An unreadable replacement for XML? That would be just like... XML
HDF is hierarchical and has syntax. But it doesn't have the redundancy of XML since it doesn't give the same item name again to close it (just a closing brace). It's more readable by humans than XML. It can be parsed faster by computers than XML. It can be typed in by humans in a shorter time (should a human ever need to, which should be rare for either).
If they weren't using it, I'd call XML as irrelevant and pointless. Since they are using it, I call it a waste. The only reason they are using it is because it is the format du jour. Since a lot of development has gone on around XML, as opposed to anything better, it's not their fault they have to choose something that's a waste.
Obviously, XML is more than just a comma-separated list. It also includes additional redundancies to make it even harder for humans to read under the guise of being able to verify correctness of data generated by another program. XML is a waste!
Yes. I agree. Too bad I didn't have any mod points or I would have used them. The parent article does need modded up to the top "insightful".
Too bad I think Yahoo's auction site sucks, because that deprives me of the opportunity to boycott them, which I now will do for all the rest of Yahoo. It's legal for them to make the decision they did, but it's also legal for me to not play along.
If a man from France comes over to my store in the United States and buys a Nazi flag, French law does not apply. If he takes that flag back to France, then he most certainly has a problem. It is not my problem, and I cannot be compelled to not sell to him.
Now extend this to the web. The man is in France and visits my web site in the United States. Why is this really any different?
Now switch to the auction model, where I don't even do the selling, but just provide a medium for the buyer and selling to come to terms. French law and French attitudes simply do not apply to me, here in the United States.
There is nothing good in this at all. The French can have their law. If the French people like it, they can have it. If not, well they know how to make a little revolution. But letting France extend their law into the United States, and using it to affect me and my commerce, is absolutely wrong.
As for Yahoo, I know they just buckled under, despite what they claimed, which is BS anyway, because artifacts themselves only identify things. Saying the word "Nazi" is no different than showing the Nazi flag (at least for most of us that do know this symbol represents evil). Owning such a flag does not mean I am evil, but rather, would mean that I am saying "Nazi" in some context. For some that might mean that they are saying it to represent who they are. But I believe for most people, it is saying that something evil can, and probably still does, exist in the world, and we have to be on guard for it, probably forever.
The French attitude is all wrong. They are just trying to hide it. It's no different than outlawing the word "Nazi" or the world "evil" (however it is said in their language, which I'm not going to go look up right now). I'm not going to go over to France and tell them they have to change. But I will now encourage people in the United States to boycott, or even ban, anything and everything from France. As far as I'm concerned, France itself is heading down the same deep spiral that Germany did in the 1920's and 1930's. I may well have to label France with a Nazi flag, soon.
IMHO, the target market will be consumer oriented products like TiVo. These will have full embedded software that is more difficult to crack into (at least for the average person). If Linux's licensing doesn't allow such embedding, they won't be able to use it, even if a free TiVo clone is there for the taking. As the technology gets better at doing copy protection for these consumer recording devices, it will be harder and harder for open versions of these devices to be safe from being considered violations of the law that requires them to employ copy protection technology.
The media can give the recorder 2 keys. One is its unique public key signed by the media manufacturer. The other is the media manufacturer public key signed by MPAA. The recorder verifies this by having the MPAA public key, verifying the media manufacturer key, then verifying the media key. The same takes place in reverse. Both devices have each other's public key. These keys are now used to conduct a randomized key exchange that man-in-the-middle cannot participate in. That results in a unique session key. If this session key is a strong 256 bit AES key, then I don't see an easy way to crack it with this approach. But I don't know if they actually do this or not.
Since CPRM was not available when TiVo came out, Linux was an option (and a good one for quick cheap delivery to market). Clearly, to implement strong protections against hacking, the system will have to be made unhackable somehow. Whether that is possible or not is a valid question. Today I'd say most people don't have the ability to hack a system entirely integrated onto a single chip, so for now that would be a safe way. In the future that may not be the case when "Mr Chip Cloner" comes on the market in about 10 years.
What else would be needed to make 2 or more of these modems talk to each other (besides some 75 ohm coax and F connectors)?
Re:And 10 minutes for a driver hack that disables
on
Copy Protection Galore
·
· Score: 2
It won't be needed. Existing drivers won't enable or use the CPRM feature (though the next release or service pack of a certain software product may end up having them included in its drivers). So your Linux boxen will be safe because you can make sure that CPRM usage doesn't get added. I don't know about Macs, but I certainly worry about Windows.
You can still take a controller and put a new set of platters on it. But you have to low level format it so the controller knows the characteristics of the platters. And this inly for a similar platter surface. For unlike surfaces, the controller probably won't be able to work with it. And you'll need the low level software and data, which are probably not in the controller firmware.
Buying a CPRM drive, at this spec level (not sure about any future changes) for my computer won't bother me as long as I have control over the driver to make sure it doesn't use CPRM on me for something (e.g. I'll use BSD or Linux).
How do you know that you're really talking to the hard drive, instead of a software emulator that makes all hard drives look the
same?
First of all, this whole scheme is intended for media recording devices, such as TiVo, not for computers. The intention is to make it so that a movie recorded on the media cannot be played elsewhere, or copied by means other than what the media recording device permits.
That said, the answer to your question is this. The media recording device will interact by sending a challenge hash to the drive, which encrypts it and sends back the result. This is essentially authenticating that the drive really does have CPRM implemented, enabled, and activated. The software emulator, not having the necessary keys, won't be able to complete the challenge, and the media recording device will know it does not have CPRM media (it may still function at some level without such media, for example to record only movies without copy protection).
CPRM further is intended to prevent taking the hard drive media to a computer and copying individual files or cloning the whole drive to make an uncontrolled copy. The way this is done is via the encryption which will be different for every drive. Although the computer can use the CPRM device commands to access the read/only area, it won't have the recorder keys to make any sense of it.
Swapping an older controller onto a newer drive with the same platter configuration may not work, as the recording of the keys, and possibly of all the data on the platter space, could be done with a totally different low level format which the older controller would not understand. The best you could hope for is being able to use the older controller to low level format the platters, but that would wipe off all the keys, so all you now have in a drive w/o CPRM.
In it's current spec, CPRM is NOT something that interferes with normal computer functions, aside from reducing available capacity by 1 megabyte (get it back by low level formatting with an older controller, if you know how to) and increasing the cost by $0.17 or less. Whatever is written on the drive w/o the use of CPRM will read back the same on any computer. So you can still store "freed" movies on the drive with your BSD or Linux machine, and quite possibly even with Windows.
This copy protection mechanism requires cooperation between the recorder (subject to laws requiring implementation of copy protection logic) and the media (not subject to those laws). The recorder could be implemented to not record copy protected content on media that doesn't implement CPRM, and this would probably be it's way to be compliant with the law. Non-CPRM media can still be made, but may not work in new recorders. Manufacturers of the hard drives will probably be happy to implement this on at least some of their production to sell to the media recorder market. They may also implement it on the entire production line simply to save inventory and production scheduling costs which would likely be more than the patent royalties involved, knowing that normal computer functionality is not impaired.
What crackers will be seeking to do is extract and crack the keys, and probably implement some device that goes between a recorder and the media to completely fake the recorder into believing it has CPRM compliant media. What gets recorded may then be in the clear, or may at least be cloneable. Other potential cracks could be the ability to make a successful clone by emulating a media recorder with 2 interfaces and no copy protection. Whether crackers can crack these keys remains to be seen. Maybe the movie industry has learned and is using larger keys. OTOH, crackers have been way more resourceful than most of us have expected prior to successful cracks.
And they think TV ads aren't ignored? Bah! I ignore them all the time, including the money begging on (formerly non-commercial) public TV. The big difference here is that TV has totally saturated the mass market, and regular use of the Internet is still done mostly by the more intellectual, who don't succumb to these ads.
TV is also different in the sense that you intend to "participate" without any control. It's fed to you in time sequence, and a chance to take a bathroom break, or grab another cold one, is appreciated. The web lets you do those things any time you want. A banner and a couple boxes here and there don't bother anyone as they are easy to ignore. Popups will be bad, but only until everyone figures out how to prevent them (it won't be all that long, either).
Maybe it's time for sales people to realize they have to be kindler and gentler, or else it's just not going to work out for them. We will prevail.
There are currently way too many job search and resume posting sites. No one posts their jobs on more than 2 or 3 of them (most only 1). How many places do you post your resume? The whole job hunting process is hurt by the over 200 job sites, most of which are horribly programmed. You have to search so many places just to be sure you have all bases covered. Since recruiters and hiring managers probably won't make an extensive search, you have to splatter your resume everywhere to be sure you don't miss an opportunity.
Time for some web site shake outs, and some more dot-com-bust stories.
But maybe, just maybe, as the rapid growth levels off, there might be a little more emphasis on getting it right. I hope business and commerce stays, though I'll be glad to see stupid sales people and idiotic marketing go away.
Since Al Gore, the inventor of the internet, has lost the election and will be going home on January 20, 2001, apparently he'll be shutting down the internet on that day and taking it with him.
You can use RBL w/o an ASN. You just have to run BGP4 and peer with the RBL eBGP4 server and let it route to your black hole address. You then default route everything else out your single backbone connection. No other BGP peering is needed. Since you're not announcing routes (and RBL certainly isn't taking them) you can use a reserved ASN to configure your router.
MAPS is an elective service which provides me with information regarding their opinion about an address or domain. I choose to block or not block on the basis of that information.
If MPAA or RIAA or anyone else sues, they are effectively bringing in the (potentially violent) force of governments to cause a web site to be unavailable to everyone.
The irony is I can choose to block web sites hosting DeCSS if I wanted to. I've actually made that choice for a select few sites which host "web bug" (ad banners and undisplayed images designed to watch how long you are on a site or track you around).
MattW(ma++@ender.com) on Thursday December 14, @12:29AM CST (User #97290 Info) wrote:
(1) If you're a bulk provider, with hundreds of web sites, it isn't even worth batting an eye to keep hosting a spam software provider. If they wanted to follow the money, they may refuse to remove them, but they certainly wouldn't defend them when MAPS came knocking. MAPS scares providers.
I'm glad that it does scare them.
(2) How much is enough? Should MAPS block every single IP address that the provider has, just to force them to stop hosting the software seller? How many innocent sites have to be taken down in the name of shutting down the spammers? And do you really think people looking for spamming software won't be able to find it because you shut this down? When these software sellers move, should we shut down a thousand more? Will you feel the same when its YOU?
MAPS RBL may be doing exactly what I would do if I were running such a service.
What I would do is look up the ARIN/RIPE/APNIC records to determine the smallest level of IP assignment administration.
The theory here is that it is easy for a web site to get a new IP in the same block.
In fact, they may already have one.
It can be difficult to determine exactly which IPs are to be blocked if done invidually.
And it happens already that web customers to ask for IP address changes to try to get around various forms of being blocked.
If the spam supporter is running their own network, AND if the ISP they use properly registers their suballocation to the appropriate database at ARIN/RIPE/APNIC, then I'm quite happy to block ONLY that customer and not the whole ISP.
But if the ISP can't be bothered to submit that information, then I can't be bothered to pin down an exact network for them.
(3) No one ever stops to think how insidiously powerful MAPS has grown. As their filters have become useful, it has gone far beyond good sysadmins using them to protect their users -- it has gone corporate, with millions of addresses obeying the filters MAPS dishes out. What happens when it is abused?
You're assuming that it will be abused.
While I cannot say it won't be, I don't see that trend at this time.
The view MAPS uses is in line with my own.
If they do end up abusing it (by my definition) then I may quit using it.
That decision will be made on the basis of whichever choice has the better results for me.
If the choices are MAPS or nothing, then it will take quite some abuse to make me choose nothing.
If the choices are MAPS or someone else's service that isn't doing the abuse, but is better than nothing, I could be more likely to make the switch.
Currently I see no other viable choice (I don't like ORBS' approach).
Think that won't happen? Wrong, it already has. MAPS blocked 209.211.253/24, because it hurt a lot more than just blocking 209.211.253.68-89, or even 209.211.253.64/27. I shouldn't need to repeat it, Jamie made a great point: Paul Vixie said MAPS contacts all blocked websites before blocking them. Ah, but that must date back to before MAPS was so powerful, such an icon of internet protection, with supporters lining up to buy them lawyers.
I would need to see evidence that blocking 209.211.253/24 is an abuse.
I haven't seen any, yet.
(4) MAPS is tied far too closely with AboveNet. The fact that Vixie was an Abovenet VP (who knows what he is with Metromedia, who bought Abovenet), should absolutely chill people. There's something absolutely creepy about the power to block email to 40% of addresses being thus controlled. I'm sure the small-time sysadmins would remove MAPS configs from sendmail if it were abused -- but would corporations be so quick to follow? With change control procedures, possibly even total apathy?
I'm small time, and from reading all the information posted on/. I don't see any reason to not block Media3.
The current situation is commensurate with why I use MAPS RBL/DUL/RSS in the first place.
If you do decide to provide some evidence as to why I should make an exception and allow Media3 into my network (which I know how to do), please also tell me why:
There are not IN-ADDR.ARPA reverse PTR records for these IP address that correctly resolve forward to that IP address.
Media3 has not submitted SWIP records to ARIN to indicate a different administrative control over these addresses.
At this point, a lot of these points have been intentionally sensationalized to provoke a bit of thought. I think that MAPS has just selected an overbroad block to filter this time -- and I agree with filtering spam software sales. You support spam, down you go. But I also think that the cheerleading, here and elsewhere, and the lack of concern over the fact that MAPS has run roughshod over so many innocent sites, shows that people have a tendency to follow net luminaries far too blindly. If you're going to run MAPS filters, then you're handing that project power. Best keep an eye on that, if you don't want to contribute to the abuse of that power.
Maybe I just don't want this universal connectivity.
I have been around long enough on the Internet to know what it was like when "universal" didn't include scum. Things change. So I make my view of the network the way I want, and MAPS RBL/DUL/RSS help me do that. It's not perfect, but when weighing the tradeoffs, it is preferred to use it than to not. If you think you can do better, and make something that would make me interested in switching from MAPS RBL, by all means go for it.
And, BTW, I do know how to make individual case exceptions to RBL/DUL/RSS in my DNS server. Convince me that I should in this or any other case.
All XML really is, is just a way to convey the name-to-value relationships in a hierarchy of data. But it's also overkill for this purpose. Simpler formats like HDF have existed for a longer time, but it seems XML is being adopted because it gets to ride the coattails of HTML.
If you ISP provides bad mailer services, then choose another ISP. If you're stuck with a single ISP because it's a cable system, consider switching to DSL if that is available. If not, then be sure to voice your concern by making sure you call up their technical support department EVERY SINGLE TIME anything wrong happens. Demand to open each as a separate incident. There is no excuse for having shitty mail servers, since there are plenty of people around that know how to run mail servers right. And tell them I said so. And be sure to tell the tech support people that they wouldn't have to put up with all this if they would just wake up the sysadmin and let you talk to him directly. And find out the names of other people in your area having the same problems and make sure they are doing the same. And plan some "tech support phoning parties" at certain times, where you all call tech support at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
An unreadable replacement for XML? That would be just like ... XML
HDF is hierarchical and has syntax. But it doesn't have the redundancy of XML since it doesn't give the same item name again to close it (just a closing brace). It's more readable by humans than XML. It can be parsed faster by computers than XML. It can be typed in by humans in a shorter time (should a human ever need to, which should be rare for either).
If they weren't using it, I'd call XML as irrelevant and pointless. Since they are using it, I call it a waste. The only reason they are using it is because it is the format du jour. Since a lot of development has gone on around XML, as opposed to anything better, it's not their fault they have to choose something that's a waste.
Obviously, XML is more than just a comma-separated list. It also includes additional redundancies to make it even harder for humans to read under the guise of being able to verify correctness of data generated by another program. XML is a waste!
WOW!
I've occaisionally seen posts I'd love to give all 5 moderation points at once, but this one is also worth clipping and saving!, too.
Yes. I agree. Too bad I didn't have any mod points or I would have used them. The parent article does need modded up to the top "insightful".
Too bad I think Yahoo's auction site sucks, because that deprives me of the opportunity to boycott them, which I now will do for all the rest of Yahoo. It's legal for them to make the decision they did, but it's also legal for me to not play along.
If a man from France comes over to my store in the United States and buys a Nazi flag, French law does not apply. If he takes that flag back to France, then he most certainly has a problem. It is not my problem, and I cannot be compelled to not sell to him.
Now extend this to the web. The man is in France and visits my web site in the United States. Why is this really any different?
Now switch to the auction model, where I don't even do the selling, but just provide a medium for the buyer and selling to come to terms. French law and French attitudes simply do not apply to me, here in the United States.
There is nothing good in this at all. The French can have their law. If the French people like it, they can have it. If not, well they know how to make a little revolution. But letting France extend their law into the United States, and using it to affect me and my commerce, is absolutely wrong.
As for Yahoo, I know they just buckled under, despite what they claimed, which is BS anyway, because artifacts themselves only identify things. Saying the word "Nazi" is no different than showing the Nazi flag (at least for most of us that do know this symbol represents evil). Owning such a flag does not mean I am evil, but rather, would mean that I am saying "Nazi" in some context. For some that might mean that they are saying it to represent who they are. But I believe for most people, it is saying that something evil can, and probably still does, exist in the world, and we have to be on guard for it, probably forever.
The French attitude is all wrong. They are just trying to hide it. It's no different than outlawing the word "Nazi" or the world "evil" (however it is said in their language, which I'm not going to go look up right now). I'm not going to go over to France and tell them they have to change. But I will now encourage people in the United States to boycott, or even ban, anything and everything from France. As far as I'm concerned, France itself is heading down the same deep spiral that Germany did in the 1920's and 1930's. I may well have to label France with a Nazi flag, soon.
IMHO, the target market will be consumer oriented products like TiVo. These will have full embedded software that is more difficult to crack into (at least for the average person). If Linux's licensing doesn't allow such embedding, they won't be able to use it, even if a free TiVo clone is there for the taking. As the technology gets better at doing copy protection for these consumer recording devices, it will be harder and harder for open versions of these devices to be safe from being considered violations of the law that requires them to employ copy protection technology.
The media can give the recorder 2 keys. One is its unique public key signed by the media manufacturer. The other is the media manufacturer public key signed by MPAA. The recorder verifies this by having the MPAA public key, verifying the media manufacturer key, then verifying the media key. The same takes place in reverse. Both devices have each other's public key. These keys are now used to conduct a randomized key exchange that man-in-the-middle cannot participate in. That results in a unique session key. If this session key is a strong 256 bit AES key, then I don't see an easy way to crack it with this approach. But I don't know if they actually do this or not.
Since CPRM was not available when TiVo came out, Linux was an option (and a good one for quick cheap delivery to market). Clearly, to implement strong protections against hacking, the system will have to be made unhackable somehow. Whether that is possible or not is a valid question. Today I'd say most people don't have the ability to hack a system entirely integrated onto a single chip, so for now that would be a safe way. In the future that may not be the case when "Mr Chip Cloner" comes on the market in about 10 years.
What else would be needed to make 2 or more of these modems talk to each other (besides some 75 ohm coax and F connectors)?
It won't be needed. Existing drivers won't enable or use the CPRM feature (though the next release or service pack of a certain software product may end up having them included in its drivers). So your Linux boxen will be safe because you can make sure that CPRM usage doesn't get added. I don't know about Macs, but I certainly worry about Windows.
You can still take a controller and put a new set of platters on it. But you have to low level format it so the controller knows the characteristics of the platters. And this inly for a similar platter surface. For unlike surfaces, the controller probably won't be able to work with it. And you'll need the low level software and data, which are probably not in the controller firmware.
Buying a CPRM drive, at this spec level (not sure about any future changes) for my computer won't bother me as long as I have control over the driver to make sure it doesn't use CPRM on me for something (e.g. I'll use BSD or Linux).
First of all, this whole scheme is intended for media recording devices, such as TiVo, not for computers. The intention is to make it so that a movie recorded on the media cannot be played elsewhere, or copied by means other than what the media recording device permits.
That said, the answer to your question is this. The media recording device will interact by sending a challenge hash to the drive, which encrypts it and sends back the result. This is essentially authenticating that the drive really does have CPRM implemented, enabled, and activated. The software emulator, not having the necessary keys, won't be able to complete the challenge, and the media recording device will know it does not have CPRM media (it may still function at some level without such media, for example to record only movies without copy protection).
CPRM further is intended to prevent taking the hard drive media to a computer and copying individual files or cloning the whole drive to make an uncontrolled copy. The way this is done is via the encryption which will be different for every drive. Although the computer can use the CPRM device commands to access the read/only area, it won't have the recorder keys to make any sense of it.
Swapping an older controller onto a newer drive with the same platter configuration may not work, as the recording of the keys, and possibly of all the data on the platter space, could be done with a totally different low level format which the older controller would not understand. The best you could hope for is being able to use the older controller to low level format the platters, but that would wipe off all the keys, so all you now have in a drive w/o CPRM.
In it's current spec, CPRM is NOT something that interferes with normal computer functions, aside from reducing available capacity by 1 megabyte (get it back by low level formatting with an older controller, if you know how to) and increasing the cost by $0.17 or less. Whatever is written on the drive w/o the use of CPRM will read back the same on any computer. So you can still store "freed" movies on the drive with your BSD or Linux machine, and quite possibly even with Windows.
This copy protection mechanism requires cooperation between the recorder (subject to laws requiring implementation of copy protection logic) and the media (not subject to those laws). The recorder could be implemented to not record copy protected content on media that doesn't implement CPRM, and this would probably be it's way to be compliant with the law. Non-CPRM media can still be made, but may not work in new recorders. Manufacturers of the hard drives will probably be happy to implement this on at least some of their production to sell to the media recorder market. They may also implement it on the entire production line simply to save inventory and production scheduling costs which would likely be more than the patent royalties involved, knowing that normal computer functionality is not impaired.
What crackers will be seeking to do is extract and crack the keys, and probably implement some device that goes between a recorder and the media to completely fake the recorder into believing it has CPRM compliant media. What gets recorded may then be in the clear, or may at least be cloneable. Other potential cracks could be the ability to make a successful clone by emulating a media recorder with 2 interfaces and no copy protection. Whether crackers can crack these keys remains to be seen. Maybe the movie industry has learned and is using larger keys. OTOH, crackers have been way more resourceful than most of us have expected prior to successful cracks.
And they think TV ads aren't ignored? Bah! I ignore them all the time, including the money begging on (formerly non-commercial) public TV. The big difference here is that TV has totally saturated the mass market, and regular use of the Internet is still done mostly by the more intellectual, who don't succumb to these ads.
TV is also different in the sense that you intend to "participate" without any control. It's fed to you in time sequence, and a chance to take a bathroom break, or grab another cold one, is appreciated. The web lets you do those things any time you want. A banner and a couple boxes here and there don't bother anyone as they are easy to ignore. Popups will be bad, but only until everyone figures out how to prevent them (it won't be all that long, either).
Maybe it's time for sales people to realize they have to be kindler and gentler, or else it's just not going to work out for them. We will prevail.
There are currently way too many job search and resume posting sites. No one posts their jobs on more than 2 or 3 of them (most only 1). How many places do you post your resume? The whole job hunting process is hurt by the over 200 job sites, most of which are horribly programmed. You have to search so many places just to be sure you have all bases covered. Since recruiters and hiring managers probably won't make an extensive search, you have to splatter your resume everywhere to be sure you don't miss an opportunity.
Time for some web site shake outs, and some more dot-com-bust stories.
But maybe, just maybe, as the rapid growth levels off, there might be a little more emphasis on getting it right. I hope business and commerce stays, though I'll be glad to see stupid sales people and idiotic marketing go away.
Since Al Gore, the inventor of the internet, has lost the election and will be going home on January 20, 2001, apparently he'll be shutting down the internet on that day and taking it with him.
You can use RBL w/o an ASN. You just have to run BGP4 and peer with the RBL eBGP4 server and let it route to your black hole address. You then default route everything else out your single backbone connection. No other BGP peering is needed. Since you're not announcing routes (and RBL certainly isn't taking them) you can use a reserved ASN to configure your router.
MAPS is an elective service which provides me with information regarding their opinion about an address or domain. I choose to block or not block on the basis of that information.
If MPAA or RIAA or anyone else sues, they are effectively bringing in the (potentially violent) force of governments to cause a web site to be unavailable to everyone.
The irony is I can choose to block web sites hosting DeCSS if I wanted to. I've actually made that choice for a select few sites which host "web bug" (ad banners and undisplayed images designed to watch how long you are on a site or track you around).
My servers use his services so I guess I elected him policeman.
(User #97290 Info) wrote:
I'm glad that it does scare them.
MAPS RBL may be doing exactly what I would do if I were running such a service. What I would do is look up the ARIN/RIPE/APNIC records to determine the smallest level of IP assignment administration. The theory here is that it is easy for a web site to get a new IP in the same block. In fact, they may already have one. It can be difficult to determine exactly which IPs are to be blocked if done invidually. And it happens already that web customers to ask for IP address changes to try to get around various forms of being blocked.
If the spam supporter is running their own network, AND if the ISP they use properly registers their suballocation to the appropriate database at ARIN/RIPE/APNIC, then I'm quite happy to block ONLY that customer and not the whole ISP. But if the ISP can't be bothered to submit that information, then I can't be bothered to pin down an exact network for them.
You're assuming that it will be abused. While I cannot say it won't be, I don't see that trend at this time. The view MAPS uses is in line with my own. If they do end up abusing it (by my definition) then I may quit using it. That decision will be made on the basis of whichever choice has the better results for me. If the choices are MAPS or nothing, then it will take quite some abuse to make me choose nothing. If the choices are MAPS or someone else's service that isn't doing the abuse, but is better than nothing, I could be more likely to make the switch. Currently I see no other viable choice (I don't like ORBS' approach).
I would need to see evidence that blocking 209.211.253/24 is an abuse. I haven't seen any, yet.
I'm small time, and from reading all the information posted on /. I don't see any reason to not block Media3.
The current situation is commensurate with why I use MAPS RBL/DUL/RSS in the first place.
If you do decide to provide some evidence as to why I should make an exception and allow Media3 into my network (which I know how to do), please also tell me why:
I will keep a watch.
Maybe I just don't want this universal connectivity.
I have been around long enough on the Internet to know what it was like when "universal" didn't include scum. Things change. So I make my view of the network the way I want, and MAPS RBL/DUL/RSS help me do that. It's not perfect, but when weighing the tradeoffs, it is preferred to use it than to not. If you think you can do better, and make something that would make me interested in switching from MAPS RBL, by all means go for it.
And, BTW, I do know how to make individual case exceptions to RBL/DUL/RSS in my DNS server. Convince me that I should in this or any other case.
BS!
Kiddie porn is a miniscule use of photographic film or paper.
Spamming software has NO use but for spamming.
My RBL config stays ON!
All XML really is, is just a way to convey the name-to-value relationships in a hierarchy of data. But it's also overkill for this purpose. Simpler formats like HDF have existed for a longer time, but it seems XML is being adopted because it gets to ride the coattails of HTML.
Afraid to name the company, eh?
If you ISP provides bad mailer services, then choose another ISP. If you're stuck with a single ISP because it's a cable system, consider switching to DSL if that is available. If not, then be sure to voice your concern by making sure you call up their technical support department EVERY SINGLE TIME anything wrong happens. Demand to open each as a separate incident. There is no excuse for having shitty mail servers, since there are plenty of people around that know how to run mail servers right. And tell them I said so. And be sure to tell the tech support people that they wouldn't have to put up with all this if they would just wake up the sysadmin and let you talk to him directly. And find out the names of other people in your area having the same problems and make sure they are doing the same. And plan some "tech support phoning parties" at certain times, where you all call tech support at the same time.