Are there really clueless ISPs who can't monitor their own SMTP traffic?
Given the size of the internet, there are probably ISPs who can't even monitor their own total traffic.
They're paying by the bit for their outgoing volume, usually, so you'd think all of them would have a good handle on what is going out.
Usually, ISPs don't pay by the bit, they pay for a pipe of a certain size - for example, $2000 a month for 100Mbps.
But even if they did pay per bit, SMTP accounts for less than 1% of the total traffic on the internet. Keeping accounting data for it probably costs more than the incremental cost of carrying it. And the cost of carrying the traffic is going down faster the volume of spam is increasing. And they charge for the traffic anyway, so even if it did cost them, they'd just pass the costs on to the spammers.
Most ISPs only care about spam because people complain about it.
'The slope shows an unbelievable decline in computer science majors,' Astrachan said. 'There are smart people no longer even signing up to take our introductory courses. We need to fix it, or there's not going to be a U.S. work force in computer sciences.'"
I find it interesting that both IBM and "Educators" feel the solution is to increase the supply rather then reducing demand.
If I.T. professionals are going to be hard to get in the future, why not reduce the need for them? Buy computers that have track records of requiring less maintenance. Press for standards, and refuse to buy software that doesn't adhere to them.
... companies are prevented from patenting pure software.
I'd rather they went a step further and prevented companies from patenting all software, pure or impure.
But since I don't expect they'll ever do that, how about a law that states "software that runs on hardware built prior to the patent application is not subject to the patent."?
One of the goals of spam filters should be reducing network load not increasing it. If we have to send our spam to several differnt peers to be scored this would compound the network load problems.
All other things being equal, reducing network load is better than not reducing it.
But all other things are NOT equal. If it's a tradeoff between reducing the load on the human (by reducing the amount of spam they must deal with) and reducing the load on the network, I'll pick "reducing the load on the human" everytime.
If I do this, and get caught...so what? What's the penalty? Exactly who is going to prosecute?
The copyright holder.
To illustrate, imagine the following scenario; Alice licenses software to anyone for $5000. Bob distributes Alice's software without paying the $5000. When Bob gets caught, Alice sues the hell of him.
Now substitute "if they agree to comply with the GPL" for "for $5000" Everything else remains the same.
Spews doesn't block email addresses. As a matter of fact, they don't block anything. Spews is a database of IP addresses.
Well, technically spews.org blocks every IP address, since they don't operate a mail server.
And while they don't force anyone to use their "service" they also don't publish any statistics about how bad their false positive and false negative rates are.
While it's true that an individual user of the smaller network sees a bigger increase than a user on the larger network, the total value of the larger network increases more.
Assuming a value of N log(N);
Value of 100,000 is 500,000 Value of 100 is 200 The value of 100,100 (the two together) 500,543
Increase in value per node for larger; 0.00543 Increase in value per node for smaller; 3.00543
Total increase across larger network 543 Total increase across smaller network 300
Is it the red pills or the blue pills that allow one to see the matrix for what it really is?
You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes....
But if someone does come up with something truly unique that is expressed in software, how can this be legally protected so someone else doesn't steal your work after one or one-half year?
Just because you invented it doesn't mean you're entitled to anything.
The goal is to promote science and the useful arts. Instead of "protection" perhaps would should be looking at other methods of promotion, like funding research.
"I took a course in C++ a year ago in which the instructor claimed that global (file-scope or inter-file-scope) variables were antiquated and not to be used under any circumstances.
IMO, he should never use the global variable main().
"global" is nothing more or less than a particular scope. "Variables" can be loop-wide, procedure-wide, file-wide, program-wide, system-wide, or even internet-wide. There are uses for each scope.
It's probably true that you shouldn't use a wider scope if a smaller one will work, but I don't buy any arguement that one should never use a particular scope.
Lot's of people make lots of claims about how to stop spam, but I never see evidence that any of it works. Supporting (or contradictory) data is in short supply. The article mentions AOL has "all but solved" their spam problem, but doesn't give any real numbers.
I'm developing a "P2P" program, and frankly, if it becomes as popular as I hope, I don't care if you fine me a few thousand or put me in jail for a year.
And who do you get a warrant for? People who may have committed a murder. You do not have to actually prove that they did commit the murder in order to get the warrant.
You could just as easily say we get a warrant for people who have mass.
Sure, we only get warrants for people who may have committed the crime, but "may have committed a crime" is not the reason the warrant is issued. "may have committed a crime" includes everybody. Since it seems to be important to you to make the distinction, let me rephrase it; We shouldn't go after people when the only reason is that they may have committed a crime.
It might seem like semantic quibbling, but it's precisely this kind of thing that led to authorities breaking into peoples houses, stealing their property, and eventually becoming a bigger problem than the crime they were "investigating".
I guess we shouldn't go after people who may have commited a murder either.
That's right, we shouldn't.
I think the fourth amendment says it best;
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Getting a warrent isn't that tough - all you need to do is convince a judge that you've got good reason to believe a crime has been commited.
Getting a warrent may seem like a pointless formality, but it's not.
Slashdot Mirror
Given the size of the internet, there are probably ISPs who can't even monitor their own total traffic.
Usually, ISPs don't pay by the bit, they pay for a pipe of a certain size - for example, $2000 a month for 100Mbps.
But even if they did pay per bit, SMTP accounts for less than 1% of the total traffic on the internet.
Keeping accounting data for it probably costs more than the incremental cost of carrying it.
And the cost of carrying the traffic is going down faster the volume of spam is increasing.
And they charge for the traffic anyway, so even if it did cost them, they'd just pass the costs on to the spammers.
Most ISPs only care about spam because people complain about it.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
Just require an experation date on the laws.
I find it interesting that both IBM and "Educators" feel the solution is to increase the supply rather then reducing demand.
If I.T. professionals are going to be hard to get in the future, why not reduce the need for them?
Buy computers that have track records of requiring less maintenance.
Press for standards, and refuse to buy software that doesn't adhere to them.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
I'd rather they went a step further and prevented companies from patenting all software, pure or impure.
But since I don't expect they'll ever do that, how about a law that states "software that runs on hardware built prior to the patent application is not subject to the patent."?
-- Should you believe authority without question?
When you put up a billboard, how much do you have to pay each time it's viewed?
Would that make it illegal to pre-install Microsoft Windows?
All other things being equal, reducing network load is better than not reducing it.
But all other things are NOT equal.
If it's a tradeoff between reducing the load on the human (by reducing the amount of spam they must deal with) and reducing the load on the network, I'll pick "reducing the load on the human" everytime.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
The copyright holder.
To illustrate, imagine the following scenario;
Alice licenses software to anyone for $5000.
Bob distributes Alice's software without paying the $5000.
When Bob gets caught, Alice sues the hell of him.
Now substitute "if they agree to comply with the GPL" for "for $5000"
Everything else remains the same.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
Well, technically spews.org blocks every IP address, since they don't operate a mail server.
And while they don't force anyone to use their "service" they also don't publish any statistics about how bad their false positive and false negative rates are.
Sounds to me like they need Conan the Librarian to protect it.
That's the worst you can think of?
They could declare Microsoft an unacceptable corporation and seize all their european assets.
They could stop providing copyright protection for
MS products, essentially making pirating MS software legal.
They could deport, detain, or kill Microsoft executives.
Sure, they're not likely to do any of those things, but it would be a huge mistake to assume that a government isn't capable of them.
While it's true that an individual user of the smaller network sees a bigger increase than a user on the larger network,
the total value of the larger network increases more.
Assuming a value of N log(N);
Value of 100,000 is 500,000
Value of 100 is 200
The value of 100,100 (the two together) 500,543
Increase in value per node for larger; 0.00543
Increase in value per node for smaller; 3.00543
Total increase across larger network 543
Total increase across smaller network 300
-- Should you believe authority without question?
You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.
You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes....
I remember it by red==reality.
Blame TV, Movies, Video Games, Rock and Roll, baseball bat manufactures, or the Bible - anyone but the person who actually commits the crime.
If only there was a "-1 Troll" mod for proposed laws...
-- Should you believe authority without question?
Just because you invented it doesn't mean you're entitled to anything.
The goal is to promote science and the useful arts.
Instead of "protection" perhaps would should be looking at other methods of promotion, like funding research.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
IMO, he should never use the global variable main().
"global" is nothing more or less than a particular scope.
"Variables" can be loop-wide, procedure-wide, file-wide, program-wide, system-wide, or even internet-wide.
There are uses for each scope.
It's probably true that you shouldn't use a wider scope if a smaller one will work, but I don't buy any arguement that one should never use a particular scope.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
They are.
Top five spammers based on spams-per-ip to hit my spam traps this year;
#1 1.73413 AS25957 (ACETE-1 Acetech USA, Inc)
#2 0.89844 AS24734 (ASN-TECHMEX Techmex SA Autonomous System)
#3 0.38965 AS33012 (EMC-67 Expedite Marketing Corporation)
#4 0.15137 AS11677 (ITESM Rectoria Universidad Virtual)
#5 0.11523 AS34061 (GEDOMAX-AS SC Gedomax Pro 2003 SRL)
Lot's of people make lots of claims about how to stop spam, but I never see evidence that any of it works.
Supporting (or contradictory) data is in short supply.
The article mentions AOL has "all but solved" their spam problem, but doesn't give any real numbers.
I'm developing a "P2P" program, and frankly, if it becomes as popular as I hope,
I don't care if you fine me a few thousand or put me in jail for a year.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
Forget formating, write an ActiveX program that replaces IE with firefox.
You could package it as a security upgrade with an EULA and all the other bells and whistles.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
That was reason number 10, not 11.
The article doesn't say.
But if something costs a dollar, it's a safe bet less than a dollar's worth of energy is needed to make it.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
You could just as easily say we get a warrant for people who have mass.
Sure, we only get warrants for people who may have committed the crime, but "may have committed a crime" is not the reason the warrant is issued.
"may have committed a crime" includes everybody.
Since it seems to be important to you to make the distinction, let me rephrase it;
We shouldn't go after people when the only reason is that they may have committed a crime.
It might seem like semantic quibbling, but it's precisely this kind of thing that led to authorities breaking into peoples houses, stealing their property, and eventually becoming a bigger problem than the crime they were "investigating".
-- should you believe authority without question?
That's right, we shouldn't.
I think the fourth amendment says it best;
Getting a warrent isn't that tough - all you need to do is convince a judge that you've got good reason to believe a crime has been commited.
Getting a warrent may seem like a pointless formality, but it's not.
-- Should you believe authority without question?