approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it (X) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it (X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email (X) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses (X) Asshats (X) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers (X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. (X) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Perhaps this will reverse the recent increase in their stock price. They haven't been spreading much FUD recently, so why has their stock been going up?
Yes, winamp3 was even more bloated and even more crap.
That doesn't stop winamp5 from being a bloated piece of crap in its own right though. It's much more sluggish than winamp2 - do a head-to-head on an older system and you'll see what I mean.
Not for me. The "Load file" dialogue that pops up when you click the "eject" button takes about 10 times longer to appear under Winamp 5. And since that's one of the only two buttons I ever click (the other being play/pause), I've always preferred 2.9x.
I'm prepared to accept that Winamp 3 was even worse though:-)
This BBC story says that "Plans to fill a nuclear landmine with chickens to regulate its temperature were considered during the Cold War. Officials at the National Archives say it is coincidence the secret plan was revealed on 1 April."
I, for one, welcome our nuclear chicken overlords...
The IT-frontliner goes home, and is emotionally exhausted
More to the point, the IT-frontliner goes home (more often than not) to a cascade of requests from friends, family and neighbours, along the lines of "Duh.. my Intarweb Excel is really slow again, can you take a look at it?"...
Slashdot Mirror
Um, you just emailed Comcast Support a PBS ad...
Great. But what happens when an exploit is found for 2.661?
.sig is an MT blog - for now...
Will sixapart issue a version 2.662?
Or will they advise people to upgrade to 3.0?
And yes, the link in my
Presumably the aftermath of the shoe event horizon!
Grr, use html for links! :)
click for pic
I think you mean ex-crackers. Don't make me sic RMS on you...
Beat you to it. nyah!
I was slightly surprised to see that myself :)
Your post advocates a
( ) technical
(X) legislative
( ) market-based
( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(X) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(X) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(X) Asshats
(X) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(X) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
Perhaps this will reverse the recent increase in their stock price. They haven't been spreading much FUD recently, so why has their stock been going up?
Thanks, just installed it and it looks like just what I need.
Bye bye Winamp.
double wrong.
Yes, winamp3 was even more bloated and even more crap.
That doesn't stop winamp5 from being a bloated piece of crap in its own right though. It's much more sluggish than winamp2 - do a head-to-head on an older system and you'll see what I mean.
Not for me. The "Load file" dialogue that pops up when you click the "eject" button takes about 10 times longer to appear under Winamp 5. And since that's one of the only two buttons I ever click (the other being play/pause), I've always preferred 2.9x.
:-)
I'm prepared to accept that Winamp 3 was even worse though
I see nullsoft have also used this opportunity to force all us old Winamp 2.9 users to upgrade to the bloated POS Winamp 5 player.
Some of us just want an MP3 player - we don't need cpu-hogging visualisations, 100s of "cool" skins, or any of the rest of it.
Time to give some of the other players a try, methinks...
</rant>
Too right!
/dev/urandom as a valid configuration file must be destroyed!
Any software which will accept
Not really - it's hard to take, but there really are systems out there who still haven't patched these vulnerabilities!
This BBC story says that "Plans to fill a nuclear landmine with chickens to regulate its temperature were considered during the Cold War. Officials at the National Archives say it is coincidence the secret plan was revealed on 1 April."
I, for one, welcome our nuclear chicken overlords...
I respectfully disagree - all three can be bad.
:-)
Think Mandrake, Anchovies, and um... teeth
Unfortunately, it still doesn't validate!
I would invite any "thinking Christian" to submit a reasoned, logical proof of the ridiculous fairy stories they choose to believe in.
Until I see such logical proof of this or any other religion, I shall continue to label all followers as "blindly believing masses".
And as the AC said, "hand-waving emotional appeals and quotes from the Bible are worthless"...
I hate lazy people.
google cache
should have started!
Write it out 100 times, on my desk in the morning.
It really isn't a troll, I just verified it.