...3rd-party mailers, etc, can still function as intended with proper SPF records, as long as the MAIL FROM SMTP command from the sending MTA software doesn't misrepresent itself.
They can still function as intended, but the chance that they've been developed by someone who both knows and cares about the difference between the RFC 2821 envelope sender and the RFC 2822 To: line isn't terribly high. The "send an e-mail" function of the library they're using probably doesn't even let them set the two separately. This is no great loss with e-cards, but some "send this story to a friend" features of news sites operate the same way.
Even the forwarding features of real MTAs don't get this right; SPF promoters recommend SRS, but unless your whole business is forwarding mail, you've probably never heard of it.
To answer the article's original question, I use SPF on some of my own domains and implemented it at work years ago. It's not a foolproof barrier to spam or to backscatter, but it mitigates the risk of a joe job.
I'm sorry, this looks like something that was thrown out of an early draft of Johnny Mnemonic:
adiabatic quantum algorithm by magnetically coupling superconducting loops called rf-squid flux qubits.
Not only can I not tell if they're serious, I can't even tell if that means anything.
The math they present, or even the math on the Wikipedia page for Grover's algorithm, is also completely beyond me. I blame Alan Turing for all of this: if he'd cracked Nazi codes with poetry instead of with math, I'd probably be able to understand computer science.
As it is, I have to assign a probability p=0.5 to Google posting another blog entry tomorrow in which they admit to making the whole thing up and being tempted to include a reference to "Cookie Monster's postulate" along side "Grover's algorithm".
If you try to sell GPL software you really open up a can of worms in terms of ethical problems.
I still don't see why you think this. You and your hundreds of friends created a work under the GPL. Sale is clearly contemplated by the GPL. Are future developers required to assume that you didn't know what you were doing and to check with each of you to find out how you feel about something that's laid out in black and white in the license?
Thank you for putting in humorous terms what was going through my mind as I read that entire Groklaw article: it sounds like guilty fast-talk, but really just needs an editor.
Now, my patience had already worn thin by the time I got to the end of the intro — "Some people asked for the images to be links to larger images because I shrank them for dialup but omigod I didn't know how to make them go like that but then someone told me how to make them like that so now if you click? The image? You get like a bigger image?" — so maybe I'm just extra cranky today.
IMO, a robot is a machine that can take an instruction ("rivet these parts together") and synthesize its own internal instruction set in order to complete the task.
Assembly line robots do not, as I understand it, work out how to accomplish their tasks — they stick to pre-programmed actions. I think that you're conflating robots and artificial intelligences. For instance, I think that it's reasonable to call a home computer printer a robot: it grabs some paper, lines it up, and prints according to instructions.
...and one of the things crashes and falls into enemy hands through sheer bad luck...
How's the enemy going to control it, though? It'd be easier for them to make their own based on hobbyist remote-control planes. A foam-bodied model plane probably doesn't show up on radar much better than a zillion-dollar stealth drone, and as you say all it has to do is go a kilometre or two and then explode. As for picking off executives in the bathroom — well, I don't think anyone's even proposing something that can identify people through multiple walls.
...while white collar crime seemed to be missing from the simulation.
As I recall, industrial areas bred crime at higher levels than commercial areas did, so that fits. It's either a slam on the working classes, or arch-hippie anti-industrialism!
As a matter of fact, I've just inherited a substantial fortune from a relative overseas. If you could front me a few grand to cover the foreign probate fees and wealth import taxes, I'll be in a position to send quite a bit of business your way.
Dropping a politely-worded note proposing co-operative effort to a bunch of concerned parties? Yeah, you would need a new meaning for the word "Nazi" before you could use it to describe that.
What wacky world do Theo's enablers come from that they think it's an aggrieved party's duty to keep an offender's misdeeds secret?
the author of the GPL's driver, Michael Buesch, didn't even attempt to handle this civilly
No reasonable person who's read Mr. Buesch's side of the exchange, including his initial letter, could reach the conclusion that he was anything but civil. That he continued to be in the face of the guiltily defensive raving coming from Mr. de Raadt is remarkable.
I guess they're worried about "iPod" becoming a generic term — if I could demonstrate that "pod" just meant "audio file" or "MP3 player", I might also be able to argue that just adding a lower-case i to the beginning of the word doesn't really make it a distinguishing mark.
But the widespread use of the (clearly generic) term "podcast" gets Apple's iPod brand plenty of credibility and exposure. By moving against a potential threat, they risk stifling a guaranteed benefit.
A patent should not imply that one single company has exclusive rights to implement, sell and support products based out of the said patent.
Patents don't imply that, they are that. But I agree that you're quite right about the injustice of the injunction, and about the most obvious way of settling the matter without injuring third parties.
In the software realm, if, to pick an example close to the hearts of many in the legal profession, WordPerfect were suddenly found to have violated a patent, would it be appropriate to disable all copies of WordPerfect and force users to purchase another product, just so that they could read from and write to their existing files? And how could such users determine that the product they'd been forced to buy wouldn't in turn have a self-destruct injunction filed against it next month?
Even reading papers from different owners won't save you — newspapers are quite reliant on wire-service copy, and it's entirely unsurprising to come across the same Canadian Press (or Reuters, or whatever) story in two or more papers. They'll be edited to differing lengths, of course, the main job of newspaper content being to keep the ads from bumping into each other.
You can determine this pretty quickly by looking at Google News.
Ironic that a former "peacekeeper" says "Nuke"... Very lame, regardless of the reason.
You'd probably say much the same thing if someone dropped a laser-guided bomb on your colleague's head.
And since he hasn't actually killed anyone in his frustration and rage, he's still miles behind the bomb-flingers of the world in the lameness department.
That could be the “Gillette” business model, sure. Send ’em up for cheap, and then ding ’em for the oxygen and the CO2 scrubbers. A little less transparently exploitative than the more obvious launch-for-free-and-charge-for-re-entry scam.
This is hardly a new concept — mainframes have been migrating untouched datasets to tape for years. If this really is a new idea in the SAN market, SANs must suck worse than I'd previously supposed.
And “Is automated tiered storage headed to desktops?” Well, no, unless there's something cheaper than hard disks, which there currently really isn't.
There's this little thing in relatinships called "transparency" perhaps you should look into it.
If my relationship with my wife has deteriorated to the point that she feels a need to conceal from me a disease, a pregnancy, adultery, lesbianism, religion, other sexuality, or "odd" topics — access to her library records would be the least of my concerns.
What are you attempting to say, here? You've been given a long list of scenarios that justify the library's confidentiality policy, and your response is that, what, the library should instead be enforcing "transparency" in your relationships? Is it a public institution's job to make you feel good about your marriage? Is it an insult to your character that the librarian could not tell simply by observing your inherent, righteous glow that it was okay to make an exception just for you?
Based on seeing only a few episodes, CSI has no forshadowing that I can detect nor use of clues.
You must be watching a different CSI than I (and since there are three of them, only one of which I find watchable, that's not meant as a shot). The original, Las-Vegas-set version doesn't necessarily employ foreshadowing, but that's not unusal in a procedural. There is, however, plenty of fetishistic evidence gathering, and the rude interrogations are usually supported by improbably quick DNA test results and/or technically impossible video "enhancement" (both of which are routine in the imaginary world of the show, of course). The explicit position of the series as a whole is that it's the clues that will lead you to the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
They can still function as intended, but the chance that they've been developed by someone who both knows and cares about the difference between the RFC 2821 envelope sender and the RFC 2822 To: line isn't terribly high. The "send an e-mail" function of the library they're using probably doesn't even let them set the two separately. This is no great loss with e-cards, but some "send this story to a friend" features of news sites operate the same way.
Even the forwarding features of real MTAs don't get this right; SPF promoters recommend SRS, but unless your whole business is forwarding mail, you've probably never heard of it.
To answer the article's original question, I use SPF on some of my own domains and implemented it at work years ago. It's not a foolproof barrier to spam or to backscatter, but it mitigates the risk of a joe job.
I'm sorry, this looks like something that was thrown out of an early draft of Johnny Mnemonic:
Not only can I not tell if they're serious, I can't even tell if that means anything.
The math they present, or even the math on the Wikipedia page for Grover's algorithm, is also completely beyond me. I blame Alan Turing for all of this: if he'd cracked Nazi codes with poetry instead of with math, I'd probably be able to understand computer science.
As it is, I have to assign a probability p=0.5 to Google posting another blog entry tomorrow in which they admit to making the whole thing up and being tempted to include a reference to "Cookie Monster's postulate" along side "Grover's algorithm".
I think you'll find that those two things don't usually go together.
I still don't see why you think this. You and your hundreds of friends created a work under the GPL. Sale is clearly contemplated by the GPL. Are future developers required to assume that you didn't know what you were doing and to check with each of you to find out how you feel about something that's laid out in black and white in the license?
I can't see the details, because you couldn't get your video camera to focus.
Thank you for putting in humorous terms what was going through my mind as I read that entire Groklaw article: it sounds like guilty fast-talk, but really just needs an editor.
Now, my patience had already worn thin by the time I got to the end of the intro — "Some people asked for the images to be links to larger images because I shrank them for dialup but omigod I didn't know how to make them go like that but then someone told me how to make them like that so now if you click? The image? You get like a bigger image?" — so maybe I'm just extra cranky today.
Assembly line robots do not, as I understand it, work out how to accomplish their tasks — they stick to pre-programmed actions. I think that you're conflating robots and artificial intelligences. For instance, I think that it's reasonable to call a home computer printer a robot: it grabs some paper, lines it up, and prints according to instructions.
How's the enemy going to control it, though? It'd be easier for them to make their own based on hobbyist remote-control planes. A foam-bodied model plane probably doesn't show up on radar much better than a zillion-dollar stealth drone, and as you say all it has to do is go a kilometre or two and then explode. As for picking off executives in the bathroom — well, I don't think anyone's even proposing something that can identify people through multiple walls.
An Aibo? I'm compelled to mention the obvious: the slamhound from Count Zero.
As I recall, industrial areas bred crime at higher levels than commercial areas did, so that fits. It's either a slam on the working classes, or arch-hippie anti-industrialism!
As a matter of fact, I've just inherited a substantial fortune from a relative overseas. If you could front me a few grand to cover the foreign probate fees and wealth import taxes, I'll be in a position to send quite a bit of business your way.
Dropping a politely-worded note proposing co-operative effort to a bunch of concerned parties? Yeah, you would need a new meaning for the word "Nazi" before you could use it to describe that.
What wacky world do Theo's enablers come from that they think it's an aggrieved party's duty to keep an offender's misdeeds secret?
No reasonable person who's read Mr. Buesch's side of the exchange, including his initial letter, could reach the conclusion that he was anything but civil. That he continued to be in the face of the guiltily defensive raving coming from Mr. de Raadt is remarkable.
What, it was all a viral GPL-pervert scheme to trick righteous BSD developers into copying their work?
By offering to negotiate including their code in the BSD project?
If it wasn't being distributed, how was it discovered? Yes, I know, how mean of me to ask.
"Didn't do it, and it wasn't wrong, and anyway, it wasn't serious!"
It was good enough to inpsire the developer, to take Saint Theo's interpretation.
"Just let us rip you off in peace! GPL sucks anyway!"
I guess they're worried about "iPod" becoming a generic term — if I could demonstrate that "pod" just meant "audio file" or "MP3 player", I might also be able to argue that just adding a lower-case i to the beginning of the word doesn't really make it a distinguishing mark.
But the widespread use of the (clearly generic) term "podcast" gets Apple's iPod brand plenty of credibility and exposure. By moving against a potential threat, they risk stifling a guaranteed benefit.
Patents don't imply that, they are that. But I agree that you're quite right about the injustice of the injunction, and about the most obvious way of settling the matter without injuring third parties.
In the software realm, if, to pick an example close to the hearts of many in the legal profession, WordPerfect were suddenly found to have violated a patent, would it be appropriate to disable all copies of WordPerfect and force users to purchase another product, just so that they could read from and write to their existing files? And how could such users determine that the product they'd been forced to buy wouldn't in turn have a self-destruct injunction filed against it next month?
Even reading papers from different owners won't save you — newspapers are quite reliant on wire-service copy, and it's entirely unsurprising to come across the same Canadian Press (or Reuters, or whatever) story in two or more papers. They'll be edited to differing lengths, of course, the main job of newspaper content being to keep the ads from bumping into each other.
You can determine this pretty quickly by looking at Google News.
And since he hasn't actually killed anyone in his frustration and rage, he's still miles behind the bomb-flingers of the world in the lameness department.
Yes, it's so embarassing — they're way behind the 75%-95% crap level of commercial radio.
Well, I’m not being watched, but that mouse pointer had better get cracking.
“space commercialization”:
That could be the “Gillette” business model, sure. Send ’em up for cheap, and then ding ’em for the oxygen and the CO2 scrubbers. A little less transparently exploitative than the more obvious launch-for-free-and-charge-for-re-entry scam.
This is hardly a new concept — mainframes have been migrating untouched datasets to tape for years. If this really is a new idea in the SAN market, SANs must suck worse than I'd previously supposed.
And “Is automated tiered storage headed to desktops?” Well, no, unless there's something cheaper than hard disks, which there currently really isn't.
What are you attempting to say, here? You've been given a long list of scenarios that justify the library's confidentiality policy, and your response is that, what, the library should instead be enforcing "transparency" in your relationships? Is it a public institution's job to make you feel good about your marriage? Is it an insult to your character that the librarian could not tell simply by observing your inherent, righteous glow that it was okay to make an exception just for you?
You must be watching a different CSI than I (and since there are three of them, only one of which I find watchable, that's not meant as a shot). The original, Las-Vegas-set version doesn't necessarily employ foreshadowing, but that's not unusal in a procedural. There is, however, plenty of fetishistic evidence gathering, and the rude interrogations are usually supported by improbably quick DNA test results and/or technically impossible video "enhancement" (both of which are routine in the imaginary world of the show, of course). The explicit position of the series as a whole is that it's the clues that will lead you to the truth.