Do you actually trust ALL corporations because they are a corporation? There are many corporations I do not trust. For me, Verisign and Thawte are slipping over the edge now, and might find themselves in the heap with Microsoft, Intel, and Dell.
And why do I need to have my data encapsulated? And why is XML redundantly closing contexts? Why not just close everything with </> instead of having to repeat the name? This is not human (error prone) data entry, this is machine generated data. If an implementation generates bad XML, you find out in the testing phases and go back and fix or redesign. Doing verification on every instance of usage is like leaving all the debug prints enabled and writing them to a log file.
Java is not any more capable than say, C, for adding in logic. You still have to code the logic and that could be done in most languages.
The data Esperanto concept can work, as long as both the speaker and listener (sender and receiver... encoder and decoder) know the same language. And that comes about from standardization. Now the next thing I'm likely to hear about in the XML world is that if you don't like one DTD, there are plenty more to choose from to do the same thing. DTDs are almost like standards themselves now... without the thought being really put into them.
At least XML is more open than ASN.1 is. Not that that means a lot. You can debug ASN.1 with something a little more sophisticated than the "cat" or "more" command.
I recently embarked on writing an XML parser because existing APIs IMHO sucked. But digging into the XML documentation, which was huge, also reveal a "mine field" of bizarre syntax and ambiguities. Meant for human consumption? Certainly machines could have some trouble with it. I went back to using expat, and of course find it to be buggy. But it is huge code and not easy to debug, so I just have to live with it for now.
The first attempt I saw back in the early 1970's for this, and it appeared to have originated with early PL/1 or Algol work, was something IBM called HDF. Too bad they let it drop, even though I see it all over the place today; it's just not recognized.
XML was intended for documents, and giving to those documents certain useful properties. The text string "John Smith" might not be so obvious that it is a name, but "<name>John Smith</name>" is. Then if someone wants their browser to make all names be hyperlinks to look them up in the staff directory, that works. But what is good as a document format just doesn't seem to be all that great for bulk data.
So we have all this storage capacity and bandwidth, so let's waste it? Let XML turn a terabyte of database into two terabytes of text transfer format. That's the ticket! I think I'd rather go with ASN.1 and BER even if documents for them are not so readily available. But if those don't get opened up, I'm sure something new can be built to replace them as well.
Define "correctly". Perhaps your idea of that is like mine, which is more along the lines of "do the right thing". When I see some discussions of XML, though, "correct" tends to be more a case of pedantic completeness. But how can all of this solve problems if transferring data between databases of different design, where not only are relationships different, but names and tables are as well. Someone still has to establish some kinds of localized semantics, regardless of the DTD. The transfer data simply becomes a sort of "data Esperanto" if carefully designed. But how does XML aid in that?
So what do you think of using XML for system configurations? That tends to be in UNIX systems a lot of separate files, traditionally edited with vi although today the tools are getting more and more dummy friendly and have a smaller space of possibiities.
It's also a matter of need. Some things need OODB more than RDB. Some things need RDB more than OODB. I've found some things may well work better with a well designed mix.
So if someone designs a new (not like XML) format for exchanging data, and manages to get it standardized, then won't this also allow two systems that do not share a predetermined data exchanged protocol to share data? One could also be careful in this design and make sure it is more efficient than XML, not only in space and bandwidth, but also in CPU time and programming time. Now does such a format need to be text based as XML is?
and BTW... you and I do not seem to be that far apart on quite a lot of things. I was going to send you private email, but your address is not in revealed/. user info. But I bet you can track mine down pretty easily.
This anti-spam feeling that's been generally favored on the net since CyberPromotions first attempted to "legitimize" the spam industry is the same attitude that makes it hard for later attempts to flourish. Once a "spamhaus" is identified, it begins to find itself slowly cut off from the rest of the Internet.
Indeed they will. But my position is that this cut off should be "grassroots" in nature, that is, by the end recipients via the servers that host them (be that an office mail server or an ISP).
Spammers will attempt to use other methods. These outfits seem to be just as organized as a "spamhaus" who pays for and uses its own resources. I would suspect the information displayed on the Behind Enemy Lines site is fairly representative of the players in the spam game.
This also shows the futility of having ISPs cancel spammer's accounts. There's more where that one came from, and even more from other places.
In short, it doesn't really matter who is spamming and how they're getting it out. The fact is, they ARE getting it out. And they will continue to find additional ways to spam unless they loose the incentive to do it. And that incentive isn't just pure joy. They're after money.
In short, spamming will continue forever. Only a locked down internet will prevent it. We're not giving up all of our freedoms (well, some for now) just because a band of digusting people taking Allah's name in vain try to hurt innocent people. These are people (back to spammers) already practiced in the art of evading and moving on to send bulk mail. They'll just do the same for the web sites.
I'm not saying don't go after the (apparent) source at all. Certainly, this needs to be done. But we can't expect this to continue to be effective. Because spammers are trying harder and harder to mask themselves, or otherwise use hit-and-run tactics, we're not always going find the source in a spam's headers.
We're probably using different terms here. By source I mean where the spam comes from as it is reaching my server. That would be the open relay (it will get blocked), or the spamhaus network (it will get blocked).
I should have used more detail on this point. "Spam tools" raises some interesting issues. First, my actual meaning wasn't just spam mailer applications (although they did come to mind). My main thought was towards services such as dynamic DNS and web hosting set up with the intent to provide resources for spammers.
And how would you craft this so it does not end up hurting other dynamic DNS users? Would you just be focusing only on service providers who specifically do this only for spammers?
Mass mailer tools are a different matter. Some of these are being sold as spam tools. These are the most damaging. Not because of the spam being sent with them - after all, there are a lot of tools that can be used to spam. But because the sites selling these tools are often full of misleading statements that attempt to add an air of legitimacy to the practice. This only encourages the uninitiated to invest in this "business", convincing them that they're just a step away from easy financial freedom. But because of the issues with censorship, etc I worry that blocking a site that advertising the "Spaminator 2000" software suite does more damage than good (unless that site has been advertised via a spam campaign).
Tools like "1st Class Mail" as shown in Behind Enemy Lines are certainly valid targets. The misleading messages on the sites offering those does perhaps needs to be the focus. Is there fraud? Probably. Go after that.
If I understand your point correctly, you're stating that while a smaller selection of admins and anti-spammers take action, spammers believe they're simply being targeted by a vocal minority. In fact, we need a larger percentage of end users to take action and prove that spammers are not welcomed and their messages are not wanted. That would curb the desire to spam. Until that time, spammers will simply circumvent the latest attempts to stop them.
Not exactly. It is not focused on convincing spammers, per se. It is focused on convincing those who have an effect on anti-spamming operations. It should encourage more ISPs to use anti-spam tools. And I'd like to see legislation that provides for civil liability protection for those who choose to use anti-spamming tools (but I oppose legislation against spamming for the most part)
I agree that spammers will continue to find new avenues and methods to practice their trade. And in a previous post I mused over what kind of statistics would be generated if all ISPs offered their customers a choice between filtered and non-filtered email service.
And I am currently studying how I might make a mail server that offers the ability to let the customer specify exactly the categories of blocking they want to use. These would include:
Businesses using only opt-out techniques to gather addresses at the time the address is gathered
Businesses using only opt-out techniques but no opt-out option at the time the address is gathered
Businesses using opt-in without confirming the address at the time it is gathered
Businesses using opt-in without cleaning their list of rejected addresses
Businesses not offering any obvious way to opt-out
Businesses running a clean, verified and confirmed, opt-in only address gathering
Open relays known to actually have relayed spam (excluding known multi-hop output)
Other untested mail servers on the same network as Open relays
The whole known network where an open relay is present
The whole ISP hosting or connecting a known open relay
Connection from any mail server without reverse DNS
Connection from any mail server with reverse DNS for an invalid name
Connection from any mail server with reverse DNS that does not forward resolve back correctly
Multi-hop output servers
Entire network/ISP of mult-hop output servers
All mail servers at ISP known to host web servers offering spamming tools or services
All mail servers at ISP known to host web servers of spamvertized sites (excluding cases known to be not sanction)
All mail servers known to be running SMTP protocol (this to catch the sleepy)
Businesses conducting mail surveys of consumers
Businesses conducting mail surveys of businesses
By giving the customer a choice, not only does that put me (or whoever offers it) in a better legal position, it also makes it more obvious what end recipients really want, or not. The better legal position is that a mailing operation is accurately described, and is not lumped in with another. It can be argued that some recipient may want to receive mail from some of the categories and not others. If someone wants to actually get mail from Harris Interactive, for example, let them. Harris Interactive should not be lumped in with Rodona Garst, regardless of your feeling, or mine, regarding either.
However, I disagree that spammers would discontinue their ways if presented with this evidence. If you look at the portraits of Rodona Garst in the Behind Enemy Lines [freewebsites.com] site, you'll notice a slew of those inspirational posters. Spammers are success-oriented. They have convinced themselves that spamming will in itself, or in part, provide them with that success. In some cases, spammers even go to great length to defend their activities as acceptable, even welcomed. This is despite the ample evidence to the contrary in the form of ISP AUP's, spam-free service commercials, legislative activity, anti-spam activities and tools, and a wealth of internet history that dates back to 1994's first usenet spamming by lawyers Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel.
Spammers won't discontinue regardless. I'm not proposing that it be done to cause them to want to discontinue. Some will stop, but many will keep on going. I think my method is correct for obtaining the end result of a large scale acceptance of the anti-spam measures, and to convince those who neither spam, nor worry about fighting spamming, to at least accept the notion that measures against spam are good things and won't harm other aspects of business. Rodona Garst is not going to stop just because her web sites get cut off, or no one wants her garbage, or her bare breasts get shown online.
One problem that exists, as in the Experian case, is that all spammers are lumped together, whether they are blasting ponzi schemes, or just sending quarterly marketing info to people who didn't know they could opt-out. If there were separate blacklists, then the information could be described more accurately, and the legal cases would be stronger to defend. For example instead of saying "Experian is a spammer", it would be said "Experian conducts a practice of sending email to people who sign up on their web site without them taking the action to opt-in to the mailings". The latter is simply so truthful, the case becomes one of free speech (if it has changed recently, I'm not aware of it).
SPEWS is not any better than MAPS. I won't use it because I don't like their mode of collertal impact, either. What SPEWS apparently is trying to do is just make it hard for ISPs to respond, perhaps out of fear of being sued (this is not a fear that should be allowed to exist, but creating a screwed up system is not the answer, either).
I just wish I had the resources to build a better system. I know what to do to make it; I just don't have the cash to put it together.
Spamming is not an accepted activity and thus, spammers must resort to great measures to continue their trade. Lucky for them, one doesn't have to maintain a presence to spam. Its a very hit-and-run activity. Spammers therefore use a variety of resources - incorrectly configured mail relays, throw-away accounts, and stolen accounts.
You are referring to a different category of spamming, the kind we see pyramid schemes and ponzi schemes and other get rich schemes from the low life. It is a very important category to deal with, but it's not the matter I was addressing. I am addressing the "spamhaus" type operation where a spammer sets up servers of their own. These vary from sending equally disgusting scams, to simply being sources of marketing mailings from people who didn't actually opt-in.
Blocking email servers helps limit the damage from questionable business contracts and misconfigured relays. It might even put pressure on those who provide easy access to throw-away accounts... though usually the damage is already done. It does very little to prevent the damage done with stolen accounts using otherwise valid resources.
Yes, these servers need to be blocked to prevent getting the garbage. Open relays should be blocked, and stay blocked until they are closed, and perhaps confirmed closed. If the network the open relay exists on hosts other mail servers, they may also be misconfigured, and potentially subject to being blocked... certainly so if spam comes from them as well.
Another mode of spam is getting more popular and that is direct broadband spam. Spam from direct dialups did happen, but the bandwidth limited its effect. These need to be blocked. Many dialups have been listed in blacklists, and broadband dynamic pools are also getting listed. Open relays also exist within these.
So if you can't go after the source of the spam, the only thing left to target is the spam's goal. The item being advertised (and likely the real source of the spam since most activities are being conducted by, or for-hire by, those being advertised). If that involves a web site (or another spammer resource), you point that site out and allow the community that uses the MAPS service to block it - essentially shunning it from the shared network. And by doing so, attempt to remove (or at least limit) the incentive to spam (and in some cases, some of the tools that help spammers).
Why can't you go after the source of the spam? Do you have an example case?
This does not remove the incentive to spam. The perception that comes across when this is done is that a few people are trying to block the spam from the masses. They still believe they are providing "valuable product/market/service information" to the masses, and will just seek some way to avoid the "problem" of MAPS. They change addresses, change ISPs, invoke legal maneuvers. Few cease spamming and those that do only do so because funds run out. None have a change of heart. If they are spending money to set up spam operations, they are not some "innocent" individual who didn't realize what he was really doing.
How do you block spamming tools? Many of those tools are also useful for legitimate (confirmed opt-in) mass mailings and even mailing lists that many open source developers use.
So that might explain the reason that anti-spam efforts would extend beyond email servers. But this activity also brings forward a whole slew of other questions; power-plays, censorship, etc.
That is indeed a problem. And I also believe the current anti-spam methods mask and obscure the reality that the vast majority of people truly do not want spam. By having a few self-appointed anti-spam-masters doing this, the real election of not wanting spam by everyone else is not really seen. By going beyond simply providing tools and information to help people block just spam, they are not only alienating some people like me (I no longer want to use MAPS, but that does not mean I was to start accepting spam), but also confusing the whole big picture.
Has anyone noticed their (claimed) trademark on "SS~~"? Are these guys going to try to extract royalties from sites that want to be voluntarily self-rated? If I have to pay these guys even a penny to be allowed to use their trademark to be rated, it won't ever happen. If they want a law to require it (bad idea, anyway) they better not ask that the law require using their trademark.
No. It is MAPS that is making itself unusable by ISPs that don't wish to carry on MAPS' agenda. I don't want to be blocking the mail from sites just because they happen to host the web sites of companies that are accused of doing things like not using confirmed-by-mail opt-in. Sure, I want to block the specific mail servers of such a company, but those may be on a different ISP entirely, and unless that ISP hosting their mail server makes it hard to do, I want to only block the specific spamming mail servers.
Spammers won't give up as long as they believe some people want their junk. As long as groups like MAPS are trying to shut them down by cutting them off, the perception will be that the spam isn't getting there because of MAPS, not because people don't want it. If MAPS was very exacting in blocking spam and only spam, and limited collateral damage to only that which is unavoidable (e.g. an ISP that moves the spamming customer around from one address range to another to evade the blocking), then I believe more people would subscribe. Then we'd have a more legitimate measure of how many places do not want spam, rather than a measure of how many places can't get it because MAPS is pushing the agenda too hard, and in the wrong way.
And MAPS might get more subscribers if the staff would actually answer their mail. They probably are using their own email addresses as the honey pots, and getting overloaded and can't respond to potential subscribers. But then, as long as MAPS isn't worth using, I guess this doesn't matter.
Why is MAPS blocking web sites? I want SPAM to be blocked, not web sites. I don't get SPAM from web sites, I get SPAM from mail servers. So I want mail servers to be blocked when they send SPAM. And if a network of mail servers is sending it (determined by SPAM having come from 2 or more in the same netblock), then block all the mail servers from sending SPAM. The ISP need not even be blocked, unless the ISP makes the blocking difficult by either not properly identifying the spammer network assignment, or changing the spammer network address range (unless actually required to enlarge their network, or the ISP has to renumber everything). This would be for "spamhaus" type operations. Open relays and direct spam from dynamic IP customers is another matter (but can be dealt with).
MAPS is misleading people by blocking more than SPAM. They are using those who subscribe to their black hole to push their agenda on others (even though I personally agree with some of it, I don't agree with their methods).
MAPS is also mismanaged, but I don't really care about that anymore. The fact that they are mismanaged helped keep me from inadvertently being one of their pawns.
Error Handling needs to be part of OO analysis and design. The analysis needs to understand the scope of the class being designed, and error conditions need to be part of that. To the extent that the class analysis suggests that the class can deal with the errors, the design should specify that. All others should be part of the class interface. A clean reusable class has no business outputting text to stderr (unless the basis of the class is to interface with the user or administrator). All error conditions should be given back to the program using the class, with appropriate supporting information. The application then deals with it in some way more appropriate for the user. If an object cannot allocate memory, it should tell the application, not the user. The application can then tell the user.
There is one danger in this. If Microsoft follows this practice, when a class encounters an out of memory condition, the next day you'll end up with a Fedex arriving labeled "Here is the new RAM your computer ordered for you, courtesy of.NET and Passport. Your account has been dinged".
Porn opponent Bruce Taylor, a former Justice Department prosecutor, applauded the move but said the industry may have difficulty convincing technophobic parents to use the software.
"We have to help parents, but parents do need to pay attention," Taylor said.
"Kids, you need to help your parents. Show them how this software is installed. Show them how to set it up and how to select the preferred rating categories. Make your technophobe parents feel comfortable with this software. Then when they go to bed you can boot back into Linux."
Fully charged NiCD batteries have an occaisional possibility of catching fire. Discharged they are safe (OTOH, Alkaline batteries have exactly the opposite scenario). When I take my ham radio equipment on an airplane, I DISCHARGE them for safety reasons. I've actually had one explode on me, and it wasn't pretty. It had been off the charger for over 4 hours and was nice and cool. It wasn't even being used when all of a sudden it just went into meltdown mode and the battery case of the radio caught fire and let out some nasty fumes. This would have been a very serious incident had it been on an airplane. Later research confirmed the US military already knew about this and that it was related to the batteries being "topped off" and not used. Slightly older batteries with breakdowns in the rolled layers tended to have this problem.
BTW, Alkaline batteries are at risk for this when they are mostly discharged and either shorted out, or attempted to be charged. They tend to be even more frightful when they go, because they can go boom. I've seen that happen before, too, although less dramatic than I've heard about.
I have found that 2 minutes of charging can put in enough power to make the radio work briefly, and hopefully that is enough for the security guys to see that it is a real radio.
Also, ham radio operators should be sure to carry their license with them. Obviously if you're taking radios, you're probably expecting to use them and you should have the license anyway. But it can help if the security people are wondering why you might have a radio transmitter or two.
I do remember once when the xray operator asked me "what are all those metal balls?". My reply was "huh?". He invited me over to see the xray screen he had frozen even after my bag came through. I laughed. He got the radio batteries viewed on their ends. They showed up solidly black and round so he thought they were metal balls. I offered to show him the radios (I had 3 radios and 9 battery packs in there) but he just said to go on. Today that would worry me if he didn't insist on looking inside. I should have worried about it back then.
Oh, and don't forget the chargers:-)
73, KA9WGN
Sounds like a problem I had with SUN support
on
Opposing Open Source?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Solaris 2.5 had a routing issue (I don't remember all the details from back then, but it was a bit complex). I spent about 2 hours diagnosing it w/o even needing to shut the system down and had it identified, and had a solution. But the boss didn't like the solution, so I was instructed to call SUN to get support. After 2 weeks of calling, being called, messages left, being forwarded around, the answer finally came back "Sorry, we don't support that, but our consulting people can build a customer solution for you". So I asked them to make a proposal and send it to me so I can give something to the boss in writing since it would cost money. Their estimate was $20K to $30K of consulting time and we wouldn't get either exclusivity or source for the results. My boss laughed at that. And while he still felt SUN should have just "fixed it", and that I should keep calling until they do (I thought this to be a waste of time), I finally did convince him to let me try out my solution. So I put a small Linux box running a 50 MHz 486 on the LAN with one 10 meg ethernet card, and default routed all the Sparc 2000 traffic through it. Performance actually improved. The boss not being entirely happy with a Linux box handling mission critical traffic, ended up opting to buy a well decked out Cisco 4700 to do the job (which it did just fine). Of course if it ever failed (it didn't) we'd have been down for a few hours before a replacement would arrive. If the Linux box were to die, we had replacements ready to go (I had Linux loaded on about 80 old no longer used hard drives sitting in storage, and we had plenty of old PCs around).
Anyone having trouble finding people who can support BSD just aren't looking hard enough or in the right places, especially in this economic downturn with all the layoffs. And there are businesses out there willing to support it, even though the numbers won't be as many as Linux.
Part of the problem is that too many customer businesses want the support on a one price for all basis. And that is probably where open source will be weakest, because it's just not economically viable to do it that way unless you are supporting a proprietary closed source program so you can keep the total bundle price high.
Post a lame off topic comment, then post a reply to your own comment a mere 2 minutes later? Too bad slashdot doesn't have points specific for "nice troll, but it's been done before, so you lose". Too bad your Spelling Check XP didn't catch your mistakes in the comment.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you actually trust ALL corporations because they are a corporation? There are many corporations I do not trust. For me, Verisign and Thawte are slipping over the edge now, and might find themselves in the heap with Microsoft, Intel, and Dell.
What? Me *for* XML? When did that happen? :-)
And why do I need to have my data encapsulated? And why is XML redundantly closing contexts? Why not just close everything with </> instead of having to repeat the name? This is not human (error prone) data entry, this is machine generated data. If an implementation generates bad XML, you find out in the testing phases and go back and fix or redesign. Doing verification on every instance of usage is like leaving all the debug prints enabled and writing them to a log file.
Java is not any more capable than say, C, for adding in logic. You still have to code the logic and that could be done in most languages.
The data Esperanto concept can work, as long as both the speaker and listener (sender and receiver ... encoder and decoder) know the same language. And that comes about from standardization. Now the next thing I'm likely to hear about in the XML world is that if you don't like one DTD, there are plenty more to choose from to do the same thing. DTDs are almost like standards themselves now ... without the thought being really put into them.
Non-profitable dot.coms didn't last very long. How long will a non-profitable XML implementor last? eh?
At least XML is more open than ASN.1 is. Not that that means a lot. You can debug ASN.1 with something a little more sophisticated than the "cat" or "more" command.
I recently embarked on writing an XML parser because existing APIs IMHO sucked. But digging into the XML documentation, which was huge, also reveal a "mine field" of bizarre syntax and ambiguities. Meant for human consumption? Certainly machines could have some trouble with it. I went back to using expat, and of course find it to be buggy. But it is huge code and not easy to debug, so I just have to live with it for now.
The first attempt I saw back in the early 1970's for this, and it appeared to have originated with early PL/1 or Algol work, was something IBM called HDF. Too bad they let it drop, even though I see it all over the place today; it's just not recognized.
XML was intended for documents, and giving to those documents certain useful properties. The text string "John Smith" might not be so obvious that it is a name, but "<name>John Smith</name>" is. Then if someone wants their browser to make all names be hyperlinks to look them up in the staff directory, that works. But what is good as a document format just doesn't seem to be all that great for bulk data.
So we have all this storage capacity and bandwidth, so let's waste it? Let XML turn a terabyte of database into two terabytes of text transfer format. That's the ticket! I think I'd rather go with ASN.1 and BER even if documents for them are not so readily available. But if those don't get opened up, I'm sure something new can be built to replace them as well.
Define "correctly". Perhaps your idea of that is like mine, which is more along the lines of "do the right thing". When I see some discussions of XML, though, "correct" tends to be more a case of pedantic completeness. But how can all of this solve problems if transferring data between databases of different design, where not only are relationships different, but names and tables are as well. Someone still has to establish some kinds of localized semantics, regardless of the DTD. The transfer data simply becomes a sort of "data Esperanto" if carefully designed. But how does XML aid in that?
So what do you think of using XML for system configurations? That tends to be in UNIX systems a lot of separate files, traditionally edited with vi although today the tools are getting more and more dummy friendly and have a smaller space of possibiities.
So you of course you come over here and leak it to the trolls? You trying to sabotage kuro5hin or something? Shame on you.
It's also a matter of need. Some things need OODB more than RDB. Some things need RDB more than OODB. I've found some things may well work better with a well designed mix.
So if someone designs a new (not like XML) format for exchanging data, and manages to get it standardized, then won't this also allow two systems that do not share a predetermined data exchanged protocol to share data? One could also be careful in this design and make sure it is more efficient than XML, not only in space and bandwidth, but also in CPU time and programming time. Now does such a format need to be text based as XML is?
and BTW ... you and I do not seem to be that far apart on quite a lot of things. I was going to send you private email, but your address is not in revealed /. user info. But I bet you can track mine down pretty easily.
Indeed they will. But my position is that this cut off should be "grassroots" in nature, that is, by the end recipients via the servers that host them (be that an office mail server or an ISP).
This also shows the futility of having ISPs cancel spammer's accounts. There's more where that one came from, and even more from other places.
In short, spamming will continue forever. Only a locked down internet will prevent it. We're not giving up all of our freedoms (well, some for now) just because a band of digusting people taking Allah's name in vain try to hurt innocent people. These are people (back to spammers) already practiced in the art of evading and moving on to send bulk mail. They'll just do the same for the web sites.
We're probably using different terms here. By source I mean where the spam comes from as it is reaching my server. That would be the open relay (it will get blocked), or the spamhaus network (it will get blocked).
And how would you craft this so it does not end up hurting other dynamic DNS users? Would you just be focusing only on service providers who specifically do this only for spammers?
Tools like "1st Class Mail" as shown in Behind Enemy Lines are certainly valid targets. The misleading messages on the sites offering those does perhaps needs to be the focus. Is there fraud? Probably. Go after that.
Not exactly. It is not focused on convincing spammers, per se. It is focused on convincing those who have an effect on anti-spamming operations. It should encourage more ISPs to use anti-spam tools. And I'd like to see legislation that provides for civil liability protection for those who choose to use anti-spamming tools (but I oppose legislation against spamming for the most part)
And I am currently studying how I might make a mail server that offers the ability to let the customer specify exactly the categories of blocking they want to use. These would include:
- Businesses using only opt-out techniques to gather addresses at the time the address is gathered
- Businesses using only opt-out techniques but no opt-out option at the time the address is gathered
- Businesses using opt-in without confirming the address at the time it is gathered
- Businesses using opt-in without cleaning their list of rejected addresses
- Businesses not offering any obvious way to opt-out
- Businesses running a clean, verified and confirmed, opt-in only address gathering
- Open relays known to actually have relayed spam (excluding known multi-hop output)
- Other untested mail servers on the same network as Open relays
- The whole known network where an open relay is present
- The whole ISP hosting or connecting a known open relay
- Connection from any mail server without reverse DNS
- Connection from any mail server with reverse DNS for an invalid name
- Connection from any mail server with reverse DNS that does not forward resolve back correctly
- Multi-hop output servers
- Entire network/ISP of mult-hop output servers
- All mail servers at ISP known to host web servers offering spamming tools or services
- All mail servers at ISP known to host web servers of spamvertized sites (excluding cases known to be not sanction)
- All mail servers known to be running SMTP protocol (this to catch the sleepy)
- Businesses conducting mail surveys of consumers
- Businesses conducting mail surveys of businesses
By giving the customer a choice, not only does that put me (or whoever offers it) in a better legal position, it also makes it more obvious what end recipients really want, or not. The better legal position is that a mailing operation is accurately described, and is not lumped in with another. It can be argued that some recipient may want to receive mail from some of the categories and not others. If someone wants to actually get mail from Harris Interactive, for example, let them. Harris Interactive should not be lumped in with Rodona Garst, regardless of your feeling, or mine, regarding either.Spammers won't discontinue regardless. I'm not proposing that it be done to cause them to want to discontinue. Some will stop, but many will keep on going. I think my method is correct for obtaining the end result of a large scale acceptance of the anti-spam measures, and to convince those who neither spam, nor worry about fighting spamming, to at least accept the notion that measures against spam are good things and won't harm other aspects of business. Rodona Garst is not going to stop just because her web sites get cut off, or no one wants her garbage, or her bare breasts get shown online.
One problem that exists, as in the Experian case, is that all spammers are lumped together, whether they are blasting ponzi schemes, or just sending quarterly marketing info to people who didn't know they could opt-out. If there were separate blacklists, then the information could be described more accurately, and the legal cases would be stronger to defend. For example instead of saying "Experian is a spammer", it would be said "Experian conducts a practice of sending email to people who sign up on their web site without them taking the action to opt-in to the mailings". The latter is simply so truthful, the case becomes one of free speech (if it has changed recently, I'm not aware of it).
SPEWS is not any better than MAPS. I won't use it because I don't like their mode of collertal impact, either. What SPEWS apparently is trying to do is just make it hard for ISPs to respond, perhaps out of fear of being sued (this is not a fear that should be allowed to exist, but creating a screwed up system is not the answer, either).
I just wish I had the resources to build a better system. I know what to do to make it; I just don't have the cash to put it together.
You are referring to a different category of spamming, the kind we see pyramid schemes and ponzi schemes and other get rich schemes from the low life. It is a very important category to deal with, but it's not the matter I was addressing. I am addressing the "spamhaus" type operation where a spammer sets up servers of their own. These vary from sending equally disgusting scams, to simply being sources of marketing mailings from people who didn't actually opt-in.
Yes, these servers need to be blocked to prevent getting the garbage. Open relays should be blocked, and stay blocked until they are closed, and perhaps confirmed closed. If the network the open relay exists on hosts other mail servers, they may also be misconfigured, and potentially subject to being blocked ... certainly so if spam comes from them as well.
Another mode of spam is getting more popular and that is direct broadband spam. Spam from direct dialups did happen, but the bandwidth limited its effect. These need to be blocked. Many dialups have been listed in blacklists, and broadband dynamic pools are also getting listed. Open relays also exist within these.
Why can't you go after the source of the spam? Do you have an example case?
This does not remove the incentive to spam. The perception that comes across when this is done is that a few people are trying to block the spam from the masses. They still believe they are providing "valuable product/market/service information" to the masses, and will just seek some way to avoid the "problem" of MAPS. They change addresses, change ISPs, invoke legal maneuvers. Few cease spamming and those that do only do so because funds run out. None have a change of heart. If they are spending money to set up spam operations, they are not some "innocent" individual who didn't realize what he was really doing.
How do you block spamming tools? Many of those tools are also useful for legitimate (confirmed opt-in) mass mailings and even mailing lists that many open source developers use.
That is indeed a problem. And I also believe the current anti-spam methods mask and obscure the reality that the vast majority of people truly do not want spam. By having a few self-appointed anti-spam-masters doing this, the real election of not wanting spam by everyone else is not really seen. By going beyond simply providing tools and information to help people block just spam, they are not only alienating some people like me (I no longer want to use MAPS, but that does not mean I was to start accepting spam), but also confusing the whole big picture.
Has anyone noticed their (claimed) trademark on "SS~~"? Are these guys going to try to extract royalties from sites that want to be voluntarily self-rated? If I have to pay these guys even a penny to be allowed to use their trademark to be rated, it won't ever happen. If they want a law to require it (bad idea, anyway) they better not ask that the law require using their trademark.
No. It is MAPS that is making itself unusable by ISPs that don't wish to carry on MAPS' agenda. I don't want to be blocking the mail from sites just because they happen to host the web sites of companies that are accused of doing things like not using confirmed-by-mail opt-in. Sure, I want to block the specific mail servers of such a company, but those may be on a different ISP entirely, and unless that ISP hosting their mail server makes it hard to do, I want to only block the specific spamming mail servers.
Spammers won't give up as long as they believe some people want their junk. As long as groups like MAPS are trying to shut them down by cutting them off, the perception will be that the spam isn't getting there because of MAPS, not because people don't want it. If MAPS was very exacting in blocking spam and only spam, and limited collateral damage to only that which is unavoidable (e.g. an ISP that moves the spamming customer around from one address range to another to evade the blocking), then I believe more people would subscribe. Then we'd have a more legitimate measure of how many places do not want spam, rather than a measure of how many places can't get it because MAPS is pushing the agenda too hard, and in the wrong way.
And MAPS might get more subscribers if the staff would actually answer their mail. They probably are using their own email addresses as the honey pots, and getting overloaded and can't respond to potential subscribers. But then, as long as MAPS isn't worth using, I guess this doesn't matter.
Why is MAPS blocking web sites? I want SPAM to be blocked, not web sites. I don't get SPAM from web sites, I get SPAM from mail servers. So I want mail servers to be blocked when they send SPAM. And if a network of mail servers is sending it (determined by SPAM having come from 2 or more in the same netblock), then block all the mail servers from sending SPAM. The ISP need not even be blocked, unless the ISP makes the blocking difficult by either not properly identifying the spammer network assignment, or changing the spammer network address range (unless actually required to enlarge their network, or the ISP has to renumber everything). This would be for "spamhaus" type operations. Open relays and direct spam from dynamic IP customers is another matter (but can be dealt with).
MAPS is misleading people by blocking more than SPAM. They are using those who subscribe to their black hole to push their agenda on others (even though I personally agree with some of it, I don't agree with their methods).
MAPS is also mismanaged, but I don't really care about that anymore. The fact that they are mismanaged helped keep me from inadvertently being one of their pawns.
Error Handling needs to be part of OO analysis and design. The analysis needs to understand the scope of the class being designed, and error conditions need to be part of that. To the extent that the class analysis suggests that the class can deal with the errors, the design should specify that. All others should be part of the class interface. A clean reusable class has no business outputting text to stderr (unless the basis of the class is to interface with the user or administrator). All error conditions should be given back to the program using the class, with appropriate supporting information. The application then deals with it in some way more appropriate for the user. If an object cannot allocate memory, it should tell the application, not the user. The application can then tell the user.
There is one danger in this. If Microsoft follows this practice, when a class encounters an out of memory condition, the next day you'll end up with a Fedex arriving labeled "Here is the new RAM your computer ordered for you, courtesy of .NET and Passport. Your account has been dinged".
"Kids, you need to help your parents. Show them how this software is installed. Show them how to set it up and how to select the preferred rating categories. Make your technophobe parents feel comfortable with this software. Then when they go to bed you can boot back into Linux."
You got this guy fired because he knew what a POS a DELL computer actually was, and had a sense of humor about it? Shame on you.
Fully charged NiCD batteries have an occaisional possibility of catching fire. Discharged they are safe (OTOH, Alkaline batteries have exactly the opposite scenario). When I take my ham radio equipment on an airplane, I DISCHARGE them for safety reasons. I've actually had one explode on me, and it wasn't pretty. It had been off the charger for over 4 hours and was nice and cool. It wasn't even being used when all of a sudden it just went into meltdown mode and the battery case of the radio caught fire and let out some nasty fumes. This would have been a very serious incident had it been on an airplane. Later research confirmed the US military already knew about this and that it was related to the batteries being "topped off" and not used. Slightly older batteries with breakdowns in the rolled layers tended to have this problem.
BTW, Alkaline batteries are at risk for this when they are mostly discharged and either shorted out, or attempted to be charged. They tend to be even more frightful when they go, because they can go boom. I've seen that happen before, too, although less dramatic than I've heard about.
I have found that 2 minutes of charging can put in enough power to make the radio work briefly, and hopefully that is enough for the security guys to see that it is a real radio.
Also, ham radio operators should be sure to carry their license with them. Obviously if you're taking radios, you're probably expecting to use them and you should have the license anyway. But it can help if the security people are wondering why you might have a radio transmitter or two.
I do remember once when the xray operator asked me "what are all those metal balls?". My reply was "huh?". He invited me over to see the xray screen he had frozen even after my bag came through. I laughed. He got the radio batteries viewed on their ends. They showed up solidly black and round so he thought they were metal balls. I offered to show him the radios (I had 3 radios and 9 battery packs in there) but he just said to go on. Today that would worry me if he didn't insist on looking inside. I should have worried about it back then.
Oh, and don't forget the chargers :-)
73, KA9WGN
Solaris 2.5 had a routing issue (I don't remember all the details from back then, but it was a bit complex). I spent about 2 hours diagnosing it w/o even needing to shut the system down and had it identified, and had a solution. But the boss didn't like the solution, so I was instructed to call SUN to get support. After 2 weeks of calling, being called, messages left, being forwarded around, the answer finally came back "Sorry, we don't support that, but our consulting people can build a customer solution for you". So I asked them to make a proposal and send it to me so I can give something to the boss in writing since it would cost money. Their estimate was $20K to $30K of consulting time and we wouldn't get either exclusivity or source for the results. My boss laughed at that. And while he still felt SUN should have just "fixed it", and that I should keep calling until they do (I thought this to be a waste of time), I finally did convince him to let me try out my solution. So I put a small Linux box running a 50 MHz 486 on the LAN with one 10 meg ethernet card, and default routed all the Sparc 2000 traffic through it. Performance actually improved. The boss not being entirely happy with a Linux box handling mission critical traffic, ended up opting to buy a well decked out Cisco 4700 to do the job (which it did just fine). Of course if it ever failed (it didn't) we'd have been down for a few hours before a replacement would arrive. If the Linux box were to die, we had replacements ready to go (I had Linux loaded on about 80 old no longer used hard drives sitting in storage, and we had plenty of old PCs around).
Anyone having trouble finding people who can support BSD just aren't looking hard enough or in the right places, especially in this economic downturn with all the layoffs. And there are businesses out there willing to support it, even though the numbers won't be as many as Linux.
Part of the problem is that too many customer businesses want the support on a one price for all basis. And that is probably where open source will be weakest, because it's just not economically viable to do it that way unless you are supporting a proprietary closed source program so you can keep the total bundle price high.
Post a lame off topic comment, then post a reply to your own comment a mere 2 minutes later? Too bad slashdot doesn't have points specific for "nice troll, but it's been done before, so you lose". Too bad your Spelling Check XP didn't catch your mistakes in the comment.
I doubt it. Since they would be calling a number that is a landline number, they would be "off the hook".