Most likely that is 80K BYTES/s, which roughly translates to 640K BITS/s. What was the advertised speed of your DSL connection? They usually list it by the bps, however many software programs will report transfer speeds as Bps (note the upper/lower case 'B'), which can cause a lot of confusion for anyone who is not familiar with the differences.
Something that occurs to me... Consider IRC's DCC protocol. If you want to establish a private connection to someone, you send them your IP address over the normal channels, and the receiving end then opens a port to you at the IP address you provided.
Now carry that over to email. If someone wants to send you a message, their mail server sends a request to you, and you open a channel to the IP address they provided. This method could completely eliminate spoofed IP addresses, and make blacklists a bit more accurate.
Obvoiusly it again requires a change away from the existing protocols, but I think a lot of people are ready and willing to add anything that could help with this battle.
I was just thinking about something similar to this. What about a filter on the ISP side which looks at QUANTITY? For instance, say your ISP's normal email traffic is 1000 emails an hour. Then in a 5 minute period you get 100 messages, all coming from the same IP address, but being sent to multiple users. Sounds to me like a prime candidate for a spam attack. If your window period is 5 minutes then you will need to cache incoming messages for those 5 minutes, and if the alarm is sounded then purge everything in the queue which matches the incoming IP addres, and continue to purge until the traffic from that address subsides.
Now obviously this won't work for individual cases. You need to monitor a large avergae traffic flow, and you need to monitor a single sender generating traffic for multiple recipients. But the implementation of this should be very easy on the cpu usage of an average server (but if you wanted to increase the reliability, you could also include the option to check the content of the incoming messages... a single source sending the same message to multiple users presents a much more likely candidate for spam filtering, but is also much more cpu-intensive).
Can anyone comment on a technique such as this? Has it been tried before? It seems this would eliminate false-hits and stop a large number of mass-mailings.
Every software retailer I have encountered in recent years has this same policy. Basically, they assume that if you have opened the package, and are returning it (for whatever reason) then you have probably made yourself a copy of the software, writen down the authorization code, and are now using whatever excuse you can to return the software and get your money back.
And realistically, this is not a bad assumption on their part. After all, how do you determine if a software package was copied?
As one of these so called 'fly-by-night' computer technicians, I have to agree that certification means squat. I have no certifications of any type. All of my knowledge was earned through years of personal computer interest.
I can't tell you the number of times in which I have been asked to come repair a small business's computer, in which a certified tech from a local computer repair shop spent X number of hours trying to resolve an issue... The issue remains unresolved, and now the user's computer is in worse shape than before!
And the customers get even more upset when I have their original issue resolved in the first 10 minutes, and have to spend the next hour cleaning up the mess that the certified technician left behind.
Personally, I charge much less than the local shops. I base my charges on the work actually accomplished, NOT on number of hours I spent twidling my thumbs. And I always leave the customer with a greater understanding of why their problem happened in the first place so they can try to avoid it in the future. While this philosophy sounds like suicide from a business standpoint, my customers are always happy when I leave, they're not afriad to call me back with other issues, and because of my teaching them some simple basics of computer use, I generally don't waste my time resolving simple mistakes.
And quite frankly, I wish more businesses would treat me with the same respect...
Nope, you're not crazy. I've been wondering about that as well. If you commit an act in your country which is legal in your country, how can you be prosecuted for that act in another country?
In Virginia, it is illegal to spit on the sidewalk. Because of this precedent, I suppose I should avoid ever visiting that state, as I have spit on sidewalks in other states in my past...
Didn't IBM develop the technology behind multi-layer disks used on DVD's? I remember reading about the technology and thinking how great it would be to have up to 3 layers on each side of the platter... then suddenly there it was on the mass-market.
Slashdot Mirror
Most likely that is 80K BYTES /s, which roughly translates to 640K BITS /s. What was the advertised speed of your DSL connection? They usually list it by the bps, however many software programs will report transfer speeds as Bps (note the upper/lower case 'B'), which can cause a lot of confusion for anyone who is not familiar with the differences.
Something that occurs to me... Consider IRC's DCC protocol. If you want to establish a private connection to someone, you send them your IP address over the normal channels, and the receiving end then opens a port to you at the IP address you provided.
Now carry that over to email. If someone wants to send you a message, their mail server sends a request to you, and you open a channel to the IP address they provided. This method could completely eliminate spoofed IP addresses, and make blacklists a bit more accurate.
Obvoiusly it again requires a change away from the existing protocols, but I think a lot of people are ready and willing to add anything that could help with this battle.
I was just thinking about something similar to this. What about a filter on the ISP side which looks at QUANTITY? For instance, say your ISP's normal email traffic is 1000 emails an hour. Then in a 5 minute period you get 100 messages, all coming from the same IP address, but being sent to multiple users. Sounds to me like a prime candidate for a spam attack. If your window period is 5 minutes then you will need to cache incoming messages for those 5 minutes, and if the alarm is sounded then purge everything in the queue which matches the incoming IP addres, and continue to purge until the traffic from that address subsides.
Now obviously this won't work for individual cases. You need to monitor a large avergae traffic flow, and you need to monitor a single sender generating traffic for multiple recipients. But the implementation of this should be very easy on the cpu usage of an average server (but if you wanted to increase the reliability, you could also include the option to check the content of the incoming messages... a single source sending the same message to multiple users presents a much more likely candidate for spam filtering, but is also much more cpu-intensive).
Can anyone comment on a technique such as this? Has it been tried before? It seems this would eliminate false-hits and stop a large number of mass-mailings.
Every software retailer I have encountered in recent years has this same policy. Basically, they assume that if you have opened the package, and are returning it (for whatever reason) then you have probably made yourself a copy of the software, writen down the authorization code, and are now using whatever excuse you can to return the software and get your money back.
And realistically, this is not a bad assumption on their part. After all, how do you determine if a software package was copied?
You know it's going to be a slow news day when they're duping articles that are still on the front page! Sheesh...
As one of these so called 'fly-by-night' computer technicians, I have to agree that certification means squat. I have no certifications of any type. All of my knowledge was earned through years of personal computer interest.
I can't tell you the number of times in which I have been asked to come repair a small business's computer, in which a certified tech from a local computer repair shop spent X number of hours trying to resolve an issue... The issue remains unresolved, and now the user's computer is in worse shape than before!
And the customers get even more upset when I have their original issue resolved in the first 10 minutes, and have to spend the next hour cleaning up the mess that the certified technician left behind.
Personally, I charge much less than the local shops. I base my charges on the work actually accomplished, NOT on number of hours I spent twidling my thumbs. And I always leave the customer with a greater understanding of why their problem happened in the first place so they can try to avoid it in the future. While this philosophy sounds like suicide from a business standpoint, my customers are always happy when I leave, they're not afriad to call me back with other issues, and because of my teaching them some simple basics of computer use, I generally don't waste my time resolving simple mistakes.
And quite frankly, I wish more businesses would treat me with the same respect...
Nope, you're not crazy. I've been wondering about that as well. If you commit an act in your country which is legal in your country, how can you be prosecuted for that act in another country?
In Virginia, it is illegal to spit on the sidewalk. Because of this precedent, I suppose I should avoid ever visiting that state, as I have spit on sidewalks in other states in my past...
So your talk-time will be limited by the phase of the moon?
Maybe they found a way to modulate the output from the sun? Will probably make those night-time minutes REALLY expensive though!
From the PDF file, here is a link to a webpage showing the graphical locations and current stats on Voyager 1, Voyager 2, Pioneer 10, and Pioneer 11.
Didn't IBM develop the technology behind multi-layer disks used on DVD's? I remember reading about the technology and thinking how great it would be to have up to 3 layers on each side of the platter... then suddenly there it was on the mass-market.
OK, this is just too cool! I hit all this sites I know have pop-ups... crack sites, free stuff, contests, etc, and nothing came up that shouldn't.
Mozilla team - You guys have a HUGE thank you coming from me! Thank god for software which is written by the people who use it.
Actually, just delete win.com. You can use the OEM cd for installs as well as upgrades, without wiping your drive.