That's not possible. Email that only goes through your server is generally referred to as PM. In order to get anywhere with email it has to go through any number of other servers.
Depends. With outgoing mail, my server attempts to connect directly to the target mail server (I don't use my ISP's mail services in either direction.)
Now, my hosting service allows me to set their MX records to point directly to my server: incoming mail doesn't ever get stored on their server. The remote host does a domain lookup, connects to the host company's server and gets the MX record, which points directly to my server and connects to it. It also means that I don't have to poll anyone's server for my mail.
It's the best I can do, but it's better than nothing.
Seeing that this community has a lot of security conscious folk who is actually using Facebook?
I'm not. But if you aren't and you still do the "social networking" thing, what are you using?
Not me. My idea of a "social network" is emailing, texting and phone calling my circle of friends and acquaintances.
You know, the kind where the content was not owned and searched by a multinational corporation?
I mean it as a serious question, not rhetorical. Why are SO many people willing to have all their communication logged and data-mined by for-profit companies? We've had email since around 1720. OK, maybe more like 1970-1, but anyway still a really long time. Until very recently, it was never true that a huge fraction of it was all going through facebook or google.
Why on earth would people give that up? I can't see what benefit they are getting. As far as I can tell, all modes allowed by something like gmail or facebook can be accomplished without the corporate overlords in the picture. There is email, non-corporate IM, and so forth.
What am I missing? I seem perfectly able to communicate with all my friends online both in real time and non-real time without using those things, so it can't be "you will be isolated!!11!one!"
I don't have an answer, other than the fact that these services are "free" and whatever downsides there are to these technologies, most people seem blissfully unaware of them. I'm on your side though: I've run my own mail server since before the Internet went public (I ran a decent BBS at one point, and was a hub for a number of mail networks.) When I first got online with the Internet, my first thought was to do the same for my own mail. I saw (and still) see no reason to let my mail pass through anyone else's servers if I don't have to. I wouldn't want my snail mail pawed over by a corporation looking to sell "targeted" junk mail either.
Is this (like "Places") another one of those big Facebook "features" that you have to live in the US to see/use?
I'm from Canada and I don't see any visible changes to the messaging system whatsoever... and Places was launched back in the summer and yet there's no sign of it either... so I anticipate we'll see these features approximately.... never?
-AC
Hard to say. Google usually rolls out new services here in the U.S. first (think of us as one giant beta test site) before bringing them to other countries. I don't know much about Facebook in that regard, however.
More people shifting from open federated protocols to the closed world of Facebook is a bad thing. I sincerely hope that it doesn't happen.
AOL had a shot at this and lost it. People are fickle and the 'latest greatest' trends will turn Facebook into the next MySpace within a few more years. What will replace Facebook? That is the billion dollar question.
Well, if the answer to that question (and I agree, it's a legitimate question) happens to be "nothing", well, I'm afraid I won't be losing much sleep over it.
My American friends are probably quite pleased that I've had to drop the moral superiority act, though:)
Well, not pleased, exactly. Just depressed... and disappointed to a degree. We all figured that if things got weird enough down here we would just head North. Now it looks like the whole continent is driving off the cliff.
'More competition is always good because it makes the market larger,' Schmidt said, charging that journalists were hyping the rivalry: 'As a group, you all are focused on the competition rather than the market getting larger. It brings more people in. We are all served by having everybody in the world get online.'
Upon returning to his office after the press conference, Mr. Schmidt was heard to say, "I'm gonna fuckin' KILL Facebook!"
However, none of these are requirements that any actual arm of the government has to abide by. Just a company working with the government. Doesn't that seem strange?
Strange? Well, in an absolute sense maybe. But when has any arm of any government ever felt explicitly compelled to write regulations that apply equally well to said arm?
No, no, it's a great anecdote, I just thought there might be a writeup with more funny details. In my brief BBS days I had to monitor which sysops called my mom to verify my registrations. I used BBSs during their very very last days, when the internet was juuust starting.
Yes, well, what I remember was that the Internet killed off a going business. We began to notice that subscriptions were falling off, and couldn't figure out why, until one day a friend of mine brought over his Sparcstation and a modem, and connected to his "ISP". After spending a few minutes fooling around in what I think was NCSA Mosaic, well, it didn't take me long to figure out why our subscriptions were down.
In about five minutes I went from "boy, that's cool!" to "wish BBSes could do that" to "ah, crap." So I knew that the BBS was doomed, and we shut down not long after that. Some of the bigger systems tried adding some Internet access to their offerings, but there wasn't much room for middlemen. They all went down, one by one.
Most of the people up here don't like what's going on much (when they're aware of it), but the opposition parties are more interested in bickering than finding common ground and bringing us back to sanity.
Well, we only have two parties, and it's when they're bickering that We the People are best off, because then they accomplish nothing, and when dealing with those types, nothing is a good thing. When they start agreeing on things, that's when we start worrying.
That's best, among other things, but particularly given how the US government already has a track record of wholesale tapping of internet communications.
Assuming your correct, there is clearly something wrong with the process. Regardless, describing Canada as "tyrannical" is completely ridiculous.
That's true (although I don't think the GP meant "tyrannical" in a literal sense) but you're obviously afraid of what the Muslim sector might do if aroused, and did everything you could to appease them (at Mr. Levant's and the Canadian public's expense.) Either that, or some high-ranking Muslims in your government decided to make an example if him. Either way, no civilized society should get upset over a cartoon, yet that's exactly what some Muslim cultures do. It's intolerance of the highest order, and you shouldn't accept it from your police and your lawmakers.
Resources are resources man, you haven't addressed the fundamental basis of the argument I'm making.
And "cheekyjohnson" won't. What he's doing is perilously close to trolling: it's like we've struck some chord with the guy, and he point-blank refuses to acknowledge any other viewpoint. Hey... maybe he's the guy vandalizing Wikipedia! Somebody report him quick.
Firefox supports https, not sure on utorrent, but most of them support talking to only encrypted peers.
Ah, but the majority of Web sites do not. Although it is nice that Google supports it now, it only matters until you click on a link that takes you to a site that does not.
Yes, I think all the major torrent clients support required encryption, with different levels of encryption in some cases.
That was somewhat true, until we installed this NeoCon government that's currently in power. Harper and friends seem to want to pander to Bush and Friends, except that Bush isn't in power any longer. Guess they missed the memo.
Ha... well, if I'd had to recommend a President that your officials should look up to, or in any way attempt to emulate, it would not have been George Bush. Or Barack Obama either, for that matter. Or Bill Clinton. In fact, you have to go quite a ways back to find a President that really had the best interests of We the People in mind, and acted accordingly.
Oh, I think this is actually kind of a good thing...
Next up: Canada leads in public adaptation of strong encryption while engaging in all online activities.
Everybody thinks that, until the use of encryption for other than officially-approved activities is outlawed, or until keeping your passwords private becomes a serious crime. See how the UK has been handling that for an idea of how bad it can get (and it's not as bad as it's going to get, yet.)
The War on Some Drugs is a big money loser. We spend billions on it and on incarcerating non-violent offenders.
Yes, but his point is that for the agencies and private-sector corporations who are maintaining and supporting that "War"... it is extremely profitable. Those billions are going somewhere, and those groups have a vested interest in lobbying Congress to keep the "War" on for as long as possible. Corruption of the highest order, when you get right down to it.
Which is why I won't be flying via the US anymore. If I really need to fly, I'll take a quick train ride up to BC and fly from there. I'm sure I'll be flagged as suspicious, but at least that way I won't be groped by some perv TSA agent.
And yes, anybody that forces you to show you themselves naked or allow you to grope them is a pervert, medical doctors excepted. The TSA agents don't have to do it, they could very easily refuse on the basis of it being illegal and/or sue the TSA for sexual harassment.
I know airline pilots are not happy about this: apparently they don't get a free pass either. I live in the U.S. and I'm certainly not happy about it. I've been to Canada on both business and pleasure, and these policies are just utterly disrespectful to our Northern ally. I'd like to see some hard statistics on how the TSA has been stopping terrorism, so that we can determine if they are really worth the cost. But all of our major law enforcement operations are pretty damn close-mouthed about that.
It's the same mindset that rules the CRIA, RIAA and similar organizations: everyone is a potential criminal and should be treated as such until proven otherwise. How either your lawmakers or ours can square that attitude with the Supreme Law of either of our two lands is remarkable. Well, I do know how we do it: we call it a "Constitutional Exception", and I daresay our Founders would take exception to that.
I hope the Pirate Party of Canada runs in my riding this year. Digital privacy is obviously not a priority for the current government.
Oh... it's a priority all right. It would be okay if it weren't a priority (that's how I look at government anymore, as an American. I prefer our Elected Representatives to spend time arguing over stupid things like "flag burning measures" and other such tripe. We the People are usually better off they don't get too focused) but in this case I'd say your government is making your lack of privacy a major priority. That ought to concern all of you, as it concerns me, because every time some other country (the UK, especially) does something likes this it gives Congress and our three-letter organizations some bad ideas: "well... if it worked for Canada..."
I understood Canada's Charter of Rights (did I get that right?) as having protections against unreasonable search and seizure, much like our Constitution. Of course, our Federal Government has been ignoring those protections at will for some time now... I guess if it's on a computer it doesn't count as "unreasonable" when you search for and seize it.
Time to start clinical testing for megalomania, sociopathy, and other relevant psychological disorders amongst corporate and political leaders. Weed them out before they ever get into a position of authority.
We test school bus drivers to make sure they aren't nuts. Why should a politician be treated any differently in that regard?
Slashdot Mirror
I recall the opposition getting together to hold a no confidence vote. Harper nuked the government for 3 months in response.
What does "nuked the government" actually mean? Just curious.
That's not possible. Email that only goes through your server is generally referred to as PM. In order to get anywhere with email it has to go through any number of other servers.
Depends. With outgoing mail, my server attempts to connect directly to the target mail server (I don't use my ISP's mail services in either direction.)
Now, my hosting service allows me to set their MX records to point directly to my server: incoming mail doesn't ever get stored on their server. The remote host does a domain lookup, connects to the host company's server and gets the MX record, which points directly to my server and connects to it. It also means that I don't have to poll anyone's server for my mail.
It's the best I can do, but it's better than nothing.
Seeing that this community has a lot of security conscious folk who is actually using Facebook? I'm not. But if you aren't and you still do the "social networking" thing, what are you using?
Not me. My idea of a "social network" is emailing, texting and phone calling my circle of friends and acquaintances.
You know, the kind where the content was not owned and searched by a multinational corporation?
I mean it as a serious question, not rhetorical. Why are SO many people willing to have all their communication logged and data-mined by for-profit companies? We've had email since around 1720. OK, maybe more like 1970-1, but anyway still a really long time. Until very recently, it was never true that a huge fraction of it was all going through facebook or google.
Why on earth would people give that up? I can't see what benefit they are getting. As far as I can tell, all modes allowed by something like gmail or facebook can be accomplished without the corporate overlords in the picture. There is email, non-corporate IM, and so forth.
What am I missing? I seem perfectly able to communicate with all my friends online both in real time and non-real time without using those things, so it can't be "you will be isolated!!11!one!"
I don't have an answer, other than the fact that these services are "free" and whatever downsides there are to these technologies, most people seem blissfully unaware of them. I'm on your side though: I've run my own mail server since before the Internet went public (I ran a decent BBS at one point, and was a hub for a number of mail networks.) When I first got online with the Internet, my first thought was to do the same for my own mail. I saw (and still) see no reason to let my mail pass through anyone else's servers if I don't have to. I wouldn't want my snail mail pawed over by a corporation looking to sell "targeted" junk mail either.
Is this (like "Places") another one of those big Facebook "features" that you have to live in the US to see/use?
I'm from Canada and I don't see any visible changes to the messaging system whatsoever... and Places was launched back in the summer and yet there's no sign of it either... so I anticipate we'll see these features approximately.... never?
-AC
Hard to say. Google usually rolls out new services here in the U.S. first (think of us as one giant beta test site) before bringing them to other countries. I don't know much about Facebook in that regard, however.
More people shifting from open federated protocols to the closed world of Facebook is a bad thing. I sincerely hope that it doesn't happen.
AOL had a shot at this and lost it. People are fickle and the 'latest greatest' trends will turn Facebook into the next MySpace within a few more years. What will replace Facebook? That is the billion dollar question.
Well, if the answer to that question (and I agree, it's a legitimate question) happens to be "nothing", well, I'm afraid I won't be losing much sleep over it.
My American friends are probably quite pleased that I've had to drop the moral superiority act, though :)
Well, not pleased, exactly. Just depressed ... and disappointed to a degree. We all figured that if things got weird enough down here we would just head North. Now it looks like the whole continent is driving off the cliff.
'More competition is always good because it makes the market larger,' Schmidt said, charging that journalists were hyping the rivalry: 'As a group, you all are focused on the competition rather than the market getting larger. It brings more people in. We are all served by having everybody in the world get online.'
Upon returning to his office after the press conference, Mr. Schmidt was heard to say, "I'm gonna fuckin' KILL Facebook!"
important legislation
That term has become something of a non-sequitur, along the lines of "military intelligence".
However, none of these are requirements that any actual arm of the government has to abide by. Just a company working with the government. Doesn't that seem strange?
Strange? Well, in an absolute sense maybe. But when has any arm of any government ever felt explicitly compelled to write regulations that apply equally well to said arm?
Too big to fail.
No, they'll just pull the plug on Canada until Canada backs off.
She is the root source of all authority and power of law.
Well, if this kind of behavior on the part of law enforcement becomes popular, I'm going to have to wonder if she's been rooted.
No, no, it's a great anecdote, I just thought there might be a writeup with more funny details. In my brief BBS days I had to monitor which sysops called my mom to verify my registrations. I used BBSs during their very very last days, when the internet was juuust starting.
Yes, well, what I remember was that the Internet killed off a going business. We began to notice that subscriptions were falling off, and couldn't figure out why, until one day a friend of mine brought over his Sparcstation and a modem, and connected to his "ISP". After spending a few minutes fooling around in what I think was NCSA Mosaic, well, it didn't take me long to figure out why our subscriptions were down.
In about five minutes I went from "boy, that's cool!" to "wish BBSes could do that" to "ah, crap." So I knew that the BBS was doomed, and we shut down not long after that. Some of the bigger systems tried adding some Internet access to their offerings, but there wasn't much room for middlemen. They all went down, one by one.
Most of the people up here don't like what's going on much (when they're aware of it), but the opposition parties are more interested in bickering than finding common ground and bringing us back to sanity.
Well, we only have two parties, and it's when they're bickering that We the People are best off, because then they accomplish nothing, and when dealing with those types, nothing is a good thing. When they start agreeing on things, that's when we start worrying.
Now now, it's not corruption if they're fighting for what they believe in... money!
No, it's corruption if they aren't fighting for what We the People believe in.
Yeah, okay, so that's money too.
That's best, among other things, but particularly given how the US government already has a track record of wholesale tapping of internet communications.
And China's doesn't? I mean ... really?
Assuming your correct, there is clearly something wrong with the process. Regardless, describing Canada as "tyrannical" is completely ridiculous.
That's true (although I don't think the GP meant "tyrannical" in a literal sense) but you're obviously afraid of what the Muslim sector might do if aroused, and did everything you could to appease them (at Mr. Levant's and the Canadian public's expense.) Either that, or some high-ranking Muslims in your government decided to make an example if him. Either way, no civilized society should get upset over a cartoon, yet that's exactly what some Muslim cultures do. It's intolerance of the highest order, and you shouldn't accept it from your police and your lawmakers.
But it keeps our officers in a never ending supply of free pot and cocaine.
Which would be okay, but the fuckers won't share.
Resources are resources man, you haven't addressed the fundamental basis of the argument I'm making.
And "cheekyjohnson" won't. What he's doing is perilously close to trolling: it's like we've struck some chord with the guy, and he point-blank refuses to acknowledge any other viewpoint. Hey ... maybe he's the guy vandalizing Wikipedia! Somebody report him quick.
Firefox supports https, not sure on utorrent, but most of them support talking to only encrypted peers.
Ah, but the majority of Web sites do not. Although it is nice that Google supports it now, it only matters until you click on a link that takes you to a site that does not.
Yes, I think all the major torrent clients support required encryption, with different levels of encryption in some cases.
That was somewhat true, until we installed this NeoCon government that's currently in power. Harper and friends seem to want to pander to Bush and Friends, except that Bush isn't in power any longer. Guess they missed the memo.
Ha ... well, if I'd had to recommend a President that your officials should look up to, or in any way attempt to emulate, it would not have been George Bush. Or Barack Obama either, for that matter. Or Bill Clinton. In fact, you have to go quite a ways back to find a President that really had the best interests of We the People in mind, and acted accordingly.
Oh, I think this is actually kind of a good thing...
Next up: Canada leads in public adaptation of strong encryption while engaging in all online activities.
Everybody thinks that, until the use of encryption for other than officially-approved activities is outlawed, or until keeping your passwords private becomes a serious crime. See how the UK has been handling that for an idea of how bad it can get (and it's not as bad as it's going to get, yet.)
The War on Some Drugs is a big money loser. We spend billions on it and on incarcerating non-violent offenders.
Yes, but his point is that for the agencies and private-sector corporations who are maintaining and supporting that "War" ... it is extremely profitable. Those billions are going somewhere, and those groups have a vested interest in lobbying Congress to keep the "War" on for as long as possible. Corruption of the highest order, when you get right down to it.
Which is why I won't be flying via the US anymore. If I really need to fly, I'll take a quick train ride up to BC and fly from there. I'm sure I'll be flagged as suspicious, but at least that way I won't be groped by some perv TSA agent. And yes, anybody that forces you to show you themselves naked or allow you to grope them is a pervert, medical doctors excepted. The TSA agents don't have to do it, they could very easily refuse on the basis of it being illegal and/or sue the TSA for sexual harassment.
I know airline pilots are not happy about this: apparently they don't get a free pass either. I live in the U.S. and I'm certainly not happy about it. I've been to Canada on both business and pleasure, and these policies are just utterly disrespectful to our Northern ally. I'd like to see some hard statistics on how the TSA has been stopping terrorism, so that we can determine if they are really worth the cost. But all of our major law enforcement operations are pretty damn close-mouthed about that.
It's the same mindset that rules the CRIA, RIAA and similar organizations: everyone is a potential criminal and should be treated as such until proven otherwise. How either your lawmakers or ours can square that attitude with the Supreme Law of either of our two lands is remarkable. Well, I do know how we do it: we call it a "Constitutional Exception", and I daresay our Founders would take exception to that.
I hope the Pirate Party of Canada runs in my riding this year. Digital privacy is obviously not a priority for the current government.
Oh ... it's a priority all right. It would be okay if it weren't a priority (that's how I look at government anymore, as an American. I prefer our Elected Representatives to spend time arguing over stupid things like "flag burning measures" and other such tripe. We the People are usually better off they don't get too focused) but in this case I'd say your government is making your lack of privacy a major priority. That ought to concern all of you, as it concerns me, because every time some other country (the UK, especially) does something likes this it gives Congress and our three-letter organizations some bad ideas: "well ... if it worked for Canada ..."
... I guess if it's on a computer it doesn't count as "unreasonable" when you search for and seize it.
I understood Canada's Charter of Rights (did I get that right?) as having protections against unreasonable search and seizure, much like our Constitution. Of course, our Federal Government has been ignoring those protections at will for some time now
Time to start clinical testing for megalomania, sociopathy, and other relevant psychological disorders amongst corporate and political leaders. Weed them out before they ever get into a position of authority.
We test school bus drivers to make sure they aren't nuts. Why should a politician be treated any differently in that regard?