Which isn't actually spam, and is a result of idiot mail server admins blindly accepting mail they shouldn't. If a mail server admin is stupid enough to configure their server to accept mail that it can't deliver, what makes you think that they'll configure it properly for SPF or sender-id?
So you're wrong on this count, too.
Forged addresses.
No, it does nothing to stop forged addresses. As you realized, it only checks the domain name.
If they do, you still get the spam but you know who they are and pretty soon, they'll be on all the black lists and out of business.
What color is the sky in your world?
Got some news for you: WE ALREADY HAVE BLACKLISTS, and the people who are pushing SPF and sender ID say they don't work.
Why is it that a blacklist based on something that costs less than $10 to change will be infallible, when blacklists based on something that is much more difficult and expensive to change (IP address) don't work right now?
Most spam comes from trojaned machines (zombie networks), and there is *NOTHING* that will stop the trojan authors from simply having the zombie do a whois lookup and setting the return address to something that will bypass sender checks (even if it means sending through an upstream mail server.)
Result? The From: address will still be forged, legitimate forwarded email is stopped, nobody wins.
Look over your SPAM headers, and you'll see, most of the return-addresses do not match the machine that relayed the message.
Which will *WILL NOT CHANGE*, even with SPF.
And as someone else said, there is *nothing* to stop a spammer from spending $10 to register a domain, spamming for a week or two using Sender ID/SPF legitimately, then abandoning the domain if it gets blacklisted.
If you think this is an anti-spam measure, then you really don't have a clue as to how email operates, or how spammers operate, or both.
When 2 tickets cost more than the DVD it becomes a no brainer.
Bingo!
My wife and I used to go to a LOT of movies. Then we decided that we could buy a 51" TV, and purchase DVDs, and it would pay for itself in 2 years (even less if we rent them instead of buying them.)
I believe it's Shrek 2 that has some monstrous ad for Madagascar on it (among others), and they disable the menu and next chapter buttons (WHICH INFURIATES ME)
I have Shrek 2 (even after seeing it in the theatre) and I can skip the previews no problem (IIRC with the "STOP" or "TITLE" buttons.)
Contrast with Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, which disabled *everything* on the remote (except eject, which I promptly used to remove the PoS from my DVD player. I promptly returned the disc to the friend from whom I'd borrowed it.)
When I compile software, I *always* compile on a dev machine as a package, test it to make sure that it works properly, then install the package on the production system. The package gets integrated with the rest of the system, so I don't have to worry about it. There is no real additional work for me (in fact, if it's destined to multiple machines - which is almost always, then there is less work for me), and no additional support requests I have to handle.
Only in very rare circumstances do I put things in/usr/local (typically one-off utilities that don't require config files, etc.)
Maybe a more experience sys admin can chime in here, but/usr/local is exactly where additional software, not included in the base OS, should be installed.
There are two schools of thought - that's one of them.
The other is that/usr/local is where any software not installed by the system's package management should go.
Now that package management is pretty mature, I'd say that the latter is my preferred way of doing things.
It's kind of like the old/sbin argument. At one time,/sbin was where you kept statically compiled versions of your utilities (hence the 's' for static) so that if your libc got hosed you could recover easier. Now it's pretty much reserved for 'superuser' binaries (ones that are only run by root, such as system configuration commands.)
More typing?? For what?/usr/local should be in your path and manually going to this directory should be rare.
I understand where he's coming from. You can't actually put/usr/local in your path (you'd need to put/usr/local/bin), and many pieces of software want to have their own directory tree under/usr/local (such as "foo" binaries in/usr/local/foo/bin, and configs under/usr/local/foo/etc) and if you have a lot of software that does this, your $PATH gets unweildy in a hurry.
OS X isn't going to try to phone home when install, but check against the underlying hardware. Two completely different problems
Besides the fact that you're completely wrong (XP checks the underlying hardware, which it uses to 'phone home'), even if you were right you'd still be wrong, because all you need to do is alter the software to not check, or to receive a bogus "OK" if it does.
I read the comic, and they actually address this very issue, and say that it's impossible for that to be true, because there were no typists to slow down (after all, how can there be typists before the typewriter was invented?)
Funny... when I was 19, I was gonna get a tattoo. At the time, tattoos were somewhat rare. I gave it a lot of thought, and took 4 to 5 months to plan out what I wanted.
During the time I was planning it, *everyone* I knew got one..
So I figured that it would be better to express my individuality by not getting one... seeing as how mainstream they've become now, I can see I made the right choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey look! A three headed monkey!" (runs away)
:o)
Sorry, but I find it extremely hard to believe that Blake would refer to Darl that way.
I start hearing people say "lets go to Mickey-Dees"
Funny, I've never heard anyone refer to them as that, and there are a few people in my office who eat there regularly.
Personally, I still refer to them as "Rotten Ron's", or (if I feel like waxing poetic) "Rotten and Raunchy Ronald McDonald's"
Obviously, it stops
- Open Relays
Wrong. This *IN NO WAY* stops open relays.
False bounces
Which isn't actually spam, and is a result of idiot mail server admins blindly accepting mail they shouldn't. If a mail server admin is stupid enough to configure their server to accept mail that it can't deliver, what makes you think that they'll configure it properly for SPF or sender-id?
So you're wrong on this count, too.
Forged addresses.
No, it does nothing to stop forged addresses. As you realized, it only checks the domain name.
If they do, you still get the spam but you know who they are and pretty soon, they'll be on all the black lists and out of business.
What color is the sky in your world?
Got some news for you: WE ALREADY HAVE BLACKLISTS , and the people who are pushing SPF and sender ID say they don't work.
Why is it that a blacklist based on something that costs less than $10 to change will be infallible, when blacklists based on something that is much more difficult and expensive to change (IP address) don't work right now?
What it does is force the sender of the email to be accurate.
Actually, no it doesn't. All it checks is the *DOMAIN* of the email, not the sender. So address forging can still happen.
And it's not like the spammers can't spend $8 a month for a new domain which will bypass all of this crap.
Remember, the biggest adopters of SPF are spammers
it could stop spam coming from botnets with forged addresses... :)
No, they can still forge the address, just not the domain part.
And it's still not an anti-spam measure.
It will stop SPAM that is from a forged sender
Bullshit. It will do no such thing.
Most spam comes from trojaned machines (zombie networks), and there is *NOTHING* that will stop the trojan authors from simply having the zombie do a whois lookup and setting the return address to something that will bypass sender checks (even if it means sending through an upstream mail server.)
Result? The From: address will still be forged, legitimate forwarded email is stopped, nobody wins.
Look over your SPAM headers, and you'll see, most of the return-addresses do not match the machine that relayed the message.
Which will *WILL NOT CHANGE*, even with SPF.
And as someone else said, there is *nothing* to stop a spammer from spending $10 to register a domain, spamming for a week or two using Sender ID/SPF legitimately, then abandoning the domain if it gets blacklisted.
If you think this is an anti-spam measure, then you really don't have a clue as to how email operates, or how spammers operate, or both.
it will only be a matter of time until the spammers figure out a way to get around this
A way around what, exactly?
Sender-id is *not* an anti-spam measure. It will do absolutely nothing (as in _NOTHING_ ) to stop spam.
All it does is say "this email comes from a server that the owner of the domain says is OK."
How, exactly, does that stop a spammer from sending spam?
At some point something is going o have to happen to stem the tide of crap floating round the internet.
What exactly does this have to do with sender-id?
Neither SPF or sender-id will do *anything* towards stopping spam (or any useless email.)
People care about the size and position of any item on a page. It really needs to be very exact from implementation to implementation.
(Ignoring your implication that there are differing levels of "exact")...
Let me know when MS gets it right. In MS-Word, changing your *printer driver* can affect the layout of the page.
wazzat? Speak into my hearing tube! :o)
thousands of slave owners had their property stripped without compensation
/. post than when I read that.
I honestly can't say that I've felt more disgusted at a
People are *not* property. The fact that at one time your government turned a blind eye to this simple fact doesn't negate it.
The slave owners were stripped of nothing. The government simply stood up and said that their abuse of other human beings must stop.
Why does gender matter?
/., millions of geeks will click through just see if there's a picture. :o)
So that when the article is published on
the extention have been compiled for linux, but isn't finnished.
:o)
Haven't you heard? Linus moved to the US a few years back - unless he moved back, it'll probably never be Finnish.
they will promptly laugh you out of the facility for not realizing that the DVD will have another 12 minutes of forced ads at the beginning.
There is no movie worth seeing that has any such thing.
Rose can't hold a candle to Lady Romana.
Lady Romana is best. Rose is second (or third, depending on if you count Romana as one or two.)
When 2 tickets cost more than the DVD it becomes a no brainer.
Bingo!
My wife and I used to go to a LOT of movies. Then we decided that we could buy a 51" TV, and purchase DVDs, and it would pay for itself in 2 years (even less if we rent them instead of buying them.)
We haven't been to a theatre since we bought it.
Simple:
If they show a commercial, get up, walk to the front and demand your money back.
Let them know that you didn't pay to watch commercials, and that you'll be watching the movie when it comes out on DVD.
I believe it's Shrek 2 that has some monstrous ad for Madagascar on it (among others), and they disable the menu and next chapter buttons (WHICH INFURIATES ME)
I have Shrek 2 (even after seeing it in the theatre) and I can skip the previews no problem (IIRC with the "STOP" or "TITLE" buttons.)
Contrast with Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, which disabled *everything* on the remote (except eject, which I promptly used to remove the PoS from my DVD player. I promptly returned the disc to the friend from whom I'd borrowed it.)
When I compile software, I *always* compile on a dev machine as a package, test it to make sure that it works properly, then install the package on the production system. The package gets integrated with the rest of the system, so I don't have to worry about it. There is no real additional work for me (in fact, if it's destined to multiple machines - which is almost always, then there is less work for me), and no additional support requests I have to handle.
/usr/local (typically one-off utilities that don't require config files, etc.)
Only in very rare circumstances do I put things in
Maybe a more experience sys admin can chime in here, but /usr/local is exactly where additional software, not included in the base OS, should be installed.
/usr/local is where any software not installed by the system's package management should go.
/sbin argument. At one time, /sbin was where you kept statically compiled versions of your utilities (hence the 's' for static) so that if your libc got hosed you could recover easier. Now it's pretty much reserved for 'superuser' binaries (ones that are only run by root, such as system configuration commands.)
/usr/local should be in your path and manually going to this directory should be rare.
/usr/local in your path (you'd need to put /usr/local/bin), and many pieces of software want to have their own directory tree under /usr/local (such as "foo" binaries in /usr/local/foo/bin, and configs under /usr/local/foo/etc) and if you have a lot of software that does this, your $PATH gets unweildy in a hurry.
There are two schools of thought - that's one of them.
The other is that
Now that package management is pretty mature, I'd say that the latter is my preferred way of doing things.
It's kind of like the old
More typing?? For what?
I understand where he's coming from. You can't actually put
a wide release movie has already made money (well, most) by the time the DVD comes out
Yes, and a direct-to-video movie (which hasn't made anything) is still cheaper than most CD's.
Does the your government put a neighbor family through torture just because you got a parking ticket?
Dude. Whatever it is you're smoking, you need to cut the dose. Seriously.
Comparing people who make a list of known spam hosts to governments torturing innocent people?
Take a deep breath. Once you've calmed down and willing to stop the (absolutely stupid) analogies, then we can talk.
OS X isn't going to try to phone home when install, but check against the underlying hardware. Two completely different problems
Besides the fact that you're completely wrong (XP checks the underlying hardware, which it uses to 'phone home'), even if you were right you'd still be wrong, because all you need to do is alter the software to not check, or to receive a bogus "OK" if it does.
Dongle hacks are old as the hills.
I read the comic, and they actually address this very issue, and say that it's impossible for that to be true, because there were no typists to slow down (after all, how can there be typists before the typewriter was invented?)
Perhaps you should have read the article?
Funny... when I was 19, I was gonna get a tattoo. At the time, tattoos were somewhat rare. I gave it a lot of thought, and took 4 to 5 months to plan out what I wanted.
During the time I was planning it, *everyone* I knew got one..
So I figured that it would be better to express my individuality by not getting one... seeing as how mainstream they've become now, I can see I made the right choice.