You can exclude any part of the filesystem from the backups, or particular types of files, or files that match a particular pattern; see the "exclude" section in the rsync man page.
I don't know about you, but my filesystem certainly isn't organized enough for that to be useful.
Don't forget that applications are run as their owners, so if they are broken or hacked, they can destroy the backups too.
Well, I was thinking more along the lines of backing up to a third party server over the internet, in which case there wouldn't be permission to delete old copies until after a certain period of time. I dunno, in the case of my system, there's very little that needs to be backed up. In fact, I really can't think of anything.
Nope. The only modifications I've made is to get rid of some of the checks, because they were causing major problems. I assume the default is 5? That's what it was set to when I installed it.
Here's one from my netbank newsletter: X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=5.2 required=5.0 tests=FROM_NAME_NO_SPACES,CLICK_BELO W,DOUBLE_CAPSW ORD, CLICK_HERE_LINK,MAILTO_LINK,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_ MTA_3 version=2.31 X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.31 X-Spam-Report: 5.2 hits, 5 required; * -0.1 -- From: no spaces in name * 1.5 -- BODY: Asks you to click below * 1.1 -- BODY: A word in all caps repeated on the line * 0.8 -- BODY: Tells you to click on a URL * 0.8 -- BODY: Includes a URL link to send an email * 1.1 -- 'Message-Id' was added by a relay (3)
And another, a Datek trade confirmation: X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=7.2 required=5.0 tests=FROM_NAME_NO_SPACES,NO_REAL_NA ME,CLICK_BELOW,EXCUSE_1, NO_OBLIGATION,FOR_FREE version=2.31 X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.31 X-Spam-Report: 7.2 hits, 5 required; * -0.1 -- From: no spaces in name * 0.5 -- From: does not include a real name * 1.5 -- BODY: Asks you to click below * 2.3 -- BODY: Gives a lame excuse about why you were sent this SPAM * 1.9 -- BODY: There is no obligation. * 1.1 -- BODY: No such thing as a free lunch (1)
Regardless of whether you want a "truly anonymous net" whetever that is supposed to be, and assuming you actually believe such a thing actually exists at the present time, doesn't change the fact that spam is incredibly out of control and that short of government intervention there isn't much any of us can do about it.
I disagree. Government intervention isn't going to help at all. What needs to happen is ISPs need to start suing spammers for breach of contract. Upstream providers need to start suing downstream ISPs for breaching their contracts and allowing spam, if those downstream ISPs don't create financial penalties to spammers.
99.9999% of spam is already illegal, as it is a breach of contract somewhere along the chain. The problem isn't lack of government intervention, it's that the ISPs don't want to stop spam.
It seems that it would be much more efficient if each application handled its own backup scheme. I don't need to backup my whole drive. Certainly not my mp3s or my applications.
I'd say yes. They know exactly what they're doing. They know exactly what the patent says. The only question is what a judge will decide. They asked a lawyer, and the lawyer was unable to make a determination.
If there's any ambiguity in the way the patent is written, or what it describes, then it could be up to the courts to decide whether infringement actually occurred, and that wouldn't happen until the patent holder initiated litigation.
Well, they could have filed for a declaratory judgement.
I wouldn't be in business if I had to do patent searches on every feature of my product and every aspect of its implementation
I was under the impression that they had direct knowledge of the patent. Ignorance of the patent is an excuse, at least with regard to the willful infringement part. I don't think ignorance of whether or not you're actually infringing on the patent is, although, I'm a little less sure of myself at this point.
I'm going off incomplete facts here, but it sounds like in some of the cases ICANN sites, the registrants are trying to get their contact information changed and VeriSign isn't allowing them.
Do you have any quotes or references that suggest that? I read the article, I read the press release, and I don't see anything which suggests that.
I sincerely doubt Verisign is doing this to help their customers.
I agree with you there. Verisign's motive is almost certainly profit. But I don't really care about their motive so much as what they are doing. If they are protecting their customer's privacy, then I'm going to support that, regardless of their motive.
So whether or not in these specific cases they are trying to protect their customers privacy, I have first hand knowledge that the general complaints ICANN is raising are valid: VeriSign can be very slow or even completely unresponsive in changing WHOIS records.
That may be the case. In fact, from what I've read I believe it probably is the case. But that's not what ICANN is charging them with.
Also, if you want to register a domain, there has to be some way for people to contact you.
Well, I disagree. I don't think there needs to be some way for people to contact me. Certainly not without obtaining a subpeona. But in any case, I have provided my phone number and email address, as well as my name. There is absolutely no reason the public needs my mailing address as well.
No one requires you to give your home address, but you have to give some contact information.
More specifically, you have to give a mailing address.
Use a P.O. box or your work address, but if no one can reach you in the eventuality your domain is misused, you shouldn't have a domain.
As I said in my other post, I'll use a P.O. Box if ICANN pays for it. And I work at home.
With priviledges come responsibilites.
Yes, with the priviledge of being granted a monopoly comes the responsibility to not infringe upon my right to free speech.
I understand the various concerns such as frivolous lawsuits, but breaking one system to compensate for a broken system isn't the solution.
My concern is not over frivolous lawsuits. My concern is over burglers and psychos.
I also disagree with your characterization that my post was a "pity post for ICANN".
I agree. I wasn't referring to your post.
That said, while I don't support ICANN, I'm also not going to fault them for taking a step in the right direction and I see trying to clean up the WHOIS database as a step in the right direction.
And while I don't support Verisign, I'm also not going to fault them for taking a step in the right direction and trying to facilitate anonymous publication of free speech on the internet. I see allowing anonymous ownership of domain names as a step in the right direction.
I currently have several domain names through Tucows. Many of them have incorrect address information, and I don't want to be forced to change it. But if ICANN gets their way I will have four choices: fix the address, get a P.O. Box, subscribe through a provider who will put the domain in their name, or lose the domain. None of those choices are attractive to me, but I'll probably wind up getting the P.O. Box.
Interesting situation: eBay's IP lawyers tell management that they MAY be infringing someone else's patent. They contact the patent holder but negotiations break down. At this point, nobody has established legally that infringement is indeed occurring. Is it really eBay's responsibility to enjoin itself from further activity that MAY be infringement?
What's wrong? You don't want every slashdotter knowing your address? Maybe you see why I feel the same way? Somehow I doubt it.
You're quite correct; I do not follow your logic (or rather, I do, but I think it might be a bit simplistic).
Yes, it is simplistic. You don't want every slashdotter knowing your address. I don't want every slashdotter knowing my address. That's my "obvious reason" for not wanting to put my address in my whois data.
You seem to instead focus on justifications. But justifications don't change my desire for anonymity. Yes, if I get forced to put up my address, I will. Actually more likely I'll go ahead and buy a P.O. Box. I was considering it anyway. Or maybe I'll buy from one of the many places that let me buy a domain name anonymously. Actually after reading this article I'm thinking about starting one.
The same cannot be said for participation in the world at large.
We're not talking about the world at large, we're talking about a domain name.
Sometimes anonymity is good, other times it is not. When it comes to interconnection with a shared resource, accountability is essential.
Again, we're not talking about interconnection with a shared resource, we're talking about a domain name.
That doesn't mean that people shouldn't have the means to send anonymous emails, or to use anonymizing proxies to surf the web. However, there is - as always - a need for balance.
Yep, and putting my address on the internet for any idiot to see just because I buy a domain name exceeds that balance.
The internet isn't the real world. It's about time people start realizing that.
Sounds actionable to me (IANAL). Something about accomplice to fraud.
I don't see how. If anyone was defrauded, it was Network Solutions. You can't be an accomplice to a crime committed against yourself.
I'm sure if you had gotten an injunction NetSol would have gladly removed the information. Until then it's not their place to get involved. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and all that nonsense.
And this isn't a personal privacy issue; that is completely separate from VeriSign not updating WHOIS records when requested and telling customers to give false information.
But it is a personal privacy issue. Verisign is breaking its contract, but by doing so it's protecting its customers' personal privacy.
Please, no more pity posts for VeriSign!
I agree there. But please, no more pity posts for ICANN.
Instead lets have pity posts for the domain name holders. In the end that's who's going to lose, because Netsol will give in within 15 days, and won't lose their status as Registrar.
Well, the previous poster claimed 'obvious reasons'. I interpreted that to mean 'wants to keep physical address more or less private'.
Well, mainly I just don't want someone getting pissed at something I write on my website or on slashdot showing up at my doorstep. Yes, it's still possible, so maybe I'm just being overly paranoid.
If you don't use a P.O. Box, your real address appears in far too many places to consider it private.
Perhaps. At the moment I just moved 4 days ago, so pretty much no one who doesn't know me personally has my real address. And if I could lie completely about my address, instead of putting an old address, it would be pretty much impossible to figure out which "Anthony DiPierro" I happen to be. The phone number is real, but it's an efax number, so unless you have a subpeona, you're not going to get my identity from it.
As others have pointed out, polarizing filters are so common that there's no security here.
It's not really about security.
It's like locking your house with a skeleton key.
Or like closing the door on your cube and not locking it. Sure, someone can open it, but if they do so it's noticible.
Why not insert noisy frames between real ones and just synchronize the glasses so that they filter out the garbage frames? Why not just have the screen in the glasses?
Slashdot Mirror
The U.S. has free internet access too. All you have to do is live in a college dorm at most large colleges.
You can exclude any part of the filesystem from the backups, or particular types of files, or files that match a particular pattern; see the "exclude" section in the rsync man page.
I don't know about you, but my filesystem certainly isn't organized enough for that to be useful.
Don't forget that applications are run as their owners, so if they are broken or hacked, they can destroy the backups too.
Well, I was thinking more along the lines of backing up to a third party server over the internet, in which case there wouldn't be permission to delete old copies until after a certain period of time. I dunno, in the case of my system, there's very little that needs to be backed up. In fact, I really can't think of anything.
Nope. The only modifications I've made is to get rid of some of the checks, because they were causing major problems. I assume the default is 5? That's what it was set to when I installed it.
O W,DOUBLE_CAPSW ORD,_ MTA_3
A ME,CLICK_BELOW ,EXCUSE_1,
X-Spam-Flag: YES
Here's one from my netbank newsletter:
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=5.2 required=5.0
tests=FROM_NAME_NO_SPACES,CLICK_BEL
CLICK_HERE_LINK,MAILTO_LINK,MSG_ID_ADDED_BY
version=2.31
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.31
X-Spam-Report: 5.2 hits, 5 required;
* -0.1 -- From: no spaces in name
* 1.5 -- BODY: Asks you to click below
* 1.1 -- BODY: A word in all caps repeated on the line
* 0.8 -- BODY: Tells you to click on a URL
* 0.8 -- BODY: Includes a URL link to send an email
* 1.1 -- 'Message-Id' was added by a relay (3)
And another, a Datek trade confirmation:
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=7.2 required=5.0
tests=FROM_NAME_NO_SPACES,NO_REAL_N
NO_OBLIGATION,FOR_FREE
version=2.31
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.31
X-Spam-Report: 7.2 hits, 5 required;
* -0.1 -- From: no spaces in name
* 0.5 -- From: does not include a real name
* 1.5 -- BODY: Asks you to click below
* 2.3 -- BODY: Gives a lame excuse about why you were sent this SPAM
* 1.9 -- BODY: There is no obligation.
* 1.1 -- BODY: No such thing as a free lunch (1)
Regardless of whether you want a "truly anonymous net" whetever that is supposed to be, and assuming you actually believe such a thing actually exists at the present time, doesn't change the fact that spam is incredibly out of control and that short of government intervention there isn't much any of us can do about it.
I disagree. Government intervention isn't going to help at all. What needs to happen is ISPs need to start suing spammers for breach of contract. Upstream providers need to start suing downstream ISPs for breaching their contracts and allowing spam, if those downstream ISPs don't create financial penalties to spammers.
99.9999% of spam is already illegal, as it is a breach of contract somewhere along the chain. The problem isn't lack of government intervention, it's that the ISPs don't want to stop spam.
It seems that it would be much more efficient if each application handled its own backup scheme. I don't need to backup my whole drive. Certainly not my mp3s or my applications.
I've found spamassassin to be mediocre with detecting spam. I get about 95% spam identification rate, but with about 10% false positives.
No, not Napster, napster.
Put it on napster anonymously, watch it spread, then start suing people.
But is it realy ignorance of the law?
I'd say yes. They know exactly what they're doing. They know exactly what the patent says. The only question is what a judge will decide. They asked a lawyer, and the lawyer was unable to make a determination.
If there's any ambiguity in the way the patent is written, or what it describes, then it could be up to the courts to decide whether infringement actually occurred, and that wouldn't happen until the patent holder initiated litigation.
Well, they could have filed for a declaratory judgement.
I wouldn't be in business if I had to do patent searches on every feature of my product and every aspect of its implementation
I was under the impression that they had direct knowledge of the patent. Ignorance of the patent is an excuse, at least with regard to the willful infringement part. I don't think ignorance of whether or not you're actually infringing on the patent is, although, I'm a little less sure of myself at this point.
BTW, did you used to work at HP-FPK?
Yep. Now who's this? :)
I'm going off incomplete facts here, but it sounds like in some of the cases ICANN sites, the registrants are trying to get their contact information changed and VeriSign isn't allowing them.
Do you have any quotes or references that suggest that? I read the article, I read the press release, and I don't see anything which suggests that.
I sincerely doubt Verisign is doing this to help their customers.
I agree with you there. Verisign's motive is almost certainly profit. But I don't really care about their motive so much as what they are doing. If they are protecting their customer's privacy, then I'm going to support that, regardless of their motive.
So whether or not in these specific cases they are trying to protect their customers privacy, I have first hand knowledge that the general complaints ICANN is raising are valid: VeriSign can be very slow or even completely unresponsive in changing WHOIS records.
That may be the case. In fact, from what I've read I believe it probably is the case. But that's not what ICANN is charging them with.
Also, if you want to register a domain, there has to be some way for people to contact you.
Well, I disagree. I don't think there needs to be some way for people to contact me. Certainly not without obtaining a subpeona. But in any case, I have provided my phone number and email address, as well as my name. There is absolutely no reason the public needs my mailing address as well.
No one requires you to give your home address, but you have to give some contact information.
More specifically, you have to give a mailing address.
Use a P.O. box or your work address, but if no one can reach you in the eventuality your domain is misused, you shouldn't have a domain.
As I said in my other post, I'll use a P.O. Box if ICANN pays for it. And I work at home.
With priviledges come responsibilites.
Yes, with the priviledge of being granted a monopoly comes the responsibility to not infringe upon my right to free speech.
I understand the various concerns such as frivolous lawsuits, but breaking one system to compensate for a broken system isn't the solution.
My concern is not over frivolous lawsuits. My concern is over burglers and psychos.
I also disagree with your characterization that my post was a "pity post for ICANN".
I agree. I wasn't referring to your post.
That said, while I don't support ICANN, I'm also not going to fault them for taking a step in the right direction and I see trying to clean up the WHOIS database as a step in the right direction.
And while I don't support Verisign, I'm also not going to fault them for taking a step in the right direction and trying to facilitate anonymous publication of free speech on the internet. I see allowing anonymous ownership of domain names as a step in the right direction.
I currently have several domain names through Tucows. Many of them have incorrect address information, and I don't want to be forced to change it. But if ICANN gets their way I will have four choices: fix the address, get a P.O. Box, subscribe through a provider who will put the domain in their name, or lose the domain. None of those choices are attractive to me, but I'll probably wind up getting the P.O. Box.
Interesting situation: eBay's IP lawyers tell management that they MAY be infringing someone else's patent. They contact the patent holder but negotiations break down. At this point, nobody has established legally that infringement is indeed occurring. Is it really eBay's responsibility to enjoin itself from further activity that MAY be infringement?
Yes. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
What's wrong? You don't want every slashdotter knowing your address? Maybe you see why I feel the same way? Somehow I doubt it.
You're quite correct; I do not follow your logic (or rather, I do, but I think it might be a bit simplistic).
Yes, it is simplistic. You don't want every slashdotter knowing your address. I don't want every slashdotter knowing my address. That's my "obvious reason" for not wanting to put my address in my whois data.
You seem to instead focus on justifications. But justifications don't change my desire for anonymity. Yes, if I get forced to put up my address, I will. Actually more likely I'll go ahead and buy a P.O. Box. I was considering it anyway. Or maybe I'll buy from one of the many places that let me buy a domain name anonymously. Actually after reading this article I'm thinking about starting one.
The same cannot be said for participation in the world at large.
We're not talking about the world at large, we're talking about a domain name.
Sometimes anonymity is good, other times it is not. When it comes to interconnection with a shared resource, accountability is essential.
Again, we're not talking about interconnection with a shared resource, we're talking about a domain name.
That doesn't mean that people shouldn't have the means to send anonymous emails, or to use anonymizing proxies to surf the web. However, there is - as always - a need for balance.
Yep, and putting my address on the internet for any idiot to see just because I buy a domain name exceeds that balance.
The internet isn't the real world. It's about time people start realizing that.
Sounds actionable to me (IANAL). Something about accomplice to fraud.
I don't see how. If anyone was defrauded, it was Network Solutions. You can't be an accomplice to a crime committed against yourself.
I'm sure if you had gotten an injunction NetSol would have gladly removed the information. Until then it's not their place to get involved. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and all that nonsense.
And this isn't a personal privacy issue; that is completely separate from VeriSign not updating WHOIS records when requested and telling customers to give false information.
But it is a personal privacy issue. Verisign is breaking its contract, but by doing so it's protecting its customers' personal privacy.
Please, no more pity posts for VeriSign!
I agree there. But please, no more pity posts for ICANN.
Instead lets have pity posts for the domain name holders. In the end that's who's going to lose, because Netsol will give in within 15 days, and won't lose their status as Registrar.
What's wrong? You don't want every slashdotter knowing your address? Maybe you see why I feel the same way? Somehow I doubt it.
What's your home address?
Well, the previous poster claimed 'obvious reasons'. I interpreted that to mean 'wants to keep physical address more or less private'.
Well, mainly I just don't want someone getting pissed at something I write on my website or on slashdot showing up at my doorstep. Yes, it's still possible, so maybe I'm just being overly paranoid.
If you don't use a P.O. Box, your real address appears in far too many places to consider it private.
Perhaps. At the moment I just moved 4 days ago, so pretty much no one who doesn't know me personally has my real address. And if I could lie completely about my address, instead of putting an old address, it would be pretty much impossible to figure out which "Anthony DiPierro" I happen to be. The phone number is real, but it's an efax number, so unless you have a subpeona, you're not going to get my identity from it.
Someone stole my identity two years ago and bought $1000 worth of services from Verisign.
Wow. What did it feel like to not have an identity?
They claim I can't remove it, because I told them I didn't enter it in the first place.
Sounds like a legitimate reason to me.
On the other hand, I must point out that if the poster doesn't already *have* a P.O. Box (or the equivalent) that game has already been lost.
What game is that? Yes, it's possible to track down my address from my domain name, but it's sufficiently difficult to stop most people.
what law is it breaking to have incorrect data?
None yet, but if ICANN gets their way they'll buy this law.
I don't use Verisign.
Say "Good Bye!" to your domain(s) then, skippy!
I seriously doubt my domain name is going to get taken away just because I failed to change my address when I moved.
I need to go and submit your domain to rfc-ignorant.org
Go for it. You can add the fact that I block abuse@ and postmaster@ to your list of complaints.
Pay for my P.O. Box and I'll update my contact information. I'm not giving people my home address.
As others have pointed out, polarizing filters are so common that there's no security here.
It's not really about security.
It's like locking your house with a skeleton key.
Or like closing the door on your cube and not locking it. Sure, someone can open it, but if they do so it's noticible.
Why not insert noisy frames between real ones and just synchronize the glasses so that they filter out the garbage frames? Why not just have the screen in the glasses?
Expense.
No.