They don't just block the machine that got spammed, but the ISP hosting the site advertised in the URL, forcing the ISP to remove the spammer completely.
If you read the article, you'll note that the ISP hosting the site never get's touched..
They use HTTP proxies installed on trojaned machines to hide the real location of the website.
;; ANSWER SECTION: removeform.com. 1714 IN CNAME bestportal.biz. bestportal.biz. 35 IN A 213.106.63.234 bestportal.biz. 35 IN A 217.236.44.151 bestportal.biz. 35 IN A 12.228.210.215 bestportal.biz. 35 IN A 212.235.74.11 bestportal.biz. 35 IN A 213.44.248.219
;; AUTHORITY SECTION: bestportal.biz. 35 IN NS ns3.bubra.biz. bestportal.biz. 35 IN NS ns4.bubra.biz. bestportal.biz. 35 IN NS ns5.bubra.biz. bestportal.biz. 35 IN NS ns1.bubra.biz. bestportal.biz. 35 IN NS ns2.bubra.biz.
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: ns1.bubra.biz. 6942 IN A 81.57.49.17 ns2.bubra.biz. 7114 IN A 81.49.240.135 ns2.bubra.biz. 7114 IN A 81.77.191.222 ns2.bubra.biz. 7114 IN A 81.249.14.196 ns3.bubra.biz. 7114 IN A 80.138.190.74 ns3.bubra.biz. 7114 IN A 81.77.132.153 ns4.bubra.biz. 6942 IN A 81.53.147.179 ns5.bubra.biz. 7114 IN A 82.42.127.214
It is gratifying to see that DCron is still being used regularly, but I am a bit miffed that nobody has gone and made any truely significant improvements to it.
As a happy user of DCron, I can't honestly think there's anything significant to improve upon. It works, and works well. Thanks for a great piece of software!
Not everything in the world requires a LEGITIMATE reason, just a reason; what may not be legitimate to YOU may be a necessity to someone else
I have explained my position as to why it's not legitimate. Why this functionality should not exist.
Please tell me why my position is wrong. Why is it necessary for a P2P app to allow anyone, anywhere, to delete arbitrary files, without any authentication, and without the consent of the user?
Flip a coin 100 times - all heads... what is the chance of flipping it again and getting 101 heads in a row?
Simple - if it's the same coin, and it came up heads 100 times in a row, chances are it would come up heads on the 101st throw.
The odds of 100 heads in a row are so small that it leads one to believe that there is something abnormal about the coin that causes it to come up heads more often than tails.
If you have something that is supposed to be 50/50 odds, and it consistantly favours one outcome or the other, then logic states that the odds are not really 50/50.
I think that people gamble because they're addicted, stupid, or drunk. Often a combination.
Then you have a pretty narrow view of the universe.
You might well have said "I think that people go to movies because they're addicted, stupid, or drunk. Often a combination."
I know a guy - he's a CEO of a large company. Not stupid. Not addicted, and he doesn't drink.
He gambles because he likes it. I asked him about it, and he says that it's entertainment for him - like going to a concert or an expensive restaurant.. he'll spend about the same in the casino as he would doing any other form of entertainment, but he prefers the casino.
He knows he's gonna lose, and he has a self-imposed limit. Once he's spent his "mad money" for the night, he goes home. The thrill for him is seeing how long he can get the money to last.
Probably, there would be as many viruses written, or more, but the effect of the viruses would have been different.
I disagree. You're making the assumption that virus writers don't care about the effect of their work.
One of the reasons that someone writes a virus is to see the effect. If the effect is different, then the motivation rule changes. If the effect is that the virus doesn't propagate, then the virus author who wants to see a worldwide epidemic will be much less inclined to write it (just as if the effect were faster/wider propagation, he will have more incentive to write it.)
It says it will do unit conversions, but I tried coverting miles per gallon to rods per hogshead, and it never switched into "calculator" mode.
I tried "1 mpg in rph" and "1 mpg in rods per hogshead", as well as "1 mpg in rods/hogshead", and it never worked.. however "1 mpg in mpg" (as well as "1 mpg in liters per kilometer" worked fine.
I though Romanadvoratrelundar (aka Romana) was the hottest sidekick myself.
Yes, but I much preferred Lalla Ward (your link was to Mary Tamm) as Romana. She had a better sense of humor, and there was something oddly compelling about her..
This argument is the same argument that a woman was raped because she dressed provokatively
No, it really isn't. If you believe that calling someone names and creating poor excuses for performing violent acts are equivalent, then you need to seriously re-examine your perceptions of the world around you. You're dangerously close to tripping Godwin.
Perhaps you might say that it's the same as callingn a woman who dresses provocatively a "slut", but it's nowhere near excusing any violence perpetrated by anyone, anywhere.
Government policies that close doors to competition are bad
If this is true, you would applaud the initiative to require open source, as it allows more competition, not less.
Linux might work in some situations, but not in others.
I have no idea why you're bringing this up - I guess it's a good thing that they're not requiring Linux. Again, another reason you should support the initiative.
There are plenty of good software packages out there to use, and plenty of specific packages for government, that wont exist in OSS until someone is paid (gobs of cash) to write them.
Really? I guess you believe that once software is closed-source, it can never become open? That flies in the face of reality.
It's simple: If a vendor wants to sell products or services to the government, they must meet government requirements. If they are unwilling to do that, then they have nobody to blame but themselves.
You "called bullshit" on an assertion - saying that it was wrong. Your claim was that the statement was false.
You then demanded evidence, while providing none to support your own stance (your own stance was that the claim is false.)
If you had not made any stance, you would have stated "I don't believe this, but it's possible, can anyone provide proof," instead of stating "this is bullshit."
I'll take it from your passive-aggressive stance that you don't have the evidence that I asked for, shall I
And I'll take from your snide remarks and attempt to deflect my query that you don't have the evidence that I asked for.
I'm calling bullshit on both of them. I challenge anyone here to cite any quantative evidence that replying to spam has resulted in them receiving so much as one extra message.
I'm calling bullshit on you. I challenge you to cite quantative evidence that replying to spam DOES NOT result in receiveing extra spam.
No, anecdotes don't cut it. Neither does common sense, or "well, it stands to reason" arguments.
If you're gonna make that kind of challenge, then it's reasonable to assume that you have that kind of proof to support your own position.
I'll accept that they've held up their hands and said sorry, and claimed it was only there for upgrading.
I won't. There is no legitimate reason for this "functionality" to exist. None. Zero. Nada. Not for upgrading, or anything else.
An upgrade may (will?) have to delete files, but that should be performed by the installer after the upgrade has been downloaded, it should not (and must not) be performed arbitrarily by an unknown, untrusted host, with no authentication mechanism at all, without any acknowlegement from the user.
Legislation is the answer. Legislation is the only way we have to cure social problems, and spam is a social problem.
The answer is in the technology. Where is SMTP version 2 (or whatever) that fixes this shit?
Spam exists because scumbags want to get something for nothing, and don't care how many people they annoy, harrass, or steal from. Technology cannot change this.
Spam does not exist because the protocols allow it, it exists because spammers see nothing wrong in abusing the system. No matter what technological measures you try to put in place, the only thing 'technological' you can do to stop spam is to eliminate email altogether.
Sure spammers will still spam, but they could no longer lie about who they are or where they are sending mail from.
You even acknowledge that there is no technological way to stop spam.
Don't want it - block it.
How is that any different than what's happening today?
Proper legislation, properly enforced would go a very long way to end spam. It would send a clear message that spam is not acceptable, which would prevent a lot of people from starting up, or hiring off-shore spammers.
because they want to collect on all the "back damages" they believe they are owed.
If SCO wishes to collect any damages at all, then they MUST (as in __MUST__!) take steps to stop the alleged infringement as soon as possible - whether they believe it "can" be stopped or not. (Legally, they have to do everything within their power to stop SGI from continuing any infringment.)
The only way it can be irrelevant is if the code in question holds no value - which SCO is demonstrating; by not giving anyone the chance to remove any alleged infringing code, they are stating that their code is worthless, and you can't claim damages for something that's worthless.
It doesn't matter what we think. In the end, it will come down to an old man in a black robe.
The law (both written and case) states quite clearly that SCO must take steps to end any alleged infringement. Any "man in a black robe" can't rule any other way.
the law that gives you that kind of recourse has to be very clear as to what IS spam
No. You're falling into the spammer's "frea speach" red herring.
What makes spam is not the content, but the method.
such a complete and accurate law (which laws seldom are) must pass 1st Ammendment muster by not inadvertently prohibiting some legitimate communication and trampling on free speech.
Anti-spam laws are about harrassment, they have nothing to do with free speech.
Nobody is telling spammers that they are not allowed to speak. We are saying that they are not allowed to harrass people. There is a big difference.
The most common definition of spam is unsolicited bulk email. This is a very easy test. Is it unsolicited? (Did the recipient ask for it, or is there an existing relationship?) Was it sent to multiple people? If the answer to these questions is yes, then it's spam.
Anything that attempts to define spam in legislation is dangerous.
Again, the decision of whether something is spam or not has nothing to do with the content of the message, it has to do with how it was sent. Defining how it was sent is very simple to do, and (in fact) must be done if there is to be any sort of legislation (including the type you are OK with.)
And this misses the point that spam is not a technological problem, it's a social one. You don't solve social problems with technology. You solve social problems with social solutions.
If you left your house door open and somebody entered and made a mess in your house (or worse!) then who is to blame? Who is at fault? If you have a lock available to you then you use it.
Yes, but if you do lock your door and someone breaks in and makes a mess (or worse!) should I have to say "oh, well - at least I locked the door!"?
If you extend your analogy to its logical conclusion, it is actually an example of why we should have anti-spam laws, not why we shouldn't. If I have anti-spam measures, and I get spam, there should be legal recourse against the spammer, just like if I lock my door and someone breaks in, there is legal recourse against the theif.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't just block the machine that got spammed, but the ISP hosting the site advertised in the URL, forcing the ISP to remove the spammer completely.
If you read the article, you'll note that the ISP hosting the site never get's touched..
They use HTTP proxies installed on trojaned machines to hide the real location of the website.
I'm ready to torture one of the bastards in a week-long live-webcast
:o)
Where can I sign up to view, and how much will it cost?
no one, that I am aware, who downloads music using Kazaa or whatever, pays for that music
And no one, that I am aware, who listens to music on the radio or whatever, pays for that music.
They are, in fact, stealing since they are not compensating someone for the product they now have.
So, everybody who listens to the radio is stealing?
I'm not sure why people have such a problem grasping the concept: if you didn't pay for it it's stealing.
I guess so.
Don't get me started on TV...
Presumably the ISP is servicing multiple customers and doesn't want to set up a configuration that would impact everyone else.
They should be able to implement it selectively, based on the recipient address/domain.
It's really not hard to do - all modern MTAs support this type of operation.
If you do go, and they spout the "I can't comment on legal matters" line, be sure to ask them "WHY ARE YOU BRINGING IT UP IF YOU CAN'T COMMENT?"
It is gratifying to see that DCron is still being used regularly, but I am a bit miffed that nobody has gone and made any truely significant improvements to it.
As a happy user of DCron, I can't honestly think there's anything significant to improve upon. It works, and works well. Thanks for a great piece of software!
Not everything in the world requires a LEGITIMATE reason, just a reason; what may not be legitimate to YOU may be a necessity to someone else
I have explained my position as to why it's not legitimate. Why this functionality should not exist.
Please tell me why my position is wrong. Why is it necessary for a P2P app to allow anyone, anywhere, to delete arbitrary files, without any authentication, and without the consent of the user?
Until you can, please STFU.
It goes on to say: "In truth Torvalds best work is in the past"... which seems to negate their own argument for having him in there.
Why does that negate their own argument?
Power doesn't mean "how much have you coded recently", it means "how much influence do you weild."
Bill Gates hasn't coded anything in over 10 years, but he's made the list - are you suggesting he's not a power either?
Flip a coin 100 times - all heads... what is the chance of flipping it again and getting 101 heads in a row?
Simple - if it's the same coin, and it came up heads 100 times in a row, chances are it would come up heads on the 101st throw.
The odds of 100 heads in a row are so small that it leads one to believe that there is something abnormal about the coin that causes it to come up heads more often than tails.
If you have something that is supposed to be 50/50 odds, and it consistantly favours one outcome or the other, then logic states that the odds are not really 50/50.
I think that people gamble because they're addicted, stupid, or drunk. Often a combination.
Then you have a pretty narrow view of the universe.
You might well have said "I think that people go to movies because they're addicted, stupid, or drunk. Often a combination."
I know a guy - he's a CEO of a large company. Not stupid. Not addicted, and he doesn't drink.
He gambles because he likes it. I asked him about it, and he says that it's entertainment for him - like going to a concert or an expensive restaurant.. he'll spend about the same in the casino as he would doing any other form of entertainment, but he prefers the casino.
He knows he's gonna lose, and he has a self-imposed limit. Once he's spent his "mad money" for the night, he goes home. The thrill for him is seeing how long he can get the money to last.
Probably, there would be as many viruses written, or more, but the effect of the viruses would have been different.
I disagree. You're making the assumption that virus writers don't care about the effect of their work.
One of the reasons that someone writes a virus is to see the effect. If the effect is different, then the motivation rule changes. If the effect is that the virus doesn't propagate, then the virus author who wants to see a worldwide epidemic will be much less inclined to write it (just as if the effect were faster/wider propagation, he will have more incentive to write it.)
The help page for the calculator is wrong..
It says it will do unit conversions, but I tried coverting miles per gallon to rods per hogshead, and it never switched into "calculator" mode.
I tried "1 mpg in rph" and "1 mpg in rods per hogshead", as well as "1 mpg in rods/hogshead", and it never worked.. however "1 mpg in mpg" (as well as "1 mpg in liters per kilometer" worked fine.
Please let him ask a Darlek
:o)
A Darlek? You mean like this one?
I though Romanadvoratrelundar (aka Romana) was the hottest sidekick myself.
Yes, but I much preferred Lalla Ward (your link was to Mary Tamm) as Romana. She had a better sense of humor, and there was something oddly compelling about her..
This argument is the same argument that a woman was raped because she dressed provokatively
No, it really isn't. If you believe that calling someone names and creating poor excuses for performing violent acts are equivalent, then you need to seriously re-examine your perceptions of the world around you. You're dangerously close to tripping Godwin.
Perhaps you might say that it's the same as callingn a woman who dresses provocatively a "slut", but it's nowhere near excusing any violence perpetrated by anyone, anywhere.
Government policies that close doors to competition are bad
If this is true, you would applaud the initiative to require open source, as it allows more competition, not less.
Linux might work in some situations, but not in others.
I have no idea why you're bringing this up - I guess it's a good thing that they're not requiring Linux. Again, another reason you should support the initiative.
There are plenty of good software packages out there to use, and plenty of specific packages for government, that wont exist in OSS until someone is paid (gobs of cash) to write them.
Really? I guess you believe that once software is closed-source, it can never become open? That flies in the face of reality.
It's simple: If a vendor wants to sell products or services to the government, they must meet government requirements. If they are unwilling to do that, then they have nobody to blame but themselves.
I have no position, I made no claims.
Yes, you most certainly did.
You "called bullshit" on an assertion - saying that it was wrong. Your claim was that the statement was false.
You then demanded evidence, while providing none to support your own stance (your own stance was that the claim is false.)
If you had not made any stance, you would have stated "I don't believe this, but it's possible, can anyone provide proof," instead of stating "this is bullshit."
I'll take it from your passive-aggressive stance that you don't have the evidence that I asked for, shall I
And I'll take from your snide remarks and attempt to deflect my query that you don't have the evidence that I asked for.
I'm calling bullshit on both of them. I challenge anyone here to cite any quantative evidence that replying to spam has resulted in them receiving so much as one extra message.
I'm calling bullshit on you. I challenge you to cite quantative evidence that replying to spam DOES NOT result in receiveing extra spam.
No, anecdotes don't cut it. Neither does common sense, or "well, it stands to reason" arguments.
If you're gonna make that kind of challenge, then it's reasonable to assume that you have that kind of proof to support your own position.
Let's have it. We're all waiting.
I'll accept that they've held up their hands and said sorry, and claimed it was only there for upgrading.
I won't. There is no legitimate reason for this "functionality" to exist. None. Zero. Nada. Not for upgrading, or anything else.
An upgrade may (will?) have to delete files, but that should be performed by the installer after the upgrade has been downloaded, it should not (and must not) be performed arbitrarily by an unknown, untrusted host, with no authentication mechanism at all, without any acknowlegement from the user.
Legislation is not the answer.
Legislation is the answer. Legislation is the only way we have to cure social problems, and spam is a social problem.
The answer is in the technology. Where is SMTP version 2 (or whatever) that fixes this shit?
Spam exists because scumbags want to get something for nothing, and don't care how many people they annoy, harrass, or steal from. Technology cannot change this.
Spam does not exist because the protocols allow it, it exists because spammers see nothing wrong in abusing the system. No matter what technological measures you try to put in place, the only thing 'technological' you can do to stop spam is to eliminate email altogether.
Sure spammers will still spam, but they could no longer lie about who they are or where they are sending mail from.
You even acknowledge that there is no technological way to stop spam.
Don't want it - block it.
How is that any different than what's happening today?
Proper legislation, properly enforced would go a very long way to end spam. It would send a clear message that spam is not acceptable, which would prevent a lot of people from starting up, or hiring off-shore spammers.
Removing the code is really irrelevant,
No, it really isn't.
because they want to collect on all the "back damages" they believe they are owed.
If SCO wishes to collect any damages at all, then they MUST (as in _ _MUST_ _!) take steps to stop the alleged infringement as soon as possible - whether they believe it "can" be stopped or not. (Legally, they have to do everything within their power to stop SGI from continuing any infringment.)
The only way it can be irrelevant is if the code in question holds no value - which SCO is demonstrating; by not giving anyone the chance to remove any alleged infringing code, they are stating that their code is worthless, and you can't claim damages for something that's worthless.
It doesn't matter what we think. In the end, it will come down to an old man in a black robe.
The law (both written and case) states quite clearly that SCO must take steps to end any alleged infringement. Any "man in a black robe" can't rule any other way.
the law that gives you that kind of recourse has to be very clear as to what IS spam
No. You're falling into the spammer's "frea speach" red herring.
What makes spam is not the content, but the method.
such a complete and accurate law (which laws seldom are) must pass 1st Ammendment muster by not inadvertently prohibiting some legitimate communication and trampling on free speech.
Anti-spam laws are about harrassment, they have nothing to do with free speech.
Nobody is telling spammers that they are not allowed to speak. We are saying that they are not allowed to harrass people. There is a big difference.
The most common definition of spam is unsolicited bulk email. This is a very easy test. Is it unsolicited? (Did the recipient ask for it, or is there an existing relationship?) Was it sent to multiple people? If the answer to these questions is yes, then it's spam.
Anything that attempts to define spam in legislation is dangerous.
Again, the decision of whether something is spam or not has nothing to do with the content of the message, it has to do with how it was sent. Defining how it was sent is very simple to do, and (in fact) must be done if there is to be any sort of legislation (including the type you are OK with.)
I haven't consulted for small businesses in a few years, but when I was, I didn't find ANY linux
Yes, and we all know that the world is a fixed, static place, where nothing ever changes.
I haven't consulted for small businesses in a few years either, but when I was, I didn't find ANY Windows servers. Everybody was using Novell!
So, therefore (by your own logic), Novell must be the most popular server platform for small business.
Wow, I think somebody should tell them, I'm sure they'd love to hear that!
There is the technology available to avoid spam
And this misses the point that spam is not a technological problem, it's a social one. You don't solve social problems with technology. You solve social problems with social solutions.
If you left your house door open and somebody entered and made a mess in your house (or worse!) then who is to blame? Who is at fault? If you have a lock available to you then you use it.
Yes, but if you do lock your door and someone breaks in and makes a mess (or worse!) should I have to say "oh, well - at least I locked the door!"?
If you extend your analogy to its logical conclusion, it is actually an example of why we should have anti-spam laws, not why we shouldn't. If I have anti-spam measures, and I get spam, there should be legal recourse against the spammer, just like if I lock my door and someone breaks in, there is legal recourse against the theif.