No, the Chinese aren't spamming. They're selling the ability to spam to American spammers. Knowing full well that all spammers are criminals.
Fuck 'em. Co-conspirators of criminals are criminals, too. I block all of China (and most of the rest of Asia, and a few other countries as well), and will continue to do so. Doesn't matte where the spammer is, that's where the spam comes from.
For example, my friend's site is located in Asia (don't know exactly where), but he's been born and raised on the American Continent. If you blocked the whole of Asia as you so diligently say we should, he could not run his site.
Then perhaps your friend should stop doing business with criminals. (In this case, they are criminals because they knowingly sell services to cirminals, because all spammers are criminals. If your friend is willing to support criminals, I have no interest in his web site, and never, ever will.
Besides, aren't we for freedom of speech? Or is it that only ourselves are allowed to say anything we want and if it originates outside the borders of the 'first' world it must be bad/propaganda/whatever.
Your freedom of speech ends at my firewall. When you're willing to pay for my mail server, and my bandwidth, and my electricity, then you can tell me what I have to do with them. In the meantime, I do block all mail from China (and Korea, and Nigera, and Russia, and a number of other criminal gangs pretending to be nations), and I will continue to do so.
Only spammers talk about freedom of speech in discussions about blocking spam. Which spammer are you?
The money will run out the beginning of next year, when the rules change. Then, he'll be breaking the law unless he has written premission, in advance, and prior business relationships no longer count.
Naturally, this event raises even more doubts over the reliability of Microsoft software in critical systems
Since the patch for this has been out for months, what this really raises doubts over is the competence of the admins who run affected systems. Anybody stupid enough to not install critical updates is too stupid to keep a Linux system running right either.
It also raises questions about the intelligence of people who submit articles to Slashdot.
My hosts file is over 400k. I'm willing to wait for a low boot, because it's been three years since I've had anything more than cookies (and very few of those) picked up by Spybot or AdAware.
A) It's stupid. B) It's already been broken, by offering free porn to those who break the code C) It's stupid. D) What about spammers that run their own mail servers? Which is to say, nearly all spammers. E) It's stupid. F) It will break every mailing list in existence, or mailing lists will be set up by spammers. G) It's stupid.
Given that you have to select an E-mail to delete it, how are users supposed to protect themselves from this one?"
First, keep your patches current. If that's too complicated, select the message above it, hold down the key, and select the one below it. See how that selects everything in between? Now hit Delete
This isn't rocket science. Which is good, because people who use Outlook Express aren't rocket scientists.
No I am not going to pay to send e-mail. Sorry, but Bill's proposal is not acceptable.
It's also not new. It's been a bad idea for at least five years, utterly rejected by people who actually run email servers.
Other questions come to mind. If this proposed system is burdened with Microsoft patents, then exactly how will open-source or third-pary e-mail clients and servers be licensed with the Microsoft IP.
an anonymous identity (as far as it goes) is the best way to protect yourself.
No. The best way to protect yourself is to stand up for your rights, strongly enough to leave those who would take your rights away quivering in mortal fear of ever trying to do so again.
Anything short of that, and you're just an anonymous piece of furniture, to be used or discarded at your owner's whim.
While I don't disagree with you in the slightest, I have to say, I'd be far more likely to watch that than just about anything on any broadcast network or cable channel today.
I'd rather watch the CornCam than, say, Scare Tactics.
Want me to watch reality TV? Try "Survivor, Turkish Prison."
Last IP address before your own in the Received: section
Which is often a virus infected zombie that isn't running an SMTP server anyway.
And if it's not, it's the main mail server of a zombie's ISP. Mail bomb them, and you won't have to worry about spam any more after they have you put off the 'net entirely. Or take your advice, and return the favor. Do you really want AOL cc'ing you on all their spam?
I have no idea what game this guy is playing, but this tale is complete rubbish.
First of all, if there is an RFID tag in a $20 bill (and I doubt it, given the state of the technology), nobody has RFID tag readers in retail stores. In fact, so far as I know, nobody even has such equipment on the market. Store security systems are a completely different system.
There's no reason to even consider a second point.
Or... we might help accelerate that process. What if filtered spam was "returned" to the sender?
How do you identify the sender? The From: address is forged, the envelope MAIL FROM: is forged, the Reply-To: if forged, and in most cases, the originating IP address (the only one you can count on) is a virus infected zombie.
Granted this would put extra load on all of our own ISP email servers, but it would put a MUCH greater load on the ISP's who host the spammers.
No. All it will do is bombard some innocent victim (probably somebody who complained about spam to the spammer's ISP) with thousands - or millions - of emails that they were not reponsible for. That means that you are part of the attack,, part of the problem.
It's one thing to send out 1million spam messages on your server, but to have to deal with all of those emails coming right back at them...
Which is precisely why spammers forge all identifying information they possibly can, and why your plan will make spam worse, not better.
Unfortunately, UUNet is Worldcom, and they handle something like 50% of all internet traffic at some point. They could block the entire rest of the internet easier than we could block them.
It might go against your "First Amendment" nirvana principles, but try this one out in the US to test "your rights online": start a free web site with pictures of child pornography; I think you'll find that that's considered unacceptable in the US.
You can't make child pornography without involving a child. Consensus is that this is harmful to the child. You can talk about child pornography all you want, however, and it is protected speech. You can't eat human flesh, but you can certainly talk about it.
The moment you can't talk about something, no matter how offensive, you can't talk about anything that the people who make the laws find offensive.
You didn't think it would be your sensibilities that would be turned in to law, did you?
Slashdot Mirror
The traditional way to say it is, "My network, my rules." Though I'm also reminded of an old quote about not scaring the horses.
No, the Chinese aren't spamming. They're selling the ability to spam to American spammers. Knowing full well that all spammers are criminals.
Fuck 'em. Co-conspirators of criminals are criminals, too. I block all of China (and most of the rest of Asia, and a few other countries as well), and will continue to do so. Doesn't matte where the spammer is, that's where the spam comes from.
How would that work for Colo servers?
For example, my friend's site is located in Asia (don't know exactly where), but he's been born and raised on the American Continent. If you blocked the whole of Asia as you so diligently say we should, he could not run his site.
Then perhaps your friend should stop doing business with criminals. (In this case, they are criminals because they knowingly sell services to cirminals, because all spammers are criminals. If your friend is willing to support criminals, I have no interest in his web site, and never, ever will.
Besides, aren't we for freedom of speech? Or is it that only ourselves are allowed to say anything we want and if it originates outside the borders of the 'first' world it must be bad/propaganda/whatever.
Your freedom of speech ends at my firewall. When you're willing to pay for my mail server, and my bandwidth, and my electricity, then you can tell me what I have to do with them. In the meantime, I do block all mail from China (and Korea, and Nigera, and Russia, and a number of other criminal gangs pretending to be nations), and I will continue to do so.
Only spammers talk about freedom of speech in discussions about blocking spam. Which spammer are you?
www.blackholes.us has zone files to block, by country, all the major sources of spam (except the US, and there is has the major spamhaus ISPs).
Implementing it by mailbox would be up to your ISP. The tools they need are readily available.
The money will run out the beginning of next year, when the rules change. Then, he'll be breaking the law unless he has written premission, in advance, and prior business relationships no longer count.
Naturally, this event raises even more doubts over the reliability of Microsoft software in critical systems
Since the patch for this has been out for months, what this really raises doubts over is the competence of the admins who run affected systems. Anybody stupid enough to not install critical updates is too stupid to keep a Linux system running right either.
It also raises questions about the intelligence of people who submit articles to Slashdot.
I'll settle for just prosecuting the spammers whose offers are patently illegal, since that accounts for at least 95% of all spam.
My hosts file is over 400k. I'm willing to wait for a low boot, because it's been three years since I've had anything more than cookies (and very few of those) picked up by Spybot or AdAware.
A) It's stupid.
B) It's already been broken, by offering free porn to those who break the code
C) It's stupid.
D) What about spammers that run their own mail servers? Which is to say, nearly all spammers.
E) It's stupid.
F) It will break every mailing list in existence, or mailing lists will be set up by spammers.
G) It's stupid.
Did I mention, it's stupid?
How long until they find a way to get their own .mail server?
Spammers have been using their own mail servers for years. And now they're using virus zombie networks anyway, which this won't stop.
Given that you have to select an E-mail to delete it, how are users supposed to protect themselves from this one?"
First, keep your patches current. If that's too complicated, select the message above it, hold down the key, and select the one below it. See how that selects everything in between? Now hit Delete
This isn't rocket science. Which is good, because people who use Outlook Express aren't rocket scientists.
No I am not going to pay to send e-mail. Sorry, but Bill's proposal is not acceptable.
It's also not new. It's been a bad idea for at least five years, utterly rejected by people who actually run email servers.
Other questions come to mind. If this proposed system is burdened with Microsoft patents, then exactly how will open-source or third-pary e-mail clients and servers be licensed with the Microsoft IP.
That's the whole point, innit? They won't.
Exactly what is that going to cost?
You weren't using that soul anyway.
an anonymous identity (as far as it goes) is the best way to protect yourself.
No. The best way to protect yourself is to stand up for your rights, strongly enough to leave those who would take your rights away quivering in mortal fear of ever trying to do so again.
Anything short of that, and you're just an anonymous piece of furniture, to be used or discarded at your owner's whim.
While I don't disagree with you in the slightest, I have to say, I'd be far more likely to watch that than just about anything on any broadcast network or cable channel today.
I'd rather watch the CornCam than, say, Scare Tactics.
Want me to watch reality TV? Try "Survivor, Turkish Prison."
And I'll bet you sit like a mindless zombie in front of the one-eyed monster, helpless to even go to the bathroom before you soil your pants.
Just the way Hollywood wants it.
It's only television, dude. Get over it.
I can't help but wonde why anyone would want to record anything on television anyway. It all sucks large, purple donkey dick. Every last frame of it.
The best thing on television is the black filler between commercials.
There is a third option. http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist1/vigil56.html
It's time to just block all E-mail attachments. If you want to send a file, do it some other way, like uploading it to a server for explicit download.
Then the virus will just send out an email saying "download this for free porn" and link to it. It's been done already.
As for limiting file types, good luck. Your plan would not allow web pages, for instance, and you'd kill every online game in existence.
. . . that this would pass a first amendment test.
Last IP address before your own in the Received: section
Which is often a virus infected zombie that isn't running an SMTP server anyway.
And if it's not, it's the main mail server of a zombie's ISP. Mail bomb them, and you won't have to worry about spam any more after they have you put off the 'net entirely. Or take your advice, and return the favor. Do you really want AOL cc'ing you on all their spam?
I have no idea what game this guy is playing, but this tale is complete rubbish.
First of all, if there is an RFID tag in a $20 bill (and I doubt it, given the state of the technology), nobody has RFID tag readers in retail stores. In fact, so far as I know, nobody even has such equipment on the market. Store security systems are a completely different system.
There's no reason to even consider a second point.
This is complete, utter bullshit.
Or... we might help accelerate that process. What if filtered spam was "returned" to the sender?
How do you identify the sender? The From: address is forged, the envelope MAIL FROM: is forged, the Reply-To: if forged, and in most cases, the originating IP address (the only one you can count on) is a virus infected zombie.
Granted this would put extra load on all of our own ISP email servers, but it would put a MUCH greater load on the ISP's who host the spammers.
No. All it will do is bombard some innocent victim (probably somebody who complained about spam to the spammer's ISP) with thousands - or millions - of emails that they were not reponsible for. That means that you are part of the attack,, part of the problem.
It's one thing to send out 1million spam messages on your server, but to have to deal with all of those emails coming right back at them...
Which is precisely why spammers forge all identifying information they possibly can, and why your plan will make spam worse, not better.
Unfortunately, UUNet is Worldcom, and they handle something like 50% of all internet traffic at some point. They could block the entire rest of the internet easier than we could block them.
One spammer might sneak on to a network. Two spammers might sneak on to a network. Ten spammers might sneak on to a network.
But more spammers than any other ISP will not sneak on to a network with one-use stolen credit cards.
UUNet is a spamhaus.
And you are an idiot.
It might go against your "First Amendment" nirvana principles, but try this one out in the US to test "your rights online": start a free web site with pictures of child pornography; I think you'll find that that's considered unacceptable in the US.
You can't make child pornography without involving a child. Consensus is that this is harmful to the child. You can talk about child pornography all you want, however, and it is protected speech. You can't eat human flesh, but you can certainly talk about it.
The moment you can't talk about something, no matter how offensive, you can't talk about anything that the people who make the laws find offensive.
You didn't think it would be your sensibilities that would be turned in to law, did you?