Did you know sourceforge (!?!?) also blocks legitimate mail from hosts listed in the MAPS DUL? This situation is ridiculous. I've been feverishly trying to figure out how to get qmail-remote to rate monitor its sending to an outbound relay. Comcast currently throttles you if you send >48 messages in a 60 second period. So if you have a mailing list, forget it, you're hosed.
What I've done temporarily is send to an alternate broadband connection that isn't yet listed in the DUL. Probably this option will disappear soon. My plan is to have qmail-remote support grepping the responses sent by a remote mail server in case of temporary or permanent failure, and then redirect to an outgoing relay mailserver when that happens. This way, it can detect DUL failures, and for the mostpart, deliver by itself, but when a message includes the DUL URL or some other regexp that indicates blacklisting, just bounce through Comcast's outgoing mailserver.
Anyone else dealing with this problem and found a good solution?
The real solution is to get a real isp that cares about its customers and fights to get their ips off these lists or provide real outgoing relay service. It seems that to participate in the internet in a publishing fashion, you need to fork out megabucks. So, the internet is becoming like all the other big media. Cheap to consume, but forget about publishing, it's not for you, Joe Public.
I'm currently looking into colocation/dedicated hosting or maybe just smtp relaying. What is everyone else doing?
Right, but you have to weigh this. Maybe you look back 20 years later and wonder if you'd stayed on the board, could you have prevented the curtailing to TIA demands that led to some elimination of privacy rights?
Maybe he could have done more good by remaining involved than not. Tough situation to be in, either way.
It sucks for them, but it's their server on the net and their responsibility to pay for the bandwidth used.
So I have something that answers to an ip address. What's bandwidth? If someone's hammering me with any kind of packet, it doesn't matter what I do with my networking layer, it's already been sent to me by the ISP and therefore counts as bandwidth? If so, I'm completely at the mercy of literally anyone on the internet (my ISP included, if they so desire to ramp my fees) who wants to spew whatever they want at me, despite the fact that I don't even look at the traffic, and I have to pay for that incoming bandwidth?
IANAL, but I woudl think charges resulting for an attack would be pretty easy to dispute in civil court. Unfortunately, you're probably always losing the potential to use some bandwidth because of various attacks, spam included.
I actually prefer and use a BSD style license for my works.
I agree with you, and apologize. I may have been ambiguous, but I didn't realize Open Source carried with it the connotation of forced open source like the GPL stipulates. Isn't BSD style licensing considered open source?
I certainly didn't hear about this until a number of groups announced it yesterday, but then, I stopped running sendmail after the umpteenth root exploit back in the 90s, so I couldn't give a damn about it.
Regardless, I read the exploit has been known since January of this year. Is this correct? If so, I find it hard to believe The Office of Homeland Security kept this under wraps and away from the hacker community for this long a period of time. The announcement and fix to this exploit are anything but timely.
Point in case; there are plenty of bots available for jabber servers. Join any of the public groupchats conference.jabber.org hosts and there are often bots hanging around with that "common knowledge." Additionally, there are plenty of examples of bots already around built upon the numerous APIs to jabber, including a number written in perl against NET::Jabber.
I personally use one that checks my presence and sends me messages if mail shows up in my inbox and I'm in one of the availability modes I've defined as meaning I'd like to hear biff bark.
Which is why to this day I can't stand to use Linux as a desktop. Once I start a compile, I might as well give up use of the machine for any windowing system tasks. Not the case with FreeBSD (haven't tried others). I've been itchy for Linux to get better VM and scheduler for a long time.
You ignore those of us to whom the concepts a particular editor uses just come naturally and make sense. If I can moded text editing with vi key bindings that hook into the editors functionality and provide complete vi compatibility, I would care less what kind of editor I use. It simply wouldn't matter.
For me, vi will always be the way because I can accomplish anything I need to do in the editor without touching the mouse or auxiliary keys on the keyboard. My hands mostly never leave the home rows. Heck you can even use ctrl-[ for escape and avoid that reach.
These editors of today with their slick GUIs and syntax completion are nice and all, but what frickin' good is it if it reduces your ability to produce by 1/3 or more? Most times I am faster just typing everything out.
I do realize I'm an exception - I type >100wpm, something most people don't. I learned vi young, and use it frequently. If you can internalize its usage, it is MUCH faster than using anything where you must take your hands off the keyboard at routine intervals to go hit arrow keys or use the mouse.
I think we could probably do without DRM if P2P networks were properly regulated. To be considered a legitimate technology, P2P networks ought to have had anti-piracy measures in place from the start. But they didn't, of course, because most of them are explicitly intended for the purpose of trading copyrighted works.
I have to disagree. I see the problems with P2P networks as being enforcement issues. There is no reason to curtail anyone's fair use rights simply because a technology exists for distribution. That's a slippery slope that leads to doing away with cdrom drives that can rip music, computers that can run software not approved (read: licensed) by the media cartels.
In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, they aren't. The difference is that millions of people are using P2P for illegal purposes, but only one (that I know of) used a car to intentionally run over her husband.
Plenty of people have killed others with cars, or done worse. Look what regulation has done there. The average U.S. driver's capabilities are vastly inferior to what many conditions require. We as a society have tried to "regulate" who can get licenses, but it certainly hasn't done much good in terms of preparing drivers for the situations they will encounter, or making sure they are competent and predictably safe.
Contrary to popular/. belief, the law is not solely based on principles, it is also reactive. If large numbers of people start abusing a system, the system needs to be regulated. If millions of people are exploiting a loophole in a law, the law needs to be changed. Ideally, the law ought to be proactive as well, but it rarely is.
I don't know if I agree with popular/. belief or not, but I do believe the law is reactive and principle based. However, I think the law needs to examine the basis for people using a loophole if there is one. In the case of P2P, I don't see one. It is a violation to distribute copyrighted work. Regardless of whatever the case may be, the law is often-times controlled and written by those with the corporate profits to wield. Many injustices against the public good go on every day because some fat-cat wants to keep his company revenues growing and they've bought congress to do so. Before this whole idea of regulating a system that exploits loopholes in the law will work, the law has to actually be written with the public good in mind.
Source code is only marginally an expression of creativity. Coding may be "an art", but it is not "art". Baboon feces slung at a canvas may be disgusting, but it still qualifies as art, perhaps only by the process of elimination (if it's not art, then what is it?).
I have mixed feelings here. Developing source code is an artistic thing. Source code in and of itself is not art because it puts into place some process for doing work, but the act of building source code is definitely a craft or art. Regardless, this whole issue clearly speaks to the huge problems with intellectual property law that must be solved.
Whenever you have a law, people are going to look for loopholes in that law. It's up to the courts to sniff out people who are merely trying to exploit a loophole in the law to facilitate another criminal act. Remember the Seinfeld episode, where a guy claimed he was a pickpocket "artist"?
I think we also need to examine if a "criminal act" is in fact a "criminal act" based on the mores of our society, or if it is a "criminal act" because someone at the RIAA said so and bought the political influence to make it law. No, I'm not referring to distributing copyrighted material you don't own. A good example of what I'm talking about is the right to reverse engineer something you've bought and own (or own the right to use (here we go into the IP law problem)).
Well, I noticed that you posted a bunch of anti-DMCA, pro-fair use comments. I suppose you could be anti-DMCA and anti-P2P, but not many people are. If that is the case then I apolopize for assuming wrong.
I am anti-DMCA, pro-fair use. I am also pro-P2P. However, that does not mean I am pro-stealing other people's work. I use networks like FurthurNet because I can trade music freed by its creators. P2P is a tool. Misuse of it is something I don't support. I also can't support the way the music industry is attempting to restrict my life and use of content based on the fact that I might misuse that technology to break a law. I recognize you don't want to argue by analogy, but there is no difference between this and telling me I cannot drive because I could misuse my Mercedes to run over my husband.
Actually yes. I see no reason to automatically preserve rights that were awarded based on out-of-date circumstances. The constitution has been amended a bunch of times to add new rights, but not to take old ones away. On the heels of the revolutionary war, congress added some reactionary measures. The justification behind the second amendment seems pretty old-fashioned today.
With respect to our rights to own firearms, I feel strongly we should still have those rights. Is the justification for them to prevent the government from instituting unlawful martial law? I don't know.
The first amendment -- a reaction to the British banning "certain kinds of assemblies" -- is being extended in far-reaching ways. Regardless of your stance on the DMCA, application of the first amendment to source code strikes me as a dogmatic interpretation of "rights", and an indication that the constitution needs to be updated.
Why should the first amendment apply to an artist who wants to make art generally considered obscene but not to someone's source code? Both are an expression of creativity.
People like me? What generalization have you made about me because I think taxing me for something within another state's jurisdiction is wrong?
What can you presume I would say about the RIAA debate? Not to get off topic, but I believe they are going after the wrong criminals. I pay for use of the content I want, and I do so by purchasing cds or whatever because that is the means to get content I want with the highest quality. Their mechanism for stopping the piracy they claim is costing them business will in the end cost them more business than it was worth, and they'll learn that or go bust.
Regardless, why do you think I want a free lunch? I want to be able to choose how and where I buy my products. If I lived in PA (Philadelphia, maybe), I'd drive to DE to purchase goods, because you know what? No sales tax.
So anyway, what's malleable about "rights?" With the way congress is behaving, rights of the masses are clearly malleable. Do you think they should be?
There was a recent article on this on/. where I saw many good arguments about states trying to tax internet/mail order sales.
I am still at a loss to understand why the state I'm sitting in has a right to tax something I purchased elsewhere. Is it solely the fact that I'm sitting in their jurisdiction? Really, then, they're after me, and they're using the retailer as a collector for their tax. How can my state tell some company in another state they must comply with tax laws where I sit? Doesn't this interfere with interstate commerce, the domain of the federal government?
I saw an argument that resources provided by my state are used in the transaction (things like the roads the UPS truck drives on and so forth). I just don't buy that. What am I (or the merchant) paying for shipping? We're paying a fee to a company that operates in my state which pays taxes based on its revenue which should be used to pay for those state services.
This whole internet tax thing just feels like a big attempt to get some budget revenue for states in budget crises. It's the big juicy target of today they're all hoping to nail. It seems to me they should be laying off state workers (just like so many of us were laid off from the private industry) instead of trying to cover their lack of financial prudence.
While scientists think about small sizes and environmental benefits, I also think if it would be possible to implant such bacteria for additional computational power in human brains -- just in case we have to upgrade them.
To me the smart thing to implant those bacteria in are the computers/machines/whatever they produce in the first place. Think about it. Your machine breaks. You throw in some "food" for the bacteria and it repairs the problem.
You can actually do more to make a difference than you think. Write your congress(wo)man a well-worded physical letter stating why you support this legislation and why they should as your representative sign-on to support it and help ensure it passes. The legislators must look at each letter as representing a larger portion of their consitituents than just yourself, based on the statistics of per-capita letter writing. If everyone on/. that believed in this legislation did the same, we'd probably have enough overlap that it would get something done.
I just recently moved to WI. I will definitely be voting for Russ Feingold in the future.
For those of you in Southwest Virginia (where I used to hail from), there is someone equally worthy to vote for, though he's a representative rather than a senator. Support Rick Boucher as well. He's introduced the recent act to limit the DMCA.
The precious few of us in the US with a brain have made our arguments. What can I say that hasn't been said before. I have just three words to describe how depressed I am about the erosion of individual rights for corporate entities to make profits and continue changing America into a corporation state:
I still don't understand why SGI has foregone such a great OS as IRIX. Why go with Linux? Just trendy, or does it really offer advantages for scientific computing?
So what if there's a DMCA loophole that prevents prosecution through the DMCA? Isn't copyright infringement illegal? Sharing a recorded TV show with someone outside of your household is certainly copyright infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
I have been caught by this recently, too.
Did you know sourceforge (!?!?) also blocks legitimate mail from hosts listed in the MAPS DUL? This situation is ridiculous. I've been feverishly trying to figure out how to get qmail-remote to rate monitor its sending to an outbound relay. Comcast currently throttles you if you send >48 messages in a 60 second period. So if you have a mailing list, forget it, you're hosed.
What I've done temporarily is send to an alternate broadband connection that isn't yet listed in the DUL. Probably this option will disappear soon. My plan is to have qmail-remote support grepping the responses sent by a remote mail server in case of temporary or permanent failure, and then redirect to an outgoing relay mailserver when that happens. This way, it can detect DUL failures, and for the mostpart, deliver by itself, but when a message includes the DUL URL or some other regexp that indicates blacklisting, just bounce through Comcast's outgoing mailserver.
Anyone else dealing with this problem and found a good solution?
The real solution is to get a real isp that cares about its customers and fights to get their ips off these lists or provide real outgoing relay service. It seems that to participate in the internet in a publishing fashion, you need to fork out megabucks. So, the internet is becoming like all the other big media. Cheap to consume, but forget about publishing, it's not for you, Joe Public.
I'm currently looking into colocation/dedicated hosting or maybe just smtp relaying. What is everyone else doing?
Right, but you have to weigh this. Maybe you look back 20 years later and wonder if you'd stayed on the board, could you have prevented the curtailing to TIA demands that led to some elimination of privacy rights?
Maybe he could have done more good by remaining involved than not. Tough situation to be in, either way.
Linux is a variant of Unix and isn't copyrighted.
Not only is Linux copyrighted, it is in fact not a variant of Unix. It's a kernel! :)
So I have something that answers to an ip address. What's bandwidth? If someone's hammering me with any kind of packet, it doesn't matter what I do with my networking layer, it's already been sent to me by the ISP and therefore counts as bandwidth? If so, I'm completely at the mercy of literally anyone on the internet (my ISP included, if they so desire to ramp my fees) who wants to spew whatever they want at me, despite the fact that I don't even look at the traffic, and I have to pay for that incoming bandwidth?
IANAL, but I woudl think charges resulting for an attack would be pretty easy to dispute in civil court. Unfortunately, you're probably always losing the potential to use some bandwidth because of various attacks, spam included.
I actually prefer and use a BSD style license for my works.
I agree with you, and apologize. I may have been ambiguous, but I didn't realize Open Source carried with it the connotation of forced open source like the GPL stipulates. Isn't BSD style licensing considered open source?
I think government should be compelled^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hrequired to look at all alternatives, but not forced into anythiing.
On the related topic of what license should software carry if government funds its creation, I feel like open source should be a requirement.
Of course, this opens up all the little issues like, well, if it's truly open sourced, Canada could use it against us in an upcoming war.
I certainly didn't hear about this until a number of groups announced it yesterday, but then, I stopped running sendmail after the umpteenth root exploit back in the 90s, so I couldn't give a damn about it.
Regardless, I read the exploit has been known since January of this year. Is this correct? If so, I find it hard to believe The Office of Homeland Security kept this under wraps and away from the hacker community for this long a period of time. The announcement and fix to this exploit are anything but timely.
Point in case; there are plenty of bots available for jabber servers. Join any of the public groupchats conference.jabber.org hosts and there are often bots hanging around with that "common knowledge." Additionally, there are plenty of examples of bots already around built upon the numerous APIs to jabber, including a number written in perl against NET::Jabber.
I personally use one that checks my presence and sends me messages if mail shows up in my inbox and I'm in one of the availability modes I've defined as meaning I'd like to hear biff bark.
Which is why to this day I can't stand to use Linux as a desktop. Once I start a compile, I might as well give up use of the machine for any windowing system tasks. Not the case with FreeBSD (haven't tried others). I've been itchy for Linux to get better VM and scheduler for a long time.
Yet again, another patent looks overly broad and poorly awarded. /., be prepared to pay license fees for use of this patent.
You ignore those of us to whom the concepts a particular editor uses just come naturally and make sense. If I can moded text editing with vi key bindings that hook into the editors functionality and provide complete vi compatibility, I would care less what kind of editor I use. It simply wouldn't matter.
For me, vi will always be the way because I can accomplish anything I need to do in the editor without touching the mouse or auxiliary keys on the keyboard. My hands mostly never leave the home rows. Heck you can even use ctrl-[ for escape and avoid that reach.
These editors of today with their slick GUIs and syntax completion are nice and all, but what frickin' good is it if it reduces your ability to produce by 1/3 or more? Most times I am faster just typing everything out.
I do realize I'm an exception - I type >100wpm, something most people don't. I learned vi young, and use it frequently. If you can internalize its usage, it is MUCH faster than using anything where you must take your hands off the keyboard at routine intervals to go hit arrow keys or use the mouse.
My Linux installation looks much better than my Windows installations.
Have you looked at freetype and the TTF fonts available? This stuff looks great and is easy to read for me.
I have to disagree. I see the problems with P2P networks as being enforcement issues. There is no reason to curtail anyone's fair use rights simply because a technology exists for distribution. That's a slippery slope that leads to doing away with cdrom drives that can rip music, computers that can run software not approved (read: licensed) by the media cartels.
Plenty of people have killed others with cars, or done worse. Look what regulation has done there. The average U.S. driver's capabilities are vastly inferior to what many conditions require. We as a society have tried to "regulate" who can get licenses, but it certainly hasn't done much good in terms of preparing drivers for the situations they will encounter, or making sure they are competent and predictably safe.
I don't know if I agree with popular /. belief or not, but I do believe the law is reactive and principle based. However, I think the law needs to examine the basis for people using a loophole if there is one. In the case of P2P, I don't see one. It is a violation to distribute copyrighted work. Regardless of whatever the case may be, the law is often-times controlled and written by those with the corporate profits to wield. Many injustices against the public good go on every day because some fat-cat wants to keep his company revenues growing and they've bought congress to do so. Before this whole idea of regulating a system that exploits loopholes in the law will work, the law has to actually be written with the public good in mind.
I have mixed feelings here. Developing source code is an artistic thing. Source code in and of itself is not art because it puts into place some process for doing work, but the act of building source code is definitely a craft or art. Regardless, this whole issue clearly speaks to the huge problems with intellectual property law that must be solved.
I think we also need to examine if a "criminal act" is in fact a "criminal act" based on the mores of our society, or if it is a "criminal act" because someone at the RIAA said so and bought the political influence to make it law. No, I'm not referring to distributing copyrighted material you don't own. A good example of what I'm talking about is the right to reverse engineer something you've bought and own (or own the right to use (here we go into the IP law problem)).
I am anti-DMCA, pro-fair use. I am also pro-P2P. However, that does not mean I am pro-stealing other people's work. I use networks like FurthurNet because I can trade music freed by its creators. P2P is a tool. Misuse of it is something I don't support. I also can't support the way the music industry is attempting to restrict my life and use of content based on the fact that I might misuse that technology to break a law. I recognize you don't want to argue by analogy, but there is no difference between this and telling me I cannot drive because I could misuse my Mercedes to run over my husband.
With respect to our rights to own firearms, I feel strongly we should still have those rights. Is the justification for them to prevent the government from instituting unlawful martial law? I don't know.
Why should the first amendment apply to an artist who wants to make art generally considered obscene but not to someone's source code? Both are an expression of creativity.
People like me? What generalization have you made about me because I think taxing me for something within another state's jurisdiction is wrong?
What can you presume I would say about the RIAA debate? Not to get off topic, but I believe they are going after the wrong criminals. I pay for use of the content I want, and I do so by purchasing cds or whatever because that is the means to get content I want with the highest quality. Their mechanism for stopping the piracy they claim is costing them business will in the end cost them more business than it was worth, and they'll learn that or go bust.
Regardless, why do you think I want a free lunch? I want to be able to choose how and where I buy my products. If I lived in PA (Philadelphia, maybe), I'd drive to DE to purchase goods, because you know what? No sales tax.
So anyway, what's malleable about "rights?" With the way congress is behaving, rights of the masses are clearly malleable. Do you think they should be?
I'm lost.
/. where I saw many good arguments about states trying to tax internet/mail order sales.
There was a recent article on this on
I am still at a loss to understand why the state I'm sitting in has a right to tax something I purchased elsewhere. Is it solely the fact that I'm sitting in their jurisdiction? Really, then, they're after me, and they're using the retailer as a collector for their tax. How can my state tell some company in another state they must comply with tax laws where I sit? Doesn't this interfere with interstate commerce, the domain of the federal government?
I saw an argument that resources provided by my state are used in the transaction (things like the roads the UPS truck drives on and so forth). I just don't buy that. What am I (or the merchant) paying for shipping? We're paying a fee to a company that operates in my state which pays taxes based on its revenue which should be used to pay for those state services.
This whole internet tax thing just feels like a big attempt to get some budget revenue for states in budget crises. It's the big juicy target of today they're all hoping to nail. It seems to me they should be laying off state workers (just like so many of us were laid off from the private industry) instead of trying to cover their lack of financial prudence.
To me the smart thing to implant those bacteria in are the computers/machines/whatever they produce in the first place. Think about it. Your machine breaks. You throw in some "food" for the bacteria and it repairs the problem.
So what did you do? Change your address? Or wade through it all until eventually the maelstrom died down?
I'd be pretty upset if this happened to me.
You can actually do more to make a difference than you think. Write your congress(wo)man a well-worded physical letter stating why you support this legislation and why they should as your representative sign-on to support it and help ensure it passes. The legislators must look at each letter as representing a larger portion of their consitituents than just yourself, based on the statistics of per-capita letter writing. If everyone on /. that believed in this legislation did the same, we'd probably have enough overlap that it would get something done.
Don't send email. Send a paper letter!
I just recently moved to WI. I will definitely be voting for Russ Feingold in the future.
For those of you in Southwest Virginia (where I used to hail from), there is someone equally worthy to vote for, though he's a representative rather than a senator. Support Rick Boucher as well. He's introduced the recent act to limit the DMCA.
The precious few of us in the US with a brain have made our arguments. What can I say that hasn't been said before. I have just three words to describe how depressed I am about the erosion of individual rights for corporate entities to make profits and continue changing America into a corporation state:
fuck this country
;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.geourl.org. 28m24s IN A 127.0.0.1
So, whichever whacked out moderator moderated my original post on this as OverRated, buzz off.
Why is their A record pointing to 127.0.0.1?
So is the story a big joke or did someone go hack their DNS to point to 127.0.0.1?
Hmm.
I still don't understand why SGI has foregone such a great OS as IRIX. Why go with Linux? Just trendy, or does it really offer advantages for scientific computing?
So what if there's a DMCA loophole that prevents prosecution through the DMCA? Isn't copyright infringement illegal? Sharing a recorded TV show with someone outside of your household is certainly copyright infringement.