Like it or not, that's what many, many people call it. If enough people say it, it becomes right, even if it's wrong. I kinda think it sounds silly. Oh well.
I live in North Dakota, and I recently saw an article about how the move toward the Diebold voting machines in the state has been put on hold because of the recent publication regarding the lack of security, etc. I think it's good that states are taking it slow and making sure it's done right, rather than just rolling out the first thing that comes along.
Re:Check out Internet Mail 2000
on
Replacing SMTP?
·
· Score: 1
I wasn't thinking of a simple "pay the money and get a registered server" system. There would be something more to it than that. And it wouldn't be a lot of money, either, for situations like yours. And if too much spam comes from your server, it's gone. It's not a great solution, I know that, but we need to change SOMETHING. I'm just throwing out the ideas I can think of.
Re:Check out Internet Mail 2000
on
Replacing SMTP?
·
· Score: 1
OK, I agree with you in principle, but realistically I think we need one entity in charge of e-mail, like we have ARIN and ICANN for other web services. Ideally I'd like to see things stay the way they are, but we NEED to get rid of spam, and we may need to make sacrifices to do so. Among them being a central entity in charge of e-mail. I'm not saying that every e-mail would go through a single server, just like all web traffic doesn't go through a single server, but I think we need some accountability, both on the user end and on the server end.
Interesting. I hadn't researched it a lot but I had envisioned new network cards and such, but thinking about it now that's pretty silly since it's only an addressing change and not a transport change. Either way though, I think IPv6 changeover involves more than an SMPT changeover would, purely because every web "transaction" would be affected, whereas SMTP only affects (duh) e-mail. Bottom line, we need to change both, and they're both complicated and will only change if something happens to force it.
Re:What a silly article.
on
Replacing SMTP?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
There is a key difference, in that IPv6 affects the hardware of every net-connected computer (not to mention router, hub, switch, etc) in the world (I believe), whereas changing the mail protocol should involve minimal hardware changes, but admittedly extensive software changes. It's easier and cheaper to change software than hardware.
I know you're exaggerating, but how many SMTP servers ARE out there? Is there any way to know? Or at least how many out there that output a lot of legitimate volume? I don't think there's THAT MANY mail servers, and the servers wouldn't have to be replaces themselves, just updated.
Re:Check out Internet Mail 2000
on
Replacing SMTP?
·
· Score: 1
Simple solution: not let you run your own. I know you can for SMTP now, but if they changed protocols and implemented some kind of "trusted" or "registered" server list, you're "pirate" mail server would be an island.
I think you have to completely drop SMTP and implement a new, more secure protocol. You can yell about backward compatibility all you want, but this is one case where I think we just have to say "too bad". If we do that, everyone will do what it takes to make the switch, since e-mail is so vital to most everyone.
SMTP really is the root of the spam problem, since (using the defaults) anyone can send mail through any mail server, using any address, with no authentication. Sure there are add-ons and options to tweak, but I think we need to implement a protocol that requires authentication (user/pass at minimum) to send, and can only send from the account that authenticated.
Another thought I have is to have a registry system for mail servers, like there is for IP address space and domain names. You have to register with some central authority to be allowed to send mail to other mail servers. This would still allow for unregistered, internal type mail servers for LAN mail, but you'd have to register in order to send out of the network.
These are the thoughts I have. Granted, I'm not an expert and don't know the technical feasibility of my ideas, but logistically I think they make a lot of sense, and I think they shouldn't be too difficult to implement.
Well, San Fran is several thousand miles away unfortunately. As for the Cue Cat, I remember going the day I saw the/. story, or maybe the next morning, and I got there even before they put them out. He seemed surprised when I asked, like "How do you know about these already?" But he went and grabbed one anyway.
Where are you at? I went to my Ritz and didn't see any. I'll probably go back and ask later. That's what I did when the Cuecats came out - went to Radio Shack and asked, they had them in back and went and gave me one.
You sure it wasn't the Kodak "digital" single-use camera that was actually a 35mm camera that just gave you the pics on a CD? Either way, I hadn't heard about it before now...and the article says they were released into a few markets on July 28.
Lawsuits for what? Unless everyone has to sign some sort of contract when they buy it saying they'll return it to Ritz or wherever, it seems like I'm buying an item for $11, and I can do with it as I please. Or maybe they'll have a license agreement inside the package that you agree to by opening the package...that's never been done before *cough*
True. The only problem with the money being stored on the chip is that places now don't accept it. The reason I like my idea is because the businesses don't have to change anything to accept it. It's just like a credit card to them. I think in the future the smart cards will take over, but for now I'm looking for compatibility mostly.
That's not exactly what I have in mind, since that seems to be a RF type card with money "implanted" on it. This is useful in its own right, but I want a pre-paid type card that you use just as you would use a credit card, except its not linked to a bank account or a credit account. Something like a phone card: you go in to a store, pay cash and get the "cash credit card". The balance would be kept track of on a central database (but just by card number, there's no personal info attached), and not on the card itself. Maybe these exist, but I haven't seen exactly what I'm describing.
It's not a problem finding 50' cables. Just search around. I ordered a 50' s-video cable online for under $10 (don't remember exactly how much). Sure they're not "technically" supposed to run more than 30' but it should work fine.
Most places give them out for free with your subscription. Sure they probably raise the rates to pay for the boxes, but at least you don't have to pay $750 for it.
I just had an idea like this. I thought it would be handy to be able to have a card that went through the credit card systems (i.e, could be used wherever you use a credit card), but wasn't a credit card and wasn't tied to a bank account. It would just be cash. You pay $100 cash and get this "cash credit card" that is worth $100. Then you can pay online with a "credit card" without all the downsides of a "real" credit card. I don't know how this could be implemented, but it would be cool.
You still can't get a virus just by reading email, if you have you security settings (read ActiveX) set properly and you don't download attachments. At least not as far as I know...
I'm not seeing the downside here. Sounds like time saved shopping. I'm not saying there aren't downsides, but if you were trying to give one, it didn't work. That example would be one of the best implementations of the technology I think.
Point taken, but also consider the fact that baseball umpires have a lot more ground to cover. Plays can happen at any corner of the ballpark at any time, as compared to basketball's small court and football, which also has a large field, but you always have a general idea where the play is going.
As for the hot chicks, well the joy of the hunt is half the fun I guess. Baseball isn't for everyone, but I like it.
I sense sarcasm, but I feel I should give the facts anyway. For a regular season major league baseball game there are four umpires (one for each base), compared to the nine defensive players that are always on the field, plus the batter and as many as three runners on base. So there are four umpires for as many as 13 players on the field. This is about the same ratio as the NBA (3 refs for 10 players) and the NFL (7 officials for 22 players).
For the playoffs, major league baseball adds 2 umpires, one down each foul line so the outfield is covered better. In the minor leagues, there are usually only 3 umpires per game during the regular season.
Slashdot Mirror
Like it or not, that's what many, many people call it. If enough people say it, it becomes right, even if it's wrong. I kinda think it sounds silly. Oh well.
I live in North Dakota, and I recently saw an article about how the move toward the Diebold voting machines in the state has been put on hold because of the recent publication regarding the lack of security, etc. I think it's good that states are taking it slow and making sure it's done right, rather than just rolling out the first thing that comes along.
I wasn't thinking of a simple "pay the money and get a registered server" system. There would be something more to it than that. And it wouldn't be a lot of money, either, for situations like yours. And if too much spam comes from your server, it's gone. It's not a great solution, I know that, but we need to change SOMETHING. I'm just throwing out the ideas I can think of.
OK, I agree with you in principle, but realistically I think we need one entity in charge of e-mail, like we have ARIN and ICANN for other web services. Ideally I'd like to see things stay the way they are, but we NEED to get rid of spam, and we may need to make sacrifices to do so. Among them being a central entity in charge of e-mail. I'm not saying that every e-mail would go through a single server, just like all web traffic doesn't go through a single server, but I think we need some accountability, both on the user end and on the server end.
Interesting. I hadn't researched it a lot but I had envisioned new network cards and such, but thinking about it now that's pretty silly since it's only an addressing change and not a transport change. Either way though, I think IPv6 changeover involves more than an SMPT changeover would, purely because every web "transaction" would be affected, whereas SMTP only affects (duh) e-mail. Bottom line, we need to change both, and they're both complicated and will only change if something happens to force it.
There is a key difference, in that IPv6 affects the hardware of every net-connected computer (not to mention router, hub, switch, etc) in the world (I believe), whereas changing the mail protocol should involve minimal hardware changes, but admittedly extensive software changes. It's easier and cheaper to change software than hardware.
I know you're exaggerating, but how many SMTP servers ARE out there? Is there any way to know? Or at least how many out there that output a lot of legitimate volume? I don't think there's THAT MANY mail servers, and the servers wouldn't have to be replaces themselves, just updated.
Simple solution: not let you run your own. I know you can for SMTP now, but if they changed protocols and implemented some kind of "trusted" or "registered" server list, you're "pirate" mail server would be an island.
I think you have to completely drop SMTP and implement a new, more secure protocol. You can yell about backward compatibility all you want, but this is one case where I think we just have to say "too bad". If we do that, everyone will do what it takes to make the switch, since e-mail is so vital to most everyone.
SMTP really is the root of the spam problem, since (using the defaults) anyone can send mail through any mail server, using any address, with no authentication. Sure there are add-ons and options to tweak, but I think we need to implement a protocol that requires authentication (user/pass at minimum) to send, and can only send from the account that authenticated.
Another thought I have is to have a registry system for mail servers, like there is for IP address space and domain names. You have to register with some central authority to be allowed to send mail to other mail servers.
This would still allow for unregistered, internal type mail servers for LAN mail, but you'd have to register in order to send out of the network.
These are the thoughts I have. Granted, I'm not an expert and don't know the technical feasibility of my ideas, but logistically I think they make a lot of sense, and I think they shouldn't be too difficult to implement.
Well, San Fran is several thousand miles away unfortunately. As for the Cue Cat, I remember going the day I saw the /. story, or maybe the next morning, and I got there even before they put them out. He seemed surprised when I asked, like "How do you know about these already?" But he went and grabbed one anyway.
How about for Windows??
Where are you at? I went to my Ritz and didn't see any. I'll probably go back and ask later. That's what I did when the Cuecats came out - went to Radio Shack and asked, they had them in back and went and gave me one.
You sure it wasn't the Kodak "digital" single-use camera that was actually a 35mm camera that just gave you the pics on a CD? Either way, I hadn't heard about it before now...and the article says they were released into a few markets on July 28.
How do you know that?
Lawsuits for what? Unless everyone has to sign some sort of contract when they buy it saying they'll return it to Ritz or wherever, it seems like I'm buying an item for $11, and I can do with it as I please. Or maybe they'll have a license agreement inside the package that you agree to by opening the package...that's never been done before *cough*
True. The only problem with the money being stored on the chip is that places now don't accept it. The reason I like my idea is because the businesses don't have to change anything to accept it. It's just like a credit card to them. I think in the future the smart cards will take over, but for now I'm looking for compatibility mostly.
That's not exactly what I have in mind, since that seems to be a RF type card with money "implanted" on it. This is useful in its own right, but I want a pre-paid type card that you use just as you would use a credit card, except its not linked to a bank account or a credit account. Something like a phone card: you go in to a store, pay cash and get the "cash credit card". The balance would be kept track of on a central database (but just by card number, there's no personal info attached), and not on the card itself. Maybe these exist, but I haven't seen exactly what I'm describing.
It's not a problem finding 50' cables. Just search around. I ordered a 50' s-video cable online for under $10 (don't remember exactly how much). Sure they're not "technically" supposed to run more than 30' but it should work fine.
Most places give them out for free with your subscription. Sure they probably raise the rates to pay for the boxes, but at least you don't have to pay $750 for it.
Well, it sounds like they DO have an interactive version of the TV Guide Channel, since the TV Guide Channel has ads...
I just had an idea like this. I thought it would be handy to be able to have a card that went through the credit card systems (i.e, could be used wherever you use a credit card), but wasn't a credit card and wasn't tied to a bank account. It would just be cash. You pay $100 cash and get this "cash credit card" that is worth $100. Then you can pay online with a "credit card" without all the downsides of a "real" credit card. I don't know how this could be implemented, but it would be cool.
You still can't get a virus just by reading email, if you have you security settings (read ActiveX) set properly and you don't download attachments. At least not as far as I know...
I'm not seeing the downside here. Sounds like time saved shopping. I'm not saying there aren't downsides, but if you were trying to give one, it didn't work. That example would be one of the best implementations of the technology I think.
Point taken, but also consider the fact that baseball umpires have a lot more ground to cover. Plays can happen at any corner of the ballpark at any time, as compared to basketball's small court and football, which also has a large field, but you always have a general idea where the play is going.
As for the hot chicks, well the joy of the hunt is half the fun I guess. Baseball isn't for everyone, but I like it.
I sense sarcasm, but I feel I should give the facts anyway. For a regular season major league baseball game there are four umpires (one for each base), compared to the nine defensive players that are always on the field, plus the batter and as many as three runners on base. So there are four umpires for as many as 13 players on the field. This is about the same ratio as the NBA (3 refs for 10 players) and the NFL (7 officials for 22 players).
For the playoffs, major league baseball adds 2 umpires, one down each foul line so the outfield is covered better. In the minor leagues, there are usually only 3 umpires per game during the regular season.