every site in my netblock got classified by SPEWS...
because we were A) In the same colo facility as a big-time spammer
If your hosting provider isn't doing anything about the spammers, you should move now, because that netblock entry is going to get much larger.
Be sure to tell your provider why you're moving (because they host spammers) and (if you're feeling charitable) give them some period of time (a week perhaps) to get rid of the spammer before you go through with it.
If they won't change, you have to move if you want to continue sending email, becuase your new netblock WILL wind up on SPEWS again.
Well, I went to that site, and all I can say is tha SPF seems to be inherently broken, as it ignores the fact that servers do not send email, people send email.
The ?all tag means that hosts that don't match the rest of the SPF record are taken as unknown -- not as failures
Which means what, exactly?
If it doesn't mean "denied", then it must either mean "allowed" or "undefined" - but if that's the case, what's the point in implementing it at all? ("Here's a list of servers that are allowed to send mail from our domain: 'everybody')
SPF looks like something that wasn't very well thought out. Not only does it break SMTP, it doesn't seem like it's consistent.
If the SPF record (which will contain the IP addresses of AOL's mail servers) doesn't match the originating IP address of the mail message (as in, a spoofed header) the message is invalid.
So, in essence, AOL has decided that it's customers can no longer send mail from their AOL email address, unless they're logged into AOL.
This does not bode well.
I don't use AOL, but if MY ISP decided that I could no longer use my personal email address while I was at work (or at an internet cafe, or whatever), I'd be pretty pissed.
That would be a one-sided violation of the old settlement. Judges don't like that.
Yeah, and we all know how crazy they are when you deliberately disobey an order to compel discovery, or bring a totally bogus suit with the sole purpose of pumping your stock price, right?
Seriously, given SCO's acts, I fail to see how this argument is at all relevant.
Government action isn't the answer to any internet-related problem
Spam is not just an 'internet-related' problem, it's a social problem, which primarily uses the internet for transport. And government action is pretty much how we deal with social problems.
this legislation will have little, if any, impact outside the national borders of the country passing the legislation
Which, considering that 85% of all spam originates from one country, means that if that country passes (and enforces) appropriate legislation, they will pretty much solve the spam problem, no?
Relying on the government to 'fix' internet problems is an outmoded way of thinking.
Relying on technology to 'fix' social problems is an outmoded way of thinking.
it is only now being supplanted by Digital in the Television industry
I'm sorry, but where in the world does the TV industry use Betamax?!?!??! Yes, beta is (was?) the industry standard for Television, but Betamax was the video equivalent of the PCjr.
There are actually ISPs who block all email from IP (ranges) in a RBL (even to postmaster or abuse!). That is clearly wrong and lazy.
Spoken like someone who's never adminned a mail server.
It's neither wrong nor lazy to prevent people from abusing your resources.
RBLs should be used as they were intended.
Why don't you make up your mind then? You just said that it's wrong and lazy to do that.
Hint: the 'B" in RBL stands for BLOCK - as in you BLOCK stuff coming from them.
A good idea is to add RBLs to e.g. spamassasin and assign them a +2 score.
Yeah, that's a real good idea - and while I'm at it, I should just buck up and double my connection speed, and upgrade my mailservers, so that my service doesn't become unusable under the load. After all, it's all worth it to have to pay more to handle the extra load of all that spam I'm blocking, right?
blocking all email just because it comes from a certain IP on some random RBL is stupid.
No, what's stupid is paying an extra $5000 per month so that you can receive spam.
You don't slap a judge in the face and then ask for a favor.
You do if you're trying to draw the case out as long as possible - it's the 'last straw' strategy.. you screw up enough to make the judge doubt your competance, then when they finally get fed up and rule against you, you use that as grounds for appeal.
my guess is that SCO will do exactly what you say, and the judge will flat out refuse, saying it isn't relevant to these discovery proceedings
But if it's not relevant, then why did she sign off on the order? The judge can't do that without automatically giving SCO a huge lever when it comes time to appeal.
The Novell sale took place after IBM acquired its license to UNIX from AT&T labs
That's irrelevant. It doesn't matter when the sale took place (see below.)
Regardless of who owns the copyrights to the material that SCO claims is being infringed, SCO still has to demonstrate infringement.
Also irrelevant, both for the topic at hand (delaying of discovery) and because SCO isn't actually bringing any copyright infringement charges (they said they would, "within a week at most" over a month ago - but that never materialized.)
But on to how what SCO owns is relevant: take a look at IBM's motion to compel. Specifically paragraph 12.
IBM wants SCO to list all SCO-owned code in Linux (as in - everything they own, regardless of whether it's contested or not.) That is: everything in Linux that SCO owns the copyright to must be submitted before the case can proceed.
Now, SCO claims that they own the copyright on Unix, but Novell is contesting that... SCO can now claim "We can't comply because ownership of the code in question is under dispute."
The next logical conclusion for them would be to ask the judge to postpone the discovery (effectively freezing the case) until the Novell case is settled.
Now, I'm not saying that this will fly, but it does strike me as the primary reason that SCO filed suit against Novell.
On Friday, SCO has to stand before a Utah court and justify their pathetic little 60-some page document as complying with a court order to come up with some real evidence.
And therein lies the rub.
Think about it - SCO knows that they're in shit, and that they're on the verge of having the suit thrown out.. so enter...
the obvious pump-n'-dump scheme
If you're running a stock scam, and the whole thing is based on a frivolous lawsuit, and that lawsuit is about to come to an end, what would you do?
Answer: do anything you can to keep the case in limbo - including filing another lawsuit and using that as an excuse to delay proceedings.
IBM's discovery demand listed all SCO-owned source code in Linux (whether it was put there with SCO's authorization or not.) Since Novell contests what SCO owns, SCO can now go to the court and say "we can't answer number 12, because the code in question is being contested under another suit."
My guess is that SCO will show up on Friday and ask for the case to be put on hold until their suit against Novell is settled.
They figure that they now have a good chance of losing the IBM lawsuit, so what better way to recoup the loss by suing someone else? In other words: "We're going to lose the suit, and it's all Novell's fault, so we're going to make them pay."
Not quite..
Most probably the Novell lawsuit is an attempt to delay discovery..
They knew all along that they have no case against IBM - and since IBM is asking for their alleged infringing code, they can say "We believe we own it, but someone else is contesting our ownership - put this case on hold until that one is sorted out."
My first MP3 was "Low Rider" by War, in late 1996 or early 1997..
I downloaded it on my Amiga 3000, over ISDN.. yes, I had ISDN in my house (on my Amiga!), with a Motorola Bitsurfr Pro.. I got around internet access and time limit charges (the ISDN was metered, but only for outbound calls) by 'borrowing' half of a BRI at work and using callback..
I can't remember what software I used to play it though..
Now, this is pretty surprising - you're compelled to produce evidence, and you refuse... that's pretty much just asking for contept charges..
but put it in context, and it's absolutely mind-bogglingly stupid.
SCO and IBM have been going back and forth for months on the issue of discovery. SCO keeps saying they need evidence from IBM before they can produce their own proof, and IBM says that they need to know what they're being accused of.
The judge reads all this crap from SCO (about how they can't prove their case until IBM gives them evidence) and decides that IBM is in the right - but she decides to give SCO the benefit of the doubt.. she tells them "I've read everything you've given me, and you're wrong. Unless you can convince me otherwise, I'm going to force you to comply with IBM's discovery.
So SCO goes on about how they can't prove their case until IBM gives them evidence - and the judge says "You have failed to convince me. Either you have evidence they did something wrong or you don't, it's shit-or-get-off-the-pot time. You have 30 days to produce evidence to back up your claims. If that's not enough time, tell me now, and I'll extend it."
SCO says "No, that's enough time."
So 30 days pass, and SCO's answer is "We can't do it because IBM won't give us the evidence."
I mean - come on - refusing to comply to a compel order is stupid, but repeating the exact same excuse the judge has already rejected as your reason for refusing to comply is so completely unbelievable it's unreal.
And then (to salt the wound) they claim they didn't have enough time - after explicitly being asked by the judge if 30 days was enough.
Slashdot Mirror
every site in my netblock got classified by SPEWS...
because we were A) In the same colo facility as a big-time spammer
If your hosting provider isn't doing anything about the spammers, you should move now, because that netblock entry is going to get much larger.
Be sure to tell your provider why you're moving (because they host spammers) and (if you're feeling charitable) give them some period of time (a week perhaps) to get rid of the spammer before you go through with it.
If they won't change, you have to move if you want to continue sending email, becuase your new netblock WILL wind up on SPEWS again.
"The Ford Focus - because every generation needs their Pinto."
"Say it quickly now: 'Foc-Us' - it's what you'll get with Ford."
Now, if you knew SPF
Well, I went to that site, and all I can say is tha SPF seems to be inherently broken, as it ignores the fact that servers do not send email, people send email.
The ?all tag means that hosts that don't match the rest of the SPF record are taken as unknown -- not as failures
Which means what, exactly?
If it doesn't mean "denied", then it must either mean "allowed" or "undefined" - but if that's the case, what's the point in implementing it at all? ("Here's a list of servers that are allowed to send mail from our domain: 'everybody')
SPF looks like something that wasn't very well thought out. Not only does it break SMTP, it doesn't seem like it's consistent.
If the SPF record (which will contain the IP addresses of AOL's mail servers) doesn't match the originating IP address of the mail message (as in, a spoofed header) the message is invalid.
So, in essence, AOL has decided that it's customers can no longer send mail from their AOL email address, unless they're logged into AOL.
This does not bode well.
I don't use AOL, but if MY ISP decided that I could no longer use my personal email address while I was at work (or at an internet cafe, or whatever), I'd be pretty pissed.
That would be a one-sided violation of the old settlement. Judges don't like that.
Yeah, and we all know how crazy they are when you deliberately disobey an order to compel discovery, or bring a totally bogus suit with the sole purpose of pumping your stock price, right?
Seriously, given SCO's acts, I fail to see how this argument is at all relevant.
Government action isn't the answer to any internet-related problem
Spam is not just an 'internet-related' problem, it's a social problem, which primarily uses the internet for transport. And government action is pretty much how we deal with social problems.
this legislation will have little, if any, impact outside the national borders of the country passing the legislation
Which, considering that 85% of all spam originates from one country, means that if that country passes (and enforces) appropriate legislation, they will pretty much solve the spam problem, no?
Relying on the government to 'fix' internet problems is an outmoded way of thinking.
Relying on technology to 'fix' social problems is an outmoded way of thinking.
That's hilarious...
IBM clearly did contribute a lot of the Unix-related information into Linux. We just don't know what it is
Umm, maybe it's just me, but if IBM clearly did something, shouldn't you clearly be able to see what it was?
the backup module is aparently not compatible with the ships primary systems and will only work if separated from the ship
:o)
Must have been designed by the same guys at MS who made Exchange.
it is only now being supplanted by Digital in the Television industry
I'm sorry, but where in the world does the TV industry use Betamax?!?!??! Yes, beta is (was?) the industry standard for Television, but Betamax was the video equivalent of the PCjr.
what happens if SCO wins the lawsuit?
Then it's time to approach Satan about exclusive rights to snow gear for his denizens.
Asking what happens "if SCO wins" is like asking what's gonna happen "if Bill Gates suddenly converts MS to a Linux-only shop".
There are actually ISPs who block all email from IP (ranges) in a RBL (even to postmaster or abuse!). That is clearly wrong and lazy.
Spoken like someone who's never adminned a mail server.
It's neither wrong nor lazy to prevent people from abusing your resources.
RBLs should be used as they were intended.
Why don't you make up your mind then? You just said that it's wrong and lazy to do that.
Hint: the 'B" in RBL stands for BLOCK - as in you BLOCK stuff coming from them.
A good idea is to add RBLs to e.g. spamassasin and assign them a +2 score.
Yeah, that's a real good idea - and while I'm at it, I should just buck up and double my connection speed, and upgrade my mailservers, so that my service doesn't become unusable under the load. After all, it's all worth it to have to pay more to handle the extra load of all that spam I'm blocking, right?
blocking all email just because it comes from a certain IP on some random RBL is stupid.
No, what's stupid is paying an extra $5000 per month so that you can receive spam.
You don't slap a judge in the face and then ask for a favor.
You do if you're trying to draw the case out as long as possible - it's the 'last straw' strategy.. you screw up enough to make the judge doubt your competance, then when they finally get fed up and rule against you, you use that as grounds for appeal.
my guess is that SCO will do exactly what you say, and the judge will flat out refuse, saying it isn't relevant to these discovery proceedings
But if it's not relevant, then why did she sign off on the order? The judge can't do that without automatically giving SCO a huge lever when it comes time to appeal.
it has absolutely no bearing on the IBM matter
Actually, it does - thanks to IBM.
The Novell sale took place after IBM acquired its license to UNIX from AT&T labs
That's irrelevant. It doesn't matter when the sale took place (see below.)
Regardless of who owns the copyrights to the material that SCO claims is being infringed, SCO still has to demonstrate infringement.
Also irrelevant, both for the topic at hand (delaying of discovery) and because SCO isn't actually bringing any copyright infringement charges (they said they would, "within a week at most" over a month ago - but that never materialized.)
But on to how what SCO owns is relevant: take a look at IBM's motion to compel. Specifically paragraph 12.
IBM wants SCO to list all SCO-owned code in Linux (as in - everything they own, regardless of whether it's contested or not.) That is: everything in Linux that SCO owns the copyright to must be submitted before the case can proceed.
Now, SCO claims that they own the copyright on Unix, but Novell is contesting that... SCO can now claim "We can't comply because ownership of the code in question is under dispute."
The next logical conclusion for them would be to ask the judge to postpone the discovery (effectively freezing the case) until the Novell case is settled.
Now, I'm not saying that this will fly, but it does strike me as the primary reason that SCO filed suit against Novell.
On Friday, SCO has to stand before a Utah court and justify their pathetic little 60-some page document as complying with a court order to come up with some real evidence.
And therein lies the rub.
Think about it - SCO knows that they're in shit, and that they're on the verge of having the suit thrown out.. so enter...
the obvious pump-n'-dump scheme
If you're running a stock scam, and the whole thing is based on a frivolous lawsuit, and that lawsuit is about to come to an end, what would you do?
Answer: do anything you can to keep the case in limbo - including filing another lawsuit and using that as an excuse to delay proceedings.
IBM's discovery demand listed all SCO-owned source code in Linux (whether it was put there with SCO's authorization or not.) Since Novell contests what SCO owns, SCO can now go to the court and say "we can't answer number 12, because the code in question is being contested under another suit."
My guess is that SCO will show up on Friday and ask for the case to be put on hold until their suit against Novell is settled.
They figure that they now have a good chance of losing the IBM lawsuit, so what better way to recoup the loss by suing someone else? In other words: "We're going to lose the suit, and it's all Novell's fault, so we're going to make them pay."
Not quite..
Most probably the Novell lawsuit is an attempt to delay discovery..
They knew all along that they have no case against IBM - and since IBM is asking for their alleged infringing code, they can say "We believe we own it, but someone else is contesting our ownership - put this case on hold until that one is sorted out."
We'll see on Friday if that is indeed the case.
They're adding the ability to use an XM receiver via HMO
:o)
Is that so that poor people can watch TV while they're waiting in line at the hospital to see a doctor?
How does the stealing of source code delay shipping?
Well DUH! It was stolen. Don't you watch ST:Voyager? When someone downloads something from you (like your EMH), you no longer have it.
If you need further proof of this, just ask anyone in the RIAA or MPAA.
I *have* been getting spam about the plastic rectangle that you refer to.
Can you post a reference? I couldn't find anything on nanae about it..
My wife thinks those things are interesting, and wants to buy one - but if they're spamming, I'm not gonna give them any money.
... and the first thing she thinks when she sees any type of fish is "I wonder what it tastes like."
My first MP3 was "Low Rider" by War, in late 1996 or early 1997..
:o)
I downloaded it on my Amiga 3000, over ISDN.. yes, I had ISDN in my house (on my Amiga!), with a Motorola Bitsurfr Pro.. I got around internet access and time limit charges (the ISDN was metered, but only for outbound calls) by 'borrowing' half of a BRI at work and using callback..
I can't remember what software I used to play it though..
Sigh, how far we've come.
They haven't refused
Yes, they have - read the letter.
They've complied. Remember the 60 page thing the other day?
No, they haven't complied. And they admit that they haven't complied. To wit:
"In order for SCO to fully answer IBM's interrogatories, we require access to the missing verisons of software"
They were ordered to provide with specificity answers to all of IBM's queries, and they didn't.
Monkeys failed to fly out of my butt.
:o)
Dude, that's too bad - you could have opened a circus.
Now, this is pretty surprising - you're compelled to produce evidence, and you refuse... that's pretty much just asking for contept charges..
but put it in context, and it's absolutely mind-bogglingly stupid.
SCO and IBM have been going back and forth for months on the issue of discovery. SCO keeps saying they need evidence from IBM before they can produce their own proof, and IBM says that they need to know what they're being accused of.
The judge reads all this crap from SCO (about how they can't prove their case until IBM gives them evidence) and decides that IBM is in the right - but she decides to give SCO the benefit of the doubt.. she tells them "I've read everything you've given me, and you're wrong. Unless you can convince me otherwise, I'm going to force you to comply with IBM's discovery.
So SCO goes on about how they can't prove their case until IBM gives them evidence - and the judge says "You have failed to convince me. Either you have evidence they did something wrong or you don't, it's shit-or-get-off-the-pot time. You have 30 days to produce evidence to back up your claims. If that's not enough time, tell me now, and I'll extend it."
SCO says "No, that's enough time."
So 30 days pass, and SCO's answer is "We can't do it because IBM won't give us the evidence."
I mean - come on - refusing to comply to a compel order is stupid, but repeating the exact same excuse the judge has already rejected as your reason for refusing to comply is so completely unbelievable it's unreal.
And then (to salt the wound) they claim they didn't have enough time - after explicitly being asked by the judge if 30 days was enough.
Is SCO trying to lose on purpose?
I thought I remember hearing Lucas never wanted to write them?
:o)
Well, we're in luck then. They might actually be watchable.
OBSimpsons quote:
"Well your honor, we have plenty of hearsay and conjecture, those are kinds of evidence."
--Lionel Hutz