a "free" source of energy (i.e. fossil fuels in the form of CH4) or you need a lot of energy to crack H2O. You need to put in as much energy into the creation of the H2 as you will later get out. That's so important, I'm going to say it again:
Creating H2 costs as much energy as you get back later.
Right now, that basically means electricity from fossil fuel plants, or in a few locations in the US, hydroelectric, nuclear, and possibly a tiny bit of solar. So all a hydrogen car will do will move the source of pollution from the car to the power plant.
I don't know enough about submarines to know where they get their power from (giant batteries? nuclear plants?), but they don't crack H2O for free.
Come on. As if the Oil Lobby will ever allow a cleaner, more efficient energy source to be available to consumers. How much effort has Dubbya given to his "Hydrogen Car" initiative beyond 10 minutes of lip service??
If you consider the fact that pretty much the only commercially viable way to make H2 in serious quantity is by using CH4 (i.e. natural gas), the Hydrogen Car idea becomes even more useless. Sure, you could crack H2O into H2 and O2, but that's terribly energy intensive and no one does it that way. Add the fact that there's no feasable way to contain enough H2 for use in your car, since it doesn't liquify except under tremendous pressure, and the H2 Car becomes a distract-the-voter proposition.
Oviously I'm missing something - why are you worried? If they're breaking the law they deserve to get busted, if they are not, your logs will not point legal accusations at innocent students.
In other words, so long as you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear from this? Great, we'll be installing cameras in every room of your home a week from Thursday. After all, as long as you're not doing anything wrong...
Now that you've gone on public record admitting that you're trying to get the log-storage period reasonably short specifically for the purposed of defeating potential RIAA subpoenas you're just put yourself in the line for interfering with a police investigation if not tampering with the evidence.
Nonsense. The grandparent poster said these logs were useful for the maintenance of his network, and network security. After a few weeks, they are no longer useful for that purpose. It is not his university's job to log all network activity, and maintain those logs for all time, in case the RIAA comes up with a subpoena at some undefined point in the future. If that were the case, it would be illegal to throw away any piece of paper, ever, because it might contain copyrighted information on it, or evidence of a copyright violation.
Now that you've gone on public record admitting that you're trying to get the log-storage period reasonably short specifically for the purposed of defeating potential RIAA subpoenas you're just put yourself in the line for interfering with a police investigation if not tampering with the evidence.
You can't interfere with a police investigation that doesn't exist. Sure, if he phoned his buddy upstairs with, "The police are on their way up in the elevator with a subpoena. Quick, delete all the logs!" that's probably illegal. But the grandparent poster wants to purge these logs, not necessarily to hide illegal activity, but to protect the privacy of his students. It's a fine distinction, but an important one.
From what I have gathered, the SPEWS philosophy isn't just indifference to collateral damage (ie, 'civilian casualties'); they actively do this damage in order to try to force ISPs into changing their habits. And they are extremely difficult to both reach and reason with; you can post on a newsgroup and hope someone pays attention to your pleas.
You have it wrong. The SPEWS philosophy is to shield the rest of the 'Net from abuse-friendly providers. If there is spam regularly coming from your ISP and they do nothing about it, only then will the ISP be listed. That's why it's the Spam Prevention and Early Warning System.
SPEWS is like disease control. You quarantine an infected ISP until it's spam infection has been cleared up. Then it's safe to do business with.
If an ISP is knowlingly supporting spam, then any email that comes from that ISP has a higher-than-average chance of being spam. That's what SPEWS is for.
Admittedly, they're not killing anyone, but the tactic of deliberately attacking people who are only tangentially related to your real target is often called 'terrorism'
Godwin's Law. You lose.
This is a boycott. I don't buy or drink Coors products because of the conservative politics of the Coors Foundation. I don't do business with spam-friendly networks. SPEWS lets me do that.
It is possible, in other words, to do an exceptional job of stopping spam without contributing to a form of terrorism.
terrorism: a terrorist drives a car bomb into a crowd, killing and maiming dozens
SPEWS: an email gets blocked
If the idea of an email you send getting blocked really sends you into a fit of terror, I suggest you try using a more reliable form of communication.
Besides the fact that you would have to find SPEWS to sue SPEWS (no one knows who they are)
The identity, location, and contact information for SPEWS is easily to determine:
whois -h whois.geektools.com spews.org
Domain Name:SPEWS.ORG Created On:07-Jul-2001 19:50:12 UTC Last Updated On:06-Nov-2003 14:49:01 UTC Expiration Date:07-Jul-2008 19:50:12 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:R25-LROR Status:OK Registrant ID:CORG-1195 Registrant Name:chip level domains Registrant Organization:Visit Lake Biakal! Registrant Street1:po box 61, Baikalsk-2 Registrant City:Irkutsk region, -- 665914 Registrant Postal Code:665914 Registrant Country:RU Registrant Phone:+7.3952348335 Registrant FAX:+7.3952348335 Registrant Email:chip@sendmail.ru
There, you have a mailing address, and email address, and even a phone number. Now, you may not believe that SPEWS is this guy in Russia, but I see no reason not to believe the whois data. Not that I've tried to verify it, however.
Your proposal would affect how many spams you get from that one spammer, but not how much total the spammer can get through. If you get more than 8640 spams per day from the same one IP address, then your proposal will be effective. But many spammers have 1000 servers, and some have 1000000 or more cracked windows machines at their disposal. Even the crypto idea is weak against the latter situation.
OK, you have a point. However, it means rather than the receiving server accepting no more than 8000 emails per day from a given source, it means that a given source can send no more than 8000 emails. I suspect that for any significant mailing list, this would be catastrophic.
Secondly, you still have to get every sending mail server in the world to use this new system. Seeing as how many people are still running open relays, and how many spam-friendly ISPs there are out there, good luck. I'm no expert, but it still seems to me that the various Spamcop, Spamhaus, SPEWS, ets. blacklists are a better solution.
I should point out also, that if spammers have 1,000,000 compromised Windows machines at their disposal (and judging by the number of ICMP pings I get per minute, presumably from Welchia and Blaster(?), that number doesn't seem unreasonable) that's still 8,000,000,000 or EIGHT BILLION emails per day. I don't think even McDonald's can claim to serve that many.:)
OK, I may be missing something here. The point of this method is to make the sending computer jump through some sort of computational hoop that takes about 10 seconds, so that it can't just send a huge amount of mail in a short time.
So why bother with all the computation and hashing, and just refuse to accept connections from a given IP except every 10 seconds? So if an email was sent from AAA.BBB.CCC.DDD at 00:00.00, don't accept another from that IP until 00:00.10.
This makes it happen entirely at the recipeient server side, so you're not breaking SMTP, and it's backwards compatible with everyone else.
On the other hand, if it's 10/sec per email it doesn't sound like this would be feasable to implement:
Hotmail receives about 2,000,000,000 spams per day. Let's say the amount of legitimate email they handle is 10% of that.
legit emails: 200,000,000
emails/day at 10 s/email: 8640
necessary servers to handle this amount of email: 23,000
OK, this is a bit of an oversimplification because it assumes that in that 10 s, no other server is trying to send mail to that machine, but it's a rough guess.
You can't really be that dense, can you? To photocopy a book, at an average of 250 pages by $0.10 per page and 5 seconds to copy a page, you're looking at $25 and 20 minutes. You could go out and buy your own copy of most books for that price, and even if you choose to still copy the book you'll have a loose pile of paper with a good possibility of some unreadable portions due to the copier, not a bound and printed copy of the book.
You're assuming that the book is available somewhere for a reasonable price. Sure, no one is going to copy a paperback of the latest Danielle Steele novel, but I've copied several scientific texts that were hard to get or out-of-print. It's basically how I got through graduate thermodynamics. For one old, fairly obscure book that my graduate advisor needed, he asked me to check it out of the library for him, "lose" it, and pay the fine so we could have a copy for the lab. This went against my sense of fair play, so I popped down to Kinko's, dupped it, bound it, and now everyone wins.
The problem with the whole digital revolution is that it allows us to do things on a scale simply never possible before. Sure, it was technically illegal to dub tapes and give them to your friends, or to photocopy a recipe and send it to your mother, but it would never be worth prosecuting simply because of the difficulty in finding people, and the cost of prosecution for such a small return.
Dumb Advertising...
1. Advertising is dumb.
2. Advertising works.
3. Marketers use adverstisements that appeal to the most people.
Conclusion: most people are dumb.
If I may edit your comment ever so slightly...
Advertising is dumb.
Advertisers claim that advertising works.
Marketers use adverstisements that appeal to the most people.
I'm starting to think that the nearly non-stop, frenetic rate at which I'm exposed to advertising is having a negative effect. I tune it out like nothing else, work out technological ways to avoid it as much as possible, and am annoyed by that gets through.
OK, some contradiction here. She claims she spams through off shore services, but it also says she pays $1,000 a month for a lease line. That doesn't make sense.
Maybe that's $19.95 for the ISP account, plus $980.05 to not get her account terminated for spamming.
...I'm perfectly fine having cameras all over public areas to be scrutinized by law enforcement
I wouldn't be particularly worried about this sort of thing going on, if it was only ever used in a responsible fashion, by people that respect me and treat me with dignity.
My concern arises when the system is used as an expensive feel-good method that generates little to no *real* security, or is exploited for someone's entertainment or to invade my life. And it's easy to say that something like this is worth any cost if "it saves just one child." Really? Even if it cost tens of millions of dollars? Hundreds of millions? Is Phoenix willing to raise their city taxes (assuming they exist) as they "think of the children!"
From what I understand, cameras are everywhere in Britain, or maybe mostly limited to the London area, I don't really know. But I understand there are already cases of cops using them to follow pretty women as they walk around. There are plenty of cases of cops using official databases to do "girlfriend-profiling".
We just saw a little while ago about EZPass being used by cops and divorce lawyers. EZPass is a cool technology and I'm sure it makes toll road less of a hassle, and makes a commuter's life a little easier. But having your husband check up on you is not what the system was ever intended to be used for.
The scene with the baby-killing was sick. Pure and simple. It added nothing to the story.
I rather think the whole POINT is that it was sick, meant to display a total lack of empathy for the humans around her.
Although, as Number 6 was walking away in that scene, it seemed to me that her expression was one of remorse or regret. I was wondering if, perhaps, her motovation was to spare the baby from the immenent fiery death that was coming to his planet.
It seems that there is one inviolable law in modern movie making: You don't show violence against children or animals. The exceptions are few and far between. Jaws would never get made today. I actually have some respect for the makers of this movie for putting that scene in.
I found your post very humerous and I realize it was in jest, but if your gonna act like a religious zelot, atleast try to make sense looking like one.
The problem is, he wasn't acting at all. As one other poster pointed out, this isn't original.
I've seen that site before, however, and my friends and I disagree on whether or not it's a joke site, a la http://www.landoverbaptist.org/.
I partly of the opinion it's a joke. No one could be that big of an idiot, right? Right?
Hey while we're at it, why not plurally refer to ourselves as Personkind! One small step for a person, one person-of-irregular-height leap for Personkind!
Because, you sexist pig, that's offensive to female children everywhere. The polite term is perchildkind.
I don't think a no-compromise solution is going to pass. This is probably as good as it's going to get.
I'm afraid this is going to make the situation *worse*, since it basically greenlights opt-out spam.
Anyway, what's so complicated about, "Thou shalt not send commercial email unless it's requested by the recipient"? Commercial email is great stuff, just not the unsolicited kind.
As has been copiously explained elsewhere, hashing can deal with that problem.
I'm no expert here, just an amateur spamfighter who's too big for his britches. That being said, seems to me that, while hashing would prevent a spammer from mass-spamming the do-not-spam list, it would allow him to determine a subset of addresses on his list that were valid email addresses. Yes, it seems like it would be counterproductive to spam people on the do-not-spam list, but the do-not-call list still hasn't stopped all my telemarketing calls.
Also note that the do-not-call list is applicable only to your personal telephone. Businesses are prohibited from using it. Will this be true for the do-not-spam list?
Why would you have to say no all these times? It's a single registry!
Good point, but I was considering the opt-out nature of the spam separate from the no-spam list.
Where is that said?
OK, I admit I was being a bit flip, but the press release says, "Makes it a crime, subject to five years in prison, to send fraudulent SPAM."
This may be true. But this is specifically tasking the FTC and state attorneys general with enforcement, instead of leaving it unspecified so that different enforcement agencies can ignore it.
Previous version of this bill invalidated state laws that were more stringent than the federal law . I have a hard time making sense of the legal mumbo-jumbo in these bills. Can anyone tell if that's still in there?[Oops, looking at the CNET story, the answer is: Yes. This would eliminate the CA law.]
It says "damages". Let's start with the idea that you needed to incur damages. Was this a question for clarification, or were you pointing out a fault with the bill?
Again, it was the fact that the press release was short on details. Then again, it was a press release, not a news story.
All this being said, there are a few good points in the bill. It takes dictionary attacts into account, and Usenet harvesting.
But quoting from the CNET article:
The final bill says spammers may send as many "commercial electronic mail messages" as they like--as long as the messages are obviously advertisements with a valid U.S. postal address or P.O. box and an unsubscribe link at the bottom. Junk e-mail essentially would be treated like junk postal mail, with nonfraudulent e-mail legalized until the recipient chooses to unsubscribe.
This is not an anti-spam bill. This is a pro-spam bill. (I'm looking at S.1231 on thomas.loc.gov, and assuming that's the latest version.)
It seems like the meat of this bill is in this clause:
... it shall be unlawful for any person to initiate the transmission of any UCE to a protected computer unless the message provides clear and conspicuous identification that the message is an advertisement or solicitation, by providing, as the first characters in the subject line, `ADV:'.
So, basically, spam all you want as long as the recipient isn't on the do-not-spam list, and as long as the spam is labeled.
Point-by-point for today's news release:
Empowers American consumers with the right to opt-out of all unwanted and unsolicited commercial e-mail or SPAM.
The bill is opt-out. Enough said.
Provides the FTC with the authority to set up a "Do-Not-SPAM" registry based on Chairman Tauzin's work on the "Do-Not-Call" registry for unwanted and unsolicited telemarketing telephone calls.
Won't work, for many reasons that have been copiously explained elsewhere. Primarily, great, give the spammers a list of valid email addresses.
Grants the strongest available protection for parents and consumers to say "no" to the receipt of pornographic SPAM.
The pornifity of the email is irrelevant. Spam is spam. Again, you have to say "no," possibly thousands or tens of thousands of times. Opt-out.
Makes it a crime, subject to five years in prison, to send fraudulent SPAM.
But non-fraudulent spam is ok? I thought fraud, whatever the medium, was already illegal.
Allows the FTC and state attorneys general the ability to vigorously enforce the laws contained in the anti-SPAM legislation.
I just don't see the point of a law where enforcement is not permitted.
Enforces statutory damages of $2 million for violations, tripled to $6 million for intentional violations, and unlimited damages for fraud and abuse.
Spam is abuse of the email system. Who can sue for these statutory damages? The ISP, the recipient, the states?
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why SPEWS increases the listing to encompass nearby IPs once the ISP has shows they are willing to tolerate spam. If an ISP is spam-friendly, then any email from their network has an increased probablity of being spam. SPEWS is essentially a quarantine of spam-infected areas of the 'Net.
Stop with the hysterical overreaction and namecalling. No damage is being done to anyone. If you choose to do business with a spam friendly ISP, some of your emails might get rejected. If you choose to live in a crack house, the pizza joint might choose not to deliver to you, too.
To use your mosquito analogy, if those mosquitos were infected with the Ebola virus, it would be a good idea to fumigate not only that village, but the neighboring ones too, just to be on the safe side. That's what SPEWS is; a quarantine.
One of the greatest problems with spam is not the spammer himself, but the spam-friendly networks that are happy to take spammers' money and refuse to kick them off their servers. SPEWS attacks the spam problem at the ISP level, not the individual IP level. It is as much a boycott of those businesses as it is a DNSBL.
No one is forcing you to use SPEWS. If you don't like it, don't use it. In my experience, it helps stem the flood of spam I get, and has no downside, so I'm going to keep using it.
In my own experience, SPEWS is an excellent way of reducing the amount of spam I get. My filters use the Spamcop DNSBL and a few others, then SPEWS. By the time an email gets to the SPEWS list, it's probably already been tagged as spam by one of the others, but it does catch a few. And speaking only for myself, it has *never* had a false positive.
SPEWS is the only way to reduce the amount of spam at the root-cause level. SPEWS does not list spammers' IPs. SPEWS lists the IPs of spam-friendly ISPs. I know that, I understand that, and I choose not to block email from these parasitic bastards.
If you don't like the way that SPEWS runs their list, great. Don't use it. I like SPEWS, and will continue to use it.
I'm guessing by "domains" you mean you block on certain keywords in a URL in the body of an email. The problem with that method is that you have to first accept the entire email and filter it. That requires quite a bit more processing time than blocking at the SMTP level. And as soon as the return from buycheapviagra.com drops off, all the spammer has to do is switch to buycheapv1agra.com and getcheapviagra.com and reallycheapviagra.com and he's slipped right through your filters.
Haven't been paying much attention to the Supreme Court lately, huh?
And by just using it twice, have I just made this post a derivative work?
My original point is this: Hydrogen is not a clean fuel. Yes, at the location of combustion you generate only H2O (theoretically) and get energy out. However, there is no "free" way to generate H2.
The reason fossil fuels are used as a source of energy is that they are "free". Free as in you go dig a hole in the ground and get a very energy-rich fuel. The energy to create the fossil fuels was harnessed from the sun millions of years ago. You can't dig an H2 well. There just aren't pockets of H2 lying under the surface of the earth.
To create H2, you need a "free" source of energy (i.e. fossil fuels in the form of CH4) or you need a lot of energy to crack H2O. You need to put in as much energy into the creation of the H2 as you will later get out. That's so important, I'm going to say it again:
Right now, that basically means electricity from fossil fuel plants, or in a few locations in the US, hydroelectric, nuclear, and possibly a tiny bit of solar. So all a hydrogen car will do will move the source of pollution from the car to the power plant.I don't know enough about submarines to know where they get their power from (giant batteries? nuclear plants?), but they don't crack H2O for free.
You have it wrong. The SPEWS philosophy is to shield the rest of the 'Net from abuse-friendly providers. If there is spam regularly coming from your ISP and they do nothing about it, only then will the ISP be listed. That's why it's the Spam Prevention and Early Warning System.
SPEWS is like disease control. You quarantine an infected ISP until it's spam infection has been cleared up. Then it's safe to do business with.
If an ISP is knowlingly supporting spam, then any email that comes from that ISP has a higher-than-average chance of being spam. That's what SPEWS is for.
Godwin's Law. You lose.
This is a boycott. I don't buy or drink Coors products because of the conservative politics of the Coors Foundation. I don't do business with spam-friendly networks. SPEWS lets me do that.
terrorism: a terrorist drives a car bomb into a crowd, killing and maiming dozensSPEWS: an email gets blocked
If the idea of an email you send getting blocked really sends you into a fit of terror, I suggest you try using a more reliable form of communication.
This thing gets hacked such that it forces a minimum speed. Like a cruise control you can't shut off. Eeeek.
OK, you have a point. However, it means rather than the receiving server accepting no more than 8000 emails per day from a given source, it means that a given source can send no more than 8000 emails. I suspect that for any significant mailing list, this would be catastrophic.
Secondly, you still have to get every sending mail server in the world to use this new system. Seeing as how many people are still running open relays, and how many spam-friendly ISPs there are out there, good luck. I'm no expert, but it still seems to me that the various Spamcop, Spamhaus, SPEWS, ets. blacklists are a better solution.
I should point out also, that if spammers have 1,000,000 compromised Windows machines at their disposal (and judging by the number of ICMP pings I get per minute, presumably from Welchia and Blaster(?), that number doesn't seem unreasonable) that's still 8,000,000,000 or EIGHT BILLION emails per day. I don't think even McDonald's can claim to serve that many. :)
So why bother with all the computation and hashing, and just refuse to accept connections from a given IP except every 10 seconds? So if an email was sent from AAA.BBB.CCC.DDD at 00:00.00, don't accept another from that IP until 00:00.10.
This makes it happen entirely at the recipeient server side, so you're not breaking SMTP, and it's backwards compatible with everyone else.
On the other hand, if it's 10/sec per email it doesn't sound like this would be feasable to implement:
The problem with the whole digital revolution is that it allows us to do things on a scale simply never possible before. Sure, it was technically illegal to dub tapes and give them to your friends, or to photocopy a recipe and send it to your mother, but it would never be worth prosecuting simply because of the difficulty in finding people, and the cost of prosecution for such a small return.
I'm starting to think that the nearly non-stop, frenetic rate at which I'm exposed to advertising is having a negative effect. I tune it out like nothing else, work out technological ways to avoid it as much as possible, and am annoyed by that gets through.
Maybe that's $19.95 for the ISP account, plus $980.05 to not get her account terminated for spamming.
I wouldn't be particularly worried about this sort of thing going on, if it was only ever used in a responsible fashion, by people that respect me and treat me with dignity.
My concern arises when the system is used as an expensive feel-good method that generates little to no *real* security, or is exploited for someone's entertainment or to invade my life. And it's easy to say that something like this is worth any cost if "it saves just one child." Really? Even if it cost tens of millions of dollars? Hundreds of millions? Is Phoenix willing to raise their city taxes (assuming they exist) as they "think of the children!"
From what I understand, cameras are everywhere in Britain, or maybe mostly limited to the London area, I don't really know. But I understand there are already cases of cops using them to follow pretty women as they walk around. There are plenty of cases of cops using official databases to do "girlfriend-profiling".
We just saw a little while ago about EZPass being used by cops and divorce lawyers. EZPass is a cool technology and I'm sure it makes toll road less of a hassle, and makes a commuter's life a little easier. But having your husband check up on you is not what the system was ever intended to be used for.
Or even Frank B. Gilbreth and Ernestine Gilbreth Carey
I rather think the whole POINT is that it was sick, meant to display a total lack of empathy for the humans around her.
Although, as Number 6 was walking away in that scene, it seemed to me that her expression was one of remorse or regret. I was wondering if, perhaps, her motovation was to spare the baby from the immenent fiery death that was coming to his planet.
It seems that there is one inviolable law in modern movie making: You don't show violence against children or animals. The exceptions are few and far between. Jaws would never get made today. I actually have some respect for the makers of this movie for putting that scene in.
Or maybe Cylons are just cheaper if you buy them by the dozen.
I've seen that site before, however, and my friends and I disagree on whether or not it's a joke site, a la http://www.landoverbaptist.org/. I partly of the opinion it's a joke. No one could be that big of an idiot, right? Right?
Because, you sexist pig, that's offensive to female children everywhere. The polite term is perchildkind.
(With apologies to Berkley Breathed.)
I'm afraid this is going to make the situation *worse*, since it basically greenlights opt-out spam.
Anyway, what's so complicated about, "Thou shalt not send commercial email unless it's requested by the recipient"? Commercial email is great stuff, just not the unsolicited kind.
As has been copiously explained elsewhere, hashing can deal with that problem.
I'm no expert here, just an amateur spamfighter who's too big for his britches. That being said, seems to me that, while hashing would prevent a spammer from mass-spamming the do-not-spam list, it would allow him to determine a subset of addresses on his list that were valid email addresses. Yes, it seems like it would be counterproductive to spam people on the do-not-spam list, but the do-not-call list still hasn't stopped all my telemarketing calls.
Also note that the do-not-call list is applicable only to your personal telephone. Businesses are prohibited from using it. Will this be true for the do-not-spam list?
Why would you have to say no all these times? It's a single registry!
Good point, but I was considering the opt-out nature of the spam separate from the no-spam list.
Where is that said?
OK, I admit I was being a bit flip, but the press release says, "Makes it a crime, subject to five years in prison, to send fraudulent SPAM."
This may be true. But this is specifically tasking the FTC and state attorneys general with enforcement, instead of leaving it unspecified so that different enforcement agencies can ignore it.
Previous version of this bill invalidated state laws that were more stringent than the federal law . I have a hard time making sense of the legal mumbo-jumbo in these bills. Can anyone tell if that's still in there?[Oops, looking at the CNET story, the answer is: Yes. This would eliminate the CA law.]
It says "damages". Let's start with the idea that you needed to incur damages. Was this a question for clarification, or were you pointing out a fault with the bill?
Again, it was the fact that the press release was short on details. Then again, it was a press release, not a news story.
All this being said, there are a few good points in the bill. It takes dictionary attacts into account, and Usenet harvesting.
But quoting from the CNET article:
It seems like the meat of this bill is in this clause:
So, basically, spam all you want as long as the recipient isn't on the do-not-spam list, and as long as the spam is labeled. Point-by-point for today's news release:The bill is opt-out. Enough said.
Won't work, for many reasons that have been copiously explained elsewhere. Primarily, great, give the spammers a list of valid email addresses.
The pornifity of the email is irrelevant. Spam is spam. Again, you have to say "no," possibly thousands or tens of thousands of times. Opt-out.
But non-fraudulent spam is ok? I thought fraud, whatever the medium, was already illegal.
I just don't see the point of a law where enforcement is not permitted.
Spam is abuse of the email system. Who can sue for these statutory damages? The ISP, the recipient, the states?