Most of them don't read their email now, what makes you think they'll notice something like that?
I've got to get me one of these!
on
Self-Heating Can
·
· Score: 1
A self-heating can would be just the perfect thing for cold mornings. I just HATE sitting down on a chilly can, and I'm worried about using an electrical heater so closer to all that water.
Let me guess... the plaintiff in this case just opened his/her email client one day and found an ad for a list of millions of email addresses.
Did the plaintiff pause to consider the irony of an opt-out spam advertising an opt-in list? Did the plaintiff pause to reflect on what to expect from a company that would use opt-out spam to advertise their product? Especially when the product is (allegedly) an opt-IN list?
That said, I still hope the defendant gets hung, drawn, and quartered.
Don't people check their addresses for addresses that don't deliver?
No, they don't. Many of the people gathering the lists of addresses are also selling the lists, and the longer the list, the more impressive it sounds to the people who buy the lists. By the time the buyer realizes how many of the addresses are bogus, the list seller has already been paid. Remember, these are spammers, not ethical people.
Even if they're gathering lists for their own use, consider this: when they send the spam with a forged email address and route it through some unsuspecting schmuck's open relay, the bouces are a problem for whoever owns the domain in the bogus From header and/or the unsuspecting schmuck. It poses no problem for the spammer, so there's no motivation to verify. Why should they? If they actually cared about clogging the network, they wouldn't be spamming in the first place.
Check this link to see the 'user unknown' messages rejected by my server in the last couple/few days. Many of the addresses you see have been showing up in that list for years.
You cannot overestimate the laziness or a spammer, nor can you underestimate their concern for anyone or anything else.
The moral of the story here is that whenever you come across a truly repugnant site, the last thing you should to is link to it. I mean come on...
"hey, this site really sucks" will only increase traffic to that site.
Do a google search on 'crucial facts,' skip the first ~5 results, and most of the results beyond that point are just search-spam.
Some dork has registered a bunch of domains and created pages titled "crucial facts about [keywords]" with meta refresh tags to transport you to his/her/its web-based storefront for unrelated trinkets (or just-barely kinda-vaguely-sounds-related trinkets).
I stumbled on this while searching for motorcycle clothing, but judging by the "crucial facts" result set, there's hundreds of these little spammer droppings in the google database, just from this spammer alone.
You don't understand the LETTER...
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 1
If the courts really cared about the spirit of a law or agreement, laws legal agreements would be written in plain english and we'd have a lot less lawyers. Given the fact that legalese is a formal language more like C++ than written english, (ok, more like VB, if you wish), I deduce that the spirit of an agreement doesn't matter.
Fortunately, the letter of the GPL is sufficient by itself.
From the GPL: "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it."
From the previous post: "Obviously the clean source is preferred, but not required."
The first part is true; the second, due to the correctness of the first, is false. The clean source is preferred; the obfuscated "source" is NOT preferred. Thus, distributing the obfuscated "source" does not satisfy the GPL's requirement that the "preferred form" be distributed.
If you were going to debug or extend it, the clean source is preferred and the obfuscated "source" is not-preferred and thus, again, the obfuscated "source" does not satisfy the requirements set forth in the GPL.
Why "source" in quotes? As someone said above, if the obfuscated "source" is generated by mechanical translation from the clean source, the obfuscated "source" is not source at all. The clean source is source, the obfuscated is just output from some tool in the chain that ultimately produced the binaries.
(And lawyers wonder why they're the butt of so many jokes. This crap is enough to make even the most levelheaded pacifist want to gouge the eyes out of the freeloading cheating bastard who thought it up.)
So it's more like newsgroups, where servers pass stuff around among themselves, waiting for clients to come by and ask for articles. I don't find that reassuring... At least with newsgroups there's some amount of moderation (reduce spam input), cancelling (retroactive moderation), and traceability (so spammer accounts can be revoked).
Spammers pollute. Freenet appears to be designed to allow for maximum pollution per unit of legitimate content.
I'd prefer to be proven wrong about this, but it looks to me like the bad apples are going to spoil this barrel even more so than we saw with usenet.
China is less judgemental? I assume you're not talking about the way they treat foreign web sites, domestic religious groups (e.g. falun gong) or internet users (especially dissidents) or anything like that, so I have to wondering just what you are talking about.
Most of the spam I get from Asian mail servers doesn't originate in Asia. It's from US-based spammers who exploit unsecured mail servers, and there seem to be a lot of those in Asia.
For example, when a Californian governor-wanna-be spammed his voters (and apparently lots of Canadians), his spam provider routed the spam through a hapless Korean elementary school.
First the spammers polluted usenet, then email, now they're dicking with international relations. What a lovely bunch of lowlifes.
Has Palm said anything about what they're going to do with the IP they bought from Be? They paid millions for it (millions worth of stock), so I assume they're gonna do something other than just sit on it. $11M is a big chunk of change just to get a few developers out of their noncompetes...
Slashdot Mirror
Most of them don't read their email now, what makes you think they'll notice something like that?
A self-heating can would be just the perfect thing for cold mornings. I just HATE sitting down on a chilly can, and I'm worried about using an electrical heater so closer to all that water.
Did the plaintiff pause to consider the irony of an opt-out spam advertising an opt-in list? Did the plaintiff pause to reflect on what to expect from a company that would use opt-out spam to advertise their product? Especially when the product is (allegedly) an opt-IN list?
That said, I still hope the defendant gets hung, drawn, and quartered.
No, they don't. Many of the people gathering the lists of addresses are also selling the lists, and the longer the list, the more impressive it sounds to the people who buy the lists. By the time the buyer realizes how many of the addresses are bogus, the list seller has already been paid. Remember, these are spammers, not ethical people.
Even if they're gathering lists for their own use, consider this: when they send the spam with a forged email address and route it through some unsuspecting schmuck's open relay, the bouces are a problem for whoever owns the domain in the bogus From header and/or the unsuspecting schmuck. It poses no problem for the spammer, so there's no motivation to verify. Why should they? If they actually cared about clogging the network, they wouldn't be spamming in the first place.
Check this link to see the 'user unknown' messages rejected by my server in the last couple/few days. Many of the addresses you see have been showing up in that list for years.
You cannot overestimate the laziness or a spammer, nor can you underestimate their concern for anyone or anything else.
So if you really think a site sucks, don't link to it.
Some dork has registered a bunch of domains and created pages titled "crucial facts about [keywords]" with meta refresh tags to transport you to his/her/its web-based storefront for unrelated trinkets (or just-barely kinda-vaguely-sounds-related trinkets).
I stumbled on this while searching for motorcycle clothing, but judging by the "crucial facts" result set, there's hundreds of these little spammer droppings in the google database, just from this spammer alone.
Fortunately, the letter of the GPL is sufficient by itself.
From the GPL: "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."
From the previous post: "Obviously the clean source is preferred, but not required."
The first part is true; the second, due to the correctness of the first, is false. The clean source is preferred; the obfuscated "source" is NOT preferred. Thus, distributing the obfuscated "source" does not satisfy the GPL's requirement that the "preferred form" be distributed.
If you were going to debug or extend it, the clean source is preferred and the obfuscated "source" is not-preferred and thus, again, the obfuscated "source" does not satisfy the requirements set forth in the GPL.
Why "source" in quotes? As someone said above, if the obfuscated "source" is generated by mechanical translation from the clean source, the obfuscated "source" is not source at all. The clean source is source, the obfuscated is just output from some tool in the chain that ultimately produced the binaries.
(And lawyers wonder why they're the butt of so many jokes. This crap is enough to make even the most levelheaded pacifist want to gouge the eyes out of the freeloading cheating bastard who thought it up.)
Spammers pollute. Freenet appears to be designed to allow for maximum pollution per unit of legitimate content.
I'd prefer to be proven wrong about this, but it looks to me like the bad apples are going to spoil this barrel even more so than we saw with usenet.
A free service to propogate spam - and this time there's no delete key!
China is less judgemental? I assume you're not talking about the way they treat foreign web sites, domestic religious groups (e.g. falun gong) or internet users (especially dissidents) or anything like that, so I have to wondering just what you are talking about.
For example, when a Californian governor-wanna-be spammed his voters (and apparently lots of Canadians), his spam provider routed the spam through a hapless Korean elementary school.
First the spammers polluted usenet, then email, now they're dicking with international relations. What a lovely bunch of lowlifes.
Reuters has an article on this topic as well.
Has Palm said anything about what they're going to do with the IP they bought from Be? They paid millions for it (millions worth of stock), so I assume they're gonna do something other than just sit on it. $11M is a big chunk of change just to get a few developers out of their noncompetes...
"Captialism hath no greater enemy than a successful capitalist."
- anonymous
Go to www.marketing-2000.net
Guess what business THEY are in?
nslookup www.marketing-2000.net:
12.160.137.140
whois 12.160.137.140@whois.arin.net:
AT&T ITS (NET-ATT) ATT 12.0.0.0 - 12.255.255.255
And yes, AT&T is aware of this. Have been for some time now. They seem not to care.
Expect MS to make a proprietary extension to SMB that can only be accomodated by violating the DMCA.
Copyright violation IS worse than murder, as far as the civil courts are concerned. Copyright violations annoy big companies with lawyers.
Dead people don't have lawyers.