> I've found that if I bounce back every piece of > true spam I get.......You blast people like me whose domains are in the forged headers of the spam with bogus bounces. About 1/3 of my email consists fo such useless bounces.
_NEVER_ _BOUNCE_ _SPAM_. The headers are always forged.
> More than that, it's also perfectly legitimate > for someone who is not the trademark holder to > use the trademark for reviews or orther > technical articles about the product.
Or even in advertising for a competing product. It is entirely legal in the US for Ford to run ads saying "Fords are better than Toyotas!".
_Trademark_, not copyright. They are very, very different and, in the US at least, trademark is much, much weaker. I doubt that such a case would get far here.
> Aren't they already a major stockholder in SCO, > since not long before they licensed Unix, the > whole shebang, from SCO?
You are very confused. Microsoft once owned some of the old SCO. They sold it quite a while ago. Then just recently Caldera bought SCO and then renamed themselves SCO.
> Verisign seems like they're more interested in > performing as a business rather than acting as a > steward for the domain registry.
What they are selling is the business of selling domains at retail. It has nothing to do with control of.com and.net.
> A lot of people seem upset about the whole > Sitefinder thing, though, which struck me as > kind of wierd.
That's because you don't know how the Internet works.
> IE popped up a helpful page when a domain wasn't > found...
Then let IE keep right on doing so. That's a perfectly reasonable browser feature.
>...what's so bad about the actual domain > registrar doing it?
1) It broke all sorts of system software that depended on lookups of non-existent domains failing in the way specified in the relevant standards.
2) It allowed Verisign to take unfair advantage of its special position. If they had just wanted to help end-users they would have set up some sort of rotation that would have sent each successive connection to a different search provider.
> The point I'm getting to: there are other > registrars that seem to do the same thing at the > end of the day without all the baggage or cost.
> What exactly are people doing that they are so > paranoid that people are watching/tracking them?
We aren't the paranoid ones: that's Ashcroft & Co. These are the bunglers who ban anyone whose name matches a "terrorist" Soundex pattern from flying. The next step might be to ban anyone engaging in such "terroristic activities" as checking out certain books.
Sure. File an infringement lawsuit and convince the court that you have enough of a case (for example by producing a former employee who will testify that they used your code) to proceed to discovery.
> MS threatens me with audits to check my license > compliance...
You entered into a contract with them. I didn't and so they have no more right to audit me than I have to audit them.
> And for that matter, which license would win?
I'm not sure what you mean by that. If they are infringing they are infringing.
> If GPL'd code was found in a product like > Windows, would Microsoft be forced to open > source the entire thing?
No, but they could be ordered to stop distributing it.
> Not sure how that applies to code mind. Can you > claim to be "quoting code" ?
I don't think you can. I don't see how including bits of someone else's program in yours can be considered fair use, considering what fair use is supposed to be for.
Slashdot Mirror
> I've found that if I bounce back every piece of ...You blast people like me whose domains are in the forged headers of the spam with bogus bounces. About 1/3 of my email consists fo such useless bounces.
> true spam I get....
_NEVER_ _BOUNCE_ _SPAM_. The headers are always forged.
SPF: Sender Permitted From
spf.pobox.com/
Why does everyone assume that such a system would object to being turned off?
I the US. It is not clear that one could legally do so in France.
In the US. Look up Mobilix vs Asterix.
> More than that, it's also perfectly legitimate
> for someone who is not the trademark holder to
> use the trademark for reviews or orther
> technical articles about the product.
Or even in advertising for a competing product. It is entirely legal in the US for Ford to run ads saying "Fords are better than Toyotas!".
> So much for free speech.
The case was in _France_.
_Trademark_, not copyright. They are very, very different and, in the US at least, trademark is much, much weaker. I doubt that such a case would get far here.
> Aren't they already a major stockholder in SCO,
> since not long before they licensed Unix, the
> whole shebang, from SCO?
You are very confused. Microsoft once owned some of the old SCO. They sold it quite a while ago. Then just recently Caldera bought SCO and then renamed themselves SCO.
What makes ou think it's illegal even if it is Microsoft?
You heard incorrectly. Microsoft owned a portion of the original SCO many years ago before Caldera bought it, but they sold it.
> Verisign seems like they're more interested in
.com and .net.
...what's so bad about the actual domain
> performing as a business rather than acting as a
> steward for the domain registry.
What they are selling is the business of selling domains at retail. It has nothing to do with control of
> A lot of people seem upset about the whole
> Sitefinder thing, though, which struck me as
> kind of wierd.
That's because you don't know how the Internet works.
> IE popped up a helpful page when a domain wasn't
> found...
Then let IE keep right on doing so. That's a perfectly reasonable browser feature.
>
> registrar doing it?
1) It broke all sorts of system software that depended on lookups of non-existent domains failing in the way specified in the relevant standards.
2) It allowed Verisign to take unfair advantage of its special position. If they had just wanted to help end-users they would have set up some sort of rotation that would have sent each successive connection to a different search provider.
> The point I'm getting to: there are other
> registrars that seem to do the same thing at the
> end of the day without all the baggage or cost.
No one else can do the same thing.
> The back-and-forth between spammers and mortals
> continues.
I'm fairly sure spammers are mortal. If I ever catch one I'll find out for certain.
Don't PHBs instinctively click on all attachments?
> This technology isn't going to go away. In 20 or
> 30 years, computers, telephones, and televisions
> will become part of our intimate clothing,"
A TV set in my underwear? No thanks.
> Ever wondered how that pretty case on your desk
> came to be?
No. I've seen a sheet-metal brake in action.
...by exhibiting the rotting corpses of last semester's cheaters at the front of the room.
How about any object warmer than absolute zero?
Can I bring my six-foot steel prybar? Does he have a plan for preventing me from being convicted of murder?
Perhaps, but NASA is using Mars Hybrid Solar Time. Problem is, I can't find the specifications for it.
Anybody got them?
I mostly agree with you. Knowledge is only power over those who don't have it.
> What exactly are people doing that they are so
> paranoid that people are watching/tracking them?
We aren't the paranoid ones: that's Ashcroft & Co. These are the bunglers who ban anyone whose name matches a "terrorist" Soundex pattern from flying. The next step might be to ban anyone engaging in such "terroristic activities" as checking out certain books.
> Is there a process to audit big companies code?
Sure. File an infringement lawsuit and convince the court that you have enough of a case (for example by producing a former employee who will testify that they used your code) to proceed to discovery.
> MS threatens me with audits to check my license
> compliance...
You entered into a contract with them. I didn't and so they have no more right to audit me than I have to audit them.
> And for that matter, which license would win?
I'm not sure what you mean by that. If they are infringing they are infringing.
> If GPL'd code was found in a product like
> Windows, would Microsoft be forced to open
> source the entire thing?
No, but they could be ordered to stop distributing it.
> There's far too much precedence that they didn't
> defend it in other cases.
Your other points are valid but that one, unfortunately, is not. They can be as selective as they want to in enforcing their copyrights.
> Not sure how that applies to code mind. Can you
> claim to be "quoting code" ?
I don't think you can. I don't see how including bits of someone else's program in yours can be considered fair use, considering what fair use is supposed to be for.
Is SCO receiving ongoing payments from SGI? I thought these source licensing deals involved one-time cash payments.