Yes, AC, that's _exactly_ what you would do. This is in beta, where you choose a prime sub-section of your market to run tests with. That is literally part of the definition of beta testing.
Causal Reductionism Affirming The Consequent Argument From Complexity Argument By Prestigious Jargon Argument From Outdated Information Argument From Personal Astonishment
Take your pick... as we fall prey to Argument From Authority because it's Penrose, a man who knows mathematical physics but not necessarily neuroscience, making the argument.
For me, neither a physicist nor a neuroscientist, complex adaptive systems theories seem more than adequate to explain us without having to invoke spooky physics. Each little addition to our overall intelligence creates a more and more complex system that develops and adapts and, as in our case, might eventually begin to notice itself and have its thoughts (which we just call 'cognition' in animals) then turn to considering itself. Ergo... consciousness. Penrose seems to need a still more 'mystical' answer (and not just on this subject...) and, without quite going so far as to invoke a deity, chooses the most mysterious and currently least-understood science to hang his god hat on.
Horowitz is working on the new revision as we speak. Should be out fairly soon (and possibly will be cheaper). I've seen some of it. It'll be well worth the wait.
I love the smell of frightened MCSEs in the morning! Or do we simply call it fear of 'something I know nothing about'? "Mac bad! Beat on Mac! Me no like, want smash! Get away! Make scared! No understand!"
Now, this is just my opinion... but to me e-mail is a transitive communication medium. When I read this it sound to me like the electronic equivalent of running this board using post-it notes. It sounds to me like you need documents where ideas are captured. Not the raw ideas in a box somewhere (or on post-its).
Thank god the holders of these retarded patents are suing.
That way there's plenty of on-the-record examples to illustrate how fucked up the patent system when the big "let's bulldoze the patent system and start over" comes. Not to mention that it adds public support as more and more people see these news items and go "wait... what? surely you can't patent that!"
Could someone tell law enforcement and the media that they must have missed the memo where we all stopped using "cyber" a long time ago? Seriously... every time I hear "cyberthis" or "cyberthat", it's inevitably someone in law enforcment, the media or k-12 education (but talking about some enforcement issue). The cops are the worst... every unit they create is cyber-something... I guess they think it sounds cool. In actuality, it's more like hearing your grandpa say "gettin' jiggy with it".
However, if they're serious about such an endeavour they should go study with those who've already begun this sort of thing: China.
I'm sorry, Mr. Dempsey, sometimes a job just has to be hard.
"Sender addresses for spam emails are nearly always spoofed from 'real' domain names, which have normal TTLs..."
Why would I check the TTL for the addresser's domain? It's just a chunk of text. I check the machine making the connection. So if it attempts to present as a particular machine _and I check the PTR against it_ I reject the mail out of hand if they don't match. So, I'm checking the TTL _and_ doing reverse lookup. Short TTL, don't accept. Mismatched A/PTR, don't accept. And, quite frankly, we stop a lot of spam this way.
"Firstly, it is an option. I only bother to get my ISP to add PTR records for my mail servers, and that's it."
It's not an option. It's required. Read the RFCs. But at least you bother with your mail servers. That's something. It helps because it's common for spammers to attempt to masquerade as another machine. Matching against PTR stops this from working.
"Secondly, if everyone does set up properly matching PTR and address records, how will that help?"
Someone very well could 'write some damn javascript', but I'm not talking about your local hosting company's web interface. If you're using some web interface, then the host/ISP has the responsibility to prepare the records right. If you're not and you're doing your own zone files, then you do. If the people in either scenario cannot create the records properly, they shouldnt' be doing it. Plain and simple. DNS is a critical part of the Internet. Possibly the most critical part. And as such its not something Joe Bob in the phone closet or the guy from round the fix-it shop should be screwing around with unless he knows exactly what he's doing.
Because having multiple PTR entries for a single A is possible if needed. Also, it makes FCrDNS viable. It's not a 'trap'. It's part of the spec and RFC 1033 spells it out in a section called "instructions". Where's the voodoo in that? Anyone who can't do this properly (following what amounts to a checklist of 'do this, then do this') shouldn't be handling zone records.
The problem is people NOT following spec, not any failing of the spec.
Some 'legitimate' fast-flux DNS uses: * Some (IMHO misguided) sysadmins think "oh, I'll put in a super short TTL and I can swap out servers/services/whatever at a moment's notice". Quite frankly, most never end up needing to do this super-fast swapping or round-robin switching and it's just one of those 'good ideas' that have very little practical value for the majority of those using it. And it's often trivial to do using other less-burdensome methods especially for mail servers -- MX has built in fail-over. It also means more traffic is generated for each such DNS entry. * Also dial-up and wireless clients typically receive short TTL as they are transient connections.
As far as using this for spambots, personally I believe anyone willing to accept mail from a source with a short TTL is just asking for it.
One thing we can do? Everyone can just stop accepting mail from servers with short TTL and the fast-flux DNS model is no good to spammers. Yes, it's inconvenient to some ("wah! but I run sendmail off my laptop on dial-up!" - Yeah, well, go back in time to 1993 and have yourself a ball...). Frankly, they can just get the hell over it and use one of a dozen other methods to send out mail or increase their TTL. Spam is way more inconvenient and it affects everyone.
This doesn't address other uses for these botnets, sure, but every little bit helps. Especially when some estimates now say that the amount of spam in mail traffic may be as high as 80%!
And while we're at it... everyone get their damned DNS records set up properly. OK? It's not an option to have matching PTR and A records, it's required by RFC 1912.
I see I did make one mistake. I assumed you couldn't admit your mistakes because of your self-inflated ego. But I was wrong. It's because you're an idiot.
What do I think you should take up? Some basic freaking physics, for starters. Because you've got some wrong-headed notions about several things. I'll send you an application to one of the best schools in the country for it, if you'd like. (But if your grades aren't any better than your grammar, I wouldn't expect to get in.) If you do happen to get in, however, drop by my office so you can look me in the eye and say "I was wrong".
PS - And no one is calling you about my network connection. I'll wager money on that.
Oh god you just don't quit, do you... you're like a machine. An Error Machine.
1) The pressure on a CRT tube comes from OUTSIDE, not inside. Hence the term "implode" (which you even use in your description, clearly missing the hilarious irony). 2) You still haven't learned to spell "you're" (spelling is the correct word, now you're just grasping at straws). 3) And since we're at it, it's "relieve", not "releive".
This place is full of educated science nerds (hey! what do you know? I'm one of them!). Do you really want to keep this up and continue digging this hole right in front of them? Or do you want to shut up, take your medicine and go learn something instead of thinking you know it all already?
You referred to relieveing pressure in our allegorical vacuum. If you read that page you linked to, you should understand that 'relieving pressure' in a vacuum is non-sensical. Relief means... oh for god's sake go look it up yourself... this is retarded. And you still can't spell "you're" right. So really, who seems to need the education? Especially before quoting something you don't understand as evidence.
The whole reason I initially replied was that your original comment was to blanket-statement tell people to stop whining about something you only had a partial grasp on. My reason for continuing to respond is to allow you to dig your hole deeper and let you show that all you care about is your opinion, not whether you have the whole story (or the desire to comprehend their ramifications) or not. And you're doing a delightful job.
If you don't like people correcting your spelling or grammar, then you are quite free to go and improve both. Until then, don't be surprised that people take an inability to handle basic language skills as a measure of education or intelligence. In other words, if you're smart enough to discuss the issue at hand, you should be smart enough to handle basic grammar and spelling; the very rudiments of written language.
A vacuum has no pressure to relieve. That's why it's a vacuum. And "your" is still the wrong way to spell "you're". And you've removed your broken sig, so... that about wraps it all up. Toodles.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm somewhere in the middle on this.
Yes, AC, that's _exactly_ what you would do. This is in beta, where you choose a prime sub-section of your market to run tests with. That is literally part of the definition of beta testing.
With Windows running only 27% of the Internet's web servers*, calling it "severely limit[ing]" is more than a little hyperbolic.
* source: http://news.netcraft.com/archi...
Read your post and this really encapsulated it all:
"THIS IS NOT HOW YOU UNIX"
Well said.
Causal Reductionism
Affirming The Consequent
Argument From Complexity
Argument By Prestigious Jargon
Argument From Outdated Information
Argument From Personal Astonishment
Take your pick... as we fall prey to Argument From Authority because it's Penrose, a man who knows mathematical physics but not necessarily neuroscience, making the argument.
For me, neither a physicist nor a neuroscientist, complex adaptive systems theories seem more than adequate to explain us without having to invoke spooky physics. Each little addition to our overall intelligence creates a more and more complex system that develops and adapts and, as in our case, might eventually begin to notice itself and have its thoughts (which we just call 'cognition' in animals) then turn to considering itself. Ergo... consciousness. Penrose seems to need a still more 'mystical' answer (and not just on this subject...) and, without quite going so far as to invoke a deity, chooses the most mysterious and currently least-understood science to hang his god hat on.
You've also been exposed to the sun for decades, but [presumably] don't have skin cancer.
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Incredulity
Horowitz is working on the new revision as we speak. Should be out fairly soon (and possibly will be cheaper). I've seen some of it. It'll be well worth the wait.
I love the smell of frightened MCSEs in the morning!
Or do we simply call it fear of 'something I know nothing about'?
"Mac bad! Beat on Mac! Me no like, want smash! Get away! Make scared! No understand!"
Now, this is just my opinion... but to me e-mail is a transitive communication medium. When I read this it sound to me like the electronic equivalent of running this board using post-it notes. It sounds to me like you need documents where ideas are captured. Not the raw ideas in a box somewhere (or on post-its).
Thank god the holders of these retarded patents are suing.
That way there's plenty of on-the-record examples to illustrate how fucked up the patent system when the big "let's bulldoze the patent system and start over" comes. Not to mention that it adds public support as more and more people see these news items and go "wait... what? surely you can't patent that!"
Could someone tell law enforcement and the media that they must have missed the memo where we all stopped using "cyber" a long time ago?
Seriously... every time I hear "cyberthis" or "cyberthat", it's inevitably someone in law enforcment, the media or k-12 education (but talking about some enforcement issue). The cops are the worst... every unit they create is cyber-something... I guess they think it sounds cool. In actuality, it's more like hearing your grandpa say "gettin' jiggy with it".
However, if they're serious about such an endeavour they should go study with those who've already begun this sort of thing: China.
I'm sorry, Mr. Dempsey, sometimes a job just has to be hard.
"Sender addresses for spam emails are nearly always spoofed from 'real' domain names, which have normal TTLs..."
Why would I check the TTL for the addresser's domain? It's just a chunk of text. I check the machine making the connection. So if it attempts to present as a particular machine _and I check the PTR against it_ I reject the mail out of hand if they don't match. So, I'm checking the TTL _and_ doing reverse lookup. Short TTL, don't accept. Mismatched A/PTR, don't accept. And, quite frankly, we stop a lot of spam this way.
"Firstly, it is an option. I only bother to get my ISP to add PTR records for my mail servers, and that's it."
It's not an option. It's required. Read the RFCs. But at least you bother with your mail servers. That's something.
It helps because it's common for spammers to attempt to masquerade as another machine. Matching against PTR stops this from working.
"Secondly, if everyone does set up properly matching PTR and address records, how will that help?"
See above.
Someone very well could 'write some damn javascript', but I'm not talking about your local hosting company's web interface.
If you're using some web interface, then the host/ISP has the responsibility to prepare the records right.
If you're not and you're doing your own zone files, then you do.
If the people in either scenario cannot create the records properly, they shouldnt' be doing it. Plain and simple.
DNS is a critical part of the Internet. Possibly the most critical part. And as such its not something Joe Bob in the phone closet or the guy from round the fix-it shop should be screwing around with unless he knows exactly what he's doing.
Explain to me why it's shitty? Just because people don't like something doesn't make it bad.
Why is reverse DNS bad?
"Get yourself a real failover system, cheapskate!"
Amen.
Because having multiple PTR entries for a single A is possible if needed. Also, it makes FCrDNS viable.
It's not a 'trap'. It's part of the spec and RFC 1033 spells it out in a section called "instructions". Where's the voodoo in that?
Anyone who can't do this properly (following what amounts to a checklist of 'do this, then do this') shouldn't be handling zone records.
The problem is people NOT following spec, not any failing of the spec.
Some 'legitimate' fast-flux DNS uses:
* Some (IMHO misguided) sysadmins think "oh, I'll put in a super short TTL and I can swap out servers/services/whatever at a moment's notice".
Quite frankly, most never end up needing to do this super-fast swapping or round-robin switching and it's just one of those 'good ideas' that have very little practical value for the majority of those using it. And it's often trivial to do using other less-burdensome methods especially for mail servers -- MX has built in fail-over. It also means more traffic is generated for each such DNS entry.
* Also dial-up and wireless clients typically receive short TTL as they are transient connections.
As far as using this for spambots, personally I believe anyone willing to accept mail from a source with a short TTL is just asking for it.
One thing we can do? Everyone can just stop accepting mail from servers with short TTL and the fast-flux DNS model is no good to spammers.
Yes, it's inconvenient to some ("wah! but I run sendmail off my laptop on dial-up!" - Yeah, well, go back in time to 1993 and have yourself a ball...). Frankly, they can just get the hell over it and use one of a dozen other methods to send out mail or increase their TTL. Spam is way more inconvenient and it affects everyone.
This doesn't address other uses for these botnets, sure, but every little bit helps. Especially when some estimates now say that the amount of spam in mail traffic may be as high as 80%!
And while we're at it... everyone get their damned DNS records set up properly. OK? It's not an option to have matching PTR and A records, it's required by RFC 1912.
"I am gonna laugh my ass off if it is the Japanese who show the world that landing was a hoax,....which it was. I believe."
But... we can laugh our assess off at you if they confirm the landing(s), right?
They already did. They're called rocks.
I see I did make one mistake. I assumed you couldn't admit your mistakes because of your self-inflated ego. But I was wrong. It's because you're an idiot.
What do I think you should take up? Some basic freaking physics, for starters. Because you've got some wrong-headed notions about several things. I'll send you an application to one of the best schools in the country for it, if you'd like. (But if your grades aren't any better than your grammar, I wouldn't expect to get in.) If you do happen to get in, however, drop by my office so you can look me in the eye and say "I was wrong".
PS - And no one is calling you about my network connection. I'll wager money on that.
Oh god you just don't quit, do you... you're like a machine. An Error Machine.
1) The pressure on a CRT tube comes from OUTSIDE, not inside. Hence the term "implode" (which you even use in your description, clearly missing the hilarious irony).
2) You still haven't learned to spell "you're" (spelling is the correct word, now you're just grasping at straws).
3) And since we're at it, it's "relieve", not "releive".
This place is full of educated science nerds (hey! what do you know? I'm one of them!). Do you really want to keep this up and continue digging this hole right in front of them? Or do you want to shut up, take your medicine and go learn something instead of thinking you know it all already?
You referred to relieveing pressure in our allegorical vacuum. If you read that page you linked to, you should understand that 'relieving pressure' in a vacuum is non-sensical. Relief means... oh for god's sake go look it up yourself... this is retarded.
And you still can't spell "you're" right. So really, who seems to need the education? Especially before quoting something you don't understand as evidence.
The whole reason I initially replied was that your original comment was to blanket-statement tell people to stop whining about something you only had a partial grasp on. My reason for continuing to respond is to allow you to dig your hole deeper and let you show that all you care about is your opinion, not whether you have the whole story (or the desire to comprehend their ramifications) or not. And you're doing a delightful job.
If you don't like people correcting your spelling or grammar, then you are quite free to go and improve both. Until then, don't be surprised that people take an inability to handle basic language skills as a measure of education or intelligence. In other words, if you're smart enough to discuss the issue at hand, you should be smart enough to handle basic grammar and spelling; the very rudiments of written language.
"Get your Masters then try and correct me."
FYI, I'm correcting you right now.
A vacuum has no pressure to relieve. That's why it's a vacuum. And "your" is still the wrong way to spell "you're".
And you've removed your broken sig, so... that about wraps it all up.
Toodles.
"I'm not a push the envelope just because I can kind of guy."
You don't even know where the envelope begins, so that statement is moot.
You enjoy that vacuum you live in, now, ya hear?