I think you're missing the bigger picture here. SCO isn't trying to sell you a product. They only thing they want you to buy is FUD against a certain product and its license. They could really care less if you happen to buy one of their own products. They are being paid to spread the anti-Linux FUD. Simple as that.
Microsoft can't afford to sling the "GPL is invalid" FUD and the like. They need someone else to do it for them. It's as simple as that. If Microsoft bought them (easy enough to do) then the whole world would know that Microsoft is behind the FUD and MS would end up getting sued by IBM. Which is bigger overall? I think IBM is bigger than MS quite frankly. IBM Corp reaches much farther than MS IMHO. I really don't think MS wants that battle.
Many parents think violence, and content glorifying violence -- including not only violent video games and movies, but also content like weapon advocacy, hobbyist sites-- is bad for their children; something they'd rather they not read/see.
I happen to hail from a place where responsible parents teach their children how to handle a gun, gun safety, and gun respect. It's called the country. You know, the backbone of our nation. Funny thing is we don't have any problems with gun related violence. I've been hunting as long as I've been driving some sort of vehicle (tractor, dozer, ATV, pickup) which, for me, was 6 years old. I don't recall ever going 'postal' and shooting my high school or college classmates. I've never jacked a car or robbed a liquor store. I own 3 guns personally and plan on teaching my future children the same gun satefy and respect my father taught me. Guns don't kill people. Ignorance kills people.
I pose this question to everyone. Is anyone out there actually DOING anything about this? Or, like usual, is everyone just talking big and not doing jack? I'm printing these memos as I write this. I'm going to highlight the more grabbing sections of text. Then I'm going to mail a copy of these memos to each of my federal elected officials in the Senate and House of Represenatives as well as all of my state legislature representatives. With a short letter stating that I'm a one of their constituents and would like to know their views on the utter lack of security and reliability of Diebolds and the misplaced trust they are given to be used in the voting process. Each package will be sent certified with return reciept. It may not help but at least it's something.
So, I'll ask it again. What are you doing with this information?
The case being dismissed will not clear Linux just gives SCO more of a chance to spread even more FUD.
I think this is the whole point. I think they don't want this to end with a judge or jury finding for IBM. If that happens then SCO will have to shut their pieholes and go away. If they basically do something legally incompotent (like they're doing with this asinine motion) then the suit will silently be put on hold and allow them to spread more FUD. This will obviously be good for their bottom line and the bottom line of those (read: Microsoft) that's paying for all this anti-Linux/Open Source FUD. The more FUD they get to spread the more $$ their suits make. It's as simple as that I think. They need time to stall while they rack in the green.
These provisions are built-in. If you solicit someone to break the law (especially if you give them incentive, such as pay) then you are in fact breaking the law.
I think you're forgetting about one major and extremely important fact. 90% of the spammers out there are in the US. Do your homework and you'll quickly discover this. Some guy in Korea doesn't have any reason to spam me, a red-blooded redneck, about a good deal on a Korea supper-time delicacy. If they are spamming me about a US product then the US company that solicited that spamming is guilty of spamming. There's always a money trail and the vast majority leads right back here to the good ole US of A. Big list of email addresses or not, the US spammers can easily be caught.
...short of being a corporation that makes millions each year, is to get the media involved. The best thing in the world to make law enforcement do something is bad PR. I know a couple reporters at a few large newspaper that might run a story about it. Let me know if you want me to put you in touch.
Really, they do. Or at least they all used to 3 years ago. I remember when I first moved to Pittsburg, KS and I needed to drive to Wichita, KS on business. I knew a couple different ways of getting there but I didn't know the best way. I checked out MapQuest and Yahoo. The co-worker that was riding along checked a couple others. One of the ones he checked was, IIRC, run by Microsoft in some manner. Anyhow, *all* of the generated maps at that time said the best way to go from Pittsburg to Wichita was north on 69 to Kansas City and south on the Kansas Turnpike. Well, let me explain this for those that don't know Kansas very well. Pittsburg is in the south-east corner of the state (about 3 miles from Missouri and about 20 miles from Oklahoma). Kansas City is not in the far north-east corner of Kansas but not far from it. It's about 2/3s of the way up on that side of the state and right on the KS/MO border. Wichita is not quite in the middle of the state. It's about an hour and a half south-south-east of the center of the state. (McPherson, KS roughly). It's about 1.5 hours north of the Oklahoma border. Ie, Wichita is in the south-central part of the state. Lets recap, I want to go from the far SE corner of the state to the south-central part of the state. If I followed the generated maps I'd have gone by way of the NE corner of the state. Ingenious.
I from the country. I've driven county roads all my life. I don't mind picking the shortest route if it uses a county road. The generated maps could have easily picked Hwy 400 which runs east-west between Pittsburg and Wichita. It's a US highway for pete's sake and it runs at 65! I don't trust the online maps much. Your mileage may vary, literally.
Those guys are a bunch of damned morons. I've actually lost a domain to a forged transfer request. These people are completely inept. No love lost here.
International calls really don't present a problem. All you have to do is follow the money trail. Some US-based company will be on the receiving end of the money trail and they are the guilty party. They are esstentially commiting the crime by knowingly soliciting a 3rd-party to commit a federal crime. They are the guilty party. Odds are you'll have to act as an interested 3rd-party to get enough information about the US-based company to sue them to hell and back.
Along the same lines I read where a Kansas City man used Kansas's couple year old spam law (SB 467) in court and won. I've been meaning to contact the gentlemen and seek his advice. I want to do the same thing myself soon.
Complete and utter nonsense. The spammers are choosing to do business in the state of Missouri and are therefore bound to Missouri laws. If you don't know what the hell you're talking about then don't open your mouth.
For starters NEVER give out any addresses other than addresses for role accounts (webmaster, abuse, postmaster, hostmaster, sales, support, etc). This is Rule #1. Don't violate it, ever. Instead provided email forms for people to mail individual users within your organization. Your company policies (especially the security policy) might even prevent you from posting employee names on the website in a directory format. Look into this.
Secondly, anything you do to obscure a user's email address will eventually be able to be harvested (without human intervention). It's just a fact in the battle against spam. I highly suggest you use graphics to your advantage. Create small images for all letters; numbers; permissable punctuation such as a period, dash, plus sign (for plus notation), and underscores if you permit userids with that (I mention this one because you might use them even though they violate RFC 2821 IIRC). Now put these in a web directory and have users create their email addresses using IMG SRC links to each of the individual characters. You could spell out your domain in a single image or you could have the users spell it out with multiple images. This could easily be scripted. One thing to note is that this will most likely violate ADA requirements. It's possible that using the ALT text in each IMG for that letter could get you around this. It also gives the spammers something to harvest though. Basically ADA requirements directly interfere with spam fighting in this case.
There are other tricks you can use such as using the HTML encoding for each of the userid characters to hide them. A web browser would decode this just fine but viewing the source will only show the code. Don't provide mailto: links, period. Consider using a list of names and their external userid on a page. Simply state that all the userids below should have @yourdomain.com appended to the end of them in a MUA. This is effective but slightly cludgish. IF you provide the userids ANYWHERE make absolutely certain that you provide an external userid such as firstname.lastname@yourcompany.com which redirects to vanityname@yourcompany.com internally. You should never give away your users real userids. You need to make certain that the users MUA or your MTA transposes the internal to external addresses to hide the internal addresses. You users need to understand this as well. Mail they forward absolutely can not contain information about internal addresses. Your users should always use the external addressing, even to mail their buddy in the next cube. Your users need to know why you're doing this and they need to be educated on the many ways this information can leak out unintentionally. Basically you need a good security policy.
I just thought of a neat addition to this sofa. Announce the occupants weight to the room when they sit down. I can just see women cringing across the globe.:-)
In my first 2 cases the machines were statically assigned nodes on (at the time) my campus LAN. I'm also seeing it on a dynamically assigned dialup box (faster CPU too). It's very odd.
In theory you're blocking packets to Verisign to prevent them from getting advertising revenue from you or your customers if you're a provider. While you do this with good intentions, your actions actually create more serious problems. What this actually does is cause mail to pile up in your mail queue. The domains still resolve to 64.94.110.11 and your MTA still tries to send mail to that address. If you REJECT the packets your MTA will queue the message and retry. If you DROP the MTA will have to wait for the connection(s) to timeout at which the mail will again be dropped back in the queue. The mail will sit there a predetermined number of days (4-5 usually) until such time that your MTA finally gives up and sends a bounce to the sender. This is one of many problems involved in "blocking" packets to/from 64.94.110.11.
The best solution short of carpet-bombin Verisign corporate headquarters is to use one of the actual "fixes" for the problem like the Bind 9.2.2rc3 patches. This patched version of Bind and the appropriate config lines causes bind to ignore all lookups in the GTLD servers that return something other than a delegation. This prevents the lookups from returning 64.94.110.11 and ensures that the proper NXDOMAIN value is returned instead.
This is veering off-topic but since you brought up Lookupd and the previous poster brought up NetInfo I thought I'd ask anyways. Has anyone else noticed lengthy delays when doing things like sshing or ftping to another host. The delays I'm seeing on all the OS X boxes I've used are anywhere from 4-8 seconds of unexplicable delay between issuing the command network access (checked with a sniffer on the receiving end). The same delay is also done in return when, for example, you ssh or ftp to an OS X box. The only explanation I can think of is that some unusual lookups are slowing things down. Can anyone else confirm this?
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're missing the bigger picture here. SCO isn't trying to sell you a product. They only thing they want you to buy is FUD against a certain product and its license. They could really care less if you happen to buy one of their own products. They are being paid to spread the anti-Linux FUD. Simple as that.
Microsoft can't afford to sling the "GPL is invalid" FUD and the like. They need someone else to do it for them. It's as simple as that. If Microsoft bought them (easy enough to do) then the whole world would know that Microsoft is behind the FUD and MS would end up getting sued by IBM. Which is bigger overall? I think IBM is bigger than MS quite frankly. IBM Corp reaches much farther than MS IMHO. I really don't think MS wants that battle.
This guy made all the right points.
I happen to hail from a place where responsible parents teach their children how to handle a gun, gun safety, and gun respect. It's called the country. You know, the backbone of our nation. Funny thing is we don't have any problems with gun related violence. I've been hunting as long as I've been driving some sort of vehicle (tractor, dozer, ATV, pickup) which, for me, was 6 years old. I don't recall ever going 'postal' and shooting my high school or college classmates. I've never jacked a car or robbed a liquor store. I own 3 guns personally and plan on teaching my future children the same gun satefy and respect my father taught me. Guns don't kill people. Ignorance kills people.
a neighbor in a good neighborhood selling the house and property to a drug dealer. The neighborhood is turning to shit.
So, I'll ask it again. What are you doing with this information?
I think this is the whole point. I think they don't want this to end with a judge or jury finding for IBM. If that happens then SCO will have to shut their pieholes and go away. If they basically do something legally incompotent (like they're doing with this asinine motion) then the suit will silently be put on hold and allow them to spread more FUD. This will obviously be good for their bottom line and the bottom line of those (read: Microsoft) that's paying for all this anti-Linux/Open Source FUD. The more FUD they get to spread the more $$ their suits make. It's as simple as that I think. They need time to stall while they rack in the green.
These provisions are built-in. If you solicit someone to break the law (especially if you give them incentive, such as pay) then you are in fact breaking the law.
I think you're forgetting about one major and extremely important fact. 90% of the spammers out there are in the US. Do your homework and you'll quickly discover this. Some guy in Korea doesn't have any reason to spam me, a red-blooded redneck, about a good deal on a Korea supper-time delicacy. If they are spamming me about a US product then the US company that solicited that spamming is guilty of spamming. There's always a money trail and the vast majority leads right back here to the good ole US of A. Big list of email addresses or not, the US spammers can easily be caught.
...short of being a corporation that makes millions each year, is to get the media involved. The best thing in the world to make law enforcement do something is bad PR. I know a couple reporters at a few large newspaper that might run a story about it. Let me know if you want me to put you in touch.
If it smells like shit, looks like shit, and tastes like shit then it's probably Gator, I mean shit.
Does anyone know if Linpack was optimized for PPC hardware, specifically the 64-bit G5 with all its bells and whistles? That makes quite a difference.
I from the country. I've driven county roads all my life. I don't mind picking the shortest route if it uses a county road. The generated maps could have easily picked Hwy 400 which runs east-west between Pittsburg and Wichita. It's a US highway for pete's sake and it runs at 65! I don't trust the online maps much. Your mileage may vary, literally.
Nagios. Simple as that. You won't regret it.
Those guys are a bunch of damned morons. I've actually lost a domain to a forged transfer request. These people are completely inept. No love lost here.
International calls really don't present a problem. All you have to do is follow the money trail. Some US-based company will be on the receiving end of the money trail and they are the guilty party. They are esstentially commiting the crime by knowingly soliciting a 3rd-party to commit a federal crime. They are the guilty party. Odds are you'll have to act as an interested 3rd-party to get enough information about the US-based company to sue them to hell and back.
Along the same lines I read where a Kansas City man used Kansas's couple year old spam law (SB 467) in court and won. I've been meaning to contact the gentlemen and seek his advice. I want to do the same thing myself soon.
Complete and utter nonsense. The spammers are choosing to do business in the state of Missouri and are therefore bound to Missouri laws. If you don't know what the hell you're talking about then don't open your mouth.
Obviously you've never been the administrator of anything.
Secondly, anything you do to obscure a user's email address will eventually be able to be harvested (without human intervention). It's just a fact in the battle against spam. I highly suggest you use graphics to your advantage. Create small images for all letters; numbers; permissable punctuation such as a period, dash, plus sign (for plus notation), and underscores if you permit userids with that (I mention this one because you might use them even though they violate RFC 2821 IIRC). Now put these in a web directory and have users create their email addresses using IMG SRC links to each of the individual characters. You could spell out your domain in a single image or you could have the users spell it out with multiple images. This could easily be scripted. One thing to note is that this will most likely violate ADA requirements. It's possible that using the ALT text in each IMG for that letter could get you around this. It also gives the spammers something to harvest though. Basically ADA requirements directly interfere with spam fighting in this case.
There are other tricks you can use such as using the HTML encoding for each of the userid characters to hide them. A web browser would decode this just fine but viewing the source will only show the code. Don't provide mailto: links, period. Consider using a list of names and their external userid on a page. Simply state that all the userids below should have @yourdomain.com appended to the end of them in a MUA. This is effective but slightly cludgish. IF you provide the userids ANYWHERE make absolutely certain that you provide an external userid such as firstname.lastname@yourcompany.com which redirects to vanityname@yourcompany.com internally. You should never give away your users real userids. You need to make certain that the users MUA or your MTA transposes the internal to external addresses to hide the internal addresses. You users need to understand this as well. Mail they forward absolutely can not contain information about internal addresses. Your users should always use the external addressing, even to mail their buddy in the next cube. Your users need to know why you're doing this and they need to be educated on the many ways this information can leak out unintentionally. Basically you need a good security policy.
I just thought of a neat addition to this sofa. Announce the occupants weight to the room when they sit down. I can just see women cringing across the globe. :-)
In my first 2 cases the machines were statically assigned nodes on (at the time) my campus LAN. I'm also seeing it on a dynamically assigned dialup box (faster CPU too). It's very odd.
22
The best solution short of carpet-bombin Verisign corporate headquarters is to use one of the actual "fixes" for the problem like the Bind 9.2.2rc3 patches. This patched version of Bind and the appropriate config lines causes bind to ignore all lookups in the GTLD servers that return something other than a delegation. This prevents the lookups from returning 64.94.110.11 and ensures that the proper NXDOMAIN value is returned instead.
This is veering off-topic but since you brought up Lookupd and the previous poster brought up NetInfo I thought I'd ask anyways. Has anyone else noticed lengthy delays when doing things like sshing or ftping to another host. The delays I'm seeing on all the OS X boxes I've used are anywhere from 4-8 seconds of unexplicable delay between issuing the command network access (checked with a sniffer on the receiving end). The same delay is also done in return when, for example, you ssh or ftp to an OS X box. The only explanation I can think of is that some unusual lookups are slowing things down. Can anyone else confirm this?