Actually, by generating it dynamically you're just taxing CPU cycles instead of disk storage. Disks are cheap.
What you could do, though, is program a mail server that lets every user pull the same single message no matter whether they were even sent the notification it was waiting. Then, just spam the notifications out.
You've effectively just saved the spammer all the bandwidth for customers who don't click on the email.
Also, the pull model means I can spam out notifications for people to check your email pull server and bury it under the unexpected load. Certificates for servers help limit this, but it's still a possibility.
Most mail servers (all the good ones) already detect mail loops at least as a configurable option. That's not the problem.
If you're hash-validating mail to fix the problems of envelope-reversed spam, why not just hash-validate mail in the first place?
If I want to spam you, I can just send spam to someone using your proposed envelope reversal as you. The way to stop that is to require validated senders, but the server admin on the sending server gets to decide who's a valid sender. A spammer can afford a Linux box running an MTA, so unless you can force others to swear in court or something that their authenticated and authorized senders aren't sending spam, then you're still SOL.
Greylists suck more than whitelists (of which they're just a clever automated variation, after all).
I'm not a spammer, but I've fought lots of spam. To do so effectively, you need to know the weaknesses of different techniques as well as their strengths. To catch a spammer, think like a spammer. So here are a few of the many issues greylisting has that I find pretty funny.
Want to really have fun screwing with a mail server? Find two greylisting recipients on the server. Send a message to one "from" the other. Unless the greylisting software is very smart, it generates a new message for everyone not on your whitelist for every message they send rather than using a counted forwarding system containing the received headers. This means it's often actively fighting the loop detection software on the MTA.
Want to get a greylist user blocked on other people's blacklists as a spammer? Find a greylist user whose software sends the body (or at least the subject) of the original mail along with the greylist notification. Send a bunch of spam to the greylist user you want to get blocked as a spammer "from" a few hundred working addresses of people who contribute to public blacklists.
Greylists that include the original body also could be used for even more nefarious purposes.
Some greylist software uses a serial number or a poorly generated character string to confirm replies. If you send enough email to a poorly implemented one from enough different email sender addresses then you can sometimes find a pattern. Once you discover the pattern, you can render the greylist pretty ineffective. I've even seen one guy who was silly enough to just MD5 hash the concatenation of sender, recipient, and yyyy-mm-dd date format. If you fuzzed enough to know that (about 20 seconds worth of it), you could hit his accounts with any kind of spam as a legitimate sender. What's worse is this guy was offering this for free download as a server-wide software package with the only configuration option being a per-receiving-domain "on" or "off". I feel really sorry for anyone who has their business emails depending on that for anti-spam.
Assume the greylisting is working perfectly and 80% of your email is spam, which you don't get now. You've whitelisted the people who send the other 20%. You're still sending out 80% of the number of messages you receive before you ever account for replying to a legitimate email.
The Microsoft ads showing many different PCs that look different and act differently are supposed to show that you can use lots of different applications on the PC. This is supposed to be in contrast to the dearth of applications MS wants you to think are on the Mac.
What they may actually end up being is a joke about how inflexible the Windows interface is and a jumping-off point for millions of YouTube users to show how many different ways there are to put a GUI together on Linux.
"I AM sendmail"... huh. So the guy has to be configured using m4 macros, has to make more copies of himself to do more than one task, and is terribly insecure? I bet he wishes he was Postfix or qmail.
SBC wasn't just SouthWestern Bell anymore, either. They were already SWB, PacBell, and Ameritech combined. SBC and BellSouth were partners in Cingular, too.
I think, honestly, that he may mean both. He might also mean just cults of thinking, but are religious cults really something else?
Even if Berners-Lee didn't specifically have the group in mind, there are reasons to include them in the types of groups he's concerned about. New Scientist equates the fear and furor around the LHC with spreading the ideas of religious cults when reporting this. The Hubbardites have been trying to censor every site they can of any negative stances on their group. Groups that strive for one side of any argument to stifle the other can't be considered very truthful or even "truthy".
A few of the most extreme opponents of the Hubbardites could also be put in this category, too. Most appear just to make sure the anti-CoS information is heard and noticed, but some go much farther.
In the article it's pretty clear this is a legacy-at-launch part to be a last upgrade for people using the current FSB technology. Other products will use QuickPath, but this is for those who want to keep their current motherboards for one more generation of processors.
That's actually one of the reasons why Google went with processes for tabs instead of internal threads or trying to use OS-level threads. It's easy to get separate processes onto separate cores.
Notice "SQL server" with a small "s". Just because Microsoft goes and trademarks a common phrase doesn't mean that servers which run SQL queries aren't SQL database servers.
They are, but they still work pretty well. They're careful to turn off the core that doesn't work rather than one that does. They could dedicate themselves to only shipping processors with all four cores working, but that would make the quad-core chips much more expensive. This way, they can sell three working cores for part of the four-core price and save lots of cash on wasting chips that work fine as three-core parts.
That's no different from the 486SXes, many of which were 486DX parts with the defective math coprocessor diked out. It's not very different from how the clock rate on every mainstream chip is determined by how many chips turn out to be stable at which speeds.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, by generating it dynamically you're just taxing CPU cycles instead of disk storage. Disks are cheap.
What you could do, though, is program a mail server that lets every user pull the same single message no matter whether they were even sent the notification it was waiting. Then, just spam the notifications out.
You've effectively just saved the spammer all the bandwidth for customers who don't click on the email.
Also, the pull model means I can spam out notifications for people to check your email pull server and bury it under the unexpected load. Certificates for servers help limit this, but it's still a possibility.
Because bouncing spam to the supposed sender who didn't really send it is the optimal solution?
Who said people who want to keep the culture and methods of the culture are the same people who keep pushing for universal acceptance?
Keep using Windows, and I'll be working while you're rebooting. That's not a problem for me. It's a problem for you.
Most mail servers (all the good ones) already detect mail loops at least as a configurable option. That's not the problem.
If you're hash-validating mail to fix the problems of envelope-reversed spam, why not just hash-validate mail in the first place?
If I want to spam you, I can just send spam to someone using your proposed envelope reversal as you. The way to stop that is to require validated senders, but the server admin on the sending server gets to decide who's a valid sender. A spammer can afford a Linux box running an MTA, so unless you can force others to swear in court or something that their authenticated and authorized senders aren't sending spam, then you're still SOL.
Greylists suck more than whitelists (of which they're just a clever automated variation, after all).
I'm not a spammer, but I've fought lots of spam. To do so effectively, you need to know the weaknesses of different techniques as well as their strengths. To catch a spammer, think like a spammer. So here are a few of the many issues greylisting has that I find pretty funny.
Want to really have fun screwing with a mail server? Find two greylisting recipients on the server. Send a message to one "from" the other. Unless the greylisting software is very smart, it generates a new message for everyone not on your whitelist for every message they send rather than using a counted forwarding system containing the received headers. This means it's often actively fighting the loop detection software on the MTA.
Want to get a greylist user blocked on other people's blacklists as a spammer? Find a greylist user whose software sends the body (or at least the subject) of the original mail along with the greylist notification. Send a bunch of spam to the greylist user you want to get blocked as a spammer "from" a few hundred working addresses of people who contribute to public blacklists.
Greylists that include the original body also could be used for even more nefarious purposes.
Some greylist software uses a serial number or a poorly generated character string to confirm replies. If you send enough email to a poorly implemented one from enough different email sender addresses then you can sometimes find a pattern. Once you discover the pattern, you can render the greylist pretty ineffective. I've even seen one guy who was silly enough to just MD5 hash the concatenation of sender, recipient, and yyyy-mm-dd date format. If you fuzzed enough to know that (about 20 seconds worth of it), you could hit his accounts with any kind of spam as a legitimate sender. What's worse is this guy was offering this for free download as a server-wide software package with the only configuration option being a per-receiving-domain "on" or "off". I feel really sorry for anyone who has their business emails depending on that for anti-spam.
Assume the greylisting is working perfectly and 80% of your email is spam, which you don't get now. You've whitelisted the people who send the other 20%. You're still sending out 80% of the number of messages you receive before you ever account for replying to a legitimate email.
It wouldn't have to stop all of them. A 70% reduction in spam would be a wonderful thing.
The Microsoft ads showing many different PCs that look different and act differently are supposed to show that you can use lots of different applications on the PC. This is supposed to be in contrast to the dearth of applications MS wants you to think are on the Mac.
What they may actually end up being is a joke about how inflexible the Windows interface is and a jumping-off point for millions of YouTube users to show how many different ways there are to put a GUI together on Linux.
"I AM sendmail" ... huh. So the guy has to be configured using m4 macros, has to make more copies of himself to do more than one task, and is terribly insecure? I bet he wishes he was Postfix or qmail.
non-sequesters? What does that have to do with the price of halibut?
I sure hope neither MS nor Apple come to seize and hold my computers.
They also have to walk a thin line not to piss off too many Mac Microsoft Office customers.
Make sure to use the second edition, which covers ANSI C (which is practically ISO C89).
ask.slashdot.org
*swans*
perldoc.perl.org
use Perl; comes high on the list, along with PerlMonks and PerlBuzz.
Perl.org in general gets points for being where you can find Use, perldoc, and more.
And yet it's more honest than "Mojave".
SBC wasn't just SouthWestern Bell anymore, either. They were already SWB, PacBell, and Ameritech combined. SBC and BellSouth were partners in Cingular, too.
I think, honestly, that he may mean both. He might also mean just cults of thinking, but are religious cults really something else?
Even if Berners-Lee didn't specifically have the group in mind, there are reasons to include them in the types of groups he's concerned about.
New Scientist equates the fear and furor around the LHC with spreading the ideas of religious cults when reporting this. The Hubbardites have been trying to censor every site they can of any negative stances on their group. Groups that strive for one side of any argument to stifle the other can't be considered very truthful or even "truthy".
A few of the most extreme opponents of the Hubbardites could also be put in this category, too. Most appear just to make sure the anti-CoS information is heard and noticed, but some go much farther.
In the article it's pretty clear this is a legacy-at-launch part to be a last upgrade for people using the current FSB technology. Other products will use QuickPath, but this is for those who want to keep their current motherboards for one more generation of processors.
That's actually one of the reasons why Google went with processes for tabs instead of internal threads or trying to use OS-level threads. It's easy to get separate processes onto separate cores.
Simple. He'll catch the black holes produced in ZPMs. They'll be released for civilian use by the time anything runs Crysis properly anyway.
Well, considering this 45nm part uses less power for 6 cores than the 65nm parts from the same company use for 4 cores, I'd call that win-win.
Besides this being a not very funny copypasta, AMD is as American as Intel and the Core 2 model lines come from designs done in Israel.
You can, on most operating systems, actually run more than one application at a time now.
Notice "SQL server" with a small "s". Just because Microsoft goes and trademarks a common phrase doesn't mean that servers which run SQL queries aren't SQL database servers.
They are, but they still work pretty well. They're careful to turn off the core that doesn't work rather than one that does. They could dedicate themselves to only shipping processors with all four cores working, but that would make the quad-core chips much more expensive. This way, they can sell three working cores for part of the four-core price and save lots of cash on wasting chips that work fine as three-core parts.
That's no different from the 486SXes, many of which were 486DX parts with the defective math coprocessor diked out. It's not very different from how the clock rate on every mainstream chip is determined by how many chips turn out to be stable at which speeds.