If it had dual video outputs it would be rather trivial to connect it to an HMD and then adjust the cameras to get a 3D view.
I'm waiting for consoles to start having dual outputs for that very reason. 3D games are nice and all but how expensive is it really to have a dual head video card so I can play them in 3D?
If Nintendo can fit 2 screens in a cheap portable it can't be that much of a stretch to put 2 screens without the processor in a head mounted display for the same price or less.
Unfortunatly I think 3D is still considered too much of a gimic even though the prices to make them are comming way down.
The Virtual Boy had the problem of syncing. It was impossible to detach the system from the display because the added length of cord made the display unable to sync up. But with LCD there is no issue with that. You only need 4 wires at most running to the display from the system and then you could either have the batteries in a seperate pack with a couple more wires or have the pack mounted on the back of the head to double as a counterweight.
"Since when the hell did "liberty" mean that you get to send email to absolutely anyone, even if they don't want it?"
Pay attention: SPEWS is blocking e-mail that people DID WANT.
Got it?
Think you can handle an intelligent retort now? Didn't think so.
Typical braindead "crush the innocent on the way to the bad guys" attitude you got them.
If YOU were paying attention you'd know there are highly effective ways to block spam that don't involve IPs or headers and that don't inflict collateral damage.
SPEWS is the most retarded attempt at blocking spam ever made.
"after all, it's their own negligence that landed their netblocks into SPEWS's "
No, it's SPEWS idiocy that lands them there. Classic blame the victim. SPEWS is a retarded bully and needs to go. It's time to grow up and find ways to block spam that don't hurt anyone but the spammers.
If you'd think a little you'd realize those ways already exist and are in use by people. I guess you'd rather be a vigilante bully. Whee power.
you and everyone who modded you up insightful are fans of the Patriot Act.
I block URLs that spammers use in their e-mails. I get virtually no spam. I don't get a rip who sent me the e-mail with a link to that URL, it doesn't get through. My mail server kills it before it gets to my inbox.
If a spammer wants to pay an ISP a buttload of money, fine. I have an intelligent way to not get their spam that doesn't involve headers or IPs.
The ISP gets paid, the spammer doesn't. Everyone that matters is happy.
If I stand in front of a store and physically prevent people from going in, I'll get thrown in jail. Preventing solicitors that the store didn't want anyway is one thing. Blocking legitimate customers is quite another.
SPEWS shouldn't be any different. Spammers could possibly sue SPEWS but the odds of them winning a suit are minimal because they're sending unsolicited advertisments. However, established legitimate businesses would probably have little trouble getting a class action lawsuit going against them and winning.
Domains should be assumed to have a "no solicitations" sign posted. That would allow companies like SPEWS to block spam from going to domains. However, it would also allow them to be sued off the planet if they blocked legitimate customers.
I suggest companies that have been affected by them test the law out on them and that anyone currently using their braindead lists, switch to something intelligent.
And the parent post is right, you can't just move a business. I have a coloed server with a one year contract. If that ISP gets blacklisted by the retards at SPEWS you can bet I'll be pitching the "sue them" idea. Maybe SPEWS would like to pay for everyone's setup, contract breaking and moving costs.
I find it pathetic that the same community that thinks sacrificing liberty for security is a bad idea thinks it's okay as long it's for the sake of blocking spam. Destroying countless people's ability to send e-mail is perfectly okay since it's for the security of not getting spam from that one guy.
Oh but wait, that one guy already moved somewhere else. But at least we only screwed over innocent people.
Instead of blocking spammers, just filter out the links they include in e-mails. They can't be obfuscated because they won't work if they are and countless spammers use the same domains to host their affiliate pages and/or ad images.
Block one IP, you block nobody you wanted to because the spammer that sent it doesn't use it anymore. Block one URL and you've just blocked dozens if not hundreds of spams regardless of who's advertising it.
It takes just a few minutes to go through any number of e-mails and remove all the legitimate domains that were linked to and then to update the Mercury Mail rule file.
SPEWS is retarded and counterproductive. IPs are a finite resource and are reused constantly. You cannot realisticly block spammers by blocking IPs. SPEWS has probably done more damage to the internet by it's idiocy than spammers have. It's about time some of the businesses that are being hurt by them form a class action lawsuit. Or, even better, everyone should just stop using them until they pull their heads out of their asses and start being productive instead of just an internet bully.
I found a simple solution that results in getting virtually no spam. And any spam I do get is taken care of on the next update. I have a domain that was getting lots of spams now pointing to a catchall at my home IP. Since I had no legitimate e-mail addresses using that domain it's now a very effective way to preemptivly block links before a spammer tries to use them in a spam sent to one of my real e-mail addresses.
No solution is going to make spam dissappear entirly. The idea is to make it go away as much as possible so it's down to a reasonable level without causing collateral damage. SPEWS has taken the stance to act like an idiot and then blame the ISPs for SPEWS being retarded. There's no excuse or need to block IPs. Especially ones in use by people who have never sent spam.
The best part about blocking links is that the header is meaningless. Every line of it could be forged but if the e-mail contains a link to a blocked domain it will not get through.
I didn't have it. I was rounding a freeway loop when the cord going from the gas pedal to the engine decided to detach itself from the pedal. I drive a 74 VW.
After rolling to a stop at the side of the freeway I had exactly one option. Get out and start walking. A mile and a half later (1 mile of it walking along the freeway) I made it to a church where a wedding rehersal happened to be going on and borrowed a phone. Fortunatly the freeway was designed to have things planted along side of it so I wasn't walking a couple feet from traffic going 70 miles per hour. I was walking in dirt about 8 feet above and off to the side of traffic.
I use AT&T and just use their $20 per month plan. I actually got paid $80 to take a Nokia phone through Amazon.com. They're definitly worth the cost. If you don't want to be annoyed by people calling you, don't give your number to people who will annoy you. Give them your home number.
It's also great to have when you go places with a group and want to break off.
I'm sure we'd all love to jump on the board with this kid but exactly none of his things he's released are worth attaching a license to. They're trivial little things that have been done a million times by a million different people.
Putting a license on that stuff is as rediculous as the patent for the.name naming convension.
As a guide to fighting a license violation this is a decent topic. But as far as this kid having a case, that's laughable.
It's called "Public Domain" kid. Use it. Save the GPL and other licenses for things that are actually worth something. Right now it just looks like he's getting experience as a patent lawyer. Or maybe he's just feeding his ego by putting "copyright" on everything and got a little too full of himself.
The only thing we know is how long until the oil we *know about* is going to run out.
We have no idea how much oil earth actually contains or even how exactly it's formed naturally. Which means we have no clue how long it takes for the Earth to generate oil.
We also know how to make synthetic oil out of waste in very reasonable amounts of time.
If it is about alternate and more effecient fuels then great.
That's sufficient without the doomsday mumbojumbo about running out of oil in X years.
can be solved by simply throwing more money at it.
Whinning because we're "taking money away" from public programs fails to consider that maybe we're spending too much on those programs to begin with.
It's not always about money. It's about being effective. We're being blindsided by tax and spenders that try to win public support simply by throwing money at things. This is very convenient as the public only expects money. They don't actually expect the people throwing it at them to think about what they're trying to accomplish.
It's not just about the space program. We need to stop putting prices on everything and then raising it when shock of all shocks money isn't solving the problem. Instead of "how much is it going to cost to feed the people in Ethiopia?" how about "how much is it going to cost to overthrow the government so the people can feed themselves?"
We waste rediclous amounts of money alivating symptoms instead of putting it towards solutions. Which wouldn't be so bad if problem causing the systoms was being addressed at the same time. People want to ship over a few tons of rice and then pat themselves on the back when all they've done is delay the inevitable.
You will never be able to feed the whole world by writting a check everytime someone asks. You need to address why they're starving in the first place.
We have billions to put towards solving the problem of space exploration. Good for us. Sure we could put it towards something else but trimming down and reallocating funds when bloat is found I don't see a problem with.
I don't see any reason to believe we're taking away funds that were needed in the first place. Just because one program gets less money doesn't mean it's not being properly addressed. It just means it's a less expensive issue.
Every town in every city has problems like yours that just take "a little bit."
It's your city/state's job to bring in enough money to fund local problems like yours. The Federal government can't. If they help one city in such a way they have to help every city.
You're barking up the wrong money tree.
"It's a new budget-saving pattern for the Bay Area's fourth-largest city. Starting this month, whenever three firefighters can't work because of illness, the city will close one of four fire stations to save $400,000 in overtime costs and prevent firefighter layoffs."
So by closing one firestation because the people who work there are wasting money they save $400,000 they can use to fix other problems.
There's your money for the library.
Fix your city's budget problems before you start pretending it's the federal government's job.
You think Uncle Sam is going to bail out CA? What makes your problems more serious?
You're in the Bay Area. I'll willing to bet there's another library that's open 7 days a week. If not, get your stuff done when it is open. What's more important to you? The money that can be put towards more important things or convienence?
It's certainly not worth $200,000 to staff a library an extra day if nobody is visiting. That's generally why they close one day. It also allows for fewer full time staff (which allows for higher wages) while still giving them a day off every week to keep them sane and happy.
"tell those who don't want their inbox to be full of crap to 'get bent'."
If that were in any way shape or form an accurate representation of my ideas then why would I be plugging an idea which gets rid of spam?
I'm telling those who want to destroy privacy and/or cause massive collateral damage by blacklisting more innocent IPs than spammers in their pursuit to block spam to get bent. There's a big difference you're apparently too illiterate or too much of a troll to understand.
Most likely both. It's a method commonly used on the internet to flat out lie about what people have to say in the hopes that people will simply assume they aren't full of shit (which you are) and not bother to read the source material for themselves.
This is Slashdot afterall. Nobody reads the article.
"I think you should try and consider the other side's argument for a while."
You obviously have no clue which side I'm arguing. It's the sensible and effective side to blocking spam. Apparently you want me to consider the nonsensical and ineffectual methodology to blocking spam.
And I did. I pointed out it's ineffectual and nonsensical.
Mail servers that have the "nerve" to bounce mail do so in a predictable manner. Normally with a phrase such as "could not be delievered" or "rejected."
Instead of freaking out, take the time to actually look at bounced messages and find tells so you can filter them out. Those 100% unqiue tells are there.
"I'll never see the bounce."
You will if you allow the tells your mailserver uses to pass through. Or give it a unique bounce message that gets past your filter.
Trackable e-mail requires that everyone or no one do it. I'm certainly not going to. I have better ways to deal with spam. If you do it, you'll still be getting bounces from mail forged with your domain sent to mail servers that don't check.
Like it or not, you need to deal with it. If you don't have enough control, fire up your own mail server that you do have control over.
If you can send an e-mail anonymously, so can spammers. If spammers can't send e-mail anonymously, neither can you.
The price of spam doesn't come anywhere near the value of privacy and freedom of speech. I happen to like the idea that should a need arise I can easily send an untrackable e-mail. I'm sure plenty of people in more intrusive countries already enjoy this ability.
Click on the link in my sig for my method of dealing with spam which is highly effective that doesn't destroy the privacy of the sender or cost money.
bought the land with the intent to profit off of the name of the corporation then yes, I'd expect as much.
People need to get it through their thick skulls that trying to profit off of other people's names is not acceptible.
If the guy's name was Tolkien then he might have a case. As it is, he's just typical low life internet scum trying to profit off of other people's name.
Spammers don't send massive e-mails because it takes too much bandwidth to bulk send.
E-mail size limits come from mail servers that don't want individuals e-mailing massive attachments. It takes up bandwidth and storage while it sits waiting for the user to retrieve it.
And your method has already been implemented. It's called a news server. Technically there's nothing stopping you from using one as a primary e-mail address. Unless you can't set it to be post only (like SMTP) except for those with a user and pass to download the messages.
Mercury Mail's session logs indicate a closed connection to indicate where e-mails begin and end but if you're using something else there's a RinetD mod with source which logs e-mails in such a way so that ripping through them is easy.
My filter is all of 23KB and I get virtually no spam. I update every once in awhile when a spam gets through.
I also have a couple sub-domains that point to a spamcan on my home connection which I use to bait spammers so I can preemptively filter them out without paying for the bandwidth.
randomly grab a paragraph from a book and include it with the spam.
It would also help spammers to write better pitches. Use real words, actual English but put it in narrative real world sceneario format. So it reads like someone you know telling you how they use such and such a product.
"I went up the cabin last week with my girlfriend and tried out those new pills I heard about while I was there."
There's pretty much nothing in there that would be filtered. And then a slight plug of the product name with a link and you're done. It's also Marketing 101 that the less of an ad sounds like an ad the more effective it is.
But none of that thwarts my method which is to filter based on the URLs of links found in spams.
I get virtually no spam with a Mercury rule file that's all of 23KB and grows very slowly as spammers use new domains to host their product pages.
Slashdot Mirror
If it had dual video outputs it would be rather trivial to connect it to an HMD and then adjust the cameras to get a 3D view.
I'm waiting for consoles to start having dual outputs for that very reason. 3D games are nice and all but how expensive is it really to have a dual head video card so I can play them in 3D?
If Nintendo can fit 2 screens in a cheap portable it can't be that much of a stretch to put 2 screens without the processor in a head mounted display for the same price or less.
Unfortunatly I think 3D is still considered too much of a gimic even though the prices to make them are comming way down.
The Virtual Boy had the problem of syncing. It was impossible to detach the system from the display because the added length of cord made the display unable to sync up. But with LCD there is no issue with that. You only need 4 wires at most running to the display from the system and then you could either have the batteries in a seperate pack with a couple more wires or have the pack mounted on the back of the head to double as a counterweight.
Ben
"Since when the hell did "liberty" mean that you get to send email to absolutely anyone, even if they don't want it?"
Pay attention: SPEWS is blocking e-mail that people DID WANT.
Got it?
Think you can handle an intelligent retort now? Didn't think so.
Typical braindead "crush the innocent on the way to the bad guys" attitude you got them.
If YOU were paying attention you'd know there are highly effective ways to block spam that don't involve IPs or headers and that don't inflict collateral damage.
SPEWS is the most retarded attempt at blocking spam ever made.
"after all, it's their own negligence that landed their netblocks into SPEWS's "
No, it's SPEWS idiocy that lands them there. Classic blame the victim. SPEWS is a retarded bully and needs to go. It's time to grow up and find ways to block spam that don't hurt anyone but the spammers.
If you'd think a little you'd realize those ways already exist and are in use by people. I guess you'd rather be a vigilante bully. Whee power.
Ben
you and everyone who modded you up insightful are fans of the Patriot Act.
I block URLs that spammers use in their e-mails. I get virtually no spam. I don't get a rip who sent me the e-mail with a link to that URL, it doesn't get through. My mail server kills it before it gets to my inbox.
If a spammer wants to pay an ISP a buttload of money, fine. I have an intelligent way to not get their spam that doesn't involve headers or IPs.
The ISP gets paid, the spammer doesn't. Everyone that matters is happy.
Ben
If I stand in front of a store and physically prevent people from going in, I'll get thrown in jail. Preventing solicitors that the store didn't want anyway is one thing. Blocking legitimate customers is quite another.
SPEWS shouldn't be any different. Spammers could possibly sue SPEWS but the odds of them winning a suit are minimal because they're sending unsolicited advertisments. However, established legitimate businesses would probably have little trouble getting a class action lawsuit going against them and winning.
Domains should be assumed to have a "no solicitations" sign posted. That would allow companies like SPEWS to block spam from going to domains. However, it would also allow them to be sued off the planet if they blocked legitimate customers.
I suggest companies that have been affected by them test the law out on them and that anyone currently using their braindead lists, switch to something intelligent.
And the parent post is right, you can't just move a business. I have a coloed server with a one year contract. If that ISP gets blacklisted by the retards at SPEWS you can bet I'll be pitching the "sue them" idea. Maybe SPEWS would like to pay for everyone's setup, contract breaking and moving costs.
I find it pathetic that the same community that thinks sacrificing liberty for security is a bad idea thinks it's okay as long it's for the sake of blocking spam. Destroying countless people's ability to send e-mail is perfectly okay since it's for the security of not getting spam from that one guy.
Oh but wait, that one guy already moved somewhere else. But at least we only screwed over innocent people.
Absolutly retarded.
Ben
Instead of blocking spammers, just filter out the links they include in e-mails. They can't be obfuscated because they won't work if they are and countless spammers use the same domains to host their affiliate pages and/or ad images.
Block one IP, you block nobody you wanted to because the spammer that sent it doesn't use it anymore. Block one URL and you've just blocked dozens if not hundreds of spams regardless of who's advertising it.
Includes source for automating the process as much as possible
It takes just a few minutes to go through any number of e-mails and remove all the legitimate domains that were linked to and then to update the Mercury Mail rule file.
SPEWS is retarded and counterproductive. IPs are a finite resource and are reused constantly. You cannot realisticly block spammers by blocking IPs. SPEWS has probably done more damage to the internet by it's idiocy than spammers have. It's about time some of the businesses that are being hurt by them form a class action lawsuit. Or, even better, everyone should just stop using them until they pull their heads out of their asses and start being productive instead of just an internet bully.
I found a simple solution that results in getting virtually no spam. And any spam I do get is taken care of on the next update. I have a domain that was getting lots of spams now pointing to a catchall at my home IP. Since I had no legitimate e-mail addresses using that domain it's now a very effective way to preemptivly block links before a spammer tries to use them in a spam sent to one of my real e-mail addresses.
No solution is going to make spam dissappear entirly. The idea is to make it go away as much as possible so it's down to a reasonable level without causing collateral damage. SPEWS has taken the stance to act like an idiot and then blame the ISPs for SPEWS being retarded. There's no excuse or need to block IPs. Especially ones in use by people who have never sent spam.
The best part about blocking links is that the header is meaningless. Every line of it could be forged but if the e-mail contains a link to a blocked domain it will not get through.
Ben
I didn't have it. I was rounding a freeway loop when the cord going from the gas pedal to the engine decided to detach itself from the pedal. I drive a 74 VW.
After rolling to a stop at the side of the freeway I had exactly one option. Get out and start walking. A mile and a half later (1 mile of it walking along the freeway) I made it to a church where a wedding rehersal happened to be going on and borrowed a phone. Fortunatly the freeway was designed to have things planted along side of it so I wasn't walking a couple feet from traffic going 70 miles per hour. I was walking in dirt about 8 feet above and off to the side of traffic.
I use AT&T and just use their $20 per month plan. I actually got paid $80 to take a Nokia phone through Amazon.com. They're definitly worth the cost. If you don't want to be annoyed by people calling you, don't give your number to people who will annoy you. Give them your home number.
It's also great to have when you go places with a group and want to break off.
Ben
All n00b5 please step into my office to speak with my lawyer.
Ben
I'm sure we'd all love to jump on the board with this kid but exactly none of his things he's released are worth attaching a license to. They're trivial little things that have been done a million times by a million different people.
.name naming convension.
Putting a license on that stuff is as rediculous as the patent for the
As a guide to fighting a license violation this is a decent topic. But as far as this kid having a case, that's laughable.
It's called "Public Domain" kid. Use it. Save the GPL and other licenses for things that are actually worth something. Right now it just looks like he's getting experience as a patent lawyer. Or maybe he's just feeding his ego by putting "copyright" on everything and got a little too full of himself.
Ben
still.
Stay tuned to Slashdot for continued coverage on how sociable internet users are.
Ben
The only thing we know is how long until the oil we *know about* is going to run out.
We have no idea how much oil earth actually contains or even how exactly it's formed naturally. Which means we have no clue how long it takes for the Earth to generate oil.
We also know how to make synthetic oil out of waste in very reasonable amounts of time.
If it is about alternate and more effecient fuels then great.
That's sufficient without the doomsday mumbojumbo about running out of oil in X years.
Ben
can be solved by simply throwing more money at it.
Whinning because we're "taking money away" from public programs fails to consider that maybe we're spending too much on those programs to begin with.
It's not always about money. It's about being effective. We're being blindsided by tax and spenders that try to win public support simply by throwing money at things. This is very convenient as the public only expects money. They don't actually expect the people throwing it at them to think about what they're trying to accomplish.
It's not just about the space program. We need to stop putting prices on everything and then raising it when shock of all shocks money isn't solving the problem. Instead of "how much is it going to cost to feed the people in Ethiopia?" how about "how much is it going to cost to overthrow the government so the people can feed themselves?"
We waste rediclous amounts of money alivating symptoms instead of putting it towards solutions. Which wouldn't be so bad if problem causing the systoms was being addressed at the same time. People want to ship over a few tons of rice and then pat themselves on the back when all they've done is delay the inevitable.
You will never be able to feed the whole world by writting a check everytime someone asks. You need to address why they're starving in the first place.
We have billions to put towards solving the problem of space exploration. Good for us. Sure we could put it towards something else but trimming down and reallocating funds when bloat is found I don't see a problem with.
I don't see any reason to believe we're taking away funds that were needed in the first place. Just because one program gets less money doesn't mean it's not being properly addressed. It just means it's a less expensive issue.
Ben
not federal problems.
Every town in every city has problems like yours that just take "a little bit."
It's your city/state's job to bring in enough money to fund local problems like yours. The Federal government can't. If they help one city in such a way they have to help every city.
You're barking up the wrong money tree.
"It's a new budget-saving pattern for the Bay Area's fourth-largest city. Starting this month, whenever three firefighters can't work because of illness, the city will close one of four fire stations to save $400,000 in overtime costs and prevent firefighter layoffs."
So by closing one firestation because the people who work there are wasting money they save $400,000 they can use to fix other problems.
There's your money for the library.
Fix your city's budget problems before you start pretending it's the federal government's job.
You think Uncle Sam is going to bail out CA? What makes your problems more serious?
You're in the Bay Area. I'll willing to bet there's another library that's open 7 days a week. If not, get your stuff done when it is open. What's more important to you? The money that can be put towards more important things or convienence?
It's certainly not worth $200,000 to staff a library an extra day if nobody is visiting. That's generally why they close one day. It also allows for fewer full time staff (which allows for higher wages) while still giving them a day off every week to keep them sane and happy.
Ben
if you post your info publically.
Anything you post in a newsgroup/on-line is public information.
Nobody is forcing you to use a valid e-mail address for those things. And you have no expectation of privacy with newsgroups.
Ben
It's a lot less trollish if you actually address the argument I was making instead of arguing against things I never said.
If you want to argue that I'm wrong for saying the grass is pink when I actually said it was green then you're going to have to go at it alone.
You're an idiot. You offered nothing constructive and simply accused me of saying things I didn't say.
Don't act all shocked I wasn't fooled. Unlike you, I know what I said in the article.
Did you think I forgot? I'm the one who wrote it.
Ben
"tell those who don't want their inbox to be full of crap to 'get bent'."
If that were in any way shape or form an accurate representation of my ideas then why would I be plugging an idea which gets rid of spam?
I'm telling those who want to destroy privacy and/or cause massive collateral damage by blacklisting more innocent IPs than spammers in their pursuit to block spam to get bent. There's a big difference you're apparently too illiterate or too much of a troll to understand.
Most likely both. It's a method commonly used on the internet to flat out lie about what people have to say in the hopes that people will simply assume they aren't full of shit (which you are) and not bother to read the source material for themselves.
This is Slashdot afterall. Nobody reads the article.
"I think you should try and consider the other side's argument for a while."
You obviously have no clue which side I'm arguing. It's the sensible and effective side to blocking spam. Apparently you want me to consider the nonsensical and ineffectual methodology to blocking spam.
And I did. I pointed out it's ineffectual and nonsensical.
Ben
Mail servers that have the "nerve" to bounce mail do so in a predictable manner. Normally with a phrase such as "could not be delievered" or "rejected."
Instead of freaking out, take the time to actually look at bounced messages and find tells so you can filter them out. Those 100% unqiue tells are there.
"I'll never see the bounce."
You will if you allow the tells your mailserver uses to pass through. Or give it a unique bounce message that gets past your filter.
Trackable e-mail requires that everyone or no one do it. I'm certainly not going to. I have better ways to deal with spam. If you do it, you'll still be getting bounces from mail forged with your domain sent to mail servers that don't check.
Like it or not, you need to deal with it. If you don't have enough control, fire up your own mail server that you do have control over.
Ben
If you can send an e-mail anonymously, so can spammers. If spammers can't send e-mail anonymously, neither can you.
The price of spam doesn't come anywhere near the value of privacy and freedom of speech. I happen to like the idea that should a need arise I can easily send an untrackable e-mail. I'm sure plenty of people in more intrusive countries already enjoy this ability.
Click on the link in my sig for my method of dealing with spam which is highly effective that doesn't destroy the privacy of the sender or cost money.
Ben
bought the land with the intent to profit off of the name of the corporation then yes, I'd expect as much.
People need to get it through their thick skulls that trying to profit off of other people's names is not acceptible.
If the guy's name was Tolkien then he might have a case. As it is, he's just typical low life internet scum trying to profit off of other people's name.
Ben
"but hey, no more email size limits!"
Spammers don't send massive e-mails because it takes too much bandwidth to bulk send.
E-mail size limits come from mail servers that don't want individuals e-mailing massive attachments. It takes up bandwidth and storage while it sits waiting for the user to retrieve it.
And your method has already been implemented. It's called a news server. Technically there's nothing stopping you from using one as a primary e-mail address. Unless you can't set it to be post only (like SMTP) except for those with a user and pass to download the messages.
Kind of interesting actually.
Ben
includes sourcecode
Mercury Mail's session logs indicate a closed connection to indicate where e-mails begin and end but if you're using something else there's a RinetD mod with source which logs e-mails in such a way so that ripping through them is easy.
My filter is all of 23KB and I get virtually no spam. I update every once in awhile when a spam gets through.
I also have a couple sub-domains that point to a spamcan on my home connection which I use to bait spammers so I can preemptively filter them out without paying for the bandwidth.
Ben
by the number of hits to the site linked in my sig.
Ben
randomly grab a paragraph from a book and include it with the spam.
It would also help spammers to write better pitches. Use real words, actual English but put it in narrative real world sceneario format. So it reads like someone you know telling you how they use such and such a product.
"I went up the cabin last week with my girlfriend and tried out those new pills I heard about while I was there."
There's pretty much nothing in there that would be filtered. And then a slight plug of the product name with a link and you're done. It's also Marketing 101 that the less of an ad sounds like an ad the more effective it is.
But none of that thwarts my method which is to filter based on the URLs of links found in spams.
I get virtually no spam with a Mercury rule file that's all of 23KB and grows very slowly as spammers use new domains to host their product pages.
Ben
you could tie a couple stones to it and throw it up into the air hard enough so that it doesn't fall down.
or...
You could take the whole thing up in a shuttle and drop one end down very carefully.
or...
You could tie one end to a rocket and tie the other end to the ground and hope the rocket doesn't overextend the line on the way up.
Ben
idiots who don't know how to protect their computers from the outside world use Linux. That I can believe.
"since one or two lines of text seems easier to do and learn."
But you're a nerd. And an idiot if you think that's a mass market (who I'm talking about) or any selling point.
The 1980's called, they want their command prompt back.
The Linux community is Linux's worst enemy.
Ben
according to my watch, I'm right on time.
Ben