Possible, but you loose the functionality too... You're better off not allowing multi-recipient messages, that way you get much less spam, the spammers can't use the mirabilis/aol servers to amplify their traffic, and you always get their ip...
A lot of people seem to be under the impression that since their own personal download time for spam messages is
next to nothing in comparison to regular browsing traffic, it can't be costing them much.
As a sysadmin for an ISP, I'd have to disagree. Spam in general raises operating costs quite a bit, ad that's what a
customer's bill pays for. What users aren't thinking about is that it isn't just a few users that get spammed. Let's
say a mid-sized ISP, with maybe 40,000 customers, suffers a spam attack in which 50% of their customers
receive a 5k e-mail. You're looking at almost 100 MB of traffic generated by just one spammer in a short period of
time.
What does it matter how many users you have? The useful traffic/spam ratio is still the same.
Spamcop's nice, but they have usability issues. They should validate your email addy once, then give you a personalized @spamcop.net address to send through. I don't want to have to wait for replies, fire up lynx etc every time I report spam...
This is exactly what I meant. Getting critical mass is one way of doing this, getting emulators/wine to work 100% is another way. What I'm trying to say is, the getting critical mass is not a goal in itself...
EXACTLY! Getting critical mass is one way of doing this, getting emulators/wine to work 100% is another way. What I'm trying to say is, the getting critical mass is not a goal in itself...
Remember, we want linux as a desktop for the masses, right?
We do? I for one just want the best OS for me, I don't care who else uses it... If to attain that we need to get the masses using it, so be it. But it's not a goal in itself.
Re:Has anybody found Freenet useful yet?
on
P2P Piracy? Piffle!
·
· Score: 1
Peer-to-peer file downloads are still a long way off from being useful in any way.
Oh? I find napster (and even gnutella, on a good day) extremely useful, thank you.
It's just a man in the middle attack, hardly worth the electrons it's published with. Anyways, it claims man in the middle is fundamentel to public key is not true. The interlock protocol by rivest and shamir is quite effective against this sort of thing...
The following description is quoted from Applied Cryptography by Bruce Schneier, second edition (page 49):
The interlock protocol, invented by ron rivest and adi shamir, has a good chance of foiling the man-in-the-middle attack. Here's how it works:
Alice sends bob her public key.
Bob sends alice his public key.
Alice encryptions her message using bob's public key. She sends half of the encrypted message to bob.
Bob encrypts his message using alice's public key. He sends half of the encrypted message to alice.
Alice sends the other half of her encrypted message to bob.
Bob puts the two halves of alice's message together and decrypts it with his private key. Bob sends the other half of his encrypted message to alice.
Alice puts the two halves of bob's message together and decrypts it with her private key.
The improtant point is that half of the message is useless without the other half; it can't be decrypted. Bob cannot read any part of alice's message until step 6; Alice cannot read any part of bob's message until step 7. There are a number of ways to do this:
If the encryption algorithm is a block algorithm, half of each block (e.g., every other bit) could be sent in each half message.
Decryption of the message could be dependent on an initialisation vector, which could be sent with the second half of the message.
The first half of the message could be a one-way hash function of the encrypted message and the encrypted message itself could be the second half.
To see how this causes a problem for Mallory, let's review his attempt to subvert the protocol. He can still substitute his own public keys for alice's and bob's in steps 1 and 2. But now, when he intercepts half of alice's message in step 3, he cannot decrypt it with his private key and re-encrypt it with bob's public key. he must invent a totally new message and send half of it to bob. When he intercepts half of bob's message to alice in step 4, he has the same problem.
...Got the t-shirt. Then killed it off, because there were better alternatives.....
It's called Distributed FileServer over IRC, and is basicly like gnutella but using irc as a carrier.
Hmm, that's interesting.. Does that go for commercial channels too? Can you just copy their listings or do you have to make your own somehow? Do you have a link?
ATM I'm having some problems with that when republishing tv listings on my site (with a grep interface), and would love to hear about similar cases, even if it is across the channel (I'm in holland)
While it's true that in theory there's much less bandwidth available for upload than for download, that's not the reason you'll have an upload cap most of the time. Many cablemodems I know of are in fact completely symetric (I've had the agony of working with a lcpet20 (lancity), which has 10mbit up/down), and those that are not symmetric still have *way* more upload capability than you're isp'll give you. (Btw, it's not a question of having many modems on a line that reduces the available bandwidth either, unless current cable isp's want to keep room in the spectrum for the case every grain of sand wants a cable connection;-P)
I don't think this is a bad choice. After all, everybody who's going to get pissed off about this is pissed off at the IOC for its earlier stupidities anyway....
Slashdot Mirror
Possible, but you loose the functionality too... You're better off not allowing multi-recipient messages, that way you get much less spam, the spammers can't use the mirabilis/aol servers to amplify their traffic, and you always get their ip...
A lot of people seem to be under the impression that since their own personal download time for spam messages is next to nothing in comparison to regular browsing traffic, it can't be costing them much. As a sysadmin for an ISP, I'd have to disagree. Spam in general raises operating costs quite a bit, ad that's what a customer's bill pays for. What users aren't thinking about is that it isn't just a few users that get spammed. Let's say a mid-sized ISP, with maybe 40,000 customers, suffers a spam attack in which 50% of their customers receive a 5k e-mail. You're looking at almost 100 MB of traffic generated by just one spammer in a short period of time.
What does it matter how many users you have? The useful traffic/spam ratio is still the same.
Incorrect, you need to upgrade mod-utils
not to mention the fact that you actually have decent social security system....
I suppose you mean 'other character sets'?
Ok, here's just a plug for a mud I mess around on:
Outerspace.
Nope, ctrl-alt-delete is soft....
Oh well, TANSTAAFL I guess. :-(. I'll just have to write/find/combine a decent spam replier script then..
I'd still have to launch a browser every time I get spam. That's not efficient enough for me...
Spamcop's nice, but they have usability issues. They should validate your email addy once, then give you a personalized @spamcop.net address to send through. I don't want to have to wait for replies, fire up lynx etc every time I report spam...
Hmm, interesting point.. I'll have to think about this one...
This is exactly what I meant. Getting critical mass is one way of doing this, getting emulators/wine to work 100% is another way. What I'm trying to say is, the getting critical mass is not a goal in itself...
EXACTLY! Getting critical mass is one way of doing this, getting emulators/wine to work 100% is another way. What I'm trying to say is, the getting critical mass is not a goal in itself...
Remember, we want linux as a desktop for the masses, right?
We do? I for one just want the best OS for me, I don't care who else uses it... If to attain that we need to get the masses using it, so be it. But it's not a goal in itself.
Peer-to-peer file downloads are still a long way off from being useful in any way.
Oh? I find napster (and even gnutella, on a good day) extremely useful, thank you.
The interlock protocol, invented by ron rivest and adi shamir, has a good chance of foiling the man-in-the-middle attack. Here's how it works:
- Alice sends bob her public key.
- Bob sends alice his public key.
- Alice encryptions her message using bob's public key. She sends half of the encrypted message to bob.
- Bob encrypts his message using alice's public key. He sends half of the encrypted message to alice.
- Alice sends the other half of her encrypted message to bob.
- Bob puts the two halves of alice's message together and decrypts it with his private key. Bob sends the other half of his encrypted message to alice.
- Alice puts the two halves of bob's message together and decrypts it with her private key.
The improtant point is that half of the message is useless without the other half; it can't be decrypted. Bob cannot read any part of alice's message until step 6; Alice cannot read any part of bob's message until step 7. There are a number of ways to do this:- If the encryption algorithm is a block algorithm, half of each block (e.g., every other bit) could be sent in each half message.
- Decryption of the message could be dependent on an initialisation vector, which could be sent with the second half of the message.
- The first half of the message could be a one-way hash function of the encrypted message and the encrypted message itself could be the second half.
To see how this causes a problem for Mallory, let's review his attempt to subvert the protocol. He can still substitute his own public keys for alice's and bob's in steps 1 and 2. But now, when he intercepts half of alice's message in step 3, he cannot decrypt it with his private key and re-encrypt it with bob's public key. he must invent a totally new message and send half of it to bob. When he intercepts half of bob's message to alice in step 4, he has the same problem.If your compiler leaves in comments, I suggest you find another compiler :-).
It's still a derived work, so it really wouldn't matter.
'Along with the other copyright holders'? Is it really viable to actually reach everybody who's ever contributed kernel code?
I don't think linux will get the 'or v3' clause...
...Got the t-shirt. Then killed it off, because there were better alternatives.....
It's called Distributed FileServer over IRC, and is basicly like gnutella but using irc as a carrier.
Hmm, that's interesting.. Does that go for commercial channels too? Can you just copy their listings or do you have to make your own somehow? Do you have a link?
ATM I'm having some problems with that when republishing tv listings on my site (with a grep interface), and would love to hear about similar cases, even if it is across the channel (I'm in holland)
While it's true that in theory there's much less bandwidth available for upload than for download, that's not the reason you'll have an upload cap most of the time. Many cablemodems I know of are in fact completely symetric (I've had the agony of working with a lcpet20 (lancity), which has 10mbit up/down), and those that are not symmetric still have *way* more upload capability than you're isp'll give you. (Btw, it's not a question of having many modems on a line that reduces the available bandwidth either, unless current cable isp's want to keep room in the spectrum for the case every grain of sand wants a cable connection ;-P)
Also have a look at this.
I don't think this is a bad choice. After all, everybody who's going to get pissed off about this is pissed off at the IOC for its earlier stupidities anyway....
In case anybody still cares: I suspect they do it via tcp timestamps, see rfc1323, section 3.2