Instead of one monopoly, this decision creates two of them. You think Microsoft-Apps will port Office to Linux? Why would they? Breaking Windows into a seperate company doesn't make Linux any more profitable as a target platform.
Why would they? As one large monopoly, M$ has a significant interest in not porting applications to alternate operating systems as doing so potentially decreases the demand (read: market lock) for the OS.
By creating "Microsoft-Apps" and forbidding collusion between OS and Apps, Apps just might find that it is very much in their best interest to port applications to a wide variety of OSen.
There does seem to be too much hype and too few details to the story. A questionable point in my mind: Just how does one track a user to an IP address based on email? Unless you control the originating SMTP server (hence you could cull the logs), it must be very difficult to resolve a user down to an IP... in this story, the return domain was forged but the originating SMTP was stolen from an unrelated service, so how is the spammer IP address resolved?
Discovering the originating IP address from the headers of a given message is trivial. Most SMTP MTAs record the IP of the client connection in a Received: line. All one need do is examine the first non-forged Received: line in the message header.
Debian has a set of ideals that they started with, and they are staying with. If you don't agree with them, don't use them. It's silly to try to convince them they are wrong, part of the point of multiple distributions is that you can choose your distribution for almost any reason. Ease of use, standardization, strict adherence to GPL.
Some of us use debian because we find it to be the technically superior solution, not simply due to strict adherence.
I'm personally a big fan of returning everything repeatedly. If you're spammed, return it repeatedly (3 or 4 times is sufficient - the goal is just to tick off the spammer's ISP, not to crash their server), along with a message saying that it was determined to be unsolicited e-mail, along with long, boring, redundant, and redundant ramblings about how spam is considered to be one of the least effective ways of reaching customers... Of course, you'd need to find the _real_ address to do this.
You know, I must say that such tactics are tremendously annoying from the ISP perspective. Nothing like receiving a complaint CC'd to root, postmaster, domreg, owner's name, tech manager's name, support, grandma, Uncle Frankie AND all upstream providers for a spammer that was cancelled four days ago through normal procedures.
Hint: Most ISPs have an abuse@ account. Send ONE complaint, don't CC anyone, and the problem is usually resolved quite quickly.
Remember, it's not the ISP's fault (from where the spam is originating). We don't know a customer is going to spam until s/he does. And when they do, they are history. Fast.
Troll. After serious evaluation of W2K, both myself and my staff have determined that it's _significantly_ worse, that's right WORSE, than NT. It's CONSIDERABLY more buggy and less stable. Quite a step in the wrong direction for M$. I can't count the number of times it's locked up and/or spontaneously rebooted, on various different systems with confirmed, tested hardware.
I've noticed an interesting trend with M$. Every couple of years they take one of their old operating systems, break it, and throw a "enhanced" GUI on it. Just enough pixie dust to try and fool the public (oooh, look what they did to the start menu!). I'm not buying it, and most IT professionals aren't buying it anymore either.
I for one agree with the study, but only for myself. Based on my observations, it appears that the net heightens social interaction and communication for most people. Apparently, I'm in the minority on this one.
Personally, it does the exact opposite for me. "On-line" interaction seems to be completely devoid of that certain spice which permeats RL communications. Maybe it's the fact that you can't see the person's face, you have no idea what they are REALLY feeling or REALLY thinking about. I've long since noticed that in RL, the vast majority of people can't really fib about what's going through their minds all that much; the soul is painted on the face and in the eyes (with the exception of good poker players).
Electronic communication, for me, is so impersonal and unpleasant because it just seems to lack the basic inherent and inescapable honesty of body language (I'm not one for talking on the phone either).
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of one monopoly, this decision creates two of them. You think Microsoft-Apps will port Office to Linux? Why would they? Breaking Windows into a seperate company doesn't make Linux any more profitable as a target platform.
Why would they? As one large monopoly, M$ has a significant interest in not porting applications to alternate operating systems as doing so potentially decreases the demand (read: market lock) for the OS.
By creating "Microsoft-Apps" and forbidding collusion between OS and Apps, Apps just might find that it is very much in their best interest to port applications to a wide variety of OSen.
There does seem to be too much hype and too few details to the story. A questionable point in my mind: Just how does one track a user to an IP address based on email? Unless you control the originating SMTP server (hence you could cull the logs), it must be very difficult to resolve a user down to an IP... in this story, the return domain was forged but the originating SMTP was stolen from an unrelated service, so how is the spammer IP address resolved?
Discovering the originating IP address from the headers of a given message is trivial. Most SMTP MTAs record the IP of the client connection in a Received: line. All one need do is examine the first non-forged Received: line in the message header.
Debian has a set of ideals that they started with, and they are staying with. If you don't agree with them, don't use them. It's silly to try to convince them they are wrong, part of the point of multiple distributions is that you can choose your distribution for almost any reason. Ease of use, standardization, strict adherence to GPL.
Some of us use debian because we find it to be the technically superior solution, not simply due to strict adherence.
I'm personally a big fan of returning everything repeatedly. If you're spammed, return it repeatedly (3 or 4 times is sufficient - the goal is just to tick off the spammer's ISP, not to crash their server), along with a message saying that it was determined to be unsolicited e-mail, along with long, boring, redundant, and redundant ramblings about how spam is considered to be one of the least effective ways of reaching customers... Of course, you'd need to find the _real_ address to do this.
You know, I must say that such tactics are tremendously annoying from the ISP perspective.
Nothing like receiving a complaint CC'd to root, postmaster, domreg, owner's name, tech manager's name, support, grandma, Uncle Frankie AND all upstream providers for a spammer that was cancelled four days ago through normal procedures.
Hint: Most ISPs have an abuse@ account. Send ONE complaint, don't CC anyone, and the problem is usually resolved quite quickly.
Remember, it's not the ISP's fault (from where the spam is originating). We don't know a customer is going to spam until s/he does. And when they do, they are history. Fast.
Troll. After serious evaluation of W2K, both myself and my staff have determined that it's _significantly_ worse, that's right WORSE, than NT. It's CONSIDERABLY more buggy and less stable. Quite a step in the wrong direction for M$. I can't count the number of times it's locked up and/or spontaneously rebooted, on various different systems with confirmed, tested hardware.
I've noticed an interesting trend with M$. Every couple of years they take one of their old operating systems, break it, and throw a "enhanced" GUI on it. Just enough pixie dust to try and fool the public (oooh, look what they did to the start menu!). I'm not buying it, and most IT professionals aren't buying it anymore either.
Personally, it does the exact opposite for me. "On-line" interaction seems to be completely devoid of that certain spice which permeats RL communications. Maybe it's the fact that you can't see the person's face, you have no idea what they are REALLY feeling or REALLY thinking about. I've long since noticed that in RL, the vast majority of people can't really fib about what's going through their minds all that much; the soul is painted on the face and in the eyes (with the exception of good poker players).
Electronic communication, for me, is so impersonal and unpleasant because it just seems to lack the basic inherent and inescapable honesty of body language (I'm not one for talking on the phone either).