The problem I see with power in Australia is the huge amount of brown coal (lignite) burning that goes on in some parts of the country when there is plenty of black coal (anthracite) in NSW. Though really it is mad for Australia to not have nuclear power since
It has loads of space
It has not many people to provide for
It has tons and tons of uranium.
And with regard to Lucas Heights, be thankful that they are builidng a new research reactor and shutting down the old (nearly 50 years old) one. The exisiting reactor is a copy of the British DIDO reactor that ran at
Harwell.
This link is informative about the Lucas Heights reactor.
I'm a little biased, being a neutron scattering scientist (and chemist).
My main reason for the use of nuclear power is to free up all that oil and gas that could be put to better use as chemical feedstock - where do you think that the starting materials for most pharmaceuticals come from for instance. That and all the plastic bits in your computer.
Nobel
--
Double helping of fission chips please!
Re:Microsoft Proposal is Spam Friendly, Like CANSP
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 1
2. Large ISP's MTA attempts SMTP with recipient MTA. Sender IP verifies. Recipient MTA looks up *certificate* of ISP and verifies it. Email delivered.
and
Problem: The Independent Email Certifying Authority. These verify that the large organization is following "proper email policies". But you can bet that these policies will be something rather consistent with the CAN SPAM act. In other words, you are still going to get a lot of "legal" spam
Quite - this is my major problem with most spam solutions. They assume that spammers use ISPs like the rest of us. What happens when they buy themselves a T1 (or whatever), a certificate and suddenly they are legit. Spam is not reduced and in the process end users pay for it. No doubt MS and pals make a bit of cash through hardware upgrades and software saled too.
AFAICS this is all smoke and mirrors to distract people from all the cracked windows boxes out there spamming.
Anyone with a great idea (or who knows more about this scheme, or the identity of the twat behind it) I'd love to hear from you...
If your ISP used authenticated SMTP then the bots would'nt work. Of course they could try to sniff auth info, at which point some encryption would be your friend.
As far as I can see, despite all the "the spammers will get round it" defeatism going on is that this will make life harder and more expensive for spammers.
The key is that by using this method and collecting data on who is sending to you and at what rate then you've just bought an hour in which to blacklist that triplet - maybe you only blacklist it for a relatively small amount of time, say 24 hours - and stop that particular flood of spam. As another poster noted, 5000 mails in a very short space of time sounds like spam.
Spamassassin et al are good, but they cost in hardware. This method appears to not be a significant overhead at the recieving end so the real costs of spam are increased for the spammer.
There are clearly situations where this isn't going to be appropriate, but if my university used this for students then spam would no longer consume so much of my inbox.
Slashdot Mirror
And with regard to Lucas Heights, be thankful that they are builidng a new research reactor and shutting down the old (nearly 50 years old) one. The exisiting reactor is a copy of the British DIDO reactor that ran at Harwell.
This link is informative about the Lucas Heights reactor.
I'm a little biased, being a neutron scattering scientist (and chemist).
My main reason for the use of nuclear power is to free up all that oil and gas that could be put to better use as chemical feedstock - where do you think that the starting materials for most pharmaceuticals come from for instance. That and all the plastic bits in your computer.
Nobel
--
Double helping of fission chips please!
2. Large ISP's MTA attempts SMTP with recipient MTA. Sender IP verifies. Recipient MTA looks up *certificate* of ISP and verifies it. Email
delivered.
and
Problem: The Independent Email Certifying
Authority. These verify that the large organization is following "proper email policies". But you can bet that these policies will be something rather consistent with the CAN SPAM act. In other words, you are still going to get a lot of "legal" spam
Quite - this is my major problem with most spam solutions. They assume that spammers use ISPs like the rest of us. What happens when they buy themselves a T1 (or whatever), a certificate and suddenly they are legit. Spam is not reduced and in the process end users pay for it. No doubt MS and pals make a bit of cash through hardware upgrades and software saled too.
AFAICS this is all smoke and mirrors to distract people from all the cracked windows boxes out there spamming.
Nobel
The reporting is less sensational. You may object to the Times on the grounds of it being Murdoch owned, but the reporting is pretty good.
I'd have thought a lot less than firing up SpamAssassin for every mail and parsing the body, decoding mime attachments etc.
.sig
Nobel
--
This was a
Anyone with a great idea (or who knows more about this scheme, or the identity of the twat behind it) I'd love to hear from you...
.sig
If your ISP used authenticated SMTP then the bots would'nt work. Of course they could try to sniff auth info, at which point some encryption would be your friend.
Nobel
--
This is a
As far as I can see, despite all the "the spammers will get round it" defeatism going on is that this will make life harder and more expensive for spammers.
.sig
The key is that by using this method and collecting data on who is sending to you and at what rate then you've just bought an hour in which to blacklist that triplet - maybe you only blacklist it for a relatively small amount of time, say 24 hours - and stop that particular flood of spam. As another poster noted, 5000 mails in a very short space of time sounds like spam.
Spamassassin et al are good, but they cost in hardware. This method appears to not be a significant overhead at the recieving end so the real costs of spam are increased for the spammer.
There are clearly situations where this isn't going to be appropriate, but if my university used this for students then spam would no longer consume so much of my inbox.
Nobel
--
This is a