I thought AOL was going to be using Netscape as their browser, the whole point in buying them?
Probably just to get the rights to sue Microsoft for monopoly practises. Now the court case has been settled (much in Microsoft's favour) there's no need to hold on to an ex-$4.2 billion dollar company.
Who uses CGI.pm's HTML tags-as-functions stuff, anyway? It's a lot faster to say:
print "<form action=foo.cgi method=POST>";
Which is an excellent example of the drawbacks of writing your own code when there's a properly written function available. There are three errors in the above (rather elementary) print statement:
1.) attributes must be quoted in XHTML - there's two occurances of that error 2.) the method attribute has a list of defined values. POST is not one of them. The correct one is post.
4. I hire evilSpamer to send 25 million Emails, with your headers
Good blacklists can tell the difference between a forged header and a non-forged header. The only way to get it so that it really looks like me sending the emails is to break into my premises - and you'll be having a few criminal prosecutions to deal with instead.
If a blacklist can't get this right, they'll be overlooked for blacklists that can.
Re:Yes but what about re-assigned IPs to new perso
on
Spam Blackhole Lists Redux
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
But what about an ISP who does finally clean up his act and eliminates the spammers on his sub-net? Shouldn't he have a process by which to get his addresses de-listed?
Why should an ISP expect immediate removal? Surely if they take their time to eject a spammer from their networks they should expect likewise from the community? Considering blacklisting is used as a last resort when all other avenues - abuse reports, reeducation - have failed, why should it be an easy life? Why not avoid blacklisting in the first place and have a well monitored and working abuse department?
It is earthlink's and his employer's mail server. He is playing nicely
Earthlink and the blacklist maintainers seemingly disagree with you. Otherwise they wouldn't have been on that blacklist in the first place. Without a binding contract, there is no obligation that earthlink accept email from this particular server.
I notice that despite all the anti-spam efforts, the junk flowing to my inbox is increasing rapidly.
With efforts like Spews spammers are quickly running out of places to hide. ISPs are wisening up to the damege they are causing to their clients and the Internet community by letting spammers run rampant on their networks. One by one, ISPs are waking up. Spammers are starting to resort to desparate measures to keep their operations running, such as threatening emigration, SLAPP lawsuits, breaking and entering, invasion of privacy. If the anti-spam effort is indeed getting nowhere, why the sudden rash of desparation?
But what about a new subscriber to an ISP who gets assigned the old address? Its like moving to a new apartment and getting arrested by the police because a criminal *used-to* live at your apartment.
No, its like buying goods that don't work. So the solution is to take it back to the vendor and complain. In this case, the ISP has knowingly given you tainted goods and taken your money for it. Since the contract for usage of the IP address is between you and the ISP, naturally its the ISP you should approach. They then have the choice of either fixing their problem, or giving you a new IP address.
Following that logic, if you slashed the tires of my leased car
My decision not to allow your garbage on my mailserver is not analogous to me slashing your tires. Its analogous to preventing you from trespassing on my private property. Its my mailserver, its my rules. Play nicely, or don't play at all.
I am in a contract with an organization to provide me access. Period. That access is being infringed on by a third party that is not a party to my access contract.
Your contract with your ISP cannot compel me to receive your garbage on my mailserver. Period.
If its the receipt of mail that concerns you, my implementation of a blacklist on my mailservers has nothing to do with you nor your ISP. If that ISP has promised you that right under contract, then you have the appropriate legal remedies with that ISP, not me.
Include in each email a valid reason why they are receiving this email. A link to an invoice they paid should be sufficient for this.
Remember, _you_ are sending bulk email using a prior relationship as an indication you have their consent to send them an email. The burden of proof rests on you.
No. Spam is about the lack of consent, not content. Consent is the authorisation the recipient gives to the sender to send them an email. Without that authorisation, bulk email is unsolicited and is spam.
A better solution is for all mailing lists to remove all email addresses where the sender doesn't have a confirmed opt-in reply.
Blacklist an ip address or range and a new guy gets it and can't send mail, real fucking smart
So an ISP gives you tainted non-working goods. Take the issue up with your ISP - you should have a contract with them that covers the service they are supposed to provide you.
Do you think ISPs want spammers
ISPs want spammer money. Thankfully with Spews in effect, spammer money isn't as worthwhile as it used to be.
I'd say the safest way to do it is to use an RBL that has an efficient removal process to handle mistaken listings
There are two things victims of collateral damage can do: * Clean up their neighbourhood by putting pressure on the ISP you are paying money to each and every month, and complain vociferously to that ISP for them to clean their act up. * Move.
Its the same as living in a bad neighbourhood - some pizza deliveries refuse to deliver there. Look on the bright side too, buying a house in a bad neighbourhood is cheaper.
There is a chain of events at work here. Follow that chain to its origin and deal with that problem first.
The problem I have is with organizations such as SPEWS who do not, in fact, use a standardized process for adding and removing offenders.
The standardised process is clearly visible. Don't spam. When you do, stop it and make sure it doesn't happen again. Pretty simple really.
Also, they do not appear to warn the owner of an IP block before they are added to their list.
Abuse reports are sent. Your failure to monitor them is your problem, not Spews'. If you insist on sending email to addresses that you don't have confirmed opt-in from - that again is your problem.
The big point of the article is that the blackhole list are sometimes subverted by persons with a political agenda.
The use of blacklists for the purpose of blocking emails is a voluntary thing. The choice of blacklists to use is up to the owner and administrator of the servers using the blacklists. If a blacklist uses its priviledge to "subvert for a political agenda", use a different blacklist. It is not difficult.
The difference between Spamhaus and the RIAA is that Spamhaus is interfering with "speech" that interferes with more constructive speech,
Using a Spamhaus blacklist as a means of filtering email has nothing to do with interference of speech, for precisely the same reason you are not in breach of freedom of speech when you switch your television, radio, or CD player off.
No. The spirit of the Internet is based on collaboration and respect. No-one is forced to accept traffic they don't want, and any server has the right to decide for themselves what traffic to accept and what traffic to reject.
If all servers decide to reject traffic from one particular server, that is a democratic choice made out of free will. That server doesn't have the right to exist on the web - no server has that right. Forcing other servers to accept unwanted traffic is against the spirit of the Internet.
This is a *SPLENDID* way to keep internet exploder (l)users away from webpages.
Careful - we shouldn't stoop to invalid and non-standard HTML as a means of highlighting abusive and non-standards compliant browsers. So before implementing this, think about validity.
Obviously, if we wrap this syntax up in a comment, it will be valid HTML. Now, considering Microsoft are stupid enough to implement conditional comments in Internet Explorer, we can wrap things up very nicely:
<!--[if IE]><input type crash><![endif]-->
There you go - something which is a valid comment, but MSIE decides to think its something else - like conditional markup.
That's short-sighted - amusing for the tar-pit owner but short-sighted. The strengths of tar-pits is that they keep a spammer occupied for the one session he's using it. He is more likely to recognise a tar-pit than a fake open relay, and thus more of a chance he'll move on.
What happens when a spammer finds that an open-relay is too slow or only accepts x emails at a time before slowing to a crawl - he'll move on to other "proper" open relays.
With -bd's suggestion and implementation of fake open relays, the spammer _thinks_ he's emailing millions, so he continues using this "open relay". The relay doesn't forward the email on, just forgets it. That equates to less spam being delivered.
-bd has been doing this on a 486 for well over a year. Maybe he can give us an accurate figure of how much spam it has not delivered?
Once in a while the spammer will send a test email - once this pattern is recognised, allow that email and no others through, and the spammer is none the wiser about this "open relay".
IIRC one of the regular users of -bd's relay is Alan Ralsky himself.
the only way to get some people to stop doing something is with a bullet between the eyes... Some spammers fall into this catagory.
What does a spammer have between his eyes (or presumably behind them if the bullet penetrates)? Nothing useful I'd imagine. If it were useful, they'd be able to get a job flipping burgers.
Good looking, compliant and accessible - Top notch
on
WthRemix Winners Announced
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The winning entry is an excellent example that it is possible to create good looking, highly functional, structured websites that are also fully accessible. Congrats to Radu Darvas.
Don't know about you guys, but I'm grabbing a copy of his markup and stylesheets - its packed with a number of excellent tips on creating accessible designs. Apart from one or two miniscule gripes that are not worth mentioning - this is a fantastic example of modern web design.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is an excellent example of the drawbacks of writing your own code when there's a properly written function available. There are three errors in the above (rather elementary) print statement:
1.) attributes must be quoted in XHTML - there's two occurances of that error
2.) the method attribute has a list of defined values. POST is not one of them. The correct one is post.
Good blacklists can tell the difference between a forged header and a non-forged header. The only way to get it so that it really looks like me sending the emails is to break into my premises - and you'll be having a few criminal prosecutions to deal with instead.
If a blacklist can't get this right, they'll be overlooked for blacklists that can.
Why should an ISP expect immediate removal? Surely if they take their time to eject a spammer from their networks they should expect likewise from the community? Considering blacklisting is used as a last resort when all other avenues - abuse reports, reeducation - have failed, why should it be an easy life? Why not avoid blacklisting in the first place and have a well monitored and working abuse department?
Earthlink and the blacklist maintainers seemingly disagree with you. Otherwise they wouldn't have been on that blacklist in the first place. Without a binding contract, there is no obligation that earthlink accept email from this particular server.
With efforts like Spews spammers are quickly running out of places to hide. ISPs are wisening up to the damege they are causing to their clients and the Internet community by letting spammers run rampant on their networks. One by one, ISPs are waking up. Spammers are starting to resort to desparate measures to keep their operations running, such as threatening emigration, SLAPP lawsuits, breaking and entering, invasion of privacy. If the anti-spam effort is indeed getting nowhere, why the sudden rash of desparation?
No, its like buying goods that don't work. So the solution is to take it back to the vendor and complain. In this case, the ISP has knowingly given you tainted goods and taken your money for it. Since the contract for usage of the IP address is between you and the ISP, naturally its the ISP you should approach. They then have the choice of either fixing their problem, or giving you a new IP address.
My decision not to allow your garbage on my mailserver is not analogous to me slashing your tires. Its analogous to preventing you from trespassing on my private property. Its my mailserver, its my rules. Play nicely, or don't play at all.
Your contract with your ISP cannot compel me to receive your garbage on my mailserver. Period.
If its the receipt of mail that concerns you, my implementation of a blacklist on my mailservers has nothing to do with you nor your ISP. If that ISP has promised you that right under contract, then you have the appropriate legal remedies with that ISP, not me.
How is preventing ISPs from freely chosing a filtering solution that meets their requirements going to reduce the unwanted email to the home user?
Include in each email a valid reason why they are receiving this email. A link to an invoice they paid should be sufficient for this.
Remember, _you_ are sending bulk email using a prior relationship as an indication you have their consent to send them an email. The burden of proof rests on you.
The organisation that you are in contract with that specifies what mail you have the right to receive or send.
No. Spam is about the lack of consent, not content. Consent is the authorisation the recipient gives to the sender to send them an email. Without that authorisation, bulk email is unsolicited and is spam.
A better solution is for all mailing lists to remove all email addresses where the sender doesn't have a confirmed opt-in reply.
So an ISP gives you tainted non-working goods. Take the issue up with your ISP - you should have a contract with them that covers the service they are supposed to provide you.
ISPs want spammer money. Thankfully with Spews in effect, spammer money isn't as worthwhile as it used to be.
There are two things victims of collateral damage can do:
* Clean up their neighbourhood by putting pressure on the ISP you are paying money to each and every month, and complain vociferously to that ISP for them to clean their act up.
* Move.
Its the same as living in a bad neighbourhood - some pizza deliveries refuse to deliver there. Look on the bright side too, buying a house in a bad neighbourhood is cheaper.
There is a chain of events at work here. Follow that chain to its origin and deal with that problem first.
The ISP should have an effective and efficient spammer removal, and a constantly monitored abuse mailbox. Get that right first.
The standardised process is clearly visible. Don't spam. When you do, stop it and make sure it doesn't happen again. Pretty simple really.
Abuse reports are sent. Your failure to monitor them is your problem, not Spews'. If you insist on sending email to addresses that you don't have confirmed opt-in from - that again is your problem.
The use of blacklists for the purpose of blocking emails is a voluntary thing. The choice of blacklists to use is up to the owner and administrator of the servers using the blacklists. If a blacklist uses its priviledge to "subvert for a political agenda", use a different blacklist. It is not difficult.
Using a Spamhaus blacklist as a means of filtering email has nothing to do with interference of speech, for precisely the same reason you are not in breach of freedom of speech when you switch your television, radio, or CD player off.
No. The spirit of the Internet is based on collaboration and respect. No-one is forced to accept traffic they don't want, and any server has the right to decide for themselves what traffic to accept and what traffic to reject.
If all servers decide to reject traffic from one particular server, that is a democratic choice made out of free will. That server doesn't have the right to exist on the web - no server has that right. Forcing other servers to accept unwanted traffic is against the spirit of the Internet.
Get your own mailserver and deal with the problems they face yourself. Email is a priviledge not a right.
Careful - we shouldn't stoop to invalid and non-standard HTML as a means of highlighting abusive and non-standards compliant browsers. So before implementing this, think about validity.
Obviously, if we wrap this syntax up in a comment, it will be valid HTML. Now, considering Microsoft are stupid enough to implement conditional comments in Internet Explorer, we can wrap things up very nicely:There you go - something which is a valid comment, but MSIE decides to think its something else - like conditional markup.
That's short-sighted - amusing for the tar-pit owner but short-sighted. The strengths of tar-pits is that they keep a spammer occupied for the one session he's using it. He is more likely to recognise a tar-pit than a fake open relay, and thus more of a chance he'll move on.
What happens when a spammer finds that an open-relay is too slow or only accepts x emails at a time before slowing to a crawl - he'll move on to other "proper" open relays.
With -bd's suggestion and implementation of fake open relays, the spammer _thinks_ he's emailing millions, so he continues using this "open relay". The relay doesn't forward the email on, just forgets it. That equates to less spam being delivered.
-bd has been doing this on a 486 for well over a year. Maybe he can give us an accurate figure of how much spam it has not delivered?
Once in a while the spammer will send a test email - once this pattern is recognised, allow that email and no others through, and the spammer is none the wiser about this "open relay".
IIRC one of the regular users of -bd's relay is Alan Ralsky himself.
What does a spammer have between his eyes (or presumably behind them if the bullet penetrates)? Nothing useful I'd imagine. If it were useful, they'd be able to get a job flipping burgers.
The winning entry is an excellent example that it is possible to create good looking, highly functional, structured websites that are also fully accessible. Congrats to Radu Darvas.
Don't know about you guys, but I'm grabbing a copy of his markup and stylesheets - its packed with a number of excellent tips on creating accessible designs. Apart from one or two miniscule gripes that are not worth mentioning - this is a fantastic example of modern web design.
Also, I do like one of the honourable mentions - very clean looking and easy on the eye.
Thunderbirds are go! This message is courtesy of the International Rescue based in Tracey Island.
Other than Firebird also being a trademarked software company belonging to British Telecoms (who tried to push their claims to owning hyperlinks).
Especially when the text currently reads:
/inc/copycode.asp, line 264"
"Microsoft VBScript runtime error '800a000d'
Type mismatch: 'Ubound'