If Pacific Bell allowed the customers to connect port 25 directly, then it would create a massive headache, and high costs, for them to deal with the spam (and it would happen for certain, and probably has happened a lot in the past to get them to do this).
When you sign up for service, you are told what SMTP server to use for outgoing mail. Use it. Or find whatever other way works for you. But they are not offering SMTP connection services to you. The solutions are easy, so deal with it.
You wouldn't get those messages if your front line people responded correctly. In fact I have specifically dealt with ZoomNet before, before it was part of Earthlink, and I had to call by phone and get one of the owners on the phone to get a DNS problem (incorrectly coded MX record) resolved. They did correct it within an hour. The thing is, sometimes it just takes finding someone who has AUTHORITY to get things done.
Actually, it's a GOOD way to get their attention. Since you can PROVE in court that their network architecture sucks, you can win. But you see, you let them sue you and THEN you get a lawyer contact their. Then you settle out of court, but now you have a contact... "uh, we need to restore our slander against you, again, because your network is fucked up again... fix it, again".
Earthlink does not offer SMTP connection services. They offer email through their arrays of mail servers. This is not censorship; it's just a decision about what mechanism they choose to offer.
No it doesn't take away the right to send email. It only NOT OFFERS the right to make SMTP connections. There's a difference. By blocking it, they force dialup/DSL/cable users to use the ISP SMTP server as first hop, where they can enforce (not all do, but at least they can) their no-spam policy.
Re:Sorry, am not allowed to follow the link
on
ACLU Takes on ICANN
·
· Score: 2
Go home. Quit trying to use your employer's computer and your employer's net connection to do private surfing unrelated to your work. If you don't like it, find a new employer. O become an employer so you can kick out the net nanny and let your workers waste their time on slashdot.
My skills base includes networks, operating systems, and programming. I'm looking for contract work in networks and systems (together). Almost all the calls I get are for programmers (but I don't want to do programming for other people all day long). But it seems most of the contract work out there is programming.
Yes, there are a lot of others, like you. But I'm not one of them. Then again, I'm the exception because I know what I'm doing with Linux. Trouble is, not everyone does; certainly not the unwashed masses (e.g. office workers). Windows has become ubiquitous. Some people don't even know that they are running one of a choice of operating systems. Sure, it crashes every now and then. But that's mostly if you leave it on 24x7, and most office workers and home users don't.
Linux does have a lot of things to change to make it even viable where Windows reins. And geeks are unlikely to use those tools (I know I won't), so it will be hard for us to make things like that. I shun the GUI in favor of the CLI myself. My main worry, though, is that someone will come along and solve this for Linux, and it will get popular, but that they will do this in a way that breaks its usability for the geeks (we'll have our own version, of course). For example, they might change the format of configuration storage so that their new tools are the only way to configure and that would be bad. But it is the mentality. Where it all goes remains to be seen. But all the points are valid; Linux, today, isn't what the masses are prepared to handle.
If piss poor coders who forget to close off their tables would just f*****n test their pages, we wouldn't have this problem. Better yet, if piss poor coders would just go back to flipping burgers at Jack in the Box, maybe we could have better web pages and worse burgers. If someone can't code HTML correctly, they have no business coding it directly. If that means no ASP career for them, fine. Let them wallow in Frontpage (which itself produces s****y HTML, but that's another whole/. thread).
It is a BAD idea to ever encourage sloppiness. When you do, the sloppy will just figure out how to "push the envelope" on sloppiness.
As long as I have my command line and my text editor, I have no system administration problem. Of course that only means there will not be a total shift to OS X on that basis. But I can also say I won't use whatever KDE or Gnome come up with for system administration, either. The big reason is I already have most of it scripted to automatically get the information from the sources I want it to get it from. What KDE, Gnome, and Eazel could do for the masses, though, is shield them from having to worry about becoming a system administrator for their desktop. But I can't see myself administering 100 remote servers in diverse locations with those tools.
First, the only way the Open Source security philosophy really works is if people ACTUALLY (as opposed to theoretically) sit down and read the code for security flaws in its entirity. I would argue that in a great many cases, no one even approaches this level. Because the Open Source community has very little centralization of effort, there is going to be a great deal of redundancy. In other words, even if you believe that 1000 security "experts" will spend some time reviewing the code, they may well be looking at the same piece of code (which in and of itself, can be a good thing), while leaving other pieces of code largely unscrutinized. Furthermore, I suspect that very few people truely give the code the time of day.
What this probably protects from the most is security holes introduced intentionally by the authors, whether that is sanctioned by the vendor or not. Take the case of so many systems with backdoor passwords. Open Source exposes this, if someone were to be stupid enough to do it.
Second, while Open Source makes it easier for white hats to find flaws, it also makes it easier for blackhats to find and exploit flaws. This is particularly relevant if, as I point out, the code is not getting the right kind of attention from white hats.
Everything is easier. But whether the proportion favors white hats more than black hats depends on how many of them are looking. Consider that most users of exploits do so with exploit tools they download, as opposed to discover and code for themselves. I do suspect the whitehats way outnumber the blackhats.
Third, Closed Source can make it HARDER and DULLER to find flaws. Many people seem to assume that just because obscure products have been cracked, that there is absolutely no reedeeming value to it being closed. In other words, at any given moment in time, if we could some how have two parallel universes that would allow you to have the same piece of code (let's say the latest stable linux kernel with all patches applied) in Open Source and Closed Source at the same time, without knowledge leaking either way, most reasonable people would prefer the Closed Source option.
I would not make that choice. Of course exploits are harder to find with closed source. But this just results in a greater time delay before they are discovered. The number of blackhats is reduced somewhat while the number of whitehats is reduced radically, with closed source.
Fourth, security flaws are found all the time in Open Source code projects. A lot of them are presumably stable pieces of code that have already been put into production. These systems get hacked REGULARLY. Now this isn't to say the same doesn't apply to closed source, but you can't ignore the problem either way.
Is it being ignored? I don't think so.
Fifth, many people constantly bring up the point "well if you just patch regularly...". While I agree that everyone SHOULD do this if possible, it's not always possible, and it's frequently not economical. If there is a piece of closed source code that hasn't had any published (or suspected) security flaws in 4 years of existence, while the competing Open Source alternatives have had many (constantly forcing their admins to patch), then that's a real issue for any competent admin.
This seems to me to be a good argument for closed source. There is a time dampening effect by closed source that makes it possible for admins to avoid doing the patching. But I've found that with a lot of other good practices, this isn't that much of a difference.
Sixth, it's entirely possible for a Closed Source company to do a full internal security audit of their code. It may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing. Although I fully realize that hardly anyone does this, it'd be a mistake to ignore this as an option. If a company can get _most_ of the (presumed) benefits of an Open Source security audit without the corresponding exposure of their source code to blackhats (or at least less "risk" of that), then that might be very good indeed.
It's also entirely possible for a Closed Source company to not do an audit at all, or do bad one, or hire an untrustable auditor to do it. Open Source gives the end user the option to choose from available audits or hire their own. Granted, the choices are few, but in theory, open does open this possibility.
In summation, this is not nearly as black and white as people protray it. It comes down to numbers and many other unquantifiable elements. A simple philosophy is a not a one time cure-all. For instance, as I have alluded to, if there are very few white hats reviewing the code (say 50) and those white hats are mostly replicating their own work (say 15% efficiency) while allowing any black hat with proper monetary motivation to put the effort into cracking easy to read source code, then you might well be worse off. The same goes the other way around, if a software company, as all too many do, rush their product out with little to no review and depend entirely on obscurity, they might well use some routines that are well known security problems that can be easily searched for....
I generally have distrust for commercial software. The primary reason is because of the time pressure to "get it out the door" which ends up sacrificing things that need to be done, but get put off (often forever) in order to meet the deadline which marketing has already established.
The bottom line is that it is just as stupid to assume your carelessness will be automatically covered by "peer review" (or "Open Source") as it is to assume it will be covered by "obscurity".
I would agree. Being open in no way makes something more secure. It provides the opportunity. The opportunity still has to be taken advantage of, and that isn't always done. And there are some totally lousy programs out there not even worth spending the time to audit.
It's the difference between expression oriented and operation oriented. Some of us can work with both. I do believe if I hadn't had that HP-35 (and stole my dad's HP-45 when mine died) I wouldn't have done quite as well with computers as I did. OTOH, maybe this is why I sucked at calculus:-)
And I saw the HP-45 in storage a few months ago. Now if I could just find functional batteries for it.
The following is a sample from the special issues section of the 2004 election ballow:
Should the breakup order dividing Microsoft, Inc., a corporation in the state of Washington, be set aside and made null and void. Click yes if you believe the breakup should not be ordered. Click no if you believe the breakup of this fine American corporation should be so ordered.
What if I have N exactly identical machines? This is possible to do with plex86 and probably even vmware.
Oh look... the guest OS is trying to get the CPU serial number, or the NIC MAC address, or the PCI device list. Oh look... all these parameters are specified in the virtual machine config file.
Next thing you know the power company is gonna want me to pay every time a turn on a light (or a computer). The phone company will want me to pay for each phone call I make; more to further away places, too. And then the cable company will want me to pay for each view of major movies.
All that would totally suck, so please, don't give them any ideas!
First, how is it horrible, if a company takes measures to preserve their copyrights?
First, because it's a big lie. There is nowhere near the level of piracy that justifies this. This "feature" is going to make for M$ hundreds or thousands of times the money they are losing from piracy, maybe way more.
Second, MS isn't so stupid as to make it impossible to move the license from one machine to another. It's a given, that people will
upgrade machines, and reload systems from time to time. They know better than to prevent that. No matter how much you disapprove of their business practices, nobody has ever accused them of being that inept at marketing things.
How would they do that? So I upgrade my machine to the new whizbang Ultrapentium 8 and give my ratty old P-III, freshly loaded with Linux, to my nephew. How are they going to determine if I upgraded, or am trying to pirate? The only way I can see for them to do that is if I have to stay connected all the time to use it. Then that brings in their.NET conspiracy.
Thirdly, by and large the users here have been quite supportive of the thought of MS getting split into pieces. If OS's are split off to a separate company, it's definitely in that companies interest to tighten controls on the OS products. They won't have the oceans of Office license money propping things up. So did anyone ever consider, that this might be a move being engineered with a split in mind?
I've personally not called for a splitup of Microsoft. I don't think that remedy is justfied.
Lastly, slashdot is rumored to be a bastion of Linux users. And MS users, are far and away a minority here. What do you all care, if us
few MS users, are inconvenienced in some way.
Many Linux/BSD users occaisionally use MS Windows. Many, like myself, could very well go through 2 or 3 complete hardware changes by the time WIndows needs to be used again. That means because it already can't function when the drive is moved to a new machine, I have to do a full re-install. The anti-piracy lock will just make that worse.
Of course, we're getting closer and closer to not needing MS Windows at all. Everything I've needed to do in MS Windows I can now do on Linux or Solaris, with one exception (Visio) and there may well be a solution to that soon, anyway. So perhaps in the end it will be just the heavy MS users like yourself that are affected.
But I suspect it gets "press" coverage in slashdot just because it provides Linux users more information to help try to get some businesses to quit making so many committments to Microsoft, if not outright begin the transition to Linux.
You obviously have a situation that calls out for OO design and programming. Now explain how that means that absolutely everything to be programmed has to be programmed in an OO language.
What I got out of the article (which I thought was poorly done) was that the problem isn't OO itself, but that OO is being overly applied where it isn't needed, and even where it gets in the way.
Object Oriented Design is the great idea. It's best for larger projects, but even works on smaller ones, too. It's suitable for use regardless of what language the project will be coded in.
Object Oriented Programming is where start to get bad. An OO language is supposed to be able to readily translate a good OO design into code to compile and run. It does that fine. The problem lies in the fact that vast numbers of programmers don't understand or even attempt to do OO design, and just dive into a project programming it in an OO language, and assume that it will be correct. Afterall, it is Object Oriented so it must be right... NOT!
Object Oriented Programming shares a problem with higher level languages. By making things easier to do, they make it possible for idiots to actually accomplish something which they would not have been able to do before. For some things that's fine. GUIs allow idiots to use computers. That's not all bad (we don't want to fill out their spreadsheets for them). But when things get into the realm where the person involved has to be smart enough to know about all the problems and situations, such as security, reliability, integrity, and performance, which need to be handled, then it's no time to be allowing someone who couldn't even program in a lesser language at all to be attempting this. Good programming tools should be about making it easier for good programmers to do their task correctly and quickly; not about handing the task off to someone who will just screw it up.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of places get blocked for being open spam relays. Anyone finding themselves blocked should make sure their own house is clean.
If Pacific Bell allowed the customers to connect port 25 directly, then it would create a massive headache, and high costs, for them to deal with the spam (and it would happen for certain, and probably has happened a lot in the past to get them to do this).
When you sign up for service, you are told what SMTP server to use for outgoing mail. Use it. Or find whatever other way works for you. But they are not offering SMTP connection services to you. The solutions are easy, so deal with it.
You wouldn't get those messages if your front line people responded correctly. In fact I have specifically dealt with ZoomNet before, before it was part of Earthlink, and I had to call by phone and get one of the owners on the phone to get a DNS problem (incorrectly coded MX record) resolved. They did correct it within an hour. The thing is, sometimes it just takes finding someone who has AUTHORITY to get things done.
Actually, it's a GOOD way to get their attention. Since you can PROVE in court that their network architecture sucks, you can win. But you see, you let them sue you and THEN you get a lawyer contact their. Then you settle out of court, but now you have a contact ... "uh, we need to restore our slander against you, again, because your network is fucked up again ... fix it, again".
Earthlink does not offer SMTP connection services. They offer email through their arrays of mail servers. This is not censorship; it's just a decision about what mechanism they choose to offer.
No it doesn't take away the right to send email. It only NOT OFFERS the right to make SMTP connections. There's a difference. By blocking it, they force dialup/DSL/cable users to use the ISP SMTP server as first hop, where they can enforce (not all do, but at least they can) their no-spam policy.
Go home. Quit trying to use your employer's computer and your employer's net connection to do private surfing unrelated to your work. If you don't like it, find a new employer. O become an employer so you can kick out the net nanny and let your workers waste their time on slashdot.
Friends don't let friends use the wrong DNS roots.
My skills base includes networks, operating systems, and programming. I'm looking for contract work in networks and systems (together). Almost all the calls I get are for programmers (but I don't want to do programming for other people all day long). But it seems most of the contract work out there is programming.
Yes, there are a lot of others, like you. But I'm not one of them. Then again, I'm the exception because I know what I'm doing with Linux. Trouble is, not everyone does; certainly not the unwashed masses (e.g. office workers). Windows has become ubiquitous. Some people don't even know that they are running one of a choice of operating systems. Sure, it crashes every now and then. But that's mostly if you leave it on 24x7, and most office workers and home users don't.
Linux does have a lot of things to change to make it even viable where Windows reins. And geeks are unlikely to use those tools (I know I won't), so it will be hard for us to make things like that. I shun the GUI in favor of the CLI myself. My main worry, though, is that someone will come along and solve this for Linux, and it will get popular, but that they will do this in a way that breaks its usability for the geeks (we'll have our own version, of course). For example, they might change the format of configuration storage so that their new tools are the only way to configure and that would be bad. But it is the mentality. Where it all goes remains to be seen. But all the points are valid; Linux, today, isn't what the masses are prepared to handle.
My site lays out fine in IE/NS/OP.
If piss poor coders who forget to close off their tables would just f*****n test their pages, we wouldn't have this problem. Better yet, if piss poor coders would just go back to flipping burgers at Jack in the Box, maybe we could have better web pages and worse burgers. If someone can't code HTML correctly, they have no business coding it directly. If that means no ASP career for them, fine. Let them wallow in Frontpage (which itself produces s****y HTML, but that's another whole /. thread).
It is a BAD idea to ever encourage sloppiness. When you do, the sloppy will just figure out how to "push the envelope" on sloppiness.
As long as I have my command line and my text editor, I have no system administration problem. Of course that only means there will not be a total shift to OS X on that basis. But I can also say I won't use whatever KDE or Gnome come up with for system administration, either. The big reason is I already have most of it scripted to automatically get the information from the sources I want it to get it from. What KDE, Gnome, and Eazel could do for the masses, though, is shield them from having to worry about becoming a system administrator for their desktop. But I can't see myself administering 100 remote servers in diverse locations with those tools.
What this probably protects from the most is security holes introduced intentionally by the authors, whether that is sanctioned by the vendor or not. Take the case of so many systems with backdoor passwords. Open Source exposes this, if someone were to be stupid enough to do it.
Everything is easier. But whether the proportion favors white hats more than black hats depends on how many of them are looking. Consider that most users of exploits do so with exploit tools they download, as opposed to discover and code for themselves. I do suspect the whitehats way outnumber the blackhats.
I would not make that choice. Of course exploits are harder to find with closed source. But this just results in a greater time delay before they are discovered. The number of blackhats is reduced somewhat while the number of whitehats is reduced radically, with closed source.
Is it being ignored? I don't think so.
This seems to me to be a good argument for closed source. There is a time dampening effect by closed source that makes it possible for admins to avoid doing the patching. But I've found that with a lot of other good practices, this isn't that much of a difference.
It's also entirely possible for a Closed Source company to not do an audit at all, or do bad one, or hire an untrustable auditor to do it. Open Source gives the end user the option to choose from available audits or hire their own. Granted, the choices are few, but in theory, open does open this possibility.
I generally have distrust for commercial software. The primary reason is because of the time pressure to "get it out the door" which ends up sacrificing things that need to be done, but get put off (often forever) in order to meet the deadline which marketing has already established.
I would agree. Being open in no way makes something more secure. It provides the opportunity. The opportunity still has to be taken advantage of, and that isn't always done. And there are some totally lousy programs out there not even worth spending the time to audit.
Why was there no link to the QVC web site?
It's the difference between expression oriented and operation oriented. Some of us can work with both. I do believe if I hadn't had that HP-35 (and stole my dad's HP-45 when mine died) I wouldn't have done quite as well with computers as I did. OTOH, maybe this is why I sucked at calculus :-)
And I saw the HP-45 in storage a few months ago. Now if I could just find functional batteries for it.My ISP doesn't support any OS. They successfully communicate with any OS that functions with standard protocols.
The following is a sample from the special issues section of the 2004 election ballow:
Should the breakup order dividing Microsoft, Inc., a corporation in the state of Washington, be set aside and made null and void. Click yes if you believe the breakup should not be ordered. Click no if you believe the breakup of this fine American corporation should be so ordered.
[YES] ________ [NO]
What if I have N exactly identical machines? This is possible to do with plex86 and probably even vmware.
Oh look... the guest OS is trying to get the CPU serial number, or the NIC MAC address, or the PCI device list. Oh look... all these parameters are specified in the virtual machine config file.
DAMN IT! Don't give them ideas!
Next thing you know the power company is gonna want me to pay every time a turn on a light (or a computer). The phone company will want me to pay for each phone call I make; more to further away places, too. And then the cable company will want me to pay for each view of major movies.
All that would totally suck, so please, don't give them any ideas!
So what is it that you switched to that does not require you to learn about the internals to keep the damn thing running?
First, because it's a big lie. There is nowhere near the level of piracy that justifies this. This "feature" is going to make for M$ hundreds or thousands of times the money they are losing from piracy, maybe way more.
How would they do that? So I upgrade my machine to the new whizbang Ultrapentium 8 and give my ratty old P-III, freshly loaded with Linux, to my nephew. How are they going to determine if I upgraded, or am trying to pirate? The only way I can see for them to do that is if I have to stay connected all the time to use it. Then that brings in their .NET conspiracy.
I've personally not called for a splitup of Microsoft. I don't think that remedy is justfied.
Many Linux/BSD users occaisionally use MS Windows. Many, like myself, could very well go through 2 or 3 complete hardware changes by the time WIndows needs to be used again. That means because it already can't function when the drive is moved to a new machine, I have to do a full re-install. The anti-piracy lock will just make that worse.
Of course, we're getting closer and closer to not needing MS Windows at all. Everything I've needed to do in MS Windows I can now do on Linux or Solaris, with one exception (Visio) and there may well be a solution to that soon, anyway. So perhaps in the end it will be just the heavy MS users like yourself that are affected.
But I suspect it gets "press" coverage in slashdot just because it provides Linux users more information to help try to get some businesses to quit making so many committments to Microsoft, if not outright begin the transition to Linux.
If XML is being produced according to standard by a program, why is testing it for correctness needed?
You obviously have a situation that calls out for OO design and programming. Now explain how that means that absolutely everything to be programmed has to be programmed in an OO language.
What I got out of the article (which I thought was poorly done) was that the problem isn't OO itself, but that OO is being overly applied where it isn't needed, and even where it gets in the way.
Object Oriented Design is the great idea. It's best for larger projects, but even works on smaller ones, too. It's suitable for use regardless of what language the project will be coded in.
Object Oriented Programming is where start to get bad. An OO language is supposed to be able to readily translate a good OO design into code to compile and run. It does that fine. The problem lies in the fact that vast numbers of programmers don't understand or even attempt to do OO design, and just dive into a project programming it in an OO language, and assume that it will be correct. Afterall, it is Object Oriented so it must be right ... NOT!
Object Oriented Programming shares a problem with higher level languages. By making things easier to do, they make it possible for idiots to actually accomplish something which they would not have been able to do before. For some things that's fine. GUIs allow idiots to use computers. That's not all bad (we don't want to fill out their spreadsheets for them). But when things get into the realm where the person involved has to be smart enough to know about all the problems and situations, such as security, reliability, integrity, and performance, which need to be handled, then it's no time to be allowing someone who couldn't even program in a lesser language at all to be attempting this. Good programming tools should be about making it easier for good programmers to do their task correctly and quickly; not about handing the task off to someone who will just screw it up.