Not for spam delivery. Spam bounces, yes, but even that's rare.
The vast majority of the no-such-account spam to my mail server is to fragments of Usenet user IDs, old accounts, and so on. The only cluster of dictionary attacks are bounces from spam with my domain forged as the sender... and most of that is things like "DeloresrecessPayton" and "tanyaarentcouch", not credible user names. The top non-real accounts it's hitting are "pklss05", "zurw9t5", and "v72u6d1"... of the couple of thousand spams a day that get through my first level filters, there's only about 10 addresses that have two-digit counts, and they're all message-IDs like that.
A startup has one or two primary products, and everything else the company does is about promoting these.
A mature company the size of Microsoft is either a middleman like Walmart, or it has diversified, and has multiple product lines, and gets worried if any one product line is a significant part of its revenue. A mature company is willing to allow competition between business units. A mature company that puts all its wood behind one arrow and cripples products to avoid competing with their sacred cow(s) ends up like DEC... bought by a company that got started making the personal computers DEC didn't want to undercut the VAX.
Microsoft crippled their handhelds and cut off the micro-notebooks built around Windows CE, and now they're scrambling to come up with a version of Windows that will compete in that market. So instead of having ten or fifteen years of increasingly sophisticated handhelds running efficient but still desktop-quality software that make Linux on the eeePC look sick, they cut that whole line of development off when they introduced Pocket PC for palmtops only and promoted Tablet PC for the notebook-level devices instead.
if it's your business to investigate how in a context of providing legally supportable information in this regard
The bit that's not clear to me, and that is causing the concern, is that it's not clear to people wearing engineer hats that this law is explicitly restricted to the context of "providing legally supportable information". That's the bit that has people worried. That's the but I'm asking for barrister-wig coverage for.
Your example is covered by the exception for people who are working on their employer's equipment and premises. That exception probably covers most repair shops as well. It doesn't seem to cover contractors or "Geek Squad" types who do repairs on-site.
I tried doing that, and it dramatically increased the delivery attempts. Because the spammers now had N "real" addresses at my domain to add to their lists.
So I switched to putting the throwaway stuff on the right hand side, and periodically flushing domains. And found that spammers will take an address like "blit@somehost.example.com" and add both "blit@somehost.example.com" and "blit@example.com" to their lists.
Because they don't care how many invalid addresses they target. It doesn't cost them anything.
If you care to take off your engineer hat and put on your barrister's wig and explain how the legal terms don't mean what they seem to mean, I'd sure appreciate it.
the five U.S. participants received the most spam: 23,233 messages over the course of the month.
I have one of the older private domains on the Internet, and for many years it was running a BBS gatewayed to Usenet, and then providing shell accounts. All the email addresses and Usenet Message IDs sat there like a ticking bomb until spammers started harvesting them. At one point I was getting so much spam I had to block China, Brazil, Argentina, and several ISPs in countries like Spain and Italy because the amount of spam I was getting was putting me over my colo's traffic cap to the tune of $750 a month.
Looking at my current logs, yesterday, 17197 delivery attempts were blocked by RBL, 24561 attempts by greylisting, and almost 2000 were blocked by content filtering after receipt. And the only users on this box are myself and my family, who got a total of 81 legitimate messages actually delivered.
That's more messages in one day than they're getting in one month.
The new law requires a PI license if you act as a private security consultant company (which can be an individual).
The amended "Sec. 1702.104." reads (1) engages in the business of obtaining or furnishing, or accepts employment to obtain or furnish, information related to [...] (D) the cause or responsibility for a fire, libel, loss, accident, damage, or injury to a person or to property.
Technician: "Your hard disk's bad..." Detective: "Could that have made the novel I was working on disappear?" Technician: "Sure,..." Detective: "Book 'im, Dano"
Regarding sales of legitimate LVMH, I don't think the judge is changing the law, or creating a special case here. He is merely punishing eBay as per LVMH's request, and it serves them right. The judge was obviously moved by the severity of the situation.
Regardless of the merits of the rest of the case against eBay, the judge has no reason to find eBay *also* guilty of violating this absurd restriction if he's not explicitly rejecting the doctrine of first sale. If the judge isn't creating a precedent in France, then it simply means that French law is already restricting resale. Outside of France, on the Internet as a whole, this will have a chilling effect on legitimate resellers.
I would expect that within 1/2 hour of this feature being implemented in firefox that there will be a module that will display the source normally, as well features to block particular code segments.
(1) If that was the case, then there would be no point to it. (2) But it would violate the DMCA in the US, and bring back all the stupid faffing about we had when cryptography was heavily restricted under ITAR.
it can allow reasonable security for most apps. where you can store a name of a Database procedure for an Ajax Call in Javascript without people seeing (on the intranet) oh it runs usp_updateemployee with parameters of employee ID and security Code
Maintaining that stuff in a session cache and never exposing it is trivial, and would have less of a negative impact than creating a DMCA nightmare for years to come.
But if they work for your bank protecting your money and identity, and this guy is coding. would you rather have minimal security vs. no security.
You mean "no security vs. no security". No brainer.
Any mechanism to automatically execute unsandboxed code provided by a web page, with or without a user's "approval", with or without an explicit whitelist, with or without digital signatures. I don't want ActiveX, or XPI installers or automatically installing Dashboard widgets, or 'open "Safe" files after downloading', or 'do you want to trust...' popups.
Yes, I know there's very few (if any) browsers that are completely clean on this count right now.
Specifically, I want this at the absolute minimum:
<header>HTML displayed at the top of each page</header>
<footer>HTML displayed at the bottom of each page</footer>
<page/>
Not some XML DTD or obscure CSS that has to be declared and doesn't actually specify headers and fiiters but just gives you a framework that with a great deal of effort you can coerce into doing the right thing.
I'd be satisfied for them to at least do SSH-style "this is the same unsigned certificate as last time" checks, so that once you've said "yes, I know this is a self-signed certificate, just accept this one from now on" you don't get bugged any more when you know the certificate's self-signed if it doesn't change.
It doesn't MATTER what order you put alt/opt and cmd/win keys in, so long as they're always in the same order.
90% of the keyboards available are only available in "ctl - cmd/win - alt/opt - space". So people with Macs will often be in a situation where the order the keys are in changes from keyboard to keyboard.
Apple needs to make these switchable on a per-keyboard basis, and remember what order they are on each keyboard, so you can put things in the apple order no matter which keyboard you're using, and I can put them in the windows order no matter which keyboard I'm using.
If you do it in Flash, then what I'll see when I hit that part of the page is (f), and when I hover over that it'll change to (>), and when I click on that it'll run. If the whole application is in Flash, then I'll often see that three or four times. I'll likely hit the button at the top of the window marked () and look for another alternative.
Why?
1. I can.
2. 90% of the Flash I run into is velveeta. That's "not quite spammy enough to be called spam, but no more desirable".
3. I can't take a.swf and pick it apart and save the actual useful content somewhere for future reference. Yes, I know that's an advantage for you. No, I don't care.
4. Flash performance on my G4 Mac Mini is not acceptable. Without Flashblock I pretty much couldn't use tabbed browsing.
5. Flashblock lets me decide when to download the flash content, screaming video, and other stuff, when I open up three or for tabs for leter perusal.
So, flash is at a disadvantage if you're interested in my eyeballs. Flashblock is available for all Gecko-based browsers. It's installed by default in some of them, and only a click away in the rest, and I'm sure there's equivalents for MSHTML and KDE/Webkit browsers as well.
you need to upgrade your OS every time they decide to make a "minor" update
I'm still running 10.3 on my Mac Mini, and the only reason I upgraded from 10.2 to 10.3 was because it was bundled with the hardware when I upgraded from a G3 to the Mini.
This isn't news. You get the same results any time you're buying from a software company with a hardware sales model, where the cost of the software is bundled into the hardware. It's the same if you're buying from Cisco, Network Appliance, or anyone else.
If OS X is worth an extra 40% for the base hardware, plus whatever the markup is for bundled upgrades, then you pay the extra for it. If it's not, then you don't. If you're buying Mac hardware to run Windows or Linux, well, you're an oddball minority at best.
Slashdot Mirror
After upgrading to Adium 1.2.6 I was unable to connect to Jabber and AIM, so I reverted to 1.2.5. I hope 1.2.7 comes out pretty quickly.
Not for spam delivery. Spam bounces, yes, but even that's rare.
The vast majority of the no-such-account spam to my mail server is to fragments of Usenet user IDs, old accounts, and so on. The only cluster of dictionary attacks are bounces from spam with my domain forged as the sender... and most of that is things like "DeloresrecessPayton" and "tanyaarentcouch", not credible user names. The top non-real accounts it's hitting are "pklss05", "zurw9t5", and "v72u6d1"... of the couple of thousand spams a day that get through my first level filters, there's only about 10 addresses that have two-digit counts, and they're all message-IDs like that.
A startup has one or two primary products, and everything else the company does is about promoting these.
A mature company the size of Microsoft is either a middleman like Walmart, or it has diversified, and has multiple product lines, and gets worried if any one product line is a significant part of its revenue. A mature company is willing to allow competition between business units. A mature company that puts all its wood behind one arrow and cripples products to avoid competing with their sacred cow(s) ends up like DEC... bought by a company that got started making the personal computers DEC didn't want to undercut the VAX.
Microsoft crippled their handhelds and cut off the micro-notebooks built around Windows CE, and now they're scrambling to come up with a version of Windows that will compete in that market. So instead of having ten or fifteen years of increasingly sophisticated handhelds running efficient but still desktop-quality software that make Linux on the eeePC look sick, they cut that whole line of development off when they introduced Pocket PC for palmtops only and promoted Tablet PC for the notebook-level devices instead.
if it's your business to investigate how in a context of providing legally supportable information in this regard
The bit that's not clear to me, and that is causing the concern, is that it's not clear to people wearing engineer hats that this law is explicitly restricted to the context of "providing legally supportable information". That's the bit that has people worried. That's the but I'm asking for barrister-wig coverage for.
Your example is covered by the exception for people who are working on their employer's equipment and premises. That exception probably covers most repair shops as well. It doesn't seem to cover contractors or "Geek Squad" types who do repairs on-site.
a person who on the person's own property or on property owned or managed by the person's employer
So the Geek Squad type people who come and fix your computer for a fee are still on the hook.
I tried doing that, and it dramatically increased the delivery attempts. Because the spammers now had N "real" addresses at my domain to add to their lists.
So I switched to putting the throwaway stuff on the right hand side, and periodically flushing domains. And found that spammers will take an address like "blit@somehost.example.com" and add both "blit@somehost.example.com" and "blit@example.com" to their lists.
Because they don't care how many invalid addresses they target. It doesn't cost them anything.
If you read them as an engineer, they do.
If you care to take off your engineer hat and put on your barrister's wig and explain how the legal terms don't mean what they seem to mean, I'd sure appreciate it.
the five U.S. participants received the most spam: 23,233 messages over the course of the month.
I have one of the older private domains on the Internet, and for many years it was running a BBS gatewayed to Usenet, and then providing shell accounts. All the email addresses and Usenet Message IDs sat there like a ticking bomb until spammers started harvesting them. At one point I was getting so much spam I had to block China, Brazil, Argentina, and several ISPs in countries like Spain and Italy because the amount of spam I was getting was putting me over my colo's traffic cap to the tune of $750 a month.
Looking at my current logs, yesterday, 17197 delivery attempts were blocked by RBL, 24561 attempts by greylisting, and almost 2000 were blocked by content filtering after receipt. And the only users on this box are myself and my family, who got a total of 81 legitimate messages actually delivered.
That's more messages in one day than they're getting in one month.
I wish it was only as bad as it was in 1997.
The new law requires a PI license if you act as a private security consultant company (which can be an individual).
The amended "Sec. 1702.104." reads (1) engages in the business of obtaining or furnishing, or accepts employment to obtain or furnish, information related to [...] (D) the cause or responsibility for a fire, libel, loss, accident, damage, or injury to a person or to property.
Technician: "Your hard disk's bad..." ..."
Detective: "Could that have made the novel I was working on disappear?"
Technician: "Sure,
Detective: "Book 'im, Dano"
So where is a good open source flash decompiler that takes a .SWF and turns it into something you can examine?
Regarding sales of legitimate LVMH, I don't think the judge is changing the law, or creating a special case here. He is merely punishing eBay as per LVMH's request, and it serves them right. The judge was obviously moved by the severity of the situation.
Regardless of the merits of the rest of the case against eBay, the judge has no reason to find eBay *also* guilty of violating this absurd restriction if he's not explicitly rejecting the doctrine of first sale. If the judge isn't creating a precedent in France, then it simply means that French law is already restricting resale. Outside of France, on the Internet as a whole, this will have a chilling effect on legitimate resellers.
The "hard ones" from Asimov's "The Gods Themselves" are stealing the Platinum to pawer their artificial suns.
About bloody time.
By "3" you mean "2"?
I would expect that within 1/2 hour of this feature being implemented in firefox that there will be a module that will display the source normally, as well features to block particular code segments.
(1) If that was the case, then there would be no point to it.
(2) But it would violate the DMCA in the US, and bring back all the stupid faffing about we had when cryptography was heavily restricted under ITAR.
it can allow reasonable security for most apps. where you can store a name of a Database procedure for an Ajax Call in Javascript without people seeing (on the intranet) oh it runs usp_updateemployee with parameters of employee ID and security Code
Maintaining that stuff in a session cache and never exposing it is trivial, and would have less of a negative impact than creating a DMCA nightmare for years to come.
But if they work for your bank protecting your money and identity, and this guy is coding. would you rather have minimal security vs. no security.
You mean "no security vs. no security". No brainer.
1. Yes.
2. Over my dead body.
3. Yes.
4. Explain?
5. Explain?
Any mechanism to automatically execute unsandboxed code provided by a web page, with or without a user's "approval", with or without an explicit whitelist, with or without digital signatures. I don't want ActiveX, or XPI installers or automatically installing Dashboard widgets, or 'open "Safe" files after downloading', or 'do you want to trust...' popups.
Yes, I know there's very few (if any) browsers that are completely clean on this count right now.
That's the bloody point.
Right on, brother!
Specifically, I want this at the absolute minimum:
<header>HTML displayed at the top of each page</header>
<footer>HTML displayed at the bottom of each page</footer>
<page/>
Not some XML DTD or obscure CSS that has to be declared and doesn't actually specify headers and fiiters but just gives you a framework that with a great deal of effort you can coerce into doing the right thing.
I'd be satisfied for them to at least do SSH-style "this is the same unsigned certificate as last time" checks, so that once you've said "yes, I know this is a self-signed certificate, just accept this one from now on" you don't get bugged any more when you know the certificate's self-signed if it doesn't change.
They introduced per-keyboard control of the modifiers in OS X 10.5.
This will be useful information when, at some point in the future, I upgrade to 10.5 and/or 10.6.
Perhaps they will finally have general input remapping and event handling in 10.7 or 10.8.
It doesn't MATTER what order you put alt/opt and cmd/win keys in, so long as they're always in the same order.
90% of the keyboards available are only available in "ctl - cmd/win - alt/opt - space". So people with Macs will often be in a situation where the order the keys are in changes from keyboard to keyboard.
Apple needs to make these switchable on a per-keyboard basis, and remember what order they are on each keyboard, so you can put things in the apple order no matter which keyboard you're using, and I can put them in the windows order no matter which keyboard I'm using.
If you do it in Flash, then what I'll see when I hit that part of the page is (f), and when I hover over that it'll change to (>), and when I click on that it'll run. If the whole application is in Flash, then I'll often see that three or four times. I'll likely hit the button at the top of the window marked () and look for another alternative.
Why?
1. I can.
2. 90% of the Flash I run into is velveeta. That's "not quite spammy enough to be called spam, but no more desirable".
3. I can't take a .swf and pick it apart and save the actual useful content somewhere for future reference. Yes, I know that's an advantage for you. No, I don't care.
4. Flash performance on my G4 Mac Mini is not acceptable. Without Flashblock I pretty much couldn't use tabbed browsing.
5. Flashblock lets me decide when to download the flash content, screaming video, and other stuff, when I open up three or for tabs for leter perusal.
So, flash is at a disadvantage if you're interested in my eyeballs. Flashblock is available for all Gecko-based browsers. It's installed by default in some of them, and only a click away in the rest, and I'm sure there's equivalents for MSHTML and KDE/Webkit browsers as well.
Apple isn't the Beamer of computers
Of course not, the Beamer of computers would use the same software as the rest. You don't need special gas or drive on special roads in a BMW.
Apple is the Cessna of computers.
you need to upgrade your OS every time they decide to make a "minor" update
I'm still running 10.3 on my Mac Mini, and the only reason I upgraded from 10.2 to 10.3 was because it was bundled with the hardware when I upgraded from a G3 to the Mini.
This isn't news. You get the same results any time you're buying from a software company with a hardware sales model, where the cost of the software is bundled into the hardware. It's the same if you're buying from Cisco, Network Appliance, or anyone else.
If OS X is worth an extra 40% for the base hardware, plus whatever the markup is for bundled upgrades, then you pay the extra for it. If it's not, then you don't. If you're buying Mac hardware to run Windows or Linux, well, you're an oddball minority at best.