We need laws to protect each other. Forcing ISPs "to accept email only with correct (recognized and traceable) e-signature" is protecting people from themselves.
Of course, this could easily be implemented by the ISPs themselves, without any government interference. They don't do it, because they profit from spam. In that sense, it's just like TV commercials.
Let each ISP decide for itself whether it wants to take the responsibility of allowing anonymous customers. And let them decide how many emails those anonymous customers are allowed to send.
Perhaps./ should have an article examining the current alternatives to smtp and easy ways./ readers can make it a part of their companies, and homes.
Considering that you can't sign up for slashdot without an SMTP-based email address, somehow I doubt they're going to do that. After all, slashdot is part of the problem.
There are lots of alternatives to SMTP. Web forms and instant messages are two. Others are built on top of SMTP, like PGP signatures. None of them, however, are useful when you want to sign up for a website, or when someone asks you "what's your email address."
If there's even one country with no anti-spam laws, people will just go there to spam. Sure, there're technical ways to deal with that, but given how easy it is to "acquire" new IP address space most of them are doomed to failure.
Huh? How easy is it to acquire new IP address space?
If there's only one country with no anti-spam laws, that country would likely lose its internet access completely.
If they claim that they didn't know their advertisers were going to USE (illegally), tell them they can sue the spammers to recover their money.
Yeah, that's a great idea. Guilty until proven innocent. I'll be sure to send out millions of spams claiming to be from whatever politician signs that crap into law.
Laws will only work if you hold the ISP responsible for enforcing them. If you require people to file a John Doe lawsuit in order to find out the identity of the spammer, it's not going to solve the problem. If, on the other hand, you make the ISP responsible unless they turn over the identity of the spammer (a la the DMCA), then the law will work (of course, whether this is a good thing or not if a whole different story).
And, on top of everything else, if that place was unionized, no matter now good of job he did, he wouldn't ever get bonuses for doing better work, or get a hefty salary increase when he was promoted.
Nor will he in a non-unionized system, unless he was a good negotiator. Considering that he spoke to Slashdot rather than to his boss, he probably isn't a very good negotiator.
C'mon, I've once been offered 1/3 of the salary I eventually wound up receiving, and I'm not a good negotiator. Unions may help the lazy, but they also help those who can't negotiate very well. A lot of techies fall into the latter category, and most of us fall into the the first one too.
But us salaried employees are going to get nothing in return for trading in what's left of our life so someone else in the company above us can make money.
Well, you'll probably get to keep your job. Probably. Why don't you talk to your boss and ask for 1) more money or 2) a contract. Don't make it an ultimatum or anything. Just ask.
Then, when you get your answer. Then you can complain, quit, or be happy. But at least ask first. No one's ever been fired for asking, have they?
Good lord, man. Does "preventative measures" mean anything to you?
Sure, but it's not going to be a problem for a long long time.
NAT is a mess. It is a solution, but it is a far cry from a good one.
Please. Be more specific. How is NAT more of a mess than IPv6?
Think good and hard about how many more people will be on, how many new servers will be up, and how many more complaining, computer-illiterate people will be online to complain about moving to IPv6.
That's one thing that just won't happen. If computer-illiterate people have to change anything, it's not going to work.
What will have to happen instead is that a backward compatible solution will have to used. ISPs will have to set up something like NAT (yep, NAT) to convert people's IPv6 addresses to private IPv4 ones. Eventually, Windows will be set up to automatically recognize IPv6 addresses, but that's just not feasible at the moment.
Think of all of that, and how much more it will cost to move all those new servers to IPv6.
The cost to move a server is negligible. It's an easy thing to do for anyone with a static IP address and a little bit of tech knowledge.
Now, you tell ME that waiting is economically feasible compared to switching sooner, and spending the next 5 years expanding the internet with IPv6 already in place, saving the hassle of having to migrate millions of computers that were going to be IPv4.
Waiting is economically feasible compared to switching sooner, and spending the next 5 years expanding the internet with IPv6 already in place, saving the hassle of having to migrate millions of computers that were going to be IPv4.
And then there will be incentive to switch. For the time being, there are cheaper solutions, such as NAT.
It's going to cost money, and it's going to screw a lot of moneybags over, but the bottom line is that Asian and European connectivity with us is the reason that the internet is good and worthwhile.
I strongly disagree there. I visit very few websites in Asia and Europe, and it wouldn't be that big of a deal for me to do without them.
What do you propose we do?
Who is "we" in this case? The US government should take no position on the issue.
Let the rest of the planet move on to a more advanced, more versatile, and just better protocol while we sit here disconnected from them?
No, we should wait until enough of the rest of the planet is not connected to IPv6 to make it economically feasible to switch. When enough people start complaining to their ISP that they can't access their Asian porn, then those ISPs should upgrade their networks to IPv6.
Apparently the major benefit of the internet has evaded your right-wing "Proud to be an American" POV; we are a part of the global community. It's not "Us... and those guys overseas having IPv4 problems", it's "Us."
This is nonsense. For one thing, I have serious doubts that Asia or Europe really does need more IP addresses. Clients don't need unique IP addresses at all. They could easily work perfectly fine with NAT, or with an IPv6/IPv4 gateway. It's only the servers that need unique IP addresses, and they only need one single IP address each. 4.2 billion servers is a hell of a lot. Just a few million would probably be plenty to serve all the Asian and European servers that are actually useful to Americans. The rest can switch to IPv6, and there would be no impact whatsoever on anyone.
Nice. Someone should send a DMCA takedown notice to their ISP, as well, since apparently they aren't cooperating with the cease and desist (can you say willful infringement?).
You can't REALLY believe that information would EVER be made public, it would positively CRUSH the US's enconomy.
Yeah, free portable energy would crush the US economy. That's why we just invaded Iraq to lower the price of oil, causing the stock market to rise. We're in cahoots with Saddam Hussein, who isn't really dead (that's why no body was found).
Shit, I better stop there. I'm starting to believe this nonsense:).
Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. An example of such causal writing would be Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
We need laws to protect each other. Forcing ISPs "to accept email only with correct (recognized and traceable) e-signature" is protecting people from themselves.
Of course, this could easily be implemented by the ISPs themselves, without any government interference. They don't do it, because they profit from spam. In that sense, it's just like TV commercials.
I guess it's a moot point. You're never going to get all countries except one to agree anyway.
Why does there need to be a law?
Let each ISP decide for itself whether it wants to take the responsibility of allowing anonymous customers. And let them decide how many emails those anonymous customers are allowed to send.
Perhaps ./ should have an article examining the current alternatives to smtp and easy ways ./ readers can make it a part of their companies, and homes.
Considering that you can't sign up for slashdot without an SMTP-based email address, somehow I doubt they're going to do that. After all, slashdot is part of the problem.
There are lots of alternatives to SMTP. Web forms and instant messages are two. Others are built on top of SMTP, like PGP signatures. None of them, however, are useful when you want to sign up for a website, or when someone asks you "what's your email address."
If there's even one country with no anti-spam laws, people will just go there to spam. Sure, there're technical ways to deal with that, but given how easy it is to "acquire" new IP address space most of them are doomed to failure.
Huh? How easy is it to acquire new IP address space?
If there's only one country with no anti-spam laws, that country would likely lose its internet access completely.
If they claim that they didn't know their advertisers were going to USE (illegally), tell them they can sue the spammers to recover their money.
Yeah, that's a great idea. Guilty until proven innocent. I'll be sure to send out millions of spams claiming to be from whatever politician signs that crap into law.
Why tax ISPs for sending all emails? Just tax them for sending spam.
Laws will only work if you hold the ISP responsible for enforcing them. If you require people to file a John Doe lawsuit in order to find out the identity of the spammer, it's not going to solve the problem. If, on the other hand, you make the ISP responsible unless they turn over the identity of the spammer (a la the DMCA), then the law will work (of course, whether this is a good thing or not if a whole different story).
And, on top of everything else, if that place was unionized, no matter now good of job he did, he wouldn't ever get bonuses for doing better work, or get a hefty salary increase when he was promoted.
Nor will he in a non-unionized system, unless he was a good negotiator. Considering that he spoke to Slashdot rather than to his boss, he probably isn't a very good negotiator.
C'mon, I've once been offered 1/3 of the salary I eventually wound up receiving, and I'm not a good negotiator. Unions may help the lazy, but they also help those who can't negotiate very well. A lot of techies fall into the latter category, and most of us fall into the the first one too.
48 hours? They should make it 10 hours. Then we can all get jobs.
But us salaried employees are going to get nothing in return for trading in what's left of our life so someone else in the company above us can make money.
Well, you'll probably get to keep your job. Probably. Why don't you talk to your boss and ask for 1) more money or 2) a contract. Don't make it an ultimatum or anything. Just ask.
Then, when you get your answer. Then you can complain, quit, or be happy. But at least ask first. No one's ever been fired for asking, have they?
Because once we prove that the code was acquired "legally" the Slashdot stories will stop (three weeks later, after the 7th repeat, anyway).
If it's from BSD it was already free?
Good lord, man. Does "preventative measures" mean anything to you?
Sure, but it's not going to be a problem for a long long time.
NAT is a mess. It is a solution, but it is a far cry from a good one.
Please. Be more specific. How is NAT more of a mess than IPv6?
Think good and hard about how many more people will be on, how many new servers will be up, and how many more complaining, computer-illiterate people will be online to complain about moving to IPv6.
That's one thing that just won't happen. If computer-illiterate people have to change anything, it's not going to work.
What will have to happen instead is that a backward compatible solution will have to used. ISPs will have to set up something like NAT (yep, NAT) to convert people's IPv6 addresses to private IPv4 ones. Eventually, Windows will be set up to automatically recognize IPv6 addresses, but that's just not feasible at the moment.
Think of all of that, and how much more it will cost to move all those new servers to IPv6.
The cost to move a server is negligible. It's an easy thing to do for anyone with a static IP address and a little bit of tech knowledge.
Now, you tell ME that waiting is economically feasible compared to switching sooner, and spending the next 5 years expanding the internet with IPv6 already in place, saving the hassle of having to migrate millions of computers that were going to be IPv4.
Waiting is economically feasible compared to switching sooner, and spending the next 5 years expanding the internet with IPv6 already in place, saving the hassle of having to migrate millions of computers that were going to be IPv4.
Actually I don't think IBM has much basis for a countersuit at all.
You know, we'll run out, too.
And then there will be incentive to switch. For the time being, there are cheaper solutions, such as NAT.
It's going to cost money, and it's going to screw a lot of moneybags over, but the bottom line is that Asian and European connectivity with us is the reason that the internet is good and worthwhile.
I strongly disagree there. I visit very few websites in Asia and Europe, and it wouldn't be that big of a deal for me to do without them.
What do you propose we do?
Who is "we" in this case? The US government should take no position on the issue.
Let the rest of the planet move on to a more advanced, more versatile, and just better protocol while we sit here disconnected from them?
No, we should wait until enough of the rest of the planet is not connected to IPv6 to make it economically feasible to switch. When enough people start complaining to their ISP that they can't access their Asian porn, then those ISPs should upgrade their networks to IPv6.
Apparently the major benefit of the internet has evaded your right-wing "Proud to be an American" POV; we are a part of the global community. It's not "Us... and those guys overseas having IPv4 problems", it's "Us."
This is nonsense. For one thing, I have serious doubts that Asia or Europe really does need more IP addresses. Clients don't need unique IP addresses at all. They could easily work perfectly fine with NAT, or with an IPv6/IPv4 gateway. It's only the servers that need unique IP addresses, and they only need one single IP address each. 4.2 billion servers is a hell of a lot. Just a few million would probably be plenty to serve all the Asian and European servers that are actually useful to Americans. The rest can switch to IPv6, and there would be no impact whatsoever on anyone.
Decimation means reduction by 10%.
Nice. Someone should send a DMCA takedown notice to their ISP, as well, since apparently they aren't cooperating with the cease and desist (can you say willful infringement?).
why would we possibly need a class action when IBM is already going to countersue and utterly decimate them afterwards?
Even if we only get the 10% left over after they are decimated, that's still quite a lot.
When is the class-action countersuit going to begin?
The blue pill is ignorance.
Why oh why didn't they take the blue pill.
You can't REALLY believe that information would EVER be made public, it would positively CRUSH the US's enconomy.
Yeah, free portable energy would crush the US economy. That's why we just invaded Iraq to lower the price of oil, causing the stock market to rise. We're in cahoots with Saddam Hussein, who isn't really dead (that's why no body was found).
Shit, I better stop there. I'm starting to believe this nonsense :).
Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. An example of such causal writing would be Slashdot.