Just got back from my favourite blank media retailer (west-end TO).
100 CDR - $20.99
50 DVD-R - $29.99
Now, the CDR should have the $0.21 (proposed increase to $0.59) levy built into the price (but pretty clearly don't) and the proposed (none currently in place) levy for DVD-R is $2.25 (IIRC).
No point, except that legal media is going to get expensive pretty damned quick!
FWIW -- I recorded the message that you get when you use the backdoor and enter an invalid mailbox number (I used a mailbox that differed from mine only in the last digit) and used that as my mailbox identifier (the announcement that you get when you use the backdoor and enter my mailbox number).
It's been 24 hours and no voicemail spam as yet...
Certainly, something needs to be done... one of the arguments that telemarketers/spammers make is that such a low percentage of people request removal, that there isn't a problem.
I did tie up the receptionist and owner of the firewood delivery firm (the spam was sent on their behalf) for about an hour, demanding the name, address and phone number of the spammer (which I think I am entitled to under current legislation).
I requested callbacks, then didn't answer... then called back again...
Perhaps not as annoying to them as ordering a bush cord and then cancelling the order (it does say "or your money back"), but definitely ticked them off.
The telco is on-board and is currently involved in legal actions against a couple of these operations.
The problem that they are running into is that the CRTC hasn't decided if existing telemarketing rules (e.g. no prerecorded or synthesized messages may be used for any type of solicitation) apply to direct-to-voicemail spam.
The spammers argue that, since the phone never rings, the rules don't apply.
While I have no doubt that this happens, it is specifically not the case I am experiencing... this is a residential phone line with no receiptionist.
They are definitely dialing into the backdoor (which is also used to check your messages from a phone other than your own) and punching in my mailbox number.
Latest batch were advertising for firewood delivery (since they were "delivering in my area")... o/w it's been packaged trips down South and stuff like that.
The problem (for me) is that the telezapper only defends against calls received... these bastards punch straight through to voicemail... my phone never rings.
But, to be fair, my parents (who live in the US) swear by their telezapper...
While this is obvious, painfully stupid, flamebait....
The reason that this stupidity should be illegal is that there is no recourse to get removed from the list (it's not like you get to interact with the telemarketer... you just get a voicemail) and it costs me money.
These are the same reasons that spam is bad... has nothing to do with politics or freedom... dumbass AC.
The first sentence read "correct a security vulnerability in a Windows Distributed Component Object Model (DCOM) Remote Procedure Call (RPC) interface".
Don't know how you could think that Microsoft was misleading anybody (by all means, slam Microsoft... just make it good).
You could only be mislead if you ignored the rest of the article in question... oh wait... this is Slashdot...
It is more likely that you got nailed by someone making upclose and personal use of one of the various exploits.
The fact that tons of machines have been compromised over the past couple of weeks is why it is strongly recommended to rebuild infected machines -- if this worm gets you, it is quite possible that you had already been 0wn3d and may have all sorts of nasties installed.
Your AOL example is flawed -- Cyberpromo was a spammer who *was* sending UBE, not an innocent party who was being blocked *through no fault of their own*. World of difference.
"ISPs are private entities. They are perfectly within their rights to reject e-mail from other third parties for any reason"
I'm not so sure... consider the case of a local phone company who blocks *all* incoming calls from another carrier because that carrier has a client who is a telemarketer who violates do-not-call rules.
Is there really a difference ? Should there be ?
You say ISPs are private entities when I would think they are more like common carriers and obligated to provide fair access to those who haven't done anything wrong.
OK -- your ISP is found guilty... you just get to share his jail cell (nice nit to pick!).
Regarding the point of SPEWS, you're right on target and there are lots of people that are too happy to condemn based on the provider, rather than the source.
That is their (and your) right -- if you don't want mail from someone using a "bad" ISP, then fine... no argument... *I* ban e-mail from entire netblocks, as an individual, FOR MYSELF.
You are missing the fact that tons of users are having incoming e-mail blocked without their knowledge or consent.
Now, since SPEWS only provides the listing, a big part of the problem is the ISP / mail services that block based on the SPEWS blacklist.
I wonder how long it will be until some of these ISPs / mail services get sued for blocking e-mail ?
This is the direction that things are headed -- if the SPEWS solution is so good, how is it that the only people who are going to lose are the innocents being improperly blocked and those trying to stop the spam by blocking ?
"talking about about users voluntarily screening access to their own inboxes using a third-party service"
If this were the case, then it wouldn't be such a problem and it would be relegated to a mostly theoretical argument.
The truth is that most users who are having their e-mail filtered in this way, have no idea about it and never agreed to it. Their ISP or e-mail providers just use the SPEWS list without ever telling the end user or ever even validating that list.
And because SPEWS is a private list made public for "educational purposes" and the creators are anonymous, there is no way to protect the innocent unless the almighty SPEWSlords decide it is so... and they haven't.
The analogy is right on target -- we'll vehemently defend the rights of the.001% of non-infriging users of Kazaa and we're all too happy to see an entire/16 banned because a spammer has a couple of IPs in that/16.
The rights of the innocent individual either matter or they don't... pick one... then hope that you're never the innocent in question.
The analogy is that your neighbour kills his wife and kids and *you* go to jail because you live next door to a maniac, even though you never even met the freak.
"For example, what's so hard about allowing folks in a blacklisted netblock to send an afadavit stating that they will not spam from their alotted IP addresses, and to notify SPEWS if their IP block changes? "
Uh... he did... and, while I would like for CogentCo to drop their spammers, it isn't alright to hold a gun to the head of legitimate customers to get them to do it for us.
"If shutting down spamhavens involves hurting a few "innocents" who are giving money to the spam supporters, then I don't care."
Why is it that geeks always tout the rights of the individual over the masses UNLESS the individual's rights are being trampled on to fight SPAM (and I'm talking about the innocents, not the SPAMMERS)?
We're all too happy to battle against legislation/regulation that leaves gaping loopholes for child pornographers (I wonder how much karma I'm going to burn for that?), but if a legitimate, honest Netizen happens to live in the same IP block as a spammer (and we're talking about much more than CogentCo here), then *the innocent guy* should burn in hell ?
The point that was made about SPEWS is that the general blacklist goes too far and there is no mechanism for the innocent to protect themselves (until such time as we can all register blocks directly...).
*IF* the folks behind SPEWS made allowances for good netizens to be whitelisted out of a blacklisted block, that would be another matter entirely.
THIS behaviour is no less despicable than that of the spammer -- you are declared guilty, sentenced and the only way out is for you to get rid of all spammers using your service provider. And, most of the time, that is beyond your control.
Uh... RTFP (oh, wait this is/.)... I never said they weren't protective... I said that they were happy to interfere... the two are not mutually exclusive.
The US Constitution included the right to bear arms so that the people could rise up against an oppresive govenment.
In Canada, private citizens are typically better armed and better funded than the government, so we could rise up if we wanted... we're just too busy enjoying our beer, pseudo-legal tokes and cheap broadband...
I don't know about Canada being a socialist state (have always wondered why people would think that... ), but I have lived in both countries (and have family living in both countries).
The truth is that the Canadian government is happy to infringe upon the freedom of corporations in order to enhance the lives of the individual. (e.g. decrimilize pot smoking, legal gay marriage and broadband for the people).
The US government, on the other hand, is too happy to curtail the freedom of the individual and let big corporations (and their campaign contributions) do whatever they want. (e.g. Patriot 1/2, DMCA, RIAA, MPAA, etc.)
When Sympatico kicked in the bandwidth cap I was a little ticked, but then they offered their Ultra service with 3 times the speed (3Mbps down and 640kbps up) and double the bandwidth (40Gb instead of 20). The additional cost was less than my excess bandwidth charges, so it was a no-brainer upgrade.
Then, after 3.5 years of month-to-month contracts, I figured that I wasn't going anywhere so I agreed to sign a 12 month contract to make my bandwidth caps go away.
So, I have a reliable 3Mbps down, 640kbps up, no bandwidth caps for C$70/mo (ignoring discounts).
Rogers is 1.5Mbps down, 192k up, no bandwidth caps for C$45/mo (ignoring discounts).
If you compare the "standard" broadband offerings, Rogers may have the edge (but they still have "heavy traffic" slowdowns), but for a bit more money (less than a case of beer or 3 packs of smokes) Sympatico blows their doors off.
As always, everything subject to geographic availability, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Um ... I THINK that was an attempt at humour ... HACKED BY CHINESE was the tagline appearing on web servers infected with Code Red ... IIRC, that is.
Hadn't heard that about the DVD-Rs (but makes sense given the wording of the legislation).
... definitely shady ... that's why I make the drive and pay cash ...
As for the CDR's
Just got back from my favourite blank media retailer (west-end TO).
100 CDR - $20.99
50 DVD-R - $29.99
Now, the CDR should have the $0.21 (proposed increase to $0.59) levy built into the price (but pretty clearly don't) and the proposed (none currently in place) levy for DVD-R is $2.25 (IIRC).
No point, except that legal media is going to get expensive pretty damned quick!
I *hate* things like this where it's reported that "you might be infected" -- tell me what clues I can look for to know.
.... (wait for it) ... the article ...
...
The FIRST clue to look for is
RTFA, THEN you can bitch about the lack of details
FWIW -- I recorded the message that you get when you use the backdoor and enter an invalid mailbox number (I used a mailbox that differed from mine only in the last digit) and used that as my mailbox identifier (the announcement that you get when you use the backdoor and enter my mailbox number).
...
It's been 24 hours and no voicemail spam as yet
Certainly, something needs to be done ... one of the arguments that telemarketers/spammers make is that such a low percentage of people request removal, that there isn't a problem.
... then called back again ...
I did tie up the receptionist and owner of the firewood delivery firm (the spam was sent on their behalf) for about an hour, demanding the name, address and phone number of the spammer (which I think I am entitled to under current legislation).
I requested callbacks, then didn't answer
Perhaps not as annoying to them as ordering a bush cord and then cancelling the order (it does say "or your money back"), but definitely ticked them off.
The telco is on-board and is currently involved in legal actions against a couple of these operations.
The problem that they are running into is that the CRTC hasn't decided if existing telemarketing rules (e.g. no prerecorded or synthesized messages may be used for any type of solicitation) apply to direct-to-voicemail spam.
The spammers argue that, since the phone never rings, the rules don't apply.
While I have no doubt that this happens, it is specifically not the case I am experiencing ... this is a residential phone line with no receiptionist.
They are definitely dialing into the backdoor (which is also used to check your messages from a phone other than your own) and punching in my mailbox number.
Latest batch were advertising for firewood delivery (since they were "delivering in my area") ... o/w it's been packaged trips down South and stuff like that.
The problem (for me) is that the telezapper only defends against calls received ... these bastards punch straight through to voicemail ... my phone never rings.
...
But, to be fair, my parents (who live in the US) swear by their telezapper
While this is obvious, painfully stupid, flamebait ....
... you just get a voicemail) and it costs me money.
... has nothing to do with politics or freedom ... dumbass AC.
The reason that this stupidity should be illegal is that there is no recourse to get removed from the list (it's not like you get to interact with the telemarketer
These are the same reasons that spam is bad
Are you whoring for karma today ?
... just make it good).
... oh wait ... this is Slashdot ...
The first sentence read "correct a security vulnerability in a Windows Distributed Component Object Model (DCOM) Remote Procedure Call (RPC) interface".
Don't know how you could think that Microsoft was misleading anybody (by all means, slam Microsoft
You could only be mislead if you ignored the rest of the article in question
Cheers,
JAKD
There have been a bunch of exploits and some bots, but no true worm ... until early this afternoon ...
Cheers,
JAKD
It is more likely that you got nailed by someone making upclose and personal use of one of the various exploits.
The fact that tons of machines have been compromised over the past couple of weeks is why it is strongly recommended to rebuild infected machines -- if this worm gets you, it is quite possible that you had already been 0wn3d and may have all sorts of nasties installed.
Cheers,
JAKD
Your AOL example is flawed -- Cyberpromo was a spammer who *was* sending UBE, not an innocent party who was being blocked *through no fault of their own*. World of difference.
... consider the case of a local phone company who blocks *all* incoming calls from another carrier because that carrier has a client who is a telemarketer who violates do-not-call rules.
"ISPs are private entities. They are perfectly within their rights to reject e-mail from other third parties for any reason"
I'm not so sure
Is there really a difference ? Should there be ?
You say ISPs are private entities when I would think they are more like common carriers and obligated to provide fair access to those who haven't done anything wrong.
Cheers,
JAKD
OK -- your ISP is found guilty ... you just get to share his jail cell (nice nit to pick!).
... no argument ... *I* ban e-mail from entire netblocks, as an individual, FOR MYSELF.
Regarding the point of SPEWS, you're right on target and there are lots of people that are too happy to condemn based on the provider, rather than the source.
That is their (and your) right -- if you don't want mail from someone using a "bad" ISP, then fine
You are missing the fact that tons of users are having incoming e-mail blocked without their knowledge or consent.
Now, since SPEWS only provides the listing, a big part of the problem is the ISP / mail services that block based on the SPEWS blacklist.
I wonder how long it will be until some of these ISPs / mail services get sued for blocking e-mail ?
This is the direction that things are headed -- if the SPEWS solution is so good, how is it that the only people who are going to lose are the innocents being improperly blocked and those trying to stop the spam by blocking ?
Cheers,
JAKD
"talking about about users voluntarily screening access to their own inboxes using a third-party service"
... and they haven't.
.001% of non-infriging users of Kazaa and we're all too happy to see an entire /16 banned because a spammer has a couple of IPs in that /16.
... pick one ... then hope that you're never the innocent in question.
If this were the case, then it wouldn't be such a problem and it would be relegated to a mostly theoretical argument.
The truth is that most users who are having their e-mail filtered in this way, have no idea about it and never agreed to it. Their ISP or e-mail providers just use the SPEWS list without ever telling the end user or ever even validating that list.
And because SPEWS is a private list made public for "educational purposes" and the creators are anonymous, there is no way to protect the innocent unless the almighty SPEWSlords decide it is so
The analogy is right on target -- we'll vehemently defend the rights of the
The rights of the innocent individual either matter or they don't
Cheers,
JAKD
"Of course my example is extreme"
... it's off-the-mark.
...
It's not only extreme
The analogy is that your neighbour kills his wife and kids and *you* go to jail because you live next door to a maniac, even though you never even met the freak.
Almost sounds like *Soviet Russia*
Cheers,
JAKD
"then present it"
... he did ... and, while I would like for CogentCo to drop their spammers, it isn't alright to hold a gun to the head of legitimate customers to get them to do it for us.
"For example, what's so hard about allowing folks in a blacklisted netblock to send an afadavit stating that they will not spam from their alotted IP addresses, and to notify SPEWS if their IP block changes? "
Uh
Cheers,
JAKD
"If shutting down spamhavens involves hurting a few "innocents" who are giving money to the spam supporters, then I don't care."
Why is it that geeks always tout the rights of the individual over the masses UNLESS the individual's rights are being trampled on to fight SPAM (and I'm talking about the innocents, not the SPAMMERS)?
We're all too happy to battle against legislation/regulation that leaves gaping loopholes for child pornographers (I wonder how much karma I'm going to burn for that?), but if a legitimate, honest Netizen happens to live in the same IP block as a spammer (and we're talking about much more than CogentCo here), then *the innocent guy* should burn in hell ?
The point that was made about SPEWS is that the general blacklist goes too far and there is no mechanism for the innocent to protect themselves (until such time as we can all register blocks directly...).
*IF* the folks behind SPEWS made allowances for good netizens to be whitelisted out of a blacklisted block, that would be another matter entirely.
THIS behaviour is no less despicable than that of the spammer -- you are declared guilty, sentenced and the only way out is for you to get rid of all spammers using your service provider. And, most of the time, that is beyond your control.
Cheers,
JAKD
Uh ... RTFP (oh, wait this is /.) ... I never said they weren't protective ... I said that they were happy to interfere ... the two are not mutually exclusive.
The US Constitution included the right to bear arms so that the people could rise up against an oppresive govenment.
... we're just too busy enjoying our beer, pseudo-legal tokes and cheap broadband ...
In Canada, private citizens are typically better armed and better funded than the government, so we could rise up if we wanted
I don't know about Canada being a socialist state (have always wondered why people would think that ... ), but I have lived in both countries (and have family living in both countries).
The truth is that the Canadian government is happy to infringe upon the freedom of corporations in order to enhance the lives of the individual. (e.g. decrimilize pot smoking, legal gay marriage and broadband for the people).
The US government, on the other hand, is too happy to curtail the freedom of the individual and let big corporations (and their campaign contributions) do whatever they want. (e.g. Patriot 1/2, DMCA, RIAA, MPAA, etc.)
Cheers.
When Sympatico kicked in the bandwidth cap I was a little ticked, but then they offered their Ultra service with 3 times the speed (3Mbps down and 640kbps up) and double the bandwidth (40Gb instead of 20). The additional cost was less than my excess bandwidth charges, so it was a no-brainer upgrade.
Then, after 3.5 years of month-to-month contracts, I figured that I wasn't going anywhere so I agreed to sign a 12 month contract to make my bandwidth caps go away.
So, I have a reliable 3Mbps down, 640kbps up, no bandwidth caps for C$70/mo (ignoring discounts).
Rogers is 1.5Mbps down, 192k up, no bandwidth caps for C$45/mo (ignoring discounts).
If you compare the "standard" broadband offerings, Rogers may have the edge (but they still have "heavy traffic" slowdowns), but for a bit more money (less than a case of beer or 3 packs of smokes) Sympatico blows their doors off.
As always, everything subject to geographic availability, etc.
Here is an article on making IE use Google.
Cheers,
JAKD