I'm not sure I like the idea of being responsible for mail I don't read.
That's an oversimplification... like saying "Yes, I receieved that piece of paper, but I didn't read it, so I'm not responsible" when the "piece of paper" in question was a subpoena..
(yes, I know there is a difference between a legal document and an email, but I'm trying to make a point - "goliath" was notified, he can prove they were notified, and they ignored it.)
I have a client that was blocked by ORBZ... Initiated tests on their SMTP server from ORBZ site showed it as being clear.
I think you're wrong - if ORBZ showed it as being clear, then it's clear - the tools did a live query to the DNS, so if your site was blacklisted (regardless of HOW it was blacklisted), it would have shown up when you checked the site.
I petitioned and was told that there was a guilty server on the same subnet
Perhaps you contacted the wrong people, or it wasn't ORBZ? (Maybe it was a different blacklist?)
There is a complete list of the ORBZ list at http://216.111.143.11/inputs. You'll note that there are no wildcards in this list.
if an IP was verified clean then it could not be resubmitted within 30 days
Not only that, but if an IP address couldn't be tested (because it was down, or there were network problems, for example) then it was marked "clean" - and wouldn't be retested within 30 days.
Please indulge me, and let me try to trap you in your own theory.
You can troll me (which is what I suspect you're doing)
What if the newer version is not a free upgrade? Are you obliged to provide fixes for every version of the software you have ever released?
If you sold it to someone under the guise of a "product", then yes.
What if you discontinued the product line? Are you obliged to continue putting out security fixes?
Yes.
Is free (as in beer) software commercial? (snip)I I guess we can kiss those presents good-bye.
All of these questions have already been answered.
It's quite simple:
IF YOU SELL SOMETHING TO SOMEONE, UNDER THE GUISE OF "THIS IS MY PRODUCT" THEN YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO ENSURE THAT IT FUNCTIONS PROPERLY.
This is the whole point behind it: The commercial software industry is a service industry masquerading as a manufacturing industry. If they want to be a manufacturing industry, then they should have to play by the rules of the manufacturing industry, which includes liability for their "product"
The point of my (original) reply was simply to call into question the assumption that "if they can be sued, they'll go out of business" - like any other "manufacturer", they won't go out of business simply because they can be sued.
What I implied though, was that software companies want to be treated like a manufacturer, and they should be liable, just like other manufacturers.
Can I be sued because there's a feature a customer wants that I didn't implement?
No, but can you be sued because you're an idiot?
It's pretty obvious what constitutes a bug in this case: THE SOFTWARE CRASHED WHEN FED DATA
What if I wrote sendmail 10 years ago, and now someone sues me because I wrote an open relay?
I'll address this because this is the ONLY thing that's remotely on-topic..
If you write a commercial program, and it HAS A BUG which causes a crash, which you never fix, and you never release the source, then yes, you should be liable.
If the software isn't commercial, or it's not a bug (see above), or a newer version of your software doesn't have the bug, then you shouldn't be liable.
It's really pretty simple. If you want to be treated like a manufacturer, then you should get treated like a manufacturer. PERIOD.
Re:yeah right....
on
ORBZ Shuts Down
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
of course, if common sense prevailed, it would be the mail server vendor in court for producing insecure mail server software.
And that would leave us with how many commercial mail servers? None.:)
Yeah - just like all those lawsuits against car manufacturers resulted in them all going out of business!
More laws like this will only make things worse
Nobody said anything about more laws - they implied that existing laws for negligence should be used to force the appropriate parties to fix their software.
"I can honestly say that life would be a real pain in the ass without the Net."
So, was your life a pain in the ass before you stumbled onto the net?
Is that relevant?
Here's something that might come as a shock to you: once people become accustomed to something that makes their life MUCH easier, they often dread giving it up.
The city's business and occupation tax is 0.215 percent of gross receipts, minus credit for money spent on research and development
That sounds more like it only hits you when you sell the software.. which means that Open Source is in the clear..
That last bit (minus credit for R&D) is interesting tho.. if you give it away, can you deduct the R&D credit from your regular taxes? From the way the quote is worded , it sounds unlikely, but can anyone with more info (maybe someone who's seen the draft) comment on how the law is worded?
The flaw in your argument is that most people don't download music from unknown artists. They download music from artists that they have heard on the radio so the MPAA still has control.
It's not a flaw.. the music industry isn't stupid - they're not reacting to how things are NOW, they're reacting to how things might be in the future.
Think about it: 10 years ago, you're in a band, playing local clubs, and an A&R man comes to see you between sets. He promises you fame and fortune, all you have to do is sign. You read the contract, and note the following:
You pay all costs to record your albums (although the record company floats you a loan first) You pay all costs to promote your albums You get 5% of the Album sales (after you've paid off the marketing and recording costs.) But the record company can get thousands of people to listen to your music. So you say "umm, no", the A&R man goes away, gets replaced by an A&R man from a different record company who (essentially) offers you the same deal. If you want to "make it big", you have no choice.
Now, fast forward to 2005. You're starting a band, playing local clubs.
The internet is everywhere. Everyone has an MP3 player, and everyone downloads and listens to MP3's.
You're approached by Mr A&R man, and he offers you the same deal he did before.
You look at it, and think:
I'm paying the recording fees myself. I'm paying the marketing fees myself. If I do it myself, I can take 100% of the sale. And I can use the internet to make my music available to millions of people.
Now, which would you choose?
The Record companies aren't stupid. They recognize internet-based distribution as the end of their era. It used to be that they made their money because "they were the only caterer in town." That's not the case anymore.
Free speech is about your freedom to express views and opinions without government interference.
Spam is about harassment and theft.
"Free speech" does not guarantee you the right to force people to listen to you.
If Mr Gilmore went to his local TV station, and demanded that they broadcast (for free) videotapes of him masturbating, and they refused, would be be crying about how they're limiting his free speech?
My boss doesn't want to change his SMTP server every time he is connected to a different network (about 5 times per day) nor does he want to have to worry about having 5 different connections set up
He doesn't have to.
Simplest solution: change his SMTP server from "mail.yourdomain.com" to "mail".
Then, his computer will add the domain name of his local ISP to the DNS lookups, and he'll get the local mailserver.
This will work for 99% of ISP's on the planet.
If you use the 1% that doesn't have a DNS entry of "mail" pointing to their SMTP server, you can just use a VPN. It takes an hour to set up a VPN server, MS's PPTP client is free, and it's more secure (which should be enough to sell him on it all by itself.)
Uh, could you start arguing logically? Just a thought.. it may help you get chicks too.
I can "get chicks" just fine - I happen to be married.
Obviously if no computers were available then WC3 wouldn't exist. Plain and simple.
Yes - but if they didn't exist then it wouldn't be possible to pirate Blizzard games... And I don't see you claiming that Blizzard should try to sue intel for making it possible to pirate their games. The logic is sound, you just can't refute it.
Bnetd allows someone to play a pirated copy of (warcraft2|starcraft|warcraft3beta) over the internet without having a valid cd key.
No, it doesn't. It's not possible to play WC3 with bnetd. You need Warforge for that (Which is not bnetd.
Keep stating your "simple facts" too - they're fun to turn into stupidity.
Well, you'd certainly have first hand knowledge of that.
it doesn't matter if computers or PC's existed - a central auth server would make hacked war3b copies useless.
No, it DOES matter - if PC's or the Internet didn't exist, then nobody would have "pirated" WC3 either - but I don't see you claiming that Blizzard would be within in their rights to shut down Intel, or every ISP in the world.
they do in fact have a tool that allows users to circumvent copyright protection.
No, THEY DON'T
As I posted before, bnetd does not allow anyone to do anything they couldn't do without it
Period. You have yet to provide anything that refutes this simple fact.
On the plus side, looks like enough people from the praries complained, because they've posted a bulletin to the effect that there will be additional meetings in either Alberta, Sask., or Manitoba..
Actually, the C stood for Conservative, not Canadian (Reform tried - and failed - to merge with the Federal Conservative party, they figured they might win some Tory supporters if they gave them top billing.) It was part of their "Unite the Right" initiative.
Personally, if they'd gone through with it, I would have voted against them every chance I got, because I hate the Federal Conservative party (because of the asshole Mulroney - I hate the GST.)
I'm not exactly sure what the offcial name is now, but it doesn't have a crap accronym.
The official name is now simply "The Canadian Alliance"
they're doing this largely as a reaction to the WC3 beta. It was cracked within days of release, using bnetd
Yes, this is their logic. And it is essentially flawed.
bnetd does not allow you to play Wc3 beta, a hacked copy does.
So what you have is Blizzard pissing all over the bnetd authors, when (if their reasoning was sound) they should be going after the guys who were doing the bnetd WC3 hack. (Which, if they'd done that, I'm sure everybody here would have supported.)
Incidentally, I sent a letter to them, explaining this point, and all the others in their FAQ (which I EXPLICITLY stated I had read) and all I got back was their form letter telling me to read the FAQ.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure I like the idea of being responsible for mail I don't read.
That's an oversimplification... like saying "Yes, I receieved that piece of paper, but I didn't read it, so I'm not responsible" when the "piece of paper" in question was a subpoena..
(yes, I know there is a difference between a legal document and an email, but I'm trying to make a point - "goliath" was notified, he can prove they were notified, and they ignored it.)
Or the one about the other constipated mathematician who worked it out with pencil and paper.
I have a client that was blocked by ORBZ... Initiated tests on their SMTP server from ORBZ site showed it as being clear.
I think you're wrong - if ORBZ showed it as being clear, then it's clear - the tools did a live query to the DNS, so if your site was blacklisted (regardless of HOW it was blacklisted), it would have shown up when you checked the site.
I petitioned and was told that there was a guilty server on the same subnet
Perhaps you contacted the wrong people, or it wasn't ORBZ? (Maybe it was a different blacklist?)
There is a complete list of the ORBZ list at http://216.111.143.11/inputs. You'll note that there are no wildcards in this list.
if an IP was verified clean then it could not be resubmitted within 30 days
Not only that, but if an IP address couldn't be tested (because it was down, or there were network problems, for example) then it was marked "clean" - and wouldn't be retested within 30 days.
Please indulge me, and let me try to trap you in your own theory.
You can troll me (which is what I suspect you're doing)
What if the newer version is not a free upgrade? Are you obliged to provide fixes for every version of the software you have ever released?
If you sold it to someone under the guise of a "product", then yes.
What if you discontinued the product line? Are you obliged to continue putting out security fixes?
Yes.
Is free (as in beer) software commercial? (snip)I I guess we can kiss those presents good-bye.
All of these questions have already been answered.
It's quite simple:
IF YOU SELL SOMETHING TO SOMEONE, UNDER THE GUISE OF "THIS IS MY PRODUCT" THEN YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO ENSURE THAT IT FUNCTIONS PROPERLY.
This is the whole point behind it: The commercial software industry is a service industry masquerading as a manufacturing industry. If they want to be a manufacturing industry, then they should have to play by the rules of the manufacturing industry, which includes liability for their "product"
The point of my (original) reply was simply to call into question the assumption that "if they can be sued, they'll go out of business" - like any other "manufacturer", they won't go out of business simply because they can be sued.
Software isn't a car.
I never said it WAS a car.
What I implied though, was that software companies want to be treated like a manufacturer, and they should be liable, just like other manufacturers.
Can I be sued because there's a feature a customer wants that I didn't implement?
No, but can you be sued because you're an idiot?
It's pretty obvious what constitutes a bug in this case: THE SOFTWARE CRASHED WHEN FED DATA
What if I wrote sendmail 10 years ago, and now someone sues me because I wrote an open relay?
I'll address this because this is the ONLY thing that's remotely on-topic..
If you write a commercial program, and it HAS A BUG which causes a crash, which you never fix, and you never release the source, then yes, you should be liable.
If the software isn't commercial, or it's not a bug (see above), or a newer version of your software doesn't have the bug, then you shouldn't be liable.
It's really pretty simple. If you want to be treated like a manufacturer, then you should get treated like a manufacturer. PERIOD.
of course, if common sense prevailed, it would be the mail server vendor in court for producing insecure mail server software.
:)
And that would leave us with how many commercial mail servers? None.
Yeah - just like all those lawsuits against car manufacturers resulted in them all going out of business!
More laws like this will only make things worse
Nobody said anything about more laws - they implied that existing laws for negligence should be used to force the appropriate parties to fix their software.
So, was your life a pain in the ass before you stumbled onto the net?
Is that relevant?
Here's something that might come as a shock to you: once people become accustomed to something that makes their life MUCH easier, they often dread giving it up.
I got's three words for Mr. Ballmer:
How about:
4) Ritalin
Seriously, this guy could be the poster child for ADD.
how long before someone attempts to link PayPal to terrorism?
Already done.
Excerpt from the site: "it appears PayPal is the largest money laundress for organized crime and pro-terriorist organizations"
Seriously - a Buck Rogers theme park?
:o)
Someone rolled a 3 on the ole intelligence.
Hey, if they had Erin Grey lookalikes running around in those spandex jumpsuits, I'd be there in a flash!
if Ford starts to include a book that explains how cars work and what each part does? will that exempt them from liability?
Sure, as long as the "book" can be fed into a machine that produces an exact, working model of the car.
Given present technology, the book in your example isn't an actual representation of the car, it's a description of the car.
Source code is more than just "a book" that describes the software - it is the software.
The city's business and occupation tax is 0.215 percent of gross receipts, minus credit for money spent on research and development
That sounds more like it only hits you when you sell the software.. which means that Open Source is in the clear..
That last bit (minus credit for R&D) is interesting tho.. if you give it away, can you deduct the R&D credit from your regular taxes? From the way the quote is worded , it sounds unlikely, but can anyone with more info (maybe someone who's seen the draft) comment on how the law is worded?
it's got to have a name. More X's, the better. Not three X's thou. So my bet would be Hurdix.
:O)
What about Xurdix?
The X and H look kinda similar, and this one would have TWO X's! So it's even better!
The flaw in your argument is that most people don't download music from unknown artists. They download music from artists that they have heard on the radio so the MPAA still has control.
It's not a flaw.. the music industry isn't stupid - they're not reacting to how things are NOW, they're reacting to how things might be in the future.
Think about it: 10 years ago, you're in a band, playing local clubs, and an A&R man comes to see you between sets. He promises you fame and fortune, all you have to do is sign. You read the contract, and note the following:
You pay all costs to record your albums (although the record company floats you a loan first)
You pay all costs to promote your albums
You get 5% of the Album sales (after you've paid off the marketing and recording costs.)
But the record company can get thousands of people to listen to your music.
So you say "umm, no", the A&R man goes away, gets replaced by an A&R man from a different record company who (essentially) offers you the same deal. If you want to "make it big", you have no choice.
Now, fast forward to 2005. You're starting a band, playing local clubs.
The internet is everywhere. Everyone has an MP3 player, and everyone downloads and listens to MP3's.
You're approached by Mr A&R man, and he offers you the same deal he did before.
You look at it, and think:
I'm paying the recording fees myself.
I'm paying the marketing fees myself.
If I do it myself, I can take 100% of the sale.
And I can use the internet to make my music available to millions of people.
Now, which would you choose?
The Record companies aren't stupid. They recognize internet-based distribution as the end of their era. It used to be that they made their money because "they were the only caterer in town." That's not the case anymore.
Sorry, spam has NOTHING to do with free speech.
Free speech is about your freedom to express views and opinions without government interference.
Spam is about harassment and theft.
"Free speech" does not guarantee you the right to force people to listen to you.
If Mr Gilmore went to his local TV station, and demanded that they broadcast (for free) videotapes of him masturbating, and they refused, would be be crying about how they're limiting his free speech?
My boss doesn't want to change his SMTP server every time he is connected to a different network (about 5 times per day) nor does he want to have to worry about having 5 different connections set up
He doesn't have to.
Simplest solution: change his SMTP server from "mail.yourdomain.com" to "mail".
Then, his computer will add the domain name of his local ISP to the DNS lookups, and he'll get the local mailserver.
This will work for 99% of ISP's on the planet.
If you use the 1% that doesn't have a DNS entry of "mail" pointing to their SMTP server, you can just use a VPN. It takes an hour to set up a VPN server, MS's PPTP client is free, and it's more secure (which should be enough to sell him on it all by itself.)
OK, I realize you're just trolling, but I'll bite..
It's not his fault people are using his service illegally
Yes, it is.
It's his decision to run an open relay. There is no reason for anyone, anywhere to have one.
He knows that people are using it "illegally", and yet he allows it to continue, therefore, it IS his fault.
Uh, could you start arguing logically? Just a thought.. it may help you get chicks too.
I can "get chicks" just fine - I happen to be married.
Obviously if no computers were available then WC3 wouldn't exist. Plain and simple.
Yes - but if they didn't exist then it wouldn't be possible to pirate Blizzard games... And I don't see you claiming that Blizzard should try to sue intel for making it possible to pirate their games. The logic is sound, you just can't refute it.
Bnetd allows someone to play a pirated copy of (warcraft2|starcraft|warcraft3beta) over the internet without having a valid cd key.
No, it doesn't. It's not possible to play WC3 with bnetd. You need Warforge for that (Which is not bnetd.
Keep stating your "simple facts" too - they're fun to turn into stupidity.
Well, you'd certainly have first hand knowledge of that.
it doesn't matter if computers or PC's existed - a central auth server would make hacked war3b copies useless.
No, it DOES matter - if PC's or the Internet didn't exist, then nobody would have "pirated" WC3 either - but I don't see you claiming that Blizzard would be within in their rights to shut down Intel, or every ISP in the world.
they do in fact have a tool that allows users to circumvent copyright protection.
No, THEY DON'T
As I posted before, bnetd does not allow anyone to do anything they couldn't do without it
Period. You have yet to provide anything that refutes this simple fact.
If bnetd did not exist, then the hacked copies of WC3b would not be playable
Yes, and the same could be said for the Internet, or PC's in general... what's your point?
Blizzard is not pissing all over the bnetd authors either.
Yes. They are.
Bnetd creators did NOTHING to violate any form of copyright or "intellectual property", and were harrassed because they have less money than Blizzard.
I've received my formal invitation; if you want to attend, you should register first.
Specifics (locations, times, registration info) is available at the following web site:
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/rp00838e.html
On the plus side, looks like enough people from the praries complained, because they've posted a bulletin to the effect that there will be additional meetings in either Alberta, Sask., or Manitoba..
And again...
As an application developer, I would want my product to be easily integrated into an enterprise
As an application developer it's not your place to dictate the security policies of the sites where your application is used.
Actually, the C stood for Conservative, not Canadian (Reform tried - and failed - to merge with the Federal Conservative party, they figured they might win some Tory supporters if they gave them top billing.) It was part of their "Unite the Right" initiative.
Personally, if they'd gone through with it, I would have voted against them every chance I got, because I hate the Federal Conservative party (because of the asshole Mulroney - I hate the GST.)
I'm not exactly sure what the offcial name is now, but it doesn't have a crap accronym.
The official name is now simply "The Canadian Alliance"
they're doing this largely as a reaction to the WC3 beta. It was cracked within days of release, using bnetd
Yes, this is their logic. And it is essentially flawed.
bnetd does not allow you to play Wc3 beta, a hacked copy does.
So what you have is Blizzard pissing all over the bnetd authors, when (if their reasoning was sound) they should be going after the guys who were doing the bnetd WC3 hack. (Which, if they'd done that, I'm sure everybody here would have supported.)
Incidentally, I sent a letter to them, explaining this point, and all the others in their FAQ (which I EXPLICITLY stated I had read) and all I got back was their form letter telling me to read the FAQ.
They lost me as a customer because of this.