It is true that since Sobig uses its own SMTP server the ISP would have to do the monitoring via a port 25 monitor. I'm not completely sure how difficult/expensive this would be to implement on a large scale, but there's an opportunity for someone who comes up with a cheap solution.
There is an easier way - you transparently proxy all outbound SMTP connections to your own mail server.
We initially implemented this in 1998 to prevent our dial-up users from spamming, and it's worked wonderfully. The one time we had a spammer, he managed to send a total of 3 spams before my pager went off (which happens when the load on the mailserver reaches a set level) before we shut him down (there were over a thousand spams in the queue, which we simply deleted.)
They are trying to make a case that Linux has SCO IP in it
No, they aren't. If they were trying to make such a case, they would show where the alleged infringing code is.
they plan to move on and say it is therefor theirs, they are the rightfull owner of Linux
And how, exactly, would that happen? You think a judge would reward SCO for breaking the law?
By not being fortcoming with the code they allege is in Linux, SCO is saying that any alleged code is valueless (after all, if it had value, they'd want to have it removed as soon as possible.) Since the alleged infringing code is valueless to them, there is no way they would be able to claim the Linux kernel.
There is already attention drawn to it. SCO is the one doing it, by issuing these stupid statements.
If you don't know what the offending code is, and it is removed in a subsequent kernel release, then you might not ever even care to try to find out what it was. Sure, some folks with nothing better to do will do diffs and post it all over, but the majority of folks would just patch and move on.
And this would hurt SCO how?!?!? "they might care" - ABOUT WHAT?
enumerate the lines that are offending and folks will all know.
And "the majority would just patch and move on." How is this any different than your first "example"?
if this SCO issue IS true and no real penalties can be assessed [...] it is still a bad thing in that it rewards behavior that is found unacceptable
But the thing is that if SCO's allegations are true, then the whole point is that no penalties could be assessed because SCO refused to tell anyone where the code was. No "unacceptable" behaviour is being rewarded - in fact, the unacceptable behaviour (ie. SCO refusing to mitigate it's damages) is being punished. Which is what's supposed to happen.
it simply encourages others to "steal" code from their employer and release it in an OSS product and letting that cat out of the bag as well
And if that happens, then the employer would sue the employee, and win, provided they alert the OSS project in a timely manner.
If there is no penalty for doing so, then this could be a big issue to commercial software
There would only be no penalty if the company in question refuses to identify the alleged infringing code.
Your arguments do nothing but suggest that SCO must identify the alleged infringing code as soon as possible.
Is it even legal to deny someone a job because of where they have worked before?
Yes.
That's like denying people jobs just because they like people of the same sex.
No.
It's like denying people jobs just because they say "you're an asshole."
Despite what Pat Roberts would have you believe, there is strong evidence to suggest that homosexuality is biological.. so one doesn't "choose" it...
On the other hand, there is no question that where you work is the result of a deliberate, concious choice.
It's legal to deny someone a job if they have a felony conviction - which implies a deliberate, concious choice to break the law. Working for SCO is no different. (double-entendre not intended:o)
you might be surprised at the scrap crap that could be turned to the purpose.
Cool - you should write RDF Media - I'd love to see this on next season's Junkyard Wars!:o)
Re:Indemnity from IP infringement
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 1
I don't see why most GPL developers couldn't offer the exact same type of indemnity: refund on the purchase price in case there are IP violations.
Because most GPL developers don't sell the code, however (for example) Linux distributors do. So in the (unlikely) event that there is an IP violation, Linus would get stuck with paying money to someone that paid for their linux distro. Change 'someone' with '50,000 people', and he'd be liable for a very large sum of money, of which he had no part in.
Re:"Warwick Toomey" should be Warren Toomey
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 1
Spammers will ALWAYS find a way to send their unwanted garbage around until SMTP is upgraded/replaced with something more secure.
Wrong. Spammers will ALWAYS find a way to send unwanted garbage around even if SMTP is upgraded/replaced with something more secure.
Think about it - how would increasing the "security" of the mail protocol stop someone from sending something that the recipient doesn't want?
Whitelisting? Destroys email altogether. (Part of the power of email is that anyone can send mail to anyone else, without having to have a prior relationship. Making the default rule 'deny' will destroy this ubiquity.)
Blacklisting? We already have that, don't we?
Spam is a social problem, and requires a social solution.
I thought that Gentoo really would provide the best, compared to RH & various precompiled distributions
First rule of being a sysadmin: You NEVER put a compiler on a production server. Ever.
All software (including updates) is compiled and tested on a dev machine (preferably on a disconnected network), then moved to the production machine once you're satisfied that it won't break anything.
This pretty much precludes Gentoo.
I thought that it would be more stable if I chose only the stable releases.
Stability is not measured in point releases. Stability is measured by testing. As in you testing, in your configuration.
What distibution do you recommend for this
Slackware. Rock solid, as Pat doesn't include anything he hasn't tested. (With the exception of security fixes, Slackware packages are typically 1-2 months behind the bleeding edge, to allow for testing.) If there is software you need that Slackware doesn't include, you can compile it and test it your self (see above), safe in the knowledge that everything else is OK.
there's unsolicited bulk email that people could theoretically want
Whether people could "theoretically want" it is beside the point.
if it's targeted, and there's something free behind it, it's not bad at all.
yes, it is. I don't want it. I shouldn't have to put up with it.
No big deal -- easy to delete
Whether it's 'easy to delete' or not is also beside the point. My DNSBL filters out ~6000 messages per week. And that's on top of the 20 to 30 I get per day that make it by the blacklist. It doesn't matter how 'easy' it is to delete, the issue is how fucking annoying it is that I have to go through it to get the email that I actually want.
And you wanna know something? EVERY SINGLE ONE of these assholes believes that their message is "special".
If you want spam, sign up for it... but I shouldn't have to suffer from your idiocy. Make it opt-in, and we get the best of both worlds.
That depends on the judge. Canopy would likely ask to keep the information confidential (trade secrets) but IBM would likely get to challenge that.. things like the alleged infringing linux source code wouldn't qualify, as they are already publically known.
porn as free speech etc etc etc become quite intolerant when the topic at hand is spam
Spam has _NOTHING_ to do with freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is the right to say whatever you want. It _IS NOT_ the right to force people to listen to you, or the right to abuse other people's resources because you want to say something.
The way to fight spam is to build clever tools, come up with a technical fix
Yup, just like the way to stop other crimes is to build clever tools and come up with a technical fix.
Spam is a social problem, and therefore requires a social solution. Spam exists because there are people who want something for nothing, and don't care who's resources they abuse, or who they harrass in the process. There is no technical solution to this.
When similar laws were proposed to ban porn and bomb making sites many were outraged. The same sentiments should apply.
Why? The (proposed) law doesn't say that you're not allowed to have a web page talking about spam. If it did, then there would be a parallel (and I would not support such a law). This is about the actual act of spamming, not simply talking about spamming. Please realize the difference.
This is not a ban on talking about a specific topic. This is a ban on deliberate theft of other people's resources. There is no free speech issue.
No, there is only one kind. The second kind isn't spam.
Spam is defined as "unsolicited bulk email". Note the first word there - unsolicited. If you have a relationship with the sender, then it's not unsolicited, and therefore not spam.
I'm getting a weekly email from a radio station I sent my CD to, saying what their playlist is. Did I ask for it? No.
But you did ask for it, albeit indirectly. You initiated the relationship with them, so it's not unsolicited.
You said that SCO is claiming ownership of SMP stuff (which is only true if you're talking about the IBM lawsuit). I was just pointing out that SCO has claimed (in interviews) that the alleged infringing code is for other, older, stuff.
They released Linux kernel code under the GPL until Linux 2.4.x something
That would be 2.4.13... and (while I agree with you about the GPL) I think that's irrelevant:o)
If VOIP is providing a functionally equivalent service, then they should be held to the same standards as conventional phone services.
First of all, define "functionally equvalent".
(Theoretically) VOIP isn't as reliable as regular telephone service - does that mean that it's "functionally equivalent"?
Second, you miss the reason it's regulated as heavily as it is - because in the past, each telco was a monopoly, and they had to be regulated in order to prevent them from screwing their customers (which happened anyway, just not as bad.)
The regulations are there to help the consumer - because the consumer had no choice. With VOIP, this isn't the case. Should the VOIP companies be penalized because a monopoly phone company doesn't want to play by the rules?
The phone companies are still (especially in rural areas) basically monopolies - you need broadband to use VOIP, so the area where Vonage et. al. can provide service is limited.
Note that there are other ways to look at it too: telcos are/were given monopolies, with the provision that they provide telephone service to rural areas.. so they make their money in urban areas, and use that to subsidize rural customers.. (and if they lose their urban customers, then the rates of rural customers will go up..)
I'm not saying that the status quo is perfect, but it's certainly not as black-and-white as you seem to believe.
You can create packets that a NAT will convieniently route to it translated LAN
If so, then the 'security device' is broken - and has nothing to do with NAT.
Always block/log SSH, Telnet, FTP, TFTP, HTTP
Actually, you should block everything, except for stuff you know you need.
Use a non-standard IP address range for your LAN
Wrong - assume that anyone on the outside knows the IP address range you use for your LAN. Attempting to 'hide' this is security through obscurity - it does nothing to enhance your security (there are LOTS of ways to find out the address range), and provides you a false sense of security.
I am tired of being lectured on statistics and the weaknesses of the scientific method by people who evince no familiarity with either.
And I'm tired of being lectured on statistics and the scientific method, and how infallible it is, by people with no familiarity with either. (Note: this is not you, but other people.)
Science is a process. It is a method of attaching degrees of certainty to explanations of observed phenomena, of understanding our universe without bias or wishful thinking. The process has no ethical component
All true, but completely beside the point when dealing with people who don't understand that, and treat science as a mystical explanation of everything around us. Even when scientific method says "results cannot confirm or deny such phenomenon", they ignore the "deny" part, and harp on "confirm" - science cannot confirm it, so therefore it does not exist.
Unlike religion, science has no asserted dogma. If I so desire, I can follow every step in the chain from 2+2=4 through general relativity, and see, carefully footnoted, the areas where we think there needs to be further work, or we are not sure of our answers. (emphasis mine)
This is precisely my point - people who treat science as a religion believe that science provides all answers, all the time. There is no fallibility, and thus science itself becomes the asserted dogma.
Unlike religionists, the only time scientists get stuffy when someone questions their data is when that someone has made no effort to understand the process, and is speaking from a position of obvious fallacy.
This statement ignores people who don't question the data, and have made no effort to understand the process. These are the people to whom science is a religion - they are (as you say) speaking from a position of fallacy, but use reports of a scientific nature to assert their claims. People like this do exist (there are more of them than you know.)
So is the study valid? Can't tell from a Reuters article.
Yes, but there are people who will believe it - based solely on the article, and won't bother to check it, let alone understand it.
Science requires no faith...only hard work and an open mind.
Science doesn't need to require faith, but that doesn't exclude people from having faith in science.
On the face of it, this is true enough - but I think what the original author meant (and at least what I infer when I hear those words) is "Science is a religion to some people."
Science is a process - a method of filtering out truths from nonsense. There is no "belief" about this process, no deep-rooted truths about the universe inherent in testing a hypothesis.
Yes, but there are people (such as James Randi, for example) who treat it as such. And (as such) science is a religion to those people - even if they would deny it.
To non-scientists, science can be a religion, because they believe science can explain everything, and that anything not explained by science cannot exist. They believe, even though they do not understand. And that's what makes it a religion.
Slashdot Mirror
It is true that since Sobig uses its own SMTP server the ISP would have to do the monitoring via a port 25 monitor. I'm not completely sure how difficult/expensive this would be to implement on a large scale, but there's an opportunity for someone who comes up with a cheap solution.
There is an easier way - you transparently proxy all outbound SMTP connections to your own mail server.
We initially implemented this in 1998 to prevent our dial-up users from spamming, and it's worked wonderfully. The one time we had a spammer, he managed to send a total of 3 spams before my pager went off (which happens when the load on the mailserver reaches a set level) before we shut him down (there were over a thousand spams in the queue, which we simply deleted.)
I would never pay money for content I can have for free. It's just plain stu... just a second, what's that star next to my nick mean? Oh, nevermind.
/.?
Someone forced you to pay to read
Here's the post you were replying to:
I don't think I have ever subscribed to online content where I had to pay money.
If you read Clay's article, you'll see that you're making his point for him.
phone calls, local and long distance, often are pay per unit of some sort
Really? The only person I talk to long distance is my mother, and she's never charged me anything for talking to her.
I'm quite certain she doesn't charge anyone else, either.
Perhaps you might read the article, before blathering on about something you don't understand.
They are trying to make a case that Linux has SCO IP in it
No, they aren't. If they were trying to make such a case, they would show where the alleged infringing code is.
they plan to move on and say it is therefor theirs, they are the rightfull owner of Linux
And how, exactly, would that happen? You think a judge would reward SCO for breaking the law?
By not being fortcoming with the code they allege is in Linux, SCO is saying that any alleged code is valueless (after all, if it had value, they'd want to have it removed as soon as possible.) Since the alleged infringing code is valueless to them, there is no way they would be able to claim the Linux kernel.
Works for the U.S. Military
/me ducks :o)
Truly? the US Military is refusing to hire ex-SCO employees?
it draws attention to it
There is already attention drawn to it. SCO is the one doing it, by issuing these stupid statements.
If you don't know what the offending code is, and it is removed in a subsequent kernel release, then you might not ever even care to try to find out what it was. Sure, some folks with nothing better to do will do diffs and post it all over, but the majority of folks would just patch and move on.
And this would hurt SCO how?!?!? "they might care" - ABOUT WHAT?
enumerate the lines that are offending and folks will all know.
And "the majority would just patch and move on." How is this any different than your first "example"?
if this SCO issue IS true and no real penalties can be assessed [...] it is still a bad thing in that it rewards behavior that is found unacceptable
But the thing is that if SCO's allegations are true, then the whole point is that no penalties could be assessed because SCO refused to tell anyone where the code was. No "unacceptable" behaviour is being rewarded - in fact, the unacceptable behaviour (ie. SCO refusing to mitigate it's damages) is being punished. Which is what's supposed to happen.
it simply encourages others to "steal" code from their employer and release it in an OSS product and letting that cat out of the bag as well
And if that happens, then the employer would sue the employee, and win, provided they alert the OSS project in a timely manner.
If there is no penalty for doing so, then this could be a big issue to commercial software
There would only be no penalty if the company in question refuses to identify the alleged infringing code.
Your arguments do nothing but suggest that SCO must identify the alleged infringing code as soon as possible.
Is it even legal to deny someone a job because of where they have worked before?
:o)
Yes.
That's like denying people jobs just because they like people of the same sex.
No.
It's like denying people jobs just because they say "you're an asshole."
Despite what Pat Roberts would have you believe, there is strong evidence to suggest that homosexuality is biological.. so one doesn't "choose" it...
On the other hand, there is no question that where you work is the result of a deliberate, concious choice.
It's legal to deny someone a job if they have a felony conviction - which implies a deliberate, concious choice to break the law. Working for SCO is no different. (double-entendre not intended
you might be surprised at the scrap crap that could be turned to the purpose.
:o)
Cool - you should write RDF Media - I'd love to see this on next season's Junkyard Wars!
I don't see why most GPL developers couldn't offer the exact same type of indemnity: refund on the purchase price in case there are IP violations.
Because most GPL developers don't sell the code, however (for example) Linux distributors do. So in the (unlikely) event that there is an IP violation, Linus would get stuck with paying money to someone that paid for their linux distro. Change 'someone' with '50,000 people', and he'd be liable for a very large sum of money, of which he had no part in.
Warwick? Don't worry, it's just a small error. :o)
We need facts, not opinions.
:o)
Why? Lack of facts hasn't stopped SCO - why should it stop us?
Spammers will ALWAYS find a way to send their unwanted garbage around until SMTP is upgraded/replaced with something more secure.
Wrong. Spammers will ALWAYS find a way to send unwanted garbage around even if SMTP is upgraded/replaced with something more secure.
Think about it - how would increasing the "security" of the mail protocol stop someone from sending something that the recipient doesn't want?
Whitelisting? Destroys email altogether. (Part of the power of email is that anyone can send mail to anyone else, without having to have a prior relationship. Making the default rule 'deny' will destroy this ubiquity.)
Blacklisting? We already have that, don't we?
Spam is a social problem, and requires a social solution.
I thought that Gentoo really would provide the best, compared to RH & various precompiled distributions
First rule of being a sysadmin: You NEVER put a compiler on a production server. Ever.
All software (including updates) is compiled and tested on a dev machine (preferably on a disconnected network), then moved to the production machine once you're satisfied that it won't break anything.
This pretty much precludes Gentoo.
I thought that it would be more stable if I chose only the stable releases.
Stability is not measured in point releases. Stability is measured by testing. As in you testing, in your configuration.
What distibution do you recommend for this
Slackware. Rock solid, as Pat doesn't include anything he hasn't tested. (With the exception of security fixes, Slackware packages are typically 1-2 months behind the bleeding edge, to allow for testing.) If there is software you need that Slackware doesn't include, you can compile it and test it your self (see above), safe in the knowledge that everything else is OK.
there's unsolicited bulk email that people could theoretically want
Whether people could "theoretically want" it is beside the point.
if it's targeted, and there's something free behind it, it's not bad at all.
yes, it is. I don't want it. I shouldn't have to put up with it.
No big deal -- easy to delete
Whether it's 'easy to delete' or not is also beside the point. My DNSBL filters out ~6000 messages per week. And that's on top of the 20 to 30 I get per day that make it by the blacklist. It doesn't matter how 'easy' it is to delete, the issue is how fucking annoying it is that I have to go through it to get the email that I actually want.
And you wanna know something? EVERY SINGLE ONE of these assholes believes that their message is "special".
If you want spam, sign up for it... but I shouldn't have to suffer from your idiocy. Make it opt-in, and we get the best of both worlds.
can IBM publish the material?
That depends on the judge. Canopy would likely ask to keep the information confidential (trade secrets) but IBM would likely get to challenge that.. things like the alleged infringing linux source code wouldn't qualify, as they are already publically known.
porn as free speech etc etc etc become quite intolerant when the topic at hand is spam
Spam has _NOTHING_ to do with freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is the right to say whatever you want. It _IS NOT_ the right to force people to listen to you, or the right to abuse other people's resources because you want to say something.
The way to fight spam is to build clever tools, come up with a technical fix
Yup, just like the way to stop other crimes is to build clever tools and come up with a technical fix.
Spam is a social problem, and therefore requires a social solution. Spam exists because there are people who want something for nothing, and don't care who's resources they abuse, or who they harrass in the process. There is no technical solution to this.
When similar laws were proposed to ban porn and bomb making sites many were outraged. The same sentiments should apply.
Why? The (proposed) law doesn't say that you're not allowed to have a web page talking about spam. If it did, then there would be a parallel (and I would not support such a law). This is about the actual act of spamming, not simply talking about spamming. Please realize the difference.
This is not a ban on talking about a specific topic. This is a ban on deliberate theft of other people's resources. There is no free speech issue.
There's two kinds of spam
No, there is only one kind. The second kind isn't spam.
Spam is defined as "unsolicited bulk email". Note the first word there - unsolicited. If you have a relationship with the sender, then it's not unsolicited, and therefore not spam.
I'm getting a weekly email from a radio station I sent my CD to, saying what their playlist is. Did I ask for it? No.
But you did ask for it, albeit indirectly. You initiated the relationship with them, so it's not unsolicited.
for an introductionary price of only $699 he may buy a "promise" from you
:o)
No, no - for $699 for each person who might read his letter, he may buy a "promise".
irrelevant
:o)
:o)
Not to this discussion
You said that SCO is claiming ownership of SMP stuff (which is only true if you're talking about the IBM lawsuit). I was just pointing out that SCO has claimed (in interviews) that the alleged infringing code is for other, older, stuff.
They released Linux kernel code under the GPL until Linux 2.4.x something
That would be 2.4.13... and (while I agree with you about the GPL) I think that's irrelevant
SCO claims ownership of Linux code that includes SMP
No, actually. SCO reps have said in interviews that the alleged infringing code goes back to 2.0, and possibly earlier.
If VOIP is providing a functionally equivalent service, then they should be held to the same standards as conventional phone services.
First of all, define "functionally equvalent".
(Theoretically) VOIP isn't as reliable as regular telephone service - does that mean that it's "functionally equivalent"?
Second, you miss the reason it's regulated as heavily as it is - because in the past, each telco was a monopoly, and they had to be regulated in order to prevent them from screwing their customers (which happened anyway, just not as bad.)
The regulations are there to help the consumer - because the consumer had no choice. With VOIP, this isn't the case. Should the VOIP companies be penalized because a monopoly phone company doesn't want to play by the rules?
The phone companies are still (especially in rural areas) basically monopolies - you need broadband to use VOIP, so the area where Vonage et. al. can provide service is limited.
Note that there are other ways to look at it too: telcos are/were given monopolies, with the provision that they provide telephone service to rural areas.. so they make their money in urban areas, and use that to subsidize rural customers.. (and if they lose their urban customers, then the rates of rural customers will go up..)
I'm not saying that the status quo is perfect, but it's certainly not as black-and-white as you seem to believe.
You can create packets that a NAT will convieniently route to it translated LAN
If so, then the 'security device' is broken - and has nothing to do with NAT.
Always block/log SSH, Telnet, FTP, TFTP, HTTP
Actually, you should block everything, except for stuff you know you need.
Use a non-standard IP address range for your LAN
Wrong - assume that anyone on the outside knows the IP address range you use for your LAN. Attempting to 'hide' this is security through obscurity - it does nothing to enhance your security (there are LOTS of ways to find out the address range), and provides you a false sense of security.
I am tired of being lectured on statistics and the weaknesses of the scientific method by people who evince no familiarity with either.
And I'm tired of being lectured on statistics and the scientific method, and how infallible it is, by people with no familiarity with either. (Note: this is not you, but other people.)
Science is a process. It is a method of attaching degrees of certainty to explanations of observed phenomena, of understanding our universe without bias or wishful thinking. The process has no ethical component
All true, but completely beside the point when dealing with people who don't understand that, and treat science as a mystical explanation of everything around us. Even when scientific method says "results cannot confirm or deny such phenomenon", they ignore the "deny" part, and harp on "confirm" - science cannot confirm it, so therefore it does not exist.
Unlike religion, science has no asserted dogma. If I so desire, I can follow every step in the chain from 2+2=4 through general relativity, and see, carefully footnoted, the areas where we think there needs to be further work, or we are not sure of our answers. (emphasis mine)
This is precisely my point - people who treat science as a religion believe that science provides all answers, all the time. There is no fallibility, and thus science itself becomes the asserted dogma.
Unlike religionists, the only time scientists get stuffy when someone questions their data is when that someone has made no effort to understand the process, and is speaking from a position of obvious fallacy.
This statement ignores people who don't question the data, and have made no effort to understand the process. These are the people to whom science is a religion - they are (as you say) speaking from a position of fallacy, but use reports of a scientific nature to assert their claims. People like this do exist (there are more of them than you know.)
So is the study valid? Can't tell from a Reuters article.
Yes, but there are people who will believe it - based solely on the article, and won't bother to check it, let alone understand it.
Science requires no faith...only hard work and an open mind.
Science doesn't need to require faith, but that doesn't exclude people from having faith in science.
Science is nothing like religion.
On the face of it, this is true enough - but I think what the original author meant (and at least what I infer when I hear those words) is "Science is a religion to some people."
Science is a process - a method of filtering out truths from nonsense. There is no "belief" about this process, no deep-rooted truths about the universe inherent in testing a hypothesis.
Yes, but there are people (such as James Randi, for example) who treat it as such. And (as such) science is a religion to those people - even if they would deny it.
To non-scientists, science can be a religion, because they believe science can explain everything, and that anything not explained by science cannot exist. They believe, even though they do not understand. And that's what makes it a religion.
"Prove to me X exists"
:o)
:o)
OK, how's this?
(Sorry, I agree with what you said, I just couldn't resist