Where are the spam lawsuits against the Cyberbunker, A2B or the spammer in question?
There aren't any, this is spamhaus acting as judge, jury and executioner. This isn't merely about a spam blocklist anymore, this is spamhaus trying to make all of the cyberbunker's IP space unroutable by using blackmail tactics against A2B.
"That's SMTP of all your paying customers, would be a shame if something were to happen to it..."
That is all nice and good, until they start pressuring upstream providers to STOP ROUTING, this is not about being on some spamlist but about removing a datacenter/ISP from the internet entirely.
They use the pull they have by being used by 2/3rds of the internet's email servers to blackmail ISPs to comply.
I do not send spam emails, I never have once in my life. Yet I cannot get my netblock removed from spamhaus RBL because they don't like my ISP.
Also, I *know* that spamhaus has taken money from other parties, ISPs, to make sure that this type of 'escalation' would never happen to them. This will be presented during the court case in Holland.
I rent a server and a/29 in the cyberbunker, as far as I'm concerned spamhaus is trying to strongarm my my upstream providers upstream provider. I had nothing to do with any of this, but I stand to lose my ip range and services THAT I PAID FOR.
It's NOT reasonable from spamhaus to expect an entire ISP to be blackholed for ONE spam complaint 2 levels below.
Maybe but in my case it was never resolved, as you can see spamhaus is now trying to cut *ME* off of the internet entirely.
They are trying to get upstream to cut off the cyberbunker entirely, that is blackmail. And by cutting off the cyberbunker my IP range becomes entirely unroutabe, this leaves me in a rather precarious situation.
I rent a server at cyberbunker and I have had long email discussions with spamhaus as well, with them going so far as suggesting that I go an find a new ISP.
Especially since the IP space I got from them is just a regular PA, and the ranges whois informations has a record with my personal name, address and telephone number in it. Spamhaus doesn't understand how the Internet works and is trying to basically nuke the cyberbunker from orbit by going one provider up the chain until they can find someone that will turn off every route...
Whereas the original spam report for the range was just ONE/29 that has the correct whois information...
"Just pure spam and crime" that is rather offensive considering that I just run my personal email, xmpp and some other services there. You're just as bad as spamhaus.
At the time I made a/. submission about it, I'll reproduce it below since the submission was rejected at the time: --------- "I run a small server for some minor projects of mine, a mailserver for my family and several friends at a hosting provider. A couple of weeks ago my father started to complain that some of his mails were no longer being received. Upon further inspection it turned out that my entire ISP's IP range (the entire/19) was put in the Spamhaus Blocklist (SBL). After sending a request to de-list the IP range I control (a/29 in their/19), I got the following response: "Due to the hosting policies of the owner of this IP address block, our users do not wish to accept traffic from these IPs. We suggest you look for other arrangements as to your hosting."
The "Hosting policies" of my ISP do not appear to differ greatly from other ISPs, they name spamming as a breach of their TOS and do disconnect spammers. The only major difference I can see is that they do not give out personal information or kick (non spamming) clients off of the web without being legally forced to, which is a requirement in the EU country they are based in to qualify as a telco (and be not responsible for the content of their customers' websites) This stance towards net neutrality is why I chose them in the first place. Vote with your wallet, right?
According to the Spamhaus website The SBL's primary objective is to avoid 'false positives' while blocking as much spam as possible. To me blocking an entire ISP's netblock for, according to the listing, a grand total of three consecutive/29's that were originally reported (and likely from the same customer) and an entire/24 that's labeled entirely as "trademark fraud replicas" does not seem to me to be "avoiding false positives".
The end result is that without sending a single spam or hosting any malicious content, Spamhaus labels me a spammer and even 'cybercriminal' according to the SBL listing all because they apparently don't like my ISP . My questions being: Did any one of you ever find yourself between this particular rock and hard place? Did you manage to get the issue resolved without switching ISPs? And perhaps: Is it really Spamhaus' place to decide what ISP I use considering I'm a good netizen?" -----
May you be remembered and celebrated for all that you brought to computing. I hope your name will not be forgotten from history. The fact that your death is announced as 'another great one' in the same breath as... someone else makes me scared for your rightful place in it.
"I know that there are some readers that would ask, why does Kemp not have a PhD? The truth is reader, I did not want to waste years trying to convince others of my ideas, or doing research for someone else, when my own personal research required that same enormous time."
Not that one has to have a PhD to have insights, but his first book has a subtitle "A Universal Kinetic Aether Theory" which should really tell you enough about this guy's 'credentials'. If you look through the other concepts he mentions are in his book I would imagine that it is all a very elaborate 'first cause' argument for the existence of a creator deity.
This 'review' is a disgrace to the slashdot frontpage...
It's idealistic to want all software to be open - but for companies which pour a lot of intellectual property into their drivers and firmware, I find it understandable that they wouldn't want their work made available to competitors' products.
No, they might not want to show people just how technically bad their products are though. There is no 'intellectual property' in drivers, you cannot copy a chip's design by looking at it's drivers. MANY people in the chip design field have stated this already, in fact it has been mentioned so often by now that I'm surprised you didn't know this.
And even then, you should demand freedom from the companies you buy products of, you need this freedom to protect your rights as a consumer. Finding apologies for and sympathizing with the company that is trying to take away your freedom is much like saying "Yes Bob beat all the teeth out of my mouth, but I understand he had a bad day at work."
And if you feel that the freedom to do as you please with the devices you own is not important to you, then why did you post this? You talk about "Idealogical" and yes it is, partially. But the ideology is not that all software should be free because all software should be free. All software should be free so that writers of software do not have the power to abuse users of the software. Or in this case sell buggy hardware without any way for the consumer to find this out until it is too late.
OR being able to apply security updates OR being sure that your router doesn't inject advertisements into your webpages etc. etc. etc.
If they're not using any open-source in their binaries themselves, it's no violation
Yes it is, it says so in the license of the software we're talking about (Linux) This is not open for interpretation.
My opinion is this - if you don't like it, don't use it.
Indeed if Netgear doesn't want to play by the rules of the GPL, then they don't have to use GPL code. But they do want to use GPLd code because it saves them an asston of licensing on VXWorks or other router operating systems. They want to use Linux, so they have to play by the rules of Linux which are : If you link code to Linux code code, your code needs to be free.
The broadcom drivers link against Linux code and thus it needs to be free. If they don't want to do that, they can NOT USE LINUX, it's their choice. They can't have it both, they chose to use Linux themselves because they apparently found it beneficial to them, now they need to play by the rules. Or do you think that the authors of VMWorks wouldn't mind if Linksys decides to not play by their rules and just not pay?
If you had read the entire article you would've seen that it is written by "Brett Burney is principal of Burney Consultants, based in Cleveland." Finding his website, it turns out that mr Burney is not a lawyer, he provides some legal services FOR lawyers.
So, that article is just some guy saying how convenient those tools are. Not some sort of legal analysis of the use of web-based applications for sharing private data.
Here in Europe using stuff like that is absolutely not allowed for sensitive data, doctors, lawyers and governments are most certainly NOT allowed to use a hosted app like that.
I really am seeing very high speeds when doing sequential reads, but it's not like I got some cheap SATA controllers in that thing! I know this is hardly proof but, here goes :
$ sudo hdparm -t/dev/md1/dev/md1:
Timing buffered disk reads: 1194 MB in 3.00 seconds = 397.86 MB/sec
This is while the box is in use doing it's normal business. Random reading of 31Gb of smaller files gives me a somewhat more humble 40-70megabyte/s. Please note that all of these measurements were done while the box was also serving it's usual purpose of media server for the household and some other tasks.
So, well. I doubt I have convinced you but here it is, there is not more that I can do:)
I actually did something similar around a year ago. 12 x 750Gb of diskspace including disks, controllers, system and everything for around 2000 dollars. It uses Linux softraid but I still get an easy 400MegaBYTE/s from it. I have some pictures here:
Microsoft runs a proprietary show where they 'set the standard' themselves. Which basically means 'there is no standard except how we do it'. Linux, however, tries to adhere to standards. When it turns out that something doesn't adhere to standards, it gets fixed.
Another problem is that most users of proprietary software on their proprietary OS don't have the sources to the software they use, so if the OS fixes something that was previously broken, but the software version used is 'no longer supported' the 'fix' in the OS breaks the users' software and the user has no option of fixing his software.
THIS is why a) microsoft can't ever truly fix something and b) why using proprietary software screws over the user.
Or would you rather have OSS software do the same as proprietary software vendors and work around problems forever but never fixing them? Saw that shiny 'run in IE7 mode' button in IE8? that's what you'll get...
sorry for the reply to self, I imply that cisco would be FORCED to release those IOS files under the GPL. This is not true, one outcome of the lawsuit may be that Cisco has to refrain from distributing the combined work altogether, and that the FSF will simply get damages for a copyright infringement.
Although, releasing the files under the GPL would probably be the fastest and easiest way for Cisco to get out of this lawsuit, as this is the goal of the FSF.
The FSF isn't like the RIAA trying to get maximum cash from any GPL violation;) they just want the code to be free.
But, since these files are key to IOS as well, one could take the view that IOS is now under the GPL.
No matter how you slice it, Cisco still owns the copyright to those 'key files'. Cisco can do whatever the hell they want with them too.
While, it is true that they would have to grant a GPL licensed copy to all customer to whom they distribute those files combined with GPL code (and only if they are actually linked together) They are more than free to ALSO use those files in a completely proprietary product, without granting any rights to third parties.
Now, should the community improve those files, cisco would not be able to incorporate the improvements done under the GPLd versions, because they do not own the copyright to those changes and the GPL does not grant Cisco any more rights than anyone else.
If this is true, you would be the first person I've ever met who this happens to. I couldn't tell you how many times I've heard people boast about how they're "smarter than the collection agencies" after getting off the phone with a collector.
Well, I'm the second person then. I am getting regular calls every 2 weeks or something from a cable company that I have never ever even done business with. This has been going for about 2 years now. It started off with phone calls every week about how they measured my internet connection, and later progressed into harassement about unpaid bills. I have told them every time that I don't do business with them, that I never HAD a cable connection with them and that I would like to be removed from the system. Every time the caller said they would do so, but I always get called again later. Last week I got really angry and demanded to speak to a manager type, they didn't comply but promised not to call anymore this time for real, I swear it stuff. I haven't been called yet, so things look promising...
The 3D api you described is actually GL's, DirectX does NOT implement stuff in software that isn't there, if it isn't there, it just won't work (r) with GL you *will* know that everything in the spec will 'just work' you'll just have to query for non-spec extensions, just as with directX, because stuff not in the ARB or the spec might or might not be available.
DirectX was actually a huge step backwards from GL in almost every sense, when it comes to 3d graphics, it was only moderatly useful for 2d graphics, sound and input in the 'early' days.
directX *still* won't implement missing features in software, and, you must have a pretty good idea of the target hardware, because YOU the developer must keep the GPU busy, GL does that FOR you.
Plus, the directX api is, like all api's microsoft ever made, overly verbose, and VERY bloated. pointers to bools... juck...
Slashdot Mirror
Where are the spam lawsuits against the Cyberbunker, A2B or the spammer in question?
There aren't any, this is spamhaus acting as judge, jury and executioner. This isn't merely about a spam blocklist anymore, this is spamhaus trying to make all of the cyberbunker's IP space unroutable by using blackmail tactics against A2B.
"That's SMTP of all your paying customers, would be a shame if something were to happen to it..."
That is all nice and good, until they start pressuring upstream providers to STOP ROUTING, this is not about being on some spamlist but about removing a datacenter/ISP from the internet entirely.
They use the pull they have by being used by 2/3rds of the internet's email servers to blackmail ISPs to comply.
I do not send spam emails, I never have once in my life. Yet I cannot get my netblock removed from spamhaus RBL because they don't like my ISP.
Also, I *know* that spamhaus has taken money from other parties, ISPs, to make sure that this type of 'escalation' would never happen to them. This will be presented during the court case in Holland.
I rent a server and a /29 in the cyberbunker, as far as I'm concerned spamhaus is trying to strongarm my my upstream providers upstream provider. I had nothing to do with any of this, but I stand to lose my ip range and services THAT I PAID FOR.
It's NOT reasonable from spamhaus to expect an entire ISP to be blackholed for ONE spam complaint 2 levels below.
Maybe but in my case it was never resolved, as you can see spamhaus is now trying to cut *ME* off of the internet entirely.
They are trying to get upstream to cut off the cyberbunker entirely, that is blackmail. And by cutting off the cyberbunker my IP range becomes entirely unroutabe, this leaves me in a rather precarious situation.
Thanks for that!
I rent a server at cyberbunker and I have had long email discussions with spamhaus as well, with them going so far as suggesting that I go an find a new ISP.
Especially since the IP space I got from them is just a regular PA, and the ranges whois informations has a record with my personal name, address and telephone number in it. Spamhaus doesn't understand how the Internet works and is trying to basically nuke the cyberbunker from orbit by going one provider up the chain until they can find someone that will turn off every route...
Whereas the original spam report for the range was just ONE /29 that has the correct whois information...
"Just pure spam and crime" that is rather offensive considering that I just run my personal email, xmpp and some other services there. You're just as bad as spamhaus.
At the time I made a /. submission about it, I'll reproduce it below since the submission was rejected at the time: /19) was put in the Spamhaus Blocklist (SBL). After sending a request to de-list the IP range I control (a /29 in their /19), I got the following response: "Due to the hosting policies of the owner of this IP address block, our users do not wish to accept traffic from these IPs. We suggest you look for other arrangements as to your hosting."
---------
"I run a small server for some minor projects of mine, a mailserver for my family and several friends at a hosting provider. A couple of weeks ago my father started to complain that some of his mails were no longer being received. Upon further inspection it turned out that my entire ISP's IP range (the entire
The "Hosting policies" of my ISP do not appear to differ greatly from other ISPs, they name spamming as a breach of their TOS and do disconnect spammers. The only major difference I can see is that they do not give out personal information or kick (non spamming) clients off of the web without being legally forced to, which is a requirement in the EU country they are based in to qualify as a telco (and be not responsible for the content of their customers' websites) This stance towards net neutrality is why I chose them in the first place. Vote with your wallet, right?
According to the Spamhaus website The SBL's primary objective is to avoid 'false positives' while blocking as much spam as possible. To me blocking an entire ISP's netblock for, according to the listing, a grand total of three consecutive /29's that were originally reported (and likely from the same customer) and an entire /24 that's labeled entirely as "trademark fraud replicas" does not seem to me to be "avoiding false positives".
The end result is that without sending a single spam or hosting any malicious content, Spamhaus labels me a spammer and even 'cybercriminal' according to the SBL listing all because they apparently don't like my ISP . My questions being: Did any one of you ever find yourself between this particular rock and hard place? Did you manage to get the issue resolved without switching ISPs? And perhaps: Is it really Spamhaus' place to decide what ISP I use considering I'm a good netizen?"
-----
May you be remembered and celebrated for all that you brought to computing. I hope your name will not be forgotten from history. The fact that your death is announced as 'another great one' in the same breath as... someone else makes me scared for your rightful place in it.
I am truly sad that you are gone.
Also "I did not want to waste years trying to convince others of my ideas" seems to suggest "I know I am right, this pesky peer-review is for sissies"
truly horrendous
"Wanna be" indeed. From his own bio:
"I know that there are some readers that would ask, why does Kemp not have a PhD? The truth is reader, I did not want to waste years trying to convince others of my ideas, or doing research for someone else, when my own personal research required that same enormous time."
Not that one has to have a PhD to have insights, but his first book has a subtitle "A Universal Kinetic Aether Theory" which should really tell you enough about this guy's 'credentials'. If you look through the other concepts he mentions are in his book I would imagine that it is all a very elaborate 'first cause' argument for the existence of a creator deity.
This 'review' is a disgrace to the slashdot frontpage...
correction:
IBM -> Microsoft -> Apple -> RIM
You heard it here first folks :)
It's idealistic to want all software to be open - but for companies which pour a lot of intellectual property into their drivers and firmware, I find it understandable that they wouldn't want their work made available to competitors' products.
No, they might not want to show people just how technically bad their products are though. There is no 'intellectual property' in drivers, you cannot copy a chip's design by looking at it's drivers. MANY people in the chip design field have stated this already, in fact it has been mentioned so often by now that I'm surprised you didn't know this.
And even then, you should demand freedom from the companies you buy products of, you need this freedom to protect your rights as a consumer. Finding apologies for and sympathizing with the company that is trying to take away your freedom is much like saying "Yes Bob beat all the teeth out of my mouth, but I understand he had a bad day at work."
And if you feel that the freedom to do as you please with the devices you own is not important to you, then why did you post this? You talk about "Idealogical" and yes it is, partially. But the ideology is not that all software should be free because all software should be free. All software should be free so that writers of software do not have the power to abuse users of the software. Or in this case sell buggy hardware without any way for the consumer to find this out until it is too late.
OR being able to apply security updates
OR being sure that your router doesn't inject advertisements into your webpages
etc. etc. etc.
If they're not using any open-source in their binaries themselves, it's no violation
Yes it is, it says so in the license of the software we're talking about (Linux) This is not open for interpretation.
My opinion is this - if you don't like it, don't use it.
Indeed if Netgear doesn't want to play by the rules of the GPL, then they don't have to use GPL code. But they do want to use GPLd code because it saves them an asston of licensing on VXWorks or other router operating systems. They want to use Linux, so they have to play by the rules of Linux which are : If you link code to Linux code code, your code needs to be free.
The broadcom drivers link against Linux code and thus it needs to be free. If they don't want to do that, they can NOT USE LINUX, it's their choice. They can't have it both, they chose to use Linux themselves because they apparently found it beneficial to them, now they need to play by the rules. Or do you think that the authors of VMWorks wouldn't mind if Linksys decides to not play by their rules and just not pay?
If you had read the entire article you would've seen that it is written by "Brett Burney is principal of Burney Consultants, based in Cleveland." Finding his website, it turns out that mr Burney is not a lawyer, he provides some legal services FOR lawyers.
So, that article is just some guy saying how convenient those tools are. Not some sort of legal analysis of the use of web-based applications for sharing private data.
Here in Europe using stuff like that is absolutely not allowed for sensitive data, doctors, lawyers and governments are most certainly NOT allowed to use a hosted app like that.
I really am seeing very high speeds when doing sequential reads, but it's not like I got some cheap SATA controllers in that thing! I know this is hardly proof but, here goes :
$ sudo hdparm -t
Timing buffered disk reads: 1194 MB in 3.00 seconds = 397.86 MB/sec
This is while the box is in use doing it's normal business. Random reading of 31Gb of smaller files gives me a somewhat more humble 40-70megabyte/s. Please note that all of these measurements were done while the box was also serving it's usual purpose of media server for the household and some other tasks.
So, well. I doubt I have convinced you but here it is, there is not more that I can do :)
I actually did something similar around a year ago. 12 x 750Gb of diskspace including disks, controllers, system and everything for around 2000 dollars. It uses Linux softraid but I still get an easy 400MegaBYTE/s from it. I have some pictures here:
http://www.tmm.cx/~hp/new_server
Tom's hardware's idea is very late to the party ;)
"Buzzword compliant" and/or "useless"
Actually, no.
Microsoft runs a proprietary show where they 'set the standard' themselves. Which basically means 'there is no standard except how we do it'.
Linux, however, tries to adhere to standards. When it turns out that something doesn't adhere to standards, it gets fixed.
Another problem is that most users of proprietary software on their proprietary OS don't have the sources to the software they use, so if the OS fixes something that was previously broken, but the software version used is 'no longer supported' the 'fix' in the OS breaks the users' software and the user has no option of fixing his software.
THIS is why a) microsoft can't ever truly fix something and b) why using proprietary software screws over the user.
Or would you rather have OSS software do the same as proprietary software vendors and work around problems forever but never fixing them? Saw that shiny 'run in IE7 mode' button in IE8? that's what you'll get...
I suggest 'drunkflashing.com' .... but it might be taken :P
sorry for the reply to self, I imply that cisco would be FORCED to release those IOS files under the GPL. This is not true, one outcome of the lawsuit may be that Cisco has to refrain from distributing the combined work altogether, and that the FSF will simply get damages for a copyright infringement.
Although, releasing the files under the GPL would probably be the fastest and easiest way for Cisco to get out of this lawsuit, as this is the goal of the FSF.
The FSF isn't like the RIAA trying to get maximum cash from any GPL violation ;) they just want the code to be free.
But, since these files are key to IOS as well, one could take the view that IOS is now under the GPL.
No matter how you slice it, Cisco still owns the copyright to those 'key files'. Cisco can do whatever the hell they want with them too.
While, it is true that they would have to grant a GPL licensed copy to all customer to whom they distribute those files combined with GPL code (and only if they are actually linked together) They are more than free to ALSO use those files in a completely proprietary product, without granting any rights to third parties.
Now, should the community improve those files, cisco would not be able to incorporate the improvements done under the GPLd versions, because they do not own the copyright to those changes and the GPL does not grant Cisco any more rights than anyone else.
I hope that cleared things up for you a bit :)
If this is true, you would be the first person I've ever met who this happens to. I couldn't tell you how many times I've heard people boast about how they're "smarter than the collection agencies" after getting off the phone with a collector.
Well, I'm the second person then. I am getting regular calls every 2 weeks or something from a cable company that I have never ever even done business with. This has been going for about 2 years now.
It started off with phone calls every week about how they measured my internet connection, and later progressed into harassement about unpaid bills.
I have told them every time that I don't do business with them, that I never HAD a cable connection with them and that I would like to be removed from the system.
Every time the caller said they would do so, but I always get called again later.
Last week I got really angry and demanded to speak to a manager type, they didn't comply but promised not to call anymore this time for real, I swear it stuff. I haven't been called yet, so things look promising...
Anyway, this stuff really does happen!
Dude, it's an ID game. It's HIGHLY unlikely that it's windows only. Or you were trolling, of course.
I do posix, I'm good, don't tell me I can't use vim. What do you need?
"Currently, we think of Dell as being a boring, greedy company producing yesterday's solutions."
:) like apple wants to hold on to theirs :P
They just desperately want to hold on to that image
The 3D api you described is actually GL's, DirectX does NOT implement stuff in software that isn't there, if it isn't there, it just won't work (r) with GL you *will* know that everything in the spec will 'just work' you'll just have to query for non-spec extensions, just as with directX, because stuff not in the ARB or the spec might or might not be available.
DirectX was actually a huge step backwards from GL in almost every sense, when it comes to 3d graphics, it was only moderatly useful for 2d graphics, sound and input in the 'early' days.
directX *still* won't implement missing features in software, and, you must have a pretty good idea of the target hardware, because YOU the developer must keep the GPU busy, GL does that FOR you.
Plus, the directX api is, like all api's microsoft ever made, overly verbose, and VERY bloated. pointers to bools... juck...
OMFG... that is just DISGUSTING...
:P
funny, but disgusting...
you actually made me read your post 3 times, with some sort of weird surreal movie playing in front of my eyes....
JUUUCK, you sir are sick,
and, might I add, funny as hell