I don't want anything for free. I want the hardware I paid for, to work. It's that simple. If it doesn't work, that's not my fault.
Right. And I want my car to run on H2O. If it doesn't, that's not my fault, right? You're asking the same damn thing.
But, people still seem to be wondering what keeps other OS's from gaining widespread adoption, and I'm saying, here is the answer.
I don't think anyone wonders. I don't - do you?
I assure you if the situation were the same with video cards or SCSI controllers, as it is with wireless network cards, there would be a whole lot more noise about it.
Nope. There'd be a few folks making a lot more noise, MAYBE. More likely, though, there would be less folks, and they'd just cope. In the end, though, noise doesn't help the situation - money does.
I also think there's more to this than just money. IBM could fix it like tipping for coffee.
At which time their shareholders would sue them for mismanaging their company. Because they're pouring money down the drain.
They're supposed to be into linux adoption, right?
No, they are into solutions. In particular, they SELL solutions. Linux is sometimes part of that solution because it works, and they can get it for cheap, and it does what they need, and it helps them make more money.
Shutting out linux from the world of wireless networking might be an unintended consequence of economics,
You still do not get it. Nobody is shutting out linux. You want something for free. You don't get it. If you PAY for a driver, one will be available. All the windows users pay for their driver - you just close your eyes to the software they get because it does you no good (until now).
but I don't understand how that knowledge is supposed to help me.
A prayer you might consider: "God, grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference."
Some wisdom (I hope): Here's what you can not change: economics (vendors don't do things for free). Here's what you can change: availability of drivers (you can code it, you can buy it, you can buy specs).
But the effect is to increase the monopoly position of Microsoft. I don't care about economics or regulations.
Let me give you a little clue: 3rd party hardware vendors love the monopoly. They only need to develop one set of drivers to sell to 90%+ of the marketplace.
The thing I notice is that there are NO 802.11g devices for Linux, BSD, or any other OS, available AT ALL.
A little cut&paste from the apple store: "The new PowerBook G4s feature the hot new AirPort Extreme technology, based on the 802.11g standard"
OSX is unix & bsd & an other os. Argue semantic crap if you like, but there you have it. Apple sees an economic advantage to supplying their own 11g drivers with their own cards.
I interpret this as an intentional leveraged attack on competitors to Microsoft.
Excellent. Sue them. Good luck.
It's simple econ. They WILL sell you a driver. Fork up.
They actually have two sets of requirements: one set for the actual hardware (such as a 32bit pccard interface) and one for their software (monopolyOS X.y). My computer fits the first set, there is no reason for them to deny me the use of the hardware.
Fortunately, you live in the Netherleands, where they'll sell you cars you're not able (allowed) to drive. Similarly, they'll sell you hardware you're not able to use.
All they would have to do is make specs available, they should have documentation for internal use anyway so there is no extra cost, just a different attitude.
As I mention in a peer thread, they don't do that to remain competitive. Please see my other post (sorry, not going to ref it).
(I already pay them for the hardware so they are making money anyway)
It turns out you're paying them for a product. The product includes hardware and software, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about this at all. If you want to write your own software, but are having trouble without the spec, buy it off them. They will sell you that, too.
No, Ford sells you a car with a manual that tells you what it needs - like gas and oil and all those good things. And they ONLY sell you a car if you have a license, and insurance. We call these things "requirements".
Just like hardware vendors sell you cards with requirements - like a computer, an OS, and all those good things.
Just as your Ford doen't run if you put milk in the tank, their hardware won't run without Windows on the Computer.
If the hardware vendor doesn't specify what OS is required, try to sue them - but you'll probably lose because you should have just returned the item.
Quit whining, wake up, and smell the economics. It doesn't make sense for them to cater to a vanishingly small percentage of the marketplace. If it did, it would make them money, and they would do it.
It turns out that ALL of these vendors WILL supply you with drivers. You just have to fork over the green. Lots and lots of green.
Let me make a proposal: start yourself a website that tries to put together enough dough to buy linux drivers for whatever hardware you feel you need a driver for. See how far you get.
Following your argument, why don't the wireless card makers release specs then? If they're off the hook regarding using these wireless chipsets for illicit purposes, why don't they just release the specs?
Because every hardware company that releases a product believes that they either Have a competitive advantage and need to keep it a secret. or Have a crap design and need to keep it a secret. or Have the same design as everyone else and need to keep it a secret.
It's a matter of opinion that "restricting people's control over the hardware" is necessary or appropriate.
No, it's a matter of law and economics.
Look, in most parts of the US (all?) you're not allowed to make significant modifications to your own house without getting a license. You CAN do it. You MAY NOT do it.
In most of the world, you're not allowed to broadcast on various frequencies. In much of the world you're not allowed to broadcast at all.
But there are plenty of consumer devices that will (with just a little tweaking) let you do so. The sellers of these devices are required to make sure they comply with local laws out of the box. What the consumer does after that becomes tricky, but generally not the fault of the manufacturer.
Taken to an extreme: Ford is not responsible if you use your truck to kill your neighbor. Nor should they be.
The "ko" (eternity) rule prevents infinite games. But it almost doesn't matter. There are only a finite number of possible board positions. Naively, each spot can be empty or hold a white or black stone, so there are no more than 3 to the power (19*19) unique board positions (fewer, since not all are reachable given the various rules of Go).
Actually, the ko rules seem to have matured. From a little research, it seems that "Super-Ko" forbids a board from repeating, while ko (used to?) mean that you could not create a trivial two-move loop. It was that definition that I was using. Super-Ko seems to be the accepted rule (or variation) now.
See also http://www.britgo.org/rules/compare.html#rept
In defense of my original arguement: ignoring super-ko, and assuming that play could be infinite, you can have an infinite number of games.
A game is not just the position of the pieces at a given time, it is the plays that lead up to that point and proceed from that point.
Assuming you have some repeating pattern on part of the board, and that you have a pattern that can change to be in either of 2 positions on another part of the board, you can modify the 2 position pattern as play goes on. You can then use the 2 potision pattern to generate pi in binary from the nth digit. Each "n game" represents one of an infinite number of unique games that never ends.
Not that I understand what YOU'RE talking about, but
the number of possible games of GO is huge, but not infinite
Pretty sure you're wrong there. Two players cooperating could play a game of go that never ends. All you need is to vary that, and you're set for infinite choices.
This is a fileserver, right? Do you actually "use" it? I would imagine not, if it's a G3/266. OS/X would be downright painful to use on that. And why bother with the GUI overhead for a server anyway?
The fileserver "just works" for AFP, samba, and NFS. The netinfo server is a great bonus, as is the mDNS server.
Most of these things would be.. not hard to do with Debian. NetInfo would be hard.
The GUI is only useful for some admin and config purposes - I wouldn't suggest that the machine is truly usable for day-to-day. What's more, the login page doesn't cost CPU or RAM worth mentioning (just like an X login screen). And if it really bothers you, boot in console mode.
Are these things (mostly) possible with linux (debian, or whatever)? Yup. Would it be cheaper? Yeah - maybe $100, even. Would it take more time to set up using linux? For me it certainly would. Would I gladly spend that $100 to get the bonuses of OSX? You betcha!
Would it be worth doing if you didn't run other OSX boxes on the LAN? Nope.
Mac OSX.......... $129 (you DID pay for it, right?)
Actually, assuming they only have < 5 OSX systems in their house, they probably bought the "family pack" for $199. So the/system cost for the machine could have been as little as $40. For a supported system (good, easy software updates) and an OS that's a pleasure to use, I'd say the money was well spent.
I don't get it. How is the UN deciding anything going to affect what I can and can not post on my computer? I don't think there are any UN police or UN courts in America, are there? I don't think we have extradition treaties with "the UN".
So what, exactly, is the concern? I'm sure that there are any number of countries that would love to censor internet content at it's source in other countries. But it just doesn't work that way.
Until there are any bills written up in America to enforce any UN ideas, I just don't see this as an issue.
The right address for this is "postmaster@..." or "abuse@...", and definately not "root@...". Maybe they indeed did sent you notice, but you didn't have those two (in some parts of the world required) addresses set up correctly.
You're right, of course. I was speaking generally. root and postmaster would both have reached me. Really, I'd like to see the message addressed to (off the top of my head):
To: postmaster@[IP], abuse@[IP], root@[IP] Cc: postmaster@reverse nslookup IP, abuse@reverse nslookup IP, root@reverse nslookup IP, [Administrative Contact for whois for reverse nslookup IP]
You get the picture. It turns out that only the first and third of the To: addresses would have reached me, but the rest of them seem like good ideas as well.
Actually, I don't mind the time. If I'd actually had a problem, I'd have used another SMTP server (I have access to 2 and could get access to another 3, at least). I mind the mis- and dis-information that the blacklister sent me. If they'd said it was going to be 2 weeks, I wouldn't complain a lick.
They responded. They took you off their list. You are simply whining that they didn't immediate drop everything and see to your needs.
I'd like to start by saying you were replying to someone other than myself - the person who was RBL'd.
... They actually did their jobs. First they blacklisted you because you were stupid then they unblocked you when you fixed your system. What the fuck else do you want?
What I would like, in no particular order: An honest estimate of when they will de-list me. Well formatted responses (they are automated responses, after all). An automated process for testing fixes to the problem[s] cited. For them to do the things they say the were going to do in the email messages they did send me. For them to send at least one message to "root@[offending IP address]" telling me there was a problem in the first place.
I don't think any of those are far-fetched. I think some of them are downright reasonable. Really, I wasn't so much whining as I was just relating my fuckup and reasoning for not using RBLs.
In all honesty, if their site said (to put it eloquently): "You fucked up, dickwad. We're not going to whitelist you for 2 weeks, and next time it's gonna be 2 month. Don't fuck up again.", I'd have sighed, nodded my head, and gone on with my life.
It turns out that none of the email *I* sent anyone bounced. Not a single message. And if it HAD been a problem, I'd have used my ISP's SMTP server, or a friend's, or used one of my other IP's, or whatever I'd needed. It was only spam that bounced.
So, no, I have no cause to whine. I'm not bitter. I just won't use RBLs because I don't think they act responsibly.
I probably should have phrased that better, as I may have made the wrong impression. I closed the relay within 2 hours of discovering it. I only discovered it after 3 days of it being abused (it had been open for at least 10 days).
It didn't take me 3 days to fix it after I discovered it.
That said, you left a relay open for 3 days, and potentially tens of thousands of spam emails, and you are going to sit their and complain that it took two weeks for you to be removed from the black list? What about all the individual admins that added you to their personal blacklists and just never bothered removing you?
I totally blew it. Like I said - my fault.
I don't have a problem with individual admins who blacklisted me. I imagine that if I sent mail to any of those admins, they'd whitelist me pretty quick if I asked and appologized. I made a mistake. Lucky for me, I'm not the first or last to do so.
Like I also said, mail-abuse.org is providing a service and not (IMHO) being all that responsible with it. I think two weeks is a long time for something that is (or should be) mostly a fully automated process.
Finally, I only discovered I was an open relay when my DSL line acted up (total "lucky" coincidence) and I did a lot of investigation on the server. I discovered a huge email queue (which I nuked) and lots of RBL delivery rejections in the mail log. If they had sent ONE message to "root@[my ip address]" I'd have found out immediately and shut it down within a day. They don't owe me a damn thing, but that doesn't change the fact that they're not being real responsible to their subscribers, or the internet at large.
Leaving a proxy open for raping by spammers doesn't make you a bloodsucking demon, but it is definitely grounds for having your IPs locally blocklisted.
It frustrates me that the http proxy: 1. Didn't warn me that this was an issue upon install 2. **Allowed this to happen at all**
I have submitted a bug to the developers. This is a known issue, though I'd never heard of it before, nor had 2/3rds of my geek (professional programmers, recreational sysadmins - which describes myself as well) friends. If http proxies blocked all requests (or at least PUTs) to localhost/127.0.0.1 and all know network interfaces on the local machine, this kind of thing either wouldn't be a problem, or would be much less a problem.
Again, pot - kettle - black. Still, good software wouldn't allow this kind of thing in the first place, and recreational sysadmins wouldn't have to worry so much.
Finally, as I'll mention in another thread, I only discovered I was an open relay when my DSL line acted up (total "lucky" coincidence) and I did a lot of investigation on the server. I discovered a huge email queue (which I nuked) and lots of RBL delivery rejections in the mail log. If they had sent ONE message to root@[my ip address] I'd have found out immediately and shut it down within a day.
I left an HTTP proxy on on an open port - on the same machine that does SMTP. I didn't even know that spammers could relay via an http proxy using a PUT to the local SMTP server. mea culpa. I fixed it in 3 days (too long, I know). I contacted mail-abuse.org and submitted a removal request. It took them 2 weeks to take me off the list.
It frustrates me that their site is so unresponsive to removal requests, and that they fail much of their process. They were supposed to send email at several stages, which they did not do. The email they did send was badly formatted (broken urls, urs that weren't relevent).
I won't ever use an RBL because they just don't seem responsible.
Yeah, I know - pot kettle black. But I'm not supplying a service to thousands of users.
As you know, higher frequencies can carry more data. Banner ads require lots of data to transfer (images - often many images, sometimes sound - all data hogs).
If we don't use banner ads, we can continue using lower frequencies to transmit data. And as the study has shown, high frequencies can kill or harm whales. Therefore...
Oh, yeah, I'd like to take this moment to mention that the whole list was BS, just as the statement "Banner Blocking is Bad" is BS. That was kinda the point. ha-ha - right? Get it?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want anything for free. I want the hardware I paid for, to work. It's that simple. If it doesn't work, that's not my fault.
Right. And I want my car to run on H2O. If it doesn't, that's not my fault, right? You're asking the same damn thing.
But, people still seem to be wondering what keeps other OS's from gaining widespread adoption, and I'm saying, here is the answer.
I don't think anyone wonders. I don't - do you?
I assure you if the situation were the same with video cards or SCSI controllers, as it is with wireless network cards, there would be a whole lot more noise about it.
Nope. There'd be a few folks making a lot more noise, MAYBE. More likely, though, there would be less folks, and they'd just cope. In the end, though, noise doesn't help the situation - money does.
I also think there's more to this than just money. IBM could fix it like tipping for coffee.
At which time their shareholders would sue them for mismanaging their company. Because they're pouring money down the drain.
They're supposed to be into linux adoption, right?
No, they are into solutions. In particular, they SELL solutions. Linux is sometimes part of that solution because it works, and they can get it for cheap, and it does what they need, and it helps them make more money.
MONEY
Are
MONEY
you
MONEY
getting
MONEY
the
MONEY
picture?
MONEY
Shutting out linux from the world of wireless networking might be an unintended consequence of economics,
You still do not get it. Nobody is shutting out linux. You want something for free. You don't get it. If you PAY for a driver, one will be available. All the windows users pay for their driver - you just close your eyes to the software they get because it does you no good (until now).
but I don't understand how that knowledge is supposed to help me.
A prayer you might consider:
"God, grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference."
Some wisdom (I hope):
Here's what you can not change: economics (vendors don't do things for free).
Here's what you can change: availability of drivers (you can code it, you can buy it, you can buy specs).
Here's what you shouldn't do: whine.
But the effect is to increase the monopoly position of Microsoft. I don't care about economics or regulations.
Let me give you a little clue: 3rd party hardware vendors love the monopoly. They only need to develop one set of drivers to sell to 90%+ of the marketplace.
The thing I notice is that there are NO 802.11g devices for Linux, BSD, or any other OS, available AT ALL.
A little cut&paste from the apple store:
"The new PowerBook G4s feature the hot new AirPort Extreme technology, based on the 802.11g standard"
OSX is unix & bsd & an other os. Argue semantic crap if you like, but there you have it. Apple sees an economic advantage to supplying their own 11g drivers with their own cards.
I interpret this as an intentional leveraged attack on competitors to Microsoft.
Excellent. Sue them. Good luck.
It's simple econ. They WILL sell you a driver. Fork up.
They actually have two sets of requirements: one set for the actual hardware (such as a 32bit pccard interface) and one for their software (monopolyOS X.y). My computer fits the first set, there is no reason for them to deny me the use of the hardware.
Fortunately, you live in the Netherleands, where they'll sell you cars you're not able (allowed) to drive. Similarly, they'll sell you hardware you're not able to use.
All they would have to do is make specs available, they should have documentation for internal use anyway so there is no extra cost, just a different attitude.
As I mention in a peer thread, they don't do that to remain competitive. Please see my other post (sorry, not going to ref it).
(I already pay them for the hardware so they are making money anyway)
It turns out you're paying them for a product. The product includes hardware and software, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about this at all. If you want to write your own software, but are having trouble without the spec, buy it off them. They will sell you that, too.
No, Ford sells you a car with a manual that tells you what it needs - like gas and oil and all those good things. And they ONLY sell you a car if you have a license, and insurance. We call these things "requirements".
Just like hardware vendors sell you cards with requirements - like a computer, an OS, and all those good things.
Just as your Ford doen't run if you put milk in the tank, their hardware won't run without Windows on the Computer.
If the hardware vendor doesn't specify what OS is required, try to sue them - but you'll probably lose because you should have just returned the item.
Quit whining, wake up, and smell the economics. It doesn't make sense for them to cater to a vanishingly small percentage of the marketplace. If it did, it would make them money, and they would do it.
It turns out that ALL of these vendors WILL supply you with drivers. You just have to fork over the green. Lots and lots of green.
Let me make a proposal: start yourself a website that tries to put together enough dough to buy linux drivers for whatever hardware you feel you need a driver for. See how far you get.
Following your argument, why don't the wireless card makers release specs then? If they're off the hook regarding using these wireless chipsets for illicit purposes, why don't they just release the specs?
Because every hardware company that releases a product believes that they either
Have a competitive advantage and need to keep it a secret.
or
Have a crap design and need to keep it a secret.
or
Have the same design as everyone else and need to keep it a secret.
That's a nice fantasy.
It's a matter of opinion that "restricting people's control over the hardware" is necessary or appropriate.
No, it's a matter of law and economics.
Look, in most parts of the US (all?) you're not allowed to make significant modifications to your own house without getting a license. You CAN do it. You MAY NOT do it.
In most of the world, you're not allowed to broadcast on various frequencies. In much of the world you're not allowed to broadcast at all.
But there are plenty of consumer devices that will (with just a little tweaking) let you do so. The sellers of these devices are required to make sure they comply with local laws out of the box. What the consumer does after that becomes tricky, but generally not the fault of the manufacturer.
Taken to an extreme: Ford is not responsible if you use your truck to kill your neighbor. Nor should they be.
The "ko" (eternity) rule prevents infinite games. But it almost doesn't matter. There are only a finite number of possible board positions. Naively, each spot can be empty or hold a white or black stone, so there are no more than 3 to the power (19*19) unique board positions (fewer, since not all are reachable given the various rules of Go).
Actually, the ko rules seem to have matured. From a little research, it seems that "Super-Ko" forbids a board from repeating, while ko (used to?) mean that you could not create a trivial two-move loop. It was that definition that I was using. Super-Ko seems to be the accepted rule (or variation) now.
See also http://www.britgo.org/rules/compare.html#rept
In defense of my original arguement: ignoring super-ko, and assuming that play could be infinite, you can have an infinite number of games.
A game is not just the position of the pieces at a given time, it is the plays that lead up to that point and proceed from that point.
Assuming you have some repeating pattern on part of the board, and that you have a pattern that can change to be in either of 2 positions on another part of the board, you can modify the 2 position pattern as play goes on. You can then use the 2 potision pattern to generate pi in binary from the nth digit. Each "n game" represents one of an infinite number of unique games that never ends.
Not that I understand what YOU'RE talking about, but
the number of possible games of GO is huge, but not infinite
Pretty sure you're wrong there. Two players cooperating could play a game of go that never ends. All you need is to vary that, and you're set for infinite choices.
If they don't, I'm all for them.
If they do, I don't care at all.
This is a fileserver, right? Do you actually "use" it? I would imagine not, if it's a G3/266. OS/X would be downright painful to use on that. And why bother with the GUI overhead for a server anyway?
.. not hard to do with Debian. NetInfo would be hard.
Fileserver, netinfo server, http server, mDNS server.
The fileserver "just works" for AFP, samba, and NFS. The netinfo server is a great bonus, as is the mDNS server.
Most of these things would be
The GUI is only useful for some admin and config purposes - I wouldn't suggest that the machine is truly usable for day-to-day. What's more, the login page doesn't cost CPU or RAM worth mentioning (just like an X login screen). And if it really bothers you, boot in console mode.
Are these things (mostly) possible with linux (debian, or whatever)? Yup. Would it be cheaper? Yeah - maybe $100, even. Would it take more time to set up using linux? For me it certainly would. Would I gladly spend that $100 to get the bonuses of OSX? You betcha!
Would it be worth doing if you didn't run other OSX boxes on the LAN? Nope.
Mac OSX.......... $129 (you DID pay for it, right?)
/system cost for the machine could have been as little as $40.
Actually, assuming they only have < 5 OSX systems in their house, they probably bought the "family pack" for $199. So the
For a supported system (good, easy software updates) and an OS that's a pleasure to use, I'd say the money was well spent.
I don't get it. How is the UN deciding anything going to affect what I can and can not post on my computer? I don't think there are any UN police or UN courts in America, are there? I don't think we have extradition treaties with "the UN".
So what, exactly, is the concern? I'm sure that there are any number of countries that would love to censor internet content at it's source in other countries. But it just doesn't work that way.
Until there are any bills written up in America to enforce any UN ideas, I just don't see this as an issue.
As I state in another message, I was speaking generally, and postmaster@[IP] would have worked, too.
The right address for this is "postmaster@..." or "abuse@...", and definately not "root@...". Maybe they indeed did sent you notice, but you didn't have those two (in some parts of the world required) addresses set up correctly.
You're right, of course. I was speaking generally. root and postmaster would both have reached me. Really, I'd like to see the message addressed to (off the top of my head):
To: postmaster@[IP], abuse@[IP], root@[IP]
Cc: postmaster@reverse nslookup IP, abuse@reverse nslookup IP, root@reverse nslookup IP, [Administrative Contact for whois for reverse nslookup IP]
You get the picture. It turns out that only the first and third of the To: addresses would have reached me, but the rest of them seem like good ideas as well.
2 weeks is a bit much
Actually, I don't mind the time. If I'd actually had a problem, I'd have used another SMTP server (I have access to 2 and could get access to another 3, at least). I mind the mis- and dis-information that the blacklister sent me. If they'd said it was going to be 2 weeks, I wouldn't complain a lick.
They responded. They took you off their list. You are simply whining that they didn't immediate drop everything and see to your needs.
... They actually did their jobs. First they blacklisted you because you were stupid then they unblocked you when you fixed your system. What the fuck else do you want?
I'd like to start by saying you were replying to someone other than myself - the person who was RBL'd.
What I would like, in no particular order:
An honest estimate of when they will de-list me.
Well formatted responses (they are automated responses, after all).
An automated process for testing fixes to the problem[s] cited.
For them to do the things they say the were going to do in the email messages they did send me.
For them to send at least one message to "root@[offending IP address]" telling me there was a problem in the first place.
I don't think any of those are far-fetched. I think some of them are downright reasonable. Really, I wasn't so much whining as I was just relating my fuckup and reasoning for not using RBLs.
In all honesty, if their site said (to put it eloquently):
"You fucked up, dickwad. We're not going to whitelist you for 2 weeks, and next time it's gonna be 2 month. Don't fuck up again.", I'd have sighed, nodded my head, and gone on with my life.
It turns out that none of the email *I* sent anyone bounced. Not a single message. And if it HAD been a problem, I'd have used my ISP's SMTP server, or a friend's, or used one of my other IP's, or whatever I'd needed. It was only spam that bounced.
So, no, I have no cause to whine. I'm not bitter. I just won't use RBLs because I don't think they act responsibly.
you left a relay open for 3 days
:-/
I probably should have phrased that better, as I may have made the wrong impression. I closed the relay within 2 hours of discovering it. I only discovered it after 3 days of it being abused (it had been open for at least 10 days).
It didn't take me 3 days to fix it after I discovered it.
No, I'm not feeling defensive, why do you ask?
That said, you left a relay open for 3 days, and potentially tens of thousands of spam emails, and you are going to sit their and complain that it took two weeks for you to be removed from the black list? What about all the individual admins that added you to their personal blacklists and just never bothered removing you?
I totally blew it. Like I said - my fault.
I don't have a problem with individual admins who blacklisted me. I imagine that if I sent mail to any of those admins, they'd whitelist me pretty quick if I asked and appologized. I made a mistake. Lucky for me, I'm not the first or last to do so.
Like I also said, mail-abuse.org is providing a service and not (IMHO) being all that responsible with it. I think two weeks is a long time for something that is (or should be) mostly a fully automated process.
Finally, I only discovered I was an open relay when my DSL line acted up (total "lucky" coincidence) and I did a lot of investigation on the server. I discovered a huge email queue (which I nuked) and lots of RBL delivery rejections in the mail log. If they had sent ONE message to "root@[my ip address]" I'd have found out immediately and shut it down within a day. They don't owe me a damn thing, but that doesn't change the fact that they're not being real responsible to their subscribers, or the internet at large.
Leaving a proxy open for raping by spammers doesn't make you a bloodsucking demon, but it is definitely grounds for having your IPs locally blocklisted.
It frustrates me that the http proxy:
1. Didn't warn me that this was an issue upon install
2. **Allowed this to happen at all**
I have submitted a bug to the developers. This is a known issue, though I'd never heard of it before, nor had 2/3rds of my geek (professional programmers, recreational sysadmins - which describes myself as well) friends. If http proxies blocked all requests (or at least PUTs) to localhost/127.0.0.1 and all know network interfaces on the local machine, this kind of thing either wouldn't be a problem, or would be much less a problem.
Again, pot - kettle - black. Still, good software wouldn't allow this kind of thing in the first place, and recreational sysadmins wouldn't have to worry so much.
Finally, as I'll mention in another thread, I only discovered I was an open relay when my DSL line acted up (total "lucky" coincidence) and I did a lot of investigation on the server. I discovered a huge email queue (which I nuked) and lots of RBL delivery rejections in the mail log. If they had sent ONE message to root@[my ip address] I'd have found out immediately and shut it down within a day.
I left an HTTP proxy on on an open port - on the same machine that does SMTP. I didn't even know that spammers could relay via an http proxy using a PUT to the local SMTP server. mea culpa.
I fixed it in 3 days (too long, I know).
I contacted mail-abuse.org and submitted a removal request. It took them 2 weeks to take me off the list.
It frustrates me that their site is so unresponsive to removal requests, and that they fail much of their process. They were supposed to send email at several stages, which they did not do. The email they did send was badly formatted (broken urls, urs that weren't relevent).
I won't ever use an RBL because they just don't seem responsible.
Yeah, I know - pot kettle black. But I'm not supplying a service to thousands of users.
Sun is simply adapting to survive
hahaha. Sorry, I just had to laugh.
Isn't this the same ship that SGI is sailing out on?
And by out, I mean off the edge of the world, into the abyss.
Damn. Next time. :-)
Putting little black circles in front of things doesn't make them "research".
Yeah, but I wanted to be REAL convincing.
Did it show?
Sure.
Save the Whales
As you know, higher frequencies can carry more data. Banner ads require lots of data to transfer (images - often many images, sometimes sound - all data hogs).
If we don't use banner ads, we can continue using lower frequencies to transmit data. And as the study has shown, high frequencies can kill or harm whales. Therefore...
Oh, yeah, I'd like to take this moment to mention that the whole list was BS, just as the statement "Banner Blocking is Bad" is BS. That was kinda the point. ha-ha - right? Get it?
Oh. Sorry.