When I was in Sweden, the government there was trying to limit where windmills could be used, as they often killed birds, some of which may have been rare, or on the verge of existence.
On the verge of existence? That must have been Schroedingers' Bird - the last of which may or may not be going to have been eaten by a cat.
*as a side note, it wouldn't hurt to sign up and learn how your enemy thinks, and how he employs his tactics. Before you gun him down like a dog in the street, that is.
Thanks for the suggestion, but no thanks. It doesn't look like you or any other anti-spam vilgilantes getting mounted up on this thread are going to ask if I was an anti-spammer just checking out the bad-guys digs.
Linuxwranger, how about *you* making your mailserver RFC compliant:
What you propose is an explict breach of RFC 2821 as detailed in section 4.1.4
An SMTP server MAY verify that the domain name parameter in the EHLO
command actually corresponds to the IP address of the client.
However, the server MUST NOT refuse to accept a message for this
reason if the verification fails: the information about verification
failure is for logging and tracing only.
Isn't this a breach of RFC 2821? Once you've saiud you will receive the DATA for the message you should receive the emssage DATA and then send a rejection message.
Most mail servers will just retry if you just drop a connection in the middle of transmission of the mail data, which seems to be what you are suggesting. What happens on the reconnects (and the increased load that induces)?
Mr Atkinson was interview on a 'current affairs' show on the state broadcaster.
What I find most notable is that he can barely suppress the smirk [IMO] when he says he didn't do anything wrong, and also when he said he was going to stop.
According to the article, the "natural" elemements "run out" at 92
1) What does this mean exactly?
It means that the first 92 elements can be found naturally occurring, but that after 92 (the trans-uranic elements) have to be produced in a laboratory or under artifical conditions if you want useful amounts.
2) Is it not possible for us to discover other natural elements?
If by discover, you mean create then yes. Since an element is definied by the number of (integer >0) protons, any new elements created must have an atomic number >92.
3) Is it inconceivable that our "new" elements could also be produced under similar conditions in nature?
Not inconceivable. It has been verified that minutes amounts of trans-uranic elements have been found in nature. But given that these lements have a very short life time (before they decay into other elements), you'd have to be around immediately after their formation to detect them in nature. Since their creation requires high amounts of energy, super nova, intense gamma radiation near black holes, etc, are the sort of environments where you might find naturally ocurring trans-uranic elements (remembering too that you basically need to smash into heavy elements to get the trans-uranic ones, the very heavy ones need to be present to). Such environments are are rare and not conducive to observation. Given that the elements in the universe are hydrogen, helium and minor traces short-lived trans-uranic are not going to be found in nature in any partical sense.
4) Have all of these new elements only existed in very small quantities for short periods of time, under controlled conditions?
Yes. There are some theories that there would be an island of stability around element 120+. Scientists are working to create a stable trans-uranic element, and I for one welcome our trans-uranic overlords and would like to remind them that being primarily made of stable isotopes I can be useful in rounding up other carbon based elemental life forms to slave in their radioactive piles.
The problem faced by Trustic was a lack of positive recommendations. People were quick to complain about spam, but slow to make any positive recommendations.
The effect of this was that large mail servers (eg cable gateways, etc) which let through a very small percentage of spam but s detectable quantity, would get a host of negative recommendations and the server would become untrusted.
I don't think this was an unsolvable problem - it requires dealing with trust, and positive versus negative recommendations, and volume assessments. But it should be possible to come up with a function that would give meaningful responses even in an inherent;y untrustworthy system of recommendations, and disproportionately few positive recommendations.
For one thing an inappropriate listing of untrusted would provoke a host of positive recommendations.
And of course you could/should whitelist your Mum's cable based SMTP server anyway.
There are people who want to pick up the Trustic idea (or keep Trustic going if possible), and I wish them every success and will support any such efforts.
I think there is a place for cooperative based recommendations estabishing a trust network. It will just take time and thought to determine how to balance the positive and negative recommendations.
What I particularly like about Trustic is that I can make recommendations based on IP address alone - if a mail server tries to send email to clearwater@codeworks.gen.nz I KNOW it is sending spam - I could reject the recipient, and report the IP without incurring the time and bandwidth of accepting the mail message.
48 survive. It's the writings in the margin that make this one so different (and hence valuable)!
It was marked up by monks who scratched out some passages and corrected others. Other markings indicate which sections were to be read aloud or reserved for church services.
"Our copy is the most interesting in the world," Oram said.
This is probably the most extensively annotated and corrected copy surviving. This is a very great treasure.
-- Paul Needham, Princeton University
So all these annotation and corrections on/. will make this the most valuable...ummmm....
Ahh yes, a screenshot with the infinite variety and subtle shades of colour, best captured as a JPG image for smoothing out that overly-crisp text.
Make sure you keep the image quality high enough to capture every nuance of the subtle faux wood-grain background (and by background I mean 68.3% of the image), not forgetting the coffee cup stain.
Be sure to include the whole of the phone including every dialing digit, because that gives context to the screenshot.
Well done. You passed the 0.5 Mb threshold, but still shy of the 0.6 standard. Try a brightly coloured background (a stained tartan kilt plus sporan should do) next time. Remember you want to get to at least 1.5 Mb so it won't fit on a floppy.
Would it not be possible to run a modified Freenet node that had a list of keys which it would not accept for inserting, forwarding or relaying on?
Then IF (a BIG IF) ou had a trusted list of say, the keys of the Kiddie porn, you could elect, on your own system, not to be a part, however indirect, of storing or passing through requests.
Is there any technical reason why this could not be done? I know the data is encrypted, but the keys must not be.
Obviously this would have wide potential for abuse and censorship, but the choice of what to block would be on each Freenet node. Furthermore, the blocking list would be an index of what the perverts wanted. Unavoidable I guess.
Also you might be held more liable if there was such a blocking list, and you weren't using it.
But I would certainly be more comfortable running my node if I had that option.
And when I want to send an email larger than 5 Mb my ISP's outbound mail server won't let me?
When my ISPs outbound mail server gets on a DNSBL, my mail gets blocked.
I get no warning that my mail has been undelivered for 5 days, and sometimes never, from my ISPs outbound mail server
My ISPs outbound mailserver goes down for a day (this is the largest ISP in New Zealand). One day is a record but 4-12 hours is common. Other ISPs have the same problem. There is limited choice for ADSL lines so don't say just choose another ISP.
My delivery time isn't dependent on the queue on at the ISP.
All actual cases, which is why I run my own SMTP server on my ADSL line.
Of course, any machine might be configrued to execute anything, but you should also consider these common executable types: msi cpl crt esc inf ins isp mde ms c msp mst ocx pcd sct vb wsf wsh
Nope, coz see I'm not distributing the program. Making alphabetised source (well ideally SCO can just tell me what lines they are interested in and I can just send them an extract:-) ) available in response to a legal challenge would not count as distributing the program because a) it's not the program, and b) it's not a distribution of the program.
So you're saying you don't mind one order of magnitude more spam (ie 10 times as much)...100 minutes per day in your life spent sorting through spam is ok, but 1000 minutes is where you would draw the line?
Bizarro.
I am reject 1280+ spams per day. My grateful thanks to bl.reynolds.net.au bl.spamcop.net and list.dsbl.org
Like most people I suspect your grasp of "really obscure" is about as good as Microsoft's grasp of security through not documenting anything.
On March 6 I created a Hotmail account with a choice of name designed to be "really obscure". I have not had one single piece of spam arrive in that account. In 3 months, no spam. I've only used this account to test whether spammers use email addresses harvested from 551 User not local; please try really-obscure@hotmail.com SMTP responses (conclusion - no they don't)
Having see dictionary attacks on my own domain (and seen the bounces from dictionary attacks when spammers fake my source email address), I can conclude that geeks choice of obscure doesn't range far off science fiction character names.
As for this Hotmail exploit, I had been wondering why these spams were getting through my DNSBL lists - about the only spam that was.
Time to add hotmail.com to the baclklist until Microsoft fix this.
You are quite incorrect. This is a common misunderstanding of the GPL and it's important to get it right.
The GPL (version 2) states
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have.
But I am not distributing my SCO friendly version of Linux so this provision does not apply.
Moreover, I can take any software under GPL, modify it to my own heart's desire, and I'm under no obligation to make the changed programme, or the source code, available to anyone.
Nor does my having any GPL software, modified or not, require me to make the source available to anyone, unless I am distributing it.
So I'm quite entitled to offer SCO my alphabetised listing so they can check if their proprietary for (i=1;i>=n;i++) is present or not.
We apologise for this GPL community service announcement and return you to your regularly scheduled/.
Thank you for your letter requesting royalties. I must advise you that I have modified my copy of Linux and it now longer contains any of the code you allege is your property.
I would be happy to show you my revised code so you can verify my claim, if you wouldn't mind filling out this NDA (attached). Oh, and don't forget to let me know which lines you want to see. I have my lines of source code sorted in alphabetical order for your ease of reference.
Does anyone know of places where the various DNSBL are discussed and reviewed?
A discussion board/website or something where people can offer reviews, report problems, and discuss their choices of what DNSBL work for them, and which one's don't - and why?
Which ones have high collateral damage, which don't, and which ones are changing their policies.
NZ TV Listing
Star Trek
Comedy starring Kim Basinger and Bruce Willis. A workaholic is set up on a business blind date with a woman who when drunk, loses control and becomes a wild party girl. Directed by Blake Edwards.
Ok, off-topic, but where else can I post this?
And I'm sure some/.er can quote the episode that will make this on-topic...
Slashdot Mirror
On the verge of existence? That must have been Schroedingers' Bird - the last of which may or may not be going to have been eaten by a cat.
Thanks for the suggestion, but no thanks. It doesn't look like you or any other anti-spam vilgilantes getting mounted up on this thread are going to ask if I was an anti-spammer just checking out the bad-guys digs.
What you propose is an explict breach of RFC 2821 as detailed in section 4.1.4
Most mail servers will just retry if you just drop a connection in the middle of transmission of the mail data, which seems to be what you are suggesting. What happens on the reconnects (and the increased load that induces)?
What I find most notable is that he can barely suppress the smirk [IMO] when he says he didn't do anything wrong, and also when he said he was going to stop.
RealVideo can be found here: http://www.tvone.co.nz/programmes/holmes/
That's your complete set. Thank you. I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your physisicts.
1) What does this mean exactly?
It means that the first 92 elements can be found naturally occurring, but that after 92 (the trans-uranic elements) have to be produced in a laboratory or under artifical conditions if you want useful amounts.
2) Is it not possible for us to discover other natural elements?
If by discover, you mean create then yes. Since an element is definied by the number of (integer >0) protons, any new elements created must have an atomic number >92.
3) Is it inconceivable that our "new" elements could also be produced under similar conditions in nature?
Not inconceivable. It has been verified that minutes amounts of trans-uranic elements have been found in nature. But given that these lements have a very short life time (before they decay into other elements), you'd have to be around immediately after their formation to detect them in nature. Since their creation requires high amounts of energy, super nova, intense gamma radiation near black holes, etc, are the sort of environments where you might find naturally ocurring trans-uranic elements (remembering too that you basically need to smash into heavy elements to get the trans-uranic ones, the very heavy ones need to be present to). Such environments are are rare and not conducive to observation. Given that the elements in the universe are hydrogen, helium and minor traces short-lived trans-uranic are not going to be found in nature in any partical sense.
4) Have all of these new elements only existed in very small quantities for short periods of time, under controlled conditions?
Yes. There are some theories that there would be an island of stability around element 120+. Scientists are working to create a stable trans-uranic element, and I for one welcome our trans-uranic overlords and would like to remind them that being primarily made of stable isotopes I can be useful in rounding up other carbon based elemental life forms to slave in their radioactive piles.
The effect of this was that large mail servers (eg cable gateways, etc) which let through a very small percentage of spam but s detectable quantity, would get a host of negative recommendations and the server would become untrusted.
I don't think this was an unsolvable problem - it requires dealing with trust, and positive versus negative recommendations, and volume assessments. But it should be possible to come up with a function that would give meaningful responses even in an inherent;y untrustworthy system of recommendations, and disproportionately few positive recommendations.
For one thing an inappropriate listing of untrusted would provoke a host of positive recommendations.
And of course you could/should whitelist your Mum's cable based SMTP server anyway.
There are people who want to pick up the Trustic idea (or keep Trustic going if possible), and I wish them every success and will support any such efforts.
I think there is a place for cooperative based recommendations estabishing a trust network. It will just take time and thought to determine how to balance the positive and negative recommendations.
What I particularly like about Trustic is that I can make recommendations based on IP address alone - if a mail server tries to send email to clearwater@codeworks.gen.nz I KNOW it is sending spam - I could reject the recipient, and report the IP without incurring the time and bandwidth of accepting the mail message.
In Tsarist Russia the horse mounts...oh never mind...
So all these annotation and corrections on /. will make this the most valuable...ummmm....
Make sure you keep the image quality high enough to capture every nuance of the subtle faux wood-grain background (and by background I mean 68.3% of the image), not forgetting the coffee cup stain.
Be sure to include the whole of the phone including every dialing digit, because that gives context to the screenshot.
Well done. You passed the 0.5 Mb threshold, but still shy of the 0.6 standard. Try a brightly coloured background (a stained tartan kilt plus sporan should do) next time. Remember you want to get to at least 1.5 Mb so it won't fit on a floppy.
Then IF (a BIG IF) ou had a trusted list of say, the keys of the Kiddie porn, you could elect, on your own system, not to be a part, however indirect, of storing or passing through requests.
Is there any technical reason why this could not be done? I know the data is encrypted, but the keys must not be.
Obviously this would have wide potential for abuse and censorship, but the choice of what to block would be on each Freenet node. Furthermore, the blocking list would be an index of what the perverts wanted. Unavoidable I guess.
Also you might be held more liable if there was such a blocking list, and you weren't using it.
But I would certainly be more comfortable running my node if I had that option.
- And when I want to send an email larger than 5 Mb my ISP's outbound mail server won't let me?
- When my ISPs outbound mail server gets on a DNSBL, my mail gets blocked.
- I get no warning that my mail has been undelivered for 5 days, and sometimes never, from my ISPs outbound mail server
- My ISPs outbound mailserver goes down for a day (this is the largest ISP in New Zealand). One day is a record but 4-12 hours is common. Other ISPs have the same problem. There is limited choice for ADSL lines so don't say just choose another ISP.
- My delivery time isn't dependent on the queue on at the ISP.
All actual cases, which is why I run my own SMTP server on my ADSL line.Of course, any machine might be configrued to execute anything, but you should also consider these common executable types:s c
msi
cpl
crt
esc
inf
ins
isp
mde
m
msp
mst
ocx
pcd
sct
vb
wsf
wsh
So....make sure you make a complaint about safety [the stress of long hours?] just before the end of the project. :-)
Nope, coz see I'm not distributing the program. Making alphabetised source (well ideally SCO can just tell me what lines they are interested in and I can just send them an extract :-) ) available in response to a legal challenge would not count as distributing the program because a) it's not the program, and b) it's not a distribution of the program.
Bizarro.
I am reject 1280+ spams per day. My grateful thanks to bl.reynolds.net.au bl.spamcop.net and list.dsbl.org
On March 6 I created a Hotmail account with a choice of name designed to be "really obscure". I have not had one single piece of spam arrive in that account. In 3 months, no spam. I've only used this account to test whether spammers use email addresses harvested from 551 User not local; please try really-obscure@hotmail.com SMTP responses (conclusion - no they don't)
Having see dictionary attacks on my own domain (and seen the bounces from dictionary attacks when spammers fake my source email address), I can conclude that geeks choice of obscure doesn't range far off science fiction character names.
As for this Hotmail exploit, I had been wondering why these spams were getting through my DNSBL lists - about the only spam that was.
Time to add hotmail.com to the baclklist until Microsoft fix this.
But I am not distributing my SCO friendly version of Linux so this provision does not apply.
Moreover, I can take any software under GPL, modify it to my own heart's desire, and I'm under no obligation to make the changed programme, or the source code, available to anyone.
Nor does my having any GPL software, modified or not, require me to make the source available to anyone, unless I am distributing it.
So I'm quite entitled to offer SCO my alphabetised listing so they can check if their proprietary for (i=1;i>=n;i++) is present or not.
We apologise for this GPL community service announcement and return you to your regularly scheduled /.
Thank you for your letter requesting royalties. I must advise you that I have modified my copy of Linux and it now longer contains any of the code you allege is your property.
I would be happy to show you my revised code so you can verify my claim, if you wouldn't mind filling out this NDA (attached). Oh, and don't forget to let me know which lines you want to see. I have my lines of source code sorted in alphabetical order for your ease of reference.
I have found that using the optimise function has fixed booting problems similar to the ones you describe.
A discussion board/website or something where people can offer reviews, report problems, and discuss their choices of what DNSBL work for them, and which one's don't - and why?
Which ones have high collateral damage, which don't, and which ones are changing their policies.
Any pointers?
Agreed. And on a practical level, if I didn't use RBL to block overseas spam, I'd be paying $NZ137 ($US80) per month just in the bandwidth charges.
NZ TV Listing Star Trek Comedy starring Kim Basinger and Bruce Willis. A workaholic is set up on a business blind date with a woman who when drunk, loses control and becomes a wild party girl. Directed by Blake Edwards. Ok, off-topic, but where else can I post this? And I'm sure some /.er can quote the episode that will make this on-topic...