No it wouldn't. Just follow the proper protocol. The "From:" address should be your cable-domain address because that's what you're actually sending from. The "Reply-To:" address can be your dial-up address, because that's where you would like any replies to go.
You're spoofing your "From:" address at the moment, and that's exactly what nobody should be allowed to do for any reason...
All variants of "Make it computationally expensive to send e-mail!" prevent all mass mailings of all kinds... not just spam. You're tossing out a few babies with the bath water, that's just not a working solution.
Besides, there's not much stopping Spammers from just buying the processing resources they need. Whatever meaningless task is picked, development would immediately start on making that puzzle easier to solve. You'd start seeing processor chips dedicated to the task...
Being cash-expensive is less popular on/. because most geeks have more processor cycles than dollars, but at least cash has a more stable value over time...
f MY ISP decided that I could no longer use my personal email address while I was at work (or at an internet cafe, or whatever), I'd be pretty pissed.
What you're supposed to do is use a From: address indicating where you actually are, and a Reply-To: address that indicates where you would like replies to go. What AOL is setting up is the ability to say "That didn't really go through aol.com!" which basically makes aol.com a bad domain name to pick if you're going to spoof and spam.
Besides, any AOL subscriber who wants to send from their AOL address at work can by logging on through AOL's website...
It's shameless self promoting... the proper mod isn't "Troll" but simply "Overrated", but around here spammers tend to attract Troll mods because the main point is to just mod down such posts...
Google doesn't even own the Orkut.com domain name... some guy named Orkut who works for Google does. That's the "affiliation"... Orkut is not a formal project of Google, but a project that resulted when employees were given company time to work on personal projects. Therefore, this project hangs in an interesting space where Google somewhat owns it, but somewhat doesn't. That's what this strange "affiliation" thing is all about...
Yes, but Amazon has to tell the campaign that you gave $5 to them in order to make sure that's not the $5 that pushes you over a threshold value, so Amazon always has to turn over your name and address. From there, the campaign is free to use that information any way it wants...
Windows Media Center is meant to be a TiVo clone. In order for it to record the shows you want, you need to leave it up at all time. This stripped-down Linux just isn't going to make the cut... the proper mode of operation is to simply avoid rebooting by leaving it always-up.
It doesn't make Windows boot faster. It's just a stripped-down version of Linux which of course is going to boot faster because it provides far less functionality. If you want to get to full Windows, you'll have to wait out the remainder of the boot process you interrupted.
Any CD-based Linux distro can achieve the a similar effect with far more functionality.
Actually, it doesn't need very many ISPs to cooperate... just the ones that operates the trans-continental links that are between where you are and where the scammer is. They just have to set up one of their own servers to be the "bad" IP address and feed redirects, and then set their routers to intercept all traffic destined for that IP address.
I'm pretty sure everyone who provides Internet connectivity to places that are scam havens are used to doing this.
Futhermore, such a demographic has all of their money in savings accounts and they remember exactly why the FDIC exists, as a never-let-that-happen-again fallback to the banking crisis of the Great Depression. These people have absolutely no risk tolerance with their money, so even an unclear threat to their FDIC insurance is something that causes them to pay attention.
Just like the Nigerian scam, it only takes about 0.001% of the population to fall for it in order to make a lot of cash.
Sending scam Spam is just as cheap as sending any other form of Spam. I'd guess these scammers are in the black if they just get one bank account cleaned out...
FDIC has nothing to patch, their only problem is that their name is being used without their permission. The bug is in IE, which is on the user side of things.
The stores not using their databases to notify consumers are taking an interesting stance. They're saying that they don't want customers to think that their privacy rights can be abused by the discount card data collection.
But, anybody who reads/. knows that the data collected by the cards can be abused. It's almost as if the stores are trying to admit to the great unwashed that they're actually collecting data down to the UPC, location, and timestamp level. We all know they are, they're not saying they're not, but they don't want to announce it that loudly... seems like a state of denial to me.
The "Money primaries" are an important benchmark of a candidate's support before the actual voting starts... every quarter the FEC releases the contributor lists and totals and whomever has the most money is presumed to have the advantage. This seems to be a real-time tracking of at least a subset of contributions...
Actually, if you contribute by credit card to a campaign, a piece of your contribution gets taken by Visa or Mastercard since they're obligated to charge their normal merchant fees anyway too.
Google has in recent months taken up a strategy of buying up every website with "google" in their domain name in a brand-image protection spree. They recently got computer parts storeGoogleGear.com to change its name to ZipZoomFly.com... which was a very interesting case because Google had no legal leg to stand on... the computer gear store had named its mascot a "Google" before the search engine existed, the sites looked completely different, and the computer gear store didn't do web searching and the web searching company didn't sell computer gear.
The deal was apparently struck quietly, but clearly some cash was paid. There never was any media coverage of the event, and I'm pretty sure the terms of the deal reqires the computer gear store to not disclose how much they got.
Slashdot Mirror
No it wouldn't. Just follow the proper protocol. The "From:" address should be your cable-domain address because that's what you're actually sending from. The "Reply-To:" address can be your dial-up address, because that's where you would like any replies to go.
You're spoofing your "From:" address at the moment, and that's exactly what nobody should be allowed to do for any reason...
All variants of "Make it computationally expensive to send e-mail!" prevent all mass mailings of all kinds... not just spam. You're tossing out a few babies with the bath water, that's just not a working solution.
/. because most geeks have more processor cycles than dollars, but at least cash has a more stable value over time...
Besides, there's not much stopping Spammers from just buying the processing resources they need. Whatever meaningless task is picked, development would immediately start on making that puzzle easier to solve. You'd start seeing processor chips dedicated to the task...
Being cash-expensive is less popular on
f MY ISP decided that I could no longer use my personal email address while I was at work (or at an internet cafe, or whatever), I'd be pretty pissed.
What you're supposed to do is use a From: address indicating where you actually are, and a Reply-To: address that indicates where you would like replies to go. What AOL is setting up is the ability to say "That didn't really go through aol.com!" which basically makes aol.com a bad domain name to pick if you're going to spoof and spam.
Besides, any AOL subscriber who wants to send from their AOL address at work can by logging on through AOL's website...
It's shameless self promoting... the proper mod isn't "Troll" but simply "Overrated", but around here spammers tend to attract Troll mods because the main point is to just mod down such posts...
Google doesn't even own the Orkut.com domain name... some guy named Orkut who works for Google does. That's the "affiliation"... Orkut is not a formal project of Google, but a project that resulted when employees were given company time to work on personal projects. Therefore, this project hangs in an interesting space where Google somewhat owns it, but somewhat doesn't. That's what this strange "affiliation" thing is all about...
...and without Friendster's poor stability...
Recapping our top story: Orkut is down at the moment.
You don't. This service is right now only meant for the friends of the developers and their friends and their friends and their friends...
Those who are not 6 degrees of friendship away from the developers may be waiting a while.
Or maybe this was a small project that was not expecting the attention of a slashdotting because it's not ready yet...
It still ran quickly, but like infestations of mice, people were going where they shouldn't, exposing the systems weaknesses. :)
:)
Translation: Users were able to do things they weren't supposed to... no need for security holes when you have wide open doors.
Yes, but Amazon has to tell the campaign that you gave $5 to them in order to make sure that's not the $5 that pushes you over a threshold value, so Amazon always has to turn over your name and address. From there, the campaign is free to use that information any way it wants...
Then, everybody insists on loading at startup in Linux... and everything comes crashing down again.
Windows Media Center is meant to be a TiVo clone. In order for it to record the shows you want, you need to leave it up at all time. This stripped-down Linux just isn't going to make the cut... the proper mode of operation is to simply avoid rebooting by leaving it always-up.
It doesn't make Windows boot faster. It's just a stripped-down version of Linux which of course is going to boot faster because it provides far less functionality. If you want to get to full Windows, you'll have to wait out the remainder of the boot process you interrupted.
Any CD-based Linux distro can achieve the a similar effect with far more functionality.
Actually, it doesn't need very many ISPs to cooperate... just the ones that operates the trans-continental links that are between where you are and where the scammer is. They just have to set up one of their own servers to be the "bad" IP address and feed redirects, and then set their routers to intercept all traffic destined for that IP address.
I'm pretty sure everyone who provides Internet connectivity to places that are scam havens are used to doing this.
Futhermore, such a demographic has all of their money in savings accounts and they remember exactly why the FDIC exists, as a never-let-that-happen-again fallback to the banking crisis of the Great Depression. These people have absolutely no risk tolerance with their money, so even an unclear threat to their FDIC insurance is something that causes them to pay attention.
Apparently /. has it's own version of a fake-URL issue thanks to Amazon and a rather open redirector script...
Just like the Nigerian scam, it only takes about 0.001% of the population to fall for it in order to make a lot of cash.
Sending scam Spam is just as cheap as sending any other form of Spam. I'd guess these scammers are in the black if they just get one bank account cleaned out...
Either that, or he's predicting the outcome of a war that's been threatened for years but hasn't happened yet...
FDIC has nothing to patch, their only problem is that their name is being used without their permission. The bug is in IE, which is on the user side of things.
The real www.fdic.gov is running a rather standard press release to warn that it's a scam.
Consumers never have any reason at all to send information to the FDIC. They already can get all they need to know out of banks.
The stores not using their databases to notify consumers are taking an interesting stance. They're saying that they don't want customers to think that their privacy rights can be abused by the discount card data collection.
/. knows that the data collected by the cards can be abused. It's almost as if the stores are trying to admit to the great unwashed that they're actually collecting data down to the UPC, location, and timestamp level. We all know they are, they're not saying they're not, but they don't want to announce it that loudly... seems like a state of denial to me.
But, anybody who reads
The "Money primaries" are an important benchmark of a candidate's support before the actual voting starts... every quarter the FEC releases the contributor lists and totals and whomever has the most money is presumed to have the advantage. This seems to be a real-time tracking of at least a subset of contributions...
Actually, if you contribute by credit card to a campaign, a piece of your contribution gets taken by Visa or Mastercard since they're obligated to charge their normal merchant fees anyway too.
No need to sell it. Presidential campaign contributors have to be disclosed...
Google has in recent months taken up a strategy of buying up every website with "google" in their domain name in a brand-image protection spree. They recently got computer parts storeGoogleGear.com to change its name to ZipZoomFly.com... which was a very interesting case because Google had no legal leg to stand on... the computer gear store had named its mascot a "Google" before the search engine existed, the sites looked completely different, and the computer gear store didn't do web searching and the web searching company didn't sell computer gear.
The deal was apparently struck quietly, but clearly some cash was paid. There never was any media coverage of the event, and I'm pretty sure the terms of the deal reqires the computer gear store to not disclose how much they got.