I wouldn't say any time at all. A few really huge guestbooks or blogs get some automated spam, but the vast majority don't get any. And that's without even putting anything in place to try to stop it.
Maybe. Maybe someone took BSD code and put it in both. Maybe SCO is making the whole thing up. Maybe SCO was the one who put the SCO code in Linux. There are lots of possibilities, but we shouldn't be jumping to conclusions until there is actual evidence one way or another.
Why hasn't there been a reality TV show yet, like "Who wants to be a Senator?"
Stupid Campaign Finance laws, probably.
I thought there was supposed to be one though, but the closest I could find was this: HBO's new series, Candidate 2012, will follow the journey of one curious and compelling young American as he or she travels across the country in an attempt to figure out what it will take to become President of the United States in the year 2012.
Not sure how they'll get around the soft-money laws, though.
Well, for one because (legal) bulk emailing is a large part of what I do for a living.
I see, so you're a spammer.
If someone is wrongly on one of our lists it's very easy for them to contact us and resolve the problem (happens about once a month, usually).
And think it's fine to harass people, as long as you stop within a month of them begging you to stop.
Besides the self interest, I'm not worried about someone with a verifiable online contact point (like a real email address) because that's a way we can get at that person if he or she breaks the law.
No you can't. A throwaway email address on a throwaway domain name pointing to a throwaway account on a throwaway ISP located in a throwaway country(*) doesn't let you "get at a person."
Yeah, that is the big problem with whitelist confirm messages.
No, the big problem with whitelist confirm messages is they don't let you accept automated email. If all you want to receive is personal email then spam is fairly easy to solve already anyway.
I was just pointing out that it wouldn't be hard to keep spammers with fake reply-to's from auto-confirming whitelist verifications.
Wow, that's great. You can stop one small fraction of spammers for about 5 seconds until they start using real reply-to. Big fucking deal.
(*) OK, OK, maybe you bastards don't use throwaway countries.
I'm really not worried about bulk emailers who have and use real email addresses.
Why not?
But when they're sending spam from "xxlksjdflkj@yahoo.com" or some other nonexistant/forged address, they'll never get whatever credential is included in the confirmation request.
Yeah instead poor "xxlksjdflkj@yahoo.com" will. Another problem I have with TMDA. It allows a distributed DOS attack.
It doesn't use the term "bulk" but it uses the term "multiple."
"(3) MULTIPLE- The term `multiple' means more than 100 electronic mail messages during a 24-hour period, more than 1,000 electronic mail messages during a 30-day period, or more than 10,000 electronic mail messages during a 1-year period."
If a measure bans domain forging and creates a national Do Not Spam list, I can more than live with the occasional opt-out mail from E-Bay. Sorry.
I think you're vastly overestimating the usefulness of this law. For one thing, it doesn't create a national Do Not Spam list. It says that the FCC (or is it FTC) has to consider it within the next 6 months.
There's no danger a genuine person who really wants to get a message to you won't be able to, unlike RBLs where there is a danger of legit email not making it through.
Sure, if you don't consider mailing list traffic, password change notifications, slashdot signup messages, or credit card and bank statements to bee legitimate. Not to mention people who don't respond to the confirm message, or respond to it to late. And if TMDA ever became popular, the spammers would just automatically send the confirmation replies.
Opt-in is a lousy idea. Don't you want to be able to receive legitimate e-mail from people you haven't met yet?
Not really. If people who haven't met me yet want to tell me something there are better methods than e-mail which provide protection against spam. Automated messages and personal messages shouldn't be carried on the same system.
I'd set my email address as opt-in only if it wasn't for the fact that so many places give me no other choice. Slashdot forces me to confirm my email address. Discover cards wants my email address. Wachovia needs my email address. For the latter two I can't even use Mailinator, as then someone could steal all my money from me. And besides, they insist on sending me crap that I'm supposed to keep rather than giving me a standard API into their systems. It's a big mess.
I think that the problem needs to be tackled from a technical standpoint, rather than a legal one.
I don't think a purely technical or a purely legal solution will work. A solution needs to connect the technical and the legal in a way which works together. Something built on contractual law would probably make the most sense.
Take a look at at the global monetary system, for example. There are many technical pieces, credit card numbers, checking account numbers, PINs, etc. But each of them is backed up by the legal system. Even cash itself originated as nothing more than a transferrable contract convertible to some other form by the bearer upon demand.
The analogy is far from perfect, but I fully believe that spam can be solved through technical means combined with contractual law. But it's going to take a long time, and there will be a lot of failed attempts.
Not only is it normal, but I imagine if the magistrate initially opened the court up, it could lead to a charge of prejudice and a reversible error on appeal.
How can you reverse releasing something into the public?
What could possibly be the point of sealing code that is already open & public - that is SCO's point, right?
Maybe they're trying to make the Linux advocates look like fools.
Seriously, I don't understand why we're biting. Maybe someone from IBM took SCO code and put it in Linux. It's not at all unreasonable to believe that.
What I meant (I guess I wasn't clear about it) is that you don't have the right to distribute an additional copy, beyond the one you own.
But the GPL permits you to make additional copies, at which point you own those copies.
\
I don't think the GPL can force you to distribute the source when you simply give (or sell) your own copy, just when you make a new copy.
Why? Because by making a new copy, you agree to the GPL.
I believe this means that if I buy a CD with Debian Stable from some vendor, I can then sell it to you, and I won't be obligated to give you the sources.
Only if and because you have not agreed to the GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't say any time at all. A few really huge guestbooks or blogs get some automated spam, but the vast majority don't get any. And that's without even putting anything in place to try to stop it.
Neither, actually.
Maybe. Maybe someone took BSD code and put it in both. Maybe SCO is making the whole thing up. Maybe SCO was the one who put the SCO code in Linux. There are lots of possibilities, but we shouldn't be jumping to conclusions until there is actual evidence one way or another.
But, that said, there's no reason to think that the amount of new HTTP-based spam I receive will be any less than the amount of old SMTP-based spam.
Yes there is. Bots can't handle navigating websites and filling out feedback forms very well.
Nothing like one spammer defending another one.
Why hasn't there been a reality TV show yet, like "Who wants to be a Senator?"
Stupid Campaign Finance laws, probably.
I thought there was supposed to be one though, but the closest I could find was this: HBO's new series, Candidate 2012, will follow the journey of one curious and compelling young American as he or she travels across the country in an attempt to figure out what it will take to become President of the United States in the year 2012.
Not sure how they'll get around the soft-money laws, though.
Heh, I definately don't understand wtf you're talking about.
Well, for one because (legal) bulk emailing is a large part of what I do for a living.
I see, so you're a spammer.
If someone is wrongly on one of our lists it's very easy for them to contact us and resolve the problem (happens about once a month, usually).
And think it's fine to harass people, as long as you stop within a month of them begging you to stop.
Besides the self interest, I'm not worried about someone with a verifiable online contact point (like a real email address) because that's a way we can get at that person if he or she breaks the law.
No you can't. A throwaway email address on a throwaway domain name pointing to a throwaway account on a throwaway ISP located in a throwaway country(*) doesn't let you "get at a person."
Yeah, that is the big problem with whitelist confirm messages.
No, the big problem with whitelist confirm messages is they don't let you accept automated email. If all you want to receive is personal email then spam is fairly easy to solve already anyway.
I was just pointing out that it wouldn't be hard to keep spammers with fake reply-to's from auto-confirming whitelist verifications.
Wow, that's great. You can stop one small fraction of spammers for about 5 seconds until they start using real reply-to. Big fucking deal.
(*) OK, OK, maybe you bastards don't use throwaway countries.
No, you could use someone elses.
Why is it you complain about running an HTTP server, but not an SMTP server?
I'm really not worried about bulk emailers who have and use real email addresses.
Why not?
But when they're sending spam from "xxlksjdflkj@yahoo.com" or some other nonexistant/forged address, they'll never get whatever credential is included in the confirmation request.
Yeah instead poor "xxlksjdflkj@yahoo.com" will. Another problem I have with TMDA. It allows a distributed DOS attack.
You just did it.
Feedback forms on a web page are another method.
The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without ever distributing it to others.
Yeah. But you still have to agree to the GPL in order to do that.
The GPL kicks in when and only when you distribute copies.
No, the GPL kicks in whenever you agree to it. It only requires you to distribute source when you distribute copies.
At that point it applies because copyright law applies -- not because there was a contract or promise.
Copyright law allows you to distribute lawfully obtained copies without permission from the copyright holder.
It doesn't use the term "bulk" but it uses the term "multiple."
"(3) MULTIPLE- The term `multiple' means more than 100 electronic mail messages during a 24-hour period, more than 1,000 electronic mail messages during a 30-day period, or more than 10,000 electronic mail messages during a 1-year period."
If a measure bans domain forging and creates a national Do Not Spam list, I can more than live with the occasional opt-out mail from E-Bay. Sorry.
I think you're vastly overestimating the usefulness of this law. For one thing, it doesn't create a national Do Not Spam list. It says that the FCC (or is it FTC) has to consider it within the next 6 months.
Unless of course a court determines the law is unconstitutional.
That's the thing. A state law which hinders interstate commerce is unconstitutional.
There's no danger a genuine person who really wants to get a message to you won't be able to, unlike RBLs where there is a danger of legit email not making it through.
Sure, if you don't consider mailing list traffic, password change notifications, slashdot signup messages, or credit card and bank statements to bee legitimate. Not to mention people who don't respond to the confirm message, or respond to it to late. And if TMDA ever became popular, the spammers would just automatically send the confirmation replies.
Opt-in is a lousy idea. Don't you want to be able to receive legitimate e-mail from people you haven't met yet?
Not really. If people who haven't met me yet want to tell me something there are better methods than e-mail which provide protection against spam. Automated messages and personal messages shouldn't be carried on the same system.
I'd set my email address as opt-in only if it wasn't for the fact that so many places give me no other choice. Slashdot forces me to confirm my email address. Discover cards wants my email address. Wachovia needs my email address. For the latter two I can't even use Mailinator, as then someone could steal all my money from me. And besides, they insist on sending me crap that I'm supposed to keep rather than giving me a standard API into their systems. It's a big mess.
I think that the problem needs to be tackled from a technical standpoint, rather than a legal one.
I don't think a purely technical or a purely legal solution will work. A solution needs to connect the technical and the legal in a way which works together. Something built on contractual law would probably make the most sense.
Take a look at at the global monetary system, for example. There are many technical pieces, credit card numbers, checking account numbers, PINs, etc. But each of them is backed up by the legal system. Even cash itself originated as nothing more than a transferrable contract convertible to some other form by the bearer upon demand.
The analogy is far from perfect, but I fully believe that spam can be solved through technical means combined with contractual law. But it's going to take a long time, and there will be a lot of failed attempts.
Civil cases have juries too.
Not only is it normal, but I imagine if the magistrate initially opened the court up, it could lead to a charge of prejudice and a reversible error on appeal.
How can you reverse releasing something into the public?
In Soviet Russia, corporations obey courts.
What could possibly be the point of sealing code that is already open & public - that is SCO's point, right?
Maybe they're trying to make the Linux advocates look like fools.
Seriously, I don't understand why we're biting. Maybe someone from IBM took SCO code and put it in Linux. It's not at all unreasonable to believe that.
There is noting you agree to, or even promise, unless and until you redistribute.
Or copy, or modify.
What I meant (I guess I wasn't clear about it) is that you don't have the right to distribute an additional copy, beyond the one you own.
But the GPL permits you to make additional copies, at which point you own those copies.
\I don't think the GPL can force you to distribute the source when you simply give (or sell) your own copy, just when you make a new copy.
Why? Because by making a new copy, you agree to the GPL.
I believe this means that if I buy a CD with Debian Stable from some vendor, I can then sell it to you, and I won't be obligated to give you the sources.
Only if and because you have not agreed to the GPL.
It is not the GPL that says I cannot do D, it is copyright law.
Actually, First Sale gives you permission to do D, except that you have agreed under the GPL not to.