This is one of the problems Ive always had with the GPL (although I use it on my code; I think everything the GPL provides else outweighs this minor issue). A clause that requires one who makes public modifications to GPLed source should be required to, at the very least, make a good effort to contact the original author/maintainer and supply him with the modifications. Now, RMS is right that having this as an absolute requirement is bad if the original maintainer disappears, it would suddenly lock people out of using their code. Therefore, one should merely be required to contact the email or website credited in the copy of the source they are attempting to modify if the address is dead, the requirement is nullified.
True. It was just odd that several successive front page stories, and then this one, were spam-related. I guess every day on the Internet is Spam Day, now isnt it?
BTW, did he actually have a purpose for calling 1 the unityconstant in specific places, or did he just replace every 1 in his code with unityconstant? I mean, we use things like EOF, TRUE, FALSE, NULL, EINVAL, and so on all over the place; these are all just alternate names (#defines, enums, const ints) for tiny ints like 0 and 1, but in context they make more sense.
Hah, you should be glad youve never coded using Macintosh APIs. I havent touched it in years, but they had function names about that bad. DoSomethingRealSimpleWithDialog( theDialogPtr, theWindowControl, someDialogFlags,... ). Give me six-letter POSIX functions over that any day.
Well, it never did this under other kernels; in fact it stayed up for 2½ months under 2.4.2 it was finally taken out by a power failure. Im sure the box has problems, as it is a hodgepodge of old hardware (still has a 5¼ drive!), but the random-reboot problem only began under 2.4.17. Rebooting under an older 2.4.* brought it under control again. I didnt take the time to investigate exactly what was wrong with it.
In general, I dont like using packages due to the opaqueness of everything (type RPM -U and just hope it quietly installs hundreds of files in different places?); and am currently working on building a system from the ground up on the machine.
Because it ran 100% stably under 2.4.2, and had some problems (but at least did not randomly reboot) under 2.4.9. I upgrade the kernel and it starts acting odd. I reboot with an older kernel and it stops acting odd.
Careful, thats a Macintosh-format hosts file. Make sure you do this to make it work on Unix and Windows: lynx -dump 'http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~atman/spam/Hosts.sh tml' | awk '{ print $3"\t"$1 }' > new.file
I said trespassing on someone elses server to send me mail; i.e., the infamous relay-rape. I didnt mean I could claim unsolicited mail sent to me is trespass (however I suppose I could claim harassment if I explicitly request you stop mailing me, and you continue). I meant if you use my property to mail someone else something, like spam.
Well, it could be an ID of an address already in the database, which means you cannot add addresses, per se. My example there was a rather obvious MD5 checksum, but they could conceivably have a database full of email addresses, and the query string is merely an index number.
A better trick: You should create multiple aliases that all point to that account, and use one alias for each transaction. Then you can track down who is doing the spamming.
If, for example, spam-amazon@you.com starts getting spammed two days after you created it, and you only gave this address when you signed up for Amazon, guess who sold or was sloppy with your address?
Once again, an appropriate law would not tackle the content of the mail, but the actions of the sender (forged headers? overloading a server? tresspassing on someone elses server?).
Does it reset the increment to 1 sec when he tries again, or does it remember his IP and continue the increment where it left off? Otherwise, the solution for the spammer would be to simply connect, send 1,000 messages, disconnect, then reconnect and send 1,000 more.
I fail to see how they are going to receive any bounces at all if they are not using valid return addresses. Although the image trick I know is true; often the image files have Weird Shit appended to the URL as a query string (http://spamhost.com/image.gif?x=32487325483248372 ) which I am almost positive is a kind of verification trick.
How about just charging people for excessive email usage? More than x messages sent per day, and each message is thereafter charged. Say 50 or 100 messages, then you get charged 5 per message. Your average user will never exceed these limits; in fact I would think only someone engaged in bulkmailing would ever hit 100 messages/day.
However, billing would be a pain in the ass; SMTP has no built-in authentication. This is why spammers can rape relays in the first place, and why the POP-before-SMTP kludge exists (POP authenticates and caches the IP, so a user can subsequently send via SMTP using the same server).
Global democracy means that instead of your opinion being lost amidst 286,507,080 people (or whatever your countrys respective population is, my example is the U.S.), it will be lost among 6,207,523,120. I feel more empowered already.
Slashdot Mirror
God is (char*)NULL. Nietschze
Isnt this just a creative variation on the one-time pad technique?
This is one of the problems Ive always had with the GPL (although I use it on my code; I think everything the GPL provides else outweighs this minor issue). A clause that requires one who makes public modifications to GPLed source should be required to, at the very least, make a good effort to contact the original author/maintainer and supply him with the modifications. Now, RMS is right that having this as an absolute requirement is bad if the original maintainer disappears, it would suddenly lock people out of using their code. Therefore, one should merely be required to contact the email or website credited in the copy of the source they are attempting to modify if the address is dead, the requirement is nullified.
True. It was just odd that several successive front page stories, and then this one, were spam-related. I guess every day on the Internet is Spam Day, now isnt it?
BTW, did he actually have a purpose for calling 1 the unityconstant in specific places, or did he just replace every 1 in his code with unityconstant? I mean, we use things like EOF, TRUE, FALSE, NULL, EINVAL, and so on all over the place; these are all just alternate names (#defines, enums, const ints) for tiny ints like 0 and 1, but in context they make more sense.
Hah, you should be glad youve never coded using Macintosh APIs. I havent touched it in years, but they had function names about that bad. DoSomethingRealSimpleWithDialog( theDialogPtr, theWindowControl, someDialogFlags, ... ). Give me six-letter POSIX functions over that any day.
Well, it never did this under other kernels; in fact it stayed up for 2½ months under 2.4.2 it was finally taken out by a power failure. Im sure the box has problems, as it is a hodgepodge of old hardware (still has a 5¼ drive!), but the random-reboot problem only began under 2.4.17. Rebooting under an older 2.4.* brought it under control again. I didnt take the time to investigate exactly what was wrong with it.
In general, I dont like using packages due to the opaqueness of everything (type RPM -U and just hope it quietly installs hundreds of files in different places?); and am currently working on building a system from the ground up on the machine.
Because it ran 100% stably under 2.4.2, and had some problems (but at least did not randomly reboot) under 2.4.9. I upgrade the kernel and it starts acting odd. I reboot with an older kernel and it stops acting odd.
An RPM of 2.4.17 that I tried on this junk box (486DX2) of mine randomly rebooted it. Enough said.
Yeah, in the 2.2.* branch
I believe that is a DOS upgrade, sir, and not a very good one.
whooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooshhh....
What is it, Spam Day on Slashdot?
Careful, thats a Macintosh-format hosts file. Make sure you do this to make it work on Unix and Windows:
h tml' | awk '{ print $3"\t"$1 }' > new.file
/etc/hosts.
lynx -dump 'http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~atman/spam/Hosts.s
Then copy or append new.file to your
I said trespassing on someone elses server to send me mail; i.e., the infamous relay-rape. I didnt mean I could claim unsolicited mail sent to me is trespass (however I suppose I could claim harassment if I explicitly request you stop mailing me, and you continue). I meant if you use my property to mail someone else something, like spam.
Well, it could be an ID of an address already in the database, which means you cannot add addresses, per se. My example there was a rather obvious MD5 checksum, but they could conceivably have a database full of email addresses, and the query string is merely an index number.
A better trick: You should create multiple aliases that all point to that account, and use one alias for each transaction. Then you can track down who is doing the spamming.
o n@you.com
spam-real@you.com
spam-ebay@you.com
spam-amaz
spam-nytimes@you.com
&c.
If, for example, spam-amazon@you.com starts getting spammed two days after you created it, and you only gave this address when you signed up for Amazon, guess who sold or was sloppy with your address?
Once again, an appropriate law would not tackle the content of the mail, but the actions of the sender (forged headers? overloading a server? tresspassing on someone elses server?).
Does it reset the increment to 1 sec when he tries again, or does it remember his IP and continue the increment where it left off? Otherwise, the solution for the spammer would be to simply connect, send 1,000 messages, disconnect, then reconnect and send 1,000 more.
Often I see it encoded, such as /image.png?5f7a97d66d9aec0e1582c15578ac5815. I think they know otherwise I can do this, by hand:
/image.png?uselessaddr1@hotmail.com /image.png?uselessaddr2@hotmail.com /image.png?uselessaddr3@hotmail.com /image.png?junk-in-ur-db@excite.com /image.png?hahah@u.spamming.ass /image.png?XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.... DID I BREAK SOMETHING? AW...
GET
GET
GET
GET
GET
GET
I fail to see how they are going to receive any bounces at all if they are not using valid return addresses. Although the image trick I know is true; often the image files have Weird Shit appended to the URL as a query string (http://spamhost.com/image.gif?x=32487325483248372 ) which I am almost positive is a kind of verification trick.
How about just charging people for excessive email usage? More than x messages sent per day, and each message is thereafter charged. Say 50 or 100 messages, then you get charged 5 per message. Your average user will never exceed these limits; in fact I would think only someone engaged in bulkmailing would ever hit 100 messages/day.
However, billing would be a pain in the ass; SMTP has no built-in authentication. This is why spammers can rape relays in the first place, and why the POP-before-SMTP kludge exists (POP authenticates and caches the IP, so a user can subsequently send via SMTP using the same server).
So when are they renaming that little island of yours to Airstrip One?
Global democracy means that instead of your opinion being lost amidst 286,507,080 people (or whatever your countrys respective population is, my example is the U.S.), it will be lost among 6,207,523,120. I feel more empowered already.