As opposed to your WISHING, willfully HOPING, that only the family members of the poor who have virtually no choice but the military for upward mobility are lost in Bush's war? If there's going to be a war, the burden should be shared equally among the classes--that includes you, Republican fanboy.
Yeah, but those sites will have to register with a DNS Registrar, which will remove the anonymity that spammers currently enjoy.
It's entirely possible to falsify all the information in whois (as is easily seen by running whois against an occasional domain like the made up example pharmch33pdrugz4less.info) and (if it's not free, like.info domains seem to be from some of the trolls posted here) to pay for the registration with an untraceable payment--even without using a fraudulent credit card, thanks to the Visa/MC stored value cards now available.
-Your receive a message
-You check the DNS for the key
-It has one, but the message isn't signed. Drop the message.
Thanks--that's what I was wondering--whether each message (from a new domain, assuming there'll be some caching) will cause a key lookup attempt. If that's how it's implemented, then it will indeed work before wide implementation, because as you've pointed out, messages won't be dropped from domains with no public key in the DNS.
But until pretty much the whole world's using DomainKeys, unsigned emails can't be dropped. How would emails send from ebay.com that contain no signature be handled? I've only skimmed the IETF draft, but unless all messages without signatures incur a key lookup (to see if it should be signed, then unsigned messages from ebay.com and paypal.com would get through.
An important hole in the phishing protection is that there will quickly be domains like ebaysecurity.com, paypalinfo.org, or paypalfraudunit.com ad nauseam, the possible iterations over which can't all be preemptively registered, which could have perfectly valid DomainKeys signatures because the phishers would control the domains.
That's cool and all, but darn near everyone has to be using it before anyone can even think about dropping unsigned emails (I'm talking about businesses, not about mail servers in someone's basement, here.)
I usually follow that with an installation of Enough is Enough, SpywareBlaster, the combination of which pretty much neuters IE (but provides an easy way to add the sites that only work with IE to Trusted Sites from a menu), and Firefox, making it the default browser.
I knew someone was going to catch that. I meant competing browser. I'm sure they're quite prohibited from installing any browser but IE. Of course, the agreements have a gag clause, and the "Justice" department let MS get away with a slap on the wrist, so we will likely never be sure.
The antivirus companies claim that removing spyware will get them sued, becuase they'll be committing libel by lumping it in with viruses. In reality, they just want to create a separate product, which is just a virus scanner with a different set of signatures, and charge each user a second time.
. . . by the fact that Dell buyers tend to be some of the least computer savvy people. Those who are familiar with Dell's "support" would recommend a local vendor, and those with knowledge tend to build their own machines. Thus, we end up with folks relatively ignorant about PCs and who don't know anyone to steer them clear of Dell. Of course, these are probably the same people who click "Yes" on the dialogs warning them about pornography on their computers . . .
Then they get to pay full retail for the OEM copies of Windows that they're probably paying at most $20/CPU in return for promising not to install any competing operating systems on their desktops. Probably cheaper to let the outsourced Indian reps say "sorry, we can't help you" over VoIP. At least in the short run.
. . . but when the man wants your mail, all he has to do is get the directories from your vhost. If you host your own, he has to serve a no-knock warrant, and can seize your encrypted drive.
It was nice to call their wives at home and ask if so and so was ok. I'm quite sure it kept a good friend alive.
You were lucky. Some people, given an act of intimidation against their families like that, would have made sure your friend, and a few of his comrades, too, died while "resisting arrest."
Because requiring passports to travel within the United States would be doing the same thing totalitarian governments like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia did. But requing an internal passport and calling it a driver's license is somehow different enough that those behind it aren't facing a hue and cry for impeachment.
when they start doing it for spam. Shows that they can censor effectively, which proves the PRC government complicit in the torrent of spam rushing from their borders.
If you believe that this takedown of a media outlet was about some pictures of some (now not-so) undercover cops and not a convenient pretext for shifting the blame for the action outside the administration, that I'm sorry to say that you're completely fucking gullible.
No, it doesn't mean that. It means that US political agens were smart enough to do the takedown through intermediaries, through the gentlemen's agreeement you referred to, MLAT. And calling those who hold that opinion conspiracy theorists is simply an attempt to misdirect away from the obvious.
So what? Why are undercover cops deliberately infiltrating an organization entitled to anonymity when discovered? What the police should be doing is retiring those cops to a desk or uniform job, and finding some undercover cops who are a little bit better at being undercover.
. . . each of Europe and the U.S. gets the other to do the dirty work that would be too hot in each home country. This was a J. Edgar Hoover through the side door.
Slashdot Mirror
As opposed to your WISHING, willfully HOPING, that only the family members of the poor who have virtually no choice but the military for upward mobility are lost in Bush's war? If there's going to be a war, the burden should be shared equally among the classes--that includes you, Republican fanboy.
It's entirely possible to falsify all the information in whois (as is easily seen by running whois against an occasional domain like the made up example pharmch33pdrugz4less.info) and (if it's not free, like .info domains seem to be from some of the trolls posted here) to pay for the registration with an untraceable payment--even without using a fraudulent credit card, thanks to the Visa/MC stored value cards now available.
-You check the DNS for the key
-It has one, but the message isn't signed. Drop the message.
Thanks--that's what I was wondering--whether each message (from a new domain, assuming there'll be some caching) will cause a key lookup attempt. If that's how it's implemented, then it will indeed work before wide implementation, because as you've pointed out, messages won't be dropped from domains with no public key in the DNS.
An important hole in the phishing protection is that there will quickly be domains like ebaysecurity.com, paypalinfo.org, or paypalfraudunit.com ad nauseam, the possible iterations over which can't all be preemptively registered, which could have perfectly valid DomainKeys signatures because the phishers would control the domains.
That's cool and all, but darn near everyone has to be using it before anyone can even think about dropping unsigned emails (I'm talking about businesses, not about mail servers in someone's basement, here.)
That argument would hold water, save for the fact that the University of Arizona, as a state university, is part of the government.
I usually follow that with an installation of Enough is Enough, SpywareBlaster, the combination of which pretty much neuters IE (but provides an easy way to add the sites that only work with IE to Trusted Sites from a menu), and Firefox, making it the default browser.
I knew someone was going to catch that. I meant competing browser. I'm sure they're quite prohibited from installing any browser but IE. Of course, the agreements have a gag clause, and the "Justice" department let MS get away with a slap on the wrist, so we will likely never be sure.
The antivirus companies claim that removing spyware will get them sued, becuase they'll be committing libel by lumping it in with viruses. In reality, they just want to create a separate product, which is just a virus scanner with a different set of signatures, and charge each user a second time.
. . . by the fact that Dell buyers tend to be some of the least computer savvy people. Those who are familiar with Dell's "support" would recommend a local vendor, and those with knowledge tend to build their own machines. Thus, we end up with folks relatively ignorant about PCs and who don't know anyone to steer them clear of Dell. Of course, these are probably the same people who click "Yes" on the dialogs warning them about pornography on their computers . . .
Then they get to pay full retail for the OEM copies of Windows that they're probably paying at most $20/CPU in return for promising not to install any competing operating systems on their desktops. Probably cheaper to let the outsourced Indian reps say "sorry, we can't help you" over VoIP. At least in the short run.
. . . but when the man wants your mail, all he has to do is get the directories from your vhost. If you host your own, he has to serve a no-knock warrant, and can seize your encrypted drive.
You were lucky. Some people, given an act of intimidation against their families like that, would have made sure your friend, and a few of his comrades, too, died while "resisting arrest."
Well, that would sort of solve the counterfeiting problem without requiring serialized printers, wouldn't it?
. . . the FDIC finally figured out it's an unregulated bank and shut it down.
Good thing we have freedom in the U.S.A. and that political sites aren't being taken down under false pretenses, cough, Indymedia, cough.
Because requiring passports to travel within the United States would be doing the same thing totalitarian governments like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia did. But requing an internal passport and calling it a driver's license is somehow different enough that those behind it aren't facing a hue and cry for impeachment.
when they start doing it for spam. Shows that they can censor effectively, which proves the PRC government complicit in the torrent of spam rushing from their borders.
If you believe that this takedown of a media outlet was about some pictures of some (now not-so) undercover cops and not a convenient pretext for shifting the blame for the action outside the administration, that I'm sorry to say that you're completely fucking gullible.
READY
>LET PC = 5
READY
>AUTO
10 INPUT "Enter post",P$
20 IF INSTR(P$,"first") THEN 50
30 PC = PC + 1 'Post count
40 GOTO 10
50 IF PC > 1 THEN PRINT "You fail it!":END
60 GOTO 10
READY
>
No, it doesn't mean that. It means that US political agens were smart enough to do the takedown through intermediaries, through the gentlemen's agreeement you referred to, MLAT. And calling those who hold that opinion conspiracy theorists is simply an attempt to misdirect away from the obvious.
So what? Why are undercover cops deliberately infiltrating an organization entitled to anonymity when discovered? What the police should be doing is retiring those cops to a desk or uniform job, and finding some undercover cops who are a little bit better at being undercover.
If you can remember enough about to scare up a Google Groups link, that'd be pretty cool, assuming it and/or the poster haven't been disappeared.
. . . each of Europe and the U.S. gets the other to do the dirty work that would be too hot in each home country. This was a J. Edgar Hoover through the side door.
OK :).