Probably the best, and also the most annoying, depending on which end you are, must be ticking both ICQ and SMS, so that both the recipient's computer goes "Uh-Oh", and the recipient's phone starts beeping:D
I had the (mis)fortune of becoming the geek that had to set up computers for some new clueless female students of the sociology studied flavour, and it took not long before they discovered IM. It seemed as if at the end of the month they all settled on ICQ lite, just because of the added SMS flexibility:-)
I don't think BT even has the concept of push/pulk as such. I am behind my own NAT, and a firewall which denies all incoming connections, and I can use BT just fine.
The way it works, it seems, is that BT requests peers from the tracker, the tracker gives a list of peers to connect to, BT connects to whichever of them are alive or reachable from that specific location on the Internet. After that, the BT clients tell eacother which parts of the file they have, and which parts they are interested in. I don't know specifics, but it seems that BT stays in contact with between 20 and 40 peers at one time, but only uploads to 4 at a time. The 4 which give the highest *download* to you back. i.e., if you have extremely fast upload to another peer, that peer will put you in its own first uploat slot, so that you get download from it. BT seems to continously 'test' the other peers that it isn't actively engaged in data transfer with, to see if any of them offer faster speeds, while prioritizing 'testing' peers it has recently established contact with. This results in, that when you first start downloading a file, it might take some time before other peers give you enough pieces to start uploading, and really get download speeds. The start-time seems to be between 5 to 10 minutes, by experience. I'm sure someone could come up with the statistical average for this based on the default BT settings:)
Anyhow, what all this means, is that initially, the fastest hosts will find eachother, and distribute the file to eachother very quickly, after which, they will upload to the peers they get fastest upload to. (provided the user doesn't close the torrent)
What this also means, is that, if you have alot of async users (such as ADSL and capped Cable), they will on average only get as much download as their upload, provided there are high-speed uploaders that can fill in the gap between the different asyncs. In a way, I suppose, the average download speed of async users equal the average upload of them, plus any high-speed users which provide a "boost". This makes it, of course, entirely possible, and not uncommon, to be uploading at a faster speed than you are downloading. This is not a bad thing, you're not selfish, are you?
Anyhow, back to the original topic. As I've understood it, the tracker gives you IP's to connect to, of both completes, incompletes, and peers with nothing of the file. It's not technically "push" type connection, but in practice it is, since you'll most likely connect to a wide range of peers with different parts of the file you want.
However, an issue NAT users could have is the number of connections their NAT machine allows them. BT uses between and 20 - 40 in default config, I'm told. If the NAT can only keep track of, say 5 or 10, per user, it might just drop the oldest connection, forcing BT to constantly connect to more peers, as the older ones are dropped. This of course makes it very problematic to maintain any sort of connection with BT, and thus you never see any download nor upload. Note that most NAT's just ignores packets they aren't keeping track of, so the connection would just time out, without the user getting any error messages from BT.
Another issue is Windows 9x. Windows 95 and Windows 98 by default only allows 100 connections. Open 2 - 4 torrents, and you will exhaust this limit, creating sporadic errors such as ENOBUFS (Not enough buffer space). I don't know about more recent versions of the windows operating system, I've heard the max number of connections is artificially limited in some versions though, but don't take my word on it, I might just be spreading FUD:)
Apart from the speaker issue, the other visual issues are, as I've understood it, mostly technichal limitations with the current system.
Perhaps there's some type of projector out there that can switch frames quick enough for the eye to not detect flicker, but I don't know, and if there is, does anyone know how widespread various speeds are?
The other issues might very well be cinema dependent, but 24fps is something global to most material produced today. I've heard of 48fps theatres in France, but obviously not a lot is being made for them.
I could also have complained about film grain, but Lucas is filming in digital now, so we can have pixelation artefacts instead of grain artefacts, yay!
Nemesis was amusing. I was going to wait the 6 or 8 months for it to get to the cinema here, but it never came. That's actually one movie I *really* wanted to see in the cinema, and they never showed it, bastards. Ah well, I have my revenge. *pats bootleg*
What MPAA and Hollywood in general could do, is try improve the cinema experience. I'm a person who doesn't go very often to the cinema. I grew up on the countryside, and the distance to the cinema was always too far, and besides, just wait a few years and the thing is on TV anyhow, where you can watch it in the comfort of your own home, not worry about drinking too much cola with the snacks, since you can go take a piss on the comercial breaks anyway.
Anyhow... as someone who rarely visited cinemas, people always hyped to me that there was something better about it. Better image quality, better sound, etc... So now that I live in the city, I actually wetn to see Matrix Reloaded.
I had been hyped up too much... Where to start, the picture, I suppose. The whitescreen has a number of flaws.. First, it's white, so you can't really get any black. It's some grey-ish colour. My computer monitor and tv is darker and has bigger dynamic range. This is only a minor issue, of course. Second, flickering. I don't know why people noticed this, maybe this 70hz (*snigger*) monitor has spoiled me, but the way that bright scenes flickered in the cinema really annoyed me and made me squirm in the seat. Thirdly, framerate. On a smallish TV or monitor, you really don't notice the crapness of 24fps. However, on the bigscreen, you notice it easily.. There was a very long highspeed panning scene in Matrix Reloaded.. It was absolutely awful to watch in 24fps. Seems as soon as there is a little bit of movement, everything gets blurry.
Anyhow... if the movie studios would move on to, say, 48 fps instead of 24, cinemas would have an instant advantage over DVD and TV, and most likely bootlegs as well, since I atleast know of no consumer camera that can capture at doubleframerate.
As how to fix the other issues, I have no clue if it's even technichally possible.
Sound... well, the sound in the cinema quite frankly, sucked. My el-cheapo wireless headphones that are very bad, are even better. Low bass sounds sounded like somone stood behind the screen and shook a large sheet of thing metal around. The Dolby digital sound test, well, it failed, one of the speakers at the front started to crackle and rumble. I seem to remember reading that THX would fix this though, that the cinema would have to get certified first? Quality control is always good, and needed in this case, it seems! Adding *quality* stereo headphone outputs to each seat in the cinema would be a good thing, everyone could take their favourite high quality headphones with them for the ultimate experience.
In summary, I would urge the movie studios and MPAA to *innovate* instead of blaming piracy.
My bet would be that they made it point to localhost solely because it was mentioned on slashdot posts claiming that the site or tracker would have an alleged bootleg allegedly available for download, allegedly through bittorrent, allegedly.
You can still upload. The tracker will give you a list of peers to connect to. Your client will try to connect to as many as it can. If you have parts of the file that other peers are interested, your client will send them to the interested peer. Note that all connections have been initiated from your side of the firewall. Unless the firewall restricts uploads, only keeps track of 10 connections or something equally horribly low, you might still have problems. Of course, this wont enable you to download/upload from other firewalled peers.
You are free to change the license of your library any way you want, of course, the copies of your library that are already floating out there as GPL will remain GPL, and new copies will be LGPL, and any future versions you release will also be LGPL, or any other license you want - as long as the copyright owners (in this case you presented, solely you) agree on it.
Unless you are schizophrenic or suffer from multiple personality disorder, this should of course be no problem;-)
I thought the main reason for using older CPU's was that they're infact the newest ones that are shielded from the higher radiation enviroment in space?
Maybe this is just an Urban Legend, since Astronauts seem to be taking standard laptops with them these days...
Regarding network transparency, http://www.nomachine.com have done marvels at reducing the bandwidth required. I tried their free testdrive, and mozilla felt faster than running it locally, and it still only used the bandwidth of a tiny ADSL connection!
I think the head coder of nomachine said on the XFree mailing lists, that X is really too fast, that it executes the commands from the applications too fast, and thus encourages bad coding practices. If X was say a magnitude slower, and toolkit authors had on top of that have to use it over a 10mbit network, then they would be able to spot if they do something that's really slow. While it might not be noticed later when running on a multi-gigahertz machine with the latest graphics card, it adds up to overall speed..
In top or ps aux output, the column to look for is RSS, that is the true memory usage. The rest is just graphics card memory mapped into X memoryspace, and other such mappings...
Hm. Spamcop publishes the list, and also sends copies of the complaints its users submit to the ISP's.
I guess the analogy would be more correct then with a Currency Exchange Shop that publishes exchange rates, since they also in a small way affect the exchange rates;-)
The inefficiency of the RBL's in your case can be far worse on a bigger scale than a few false positives on RBL's... Why? Because if everyone starts to make their own lists, and innocent user X once upon a time mistakenly misconfigured his proxy, allowing anyone to spam, he/she will now find him/herself on countless of private lists, and have troubble sending e-mail even after getting removed from the RBL's.
In that respect, even though RBL's do make mistakes, and apply collateral damage tactics, it's easier to clean up your act and prove it to two dozen RBL's, than to convince a few thousand sysadmins that you're no longer bad.
Reminds me of that ISP I can't remember the name of... That openly condoned spam at one point, and got their entire network on tens of thousands of enraged sysadmins' lists. Well the ISP eventually went bankrupt, and was bought out by, ISTR, Telia. Telia quickly found out that the newly acquired IP range was essentially useless, since half the internet shunned it, and getting it removed from the blocks on every ISP in the world was just not feasible. Anyone remember this story in greater detail?
No offence to the poster of the parent, we all do what we have to to keep Spam at bay.
The great thing about the Internet is that it gives you a wide range of choices. There are atleast two dozen different blacklists out there, just pick the ones you agree with, or pick none at all.
You have the freedom to choose what blacklists you use, you have the freedom to choose what ISP you use, and you have the freedom to not associate yourself with an ISP that allows spammers and ends up on blacklists.
It's all about choice. Don't we all hate spam? At the same time we vote with our money, so be a good champ, and vote for a cleaner internet!
A dutch ISP, I think xs4all, goes beyond this. They give their users a configuration panel through www, where they can turn on and off various RBL's, as well as giving brief overview of the policies and methods of the various RBL's.
This of course means they'll atleast have to wait until getting the RCPT TO command from the remote server before being able to decide whether to toss the connection or not, but they can probably avoid receiving the body of the email itself, saving soem bandwidth.
Standardized? Well, as soon as Spammers start to standardize, i.e. send their junk to eachother, then I'm sure SPEWS will be happy to publish their standards!
As it is now, the process for getting onto spews is this:
Ignore emails to abuse@
Get a level 1 listing on spews
Ignore further complaints from users to your abuse@
Get more parts of your network listed
etc...
In the end you end up with your entire ISP listed.
In some cases, where you (the ISP) has allowed a known spammer to sign up with you, you probably end up getting a very broad listing right away.
Once you've cleaned up your act and removed spammers from your system, all of them, you can send a note to NANAE, ignore the trolls, and read the replies to see whether you still have abusers on your systems.
ANd of course, during each stage, CHECK your abuse@ and enforce your AUP!
Reacting quickly and swiftly to complaints is the way to stay off blocklists.
I wish more people would emphasize this. If the worm author had spent a little more time in ironing out the incomplete features and bugs, this would have been one killer of a worm.
Add the missing features, remove that bug that makes it easy(ish) to identify programmatically on IRC, voilá, killerworm of doom.
The real question is, how long before someone actually does this, creates a better worm?
Whoever created Fizzer was on the right track by adding AIM capability (according to f-secure), does AOL have any experience in compating trojan hacker communication through their systems? I bet not. Just imagine what the author could do with a few hundred thousand of these babies, it would make the slashdot effect pale in comparison!
We are sitting on a ticking time-bomb.. it's just a matter of time..
This does not affect mIRC or any other IRC Client, at all.
The fizzer worm that's currently spreading, spreads through outlook and Kazaa. It also has a IRC backdoor, through which presumably the virus author can access infected computers. This IRC backdoor connects to a list of several irc servers, and sit in a channel.
As the number of infected computers (Please people, update your Anti Virus software!) is growing, this puts a higher load on the irc servers. This is what it's all about, to find a way to get rid of the trojans from the servers, so that nobody can abuse them for DDoS or looking for CC numbers or other private info on infected machines, in a way that doesn't put too much stress on the IRC servers.
Some anti-spam solutions try to detect whether several duplicates of the same email has been sent, or whether the email is identical to one reported as spam previously. They might be doing this by comparing the hash of the email body, or just plain comparison.
Spammers combat this by simply adding random junk, to make every email seem unique.
The random junk might also be an identification code, so that they can determine from the abuse reports an upstreams ISP might relay to them, who sent the abuse report in the first place, even if the person reporting them removed his email address.
Some of the random junk is just your email address ROT-13'd, which is easy to spot (junk@junk.junk), I've seen some spammers base-64 encoding the recipient email address (which also looks like random crap). There are undoubtedly countless of variations on this theme.
What they do with that information is anyone's guess, call their buddy spammers (Heaven forbid spammers would use e-mail for actual communication themselves) and say "Hey Bubba, I got another confirmed opt-in address for ya!", most likely, while at the same time, maybe, removing the address from their own lists. But only after ensuring every other spammer on earth has the address, naturally.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably the best, and also the most annoying, depending on which end you are, must be ticking both ICQ and SMS, so that both the recipient's computer goes "Uh-Oh", and the recipient's phone starts beeping :D
:-)
I had the (mis)fortune of becoming the geek that had to set up computers for some new clueless female students of the sociology studied flavour, and it took not long before they discovered IM. It seemed as if at the end of the month they all settled on ICQ lite, just because of the added SMS flexibility
What you need is an intelligent router! Wondershaper, it really does do wonders!
I don't think BT even has the concept of push/pulk as such. I am behind my own NAT, and a firewall which denies all incoming connections, and I can use BT just fine.
:)
:)
The way it works, it seems, is that BT requests peers from the tracker, the tracker gives a list of peers to connect to, BT connects to whichever of them are alive or reachable from that specific location on the Internet. After that, the BT clients tell eacother which parts of the file they have, and which parts they are interested in.
I don't know specifics, but it seems that BT stays in contact with between 20 and 40 peers at one time, but only uploads to 4 at a time. The 4 which give the highest *download* to you back. i.e., if you have extremely fast upload to another peer, that peer will put you in its own first uploat slot, so that you get download from it. BT seems to continously 'test' the other peers that it isn't actively engaged in data transfer with, to see if any of them offer faster speeds, while prioritizing 'testing' peers it has recently established contact with.
This results in, that when you first start downloading a file, it might take some time before other peers give you enough pieces to start uploading, and really get download speeds. The start-time seems to be between 5 to 10 minutes, by experience. I'm sure someone could come up with the statistical average for this based on the default BT settings
Anyhow, what all this means, is that initially, the fastest hosts will find eachother, and distribute the file to eachother very quickly, after which, they will upload to the peers they get fastest upload to. (provided the user doesn't close the torrent)
What this also means, is that, if you have alot of async users (such as ADSL and capped Cable), they will on average only get as much download as their upload, provided there are high-speed uploaders that can fill in the gap between the different asyncs. In a way, I suppose, the average download speed of async users equal the average upload of them, plus any high-speed users which provide a "boost". This makes it, of course, entirely possible, and not uncommon, to be uploading at a faster speed than you are downloading. This is not a bad thing, you're not selfish, are you?
Anyhow, back to the original topic. As I've understood it, the tracker gives you IP's to connect to, of both completes, incompletes, and peers with nothing of the file. It's not technically "push" type connection, but in practice it is, since you'll most likely connect to a wide range of peers with different parts of the file you want.
However, an issue NAT users could have is the number of connections their NAT machine allows them. BT uses between and 20 - 40 in default config, I'm told. If the NAT can only keep track of, say 5 or 10, per user, it might just drop the oldest connection, forcing BT to constantly connect to more peers, as the older ones are dropped. This of course makes it very problematic to maintain any sort of connection with BT, and thus you never see any download nor upload. Note that most NAT's just ignores packets they aren't keeping track of, so the connection would just time out, without the user getting any error messages from BT.
Another issue is Windows 9x. Windows 95 and Windows 98 by default only allows 100 connections. Open 2 - 4 torrents, and you will exhaust this limit, creating sporadic errors such as ENOBUFS (Not enough buffer space). I don't know about more recent versions of the windows operating system, I've heard the max number of connections is artificially limited in some versions though, but don't take my word on it, I might just be spreading FUD
Apart from the speaker issue, the other visual issues are, as I've understood it, mostly technichal limitations with the current system.
Perhaps there's some type of projector out there that can switch frames quick enough for the eye to not detect flicker, but I don't know, and if there is, does anyone know how widespread various speeds are?
The other issues might very well be cinema dependent, but 24fps is something global to most material produced today. I've heard of 48fps theatres in France, but obviously not a lot is being made for them.
I could also have complained about film grain, but Lucas is filming in digital now, so we can have pixelation artefacts instead of grain artefacts, yay!
Nemesis was amusing. I was going to wait the 6 or 8 months for it to get to the cinema here, but it never came. That's actually one movie I *really* wanted to see in the cinema, and they never showed it, bastards. Ah well, I have my revenge. *pats bootleg*
What MPAA and Hollywood in general could do, is try improve the cinema experience.
I'm a person who doesn't go very often to the cinema. I grew up on the countryside, and the distance to the cinema was always too far, and besides, just wait a few years and the thing is on TV anyhow, where you can watch it in the comfort of your own home, not worry about drinking too much cola with the snacks, since you can go take a piss on the comercial breaks anyway.
Anyhow... as someone who rarely visited cinemas, people always hyped to me that there was something better about it. Better image quality, better sound, etc... So now that I live in the city, I actually wetn to see Matrix Reloaded.
I had been hyped up too much... Where to start, the picture, I suppose.
The whitescreen has a number of flaws.. First, it's white, so you can't really get any black. It's some grey-ish colour. My computer monitor and tv is darker and has bigger dynamic range. This is only a minor issue, of course.
Second, flickering. I don't know why people noticed this, maybe this 70hz (*snigger*) monitor has spoiled me, but the way that bright scenes flickered in the cinema really annoyed me and made me squirm in the seat.
Thirdly, framerate. On a smallish TV or monitor, you really don't notice the crapness of 24fps. However, on the bigscreen, you notice it easily.. There was a very long highspeed panning scene in Matrix Reloaded.. It was absolutely awful to watch in 24fps. Seems as soon as there is a little bit of movement, everything gets blurry.
Anyhow... if the movie studios would move on to, say, 48 fps instead of 24, cinemas would have an instant advantage over DVD and TV, and most likely bootlegs as well, since I atleast know of no consumer camera that can capture at doubleframerate.
As how to fix the other issues, I have no clue if it's even technichally possible.
Sound... well, the sound in the cinema quite frankly, sucked. My el-cheapo wireless headphones that are very bad, are even better. Low bass sounds sounded like somone stood behind the screen and shook a large sheet of thing metal around. The Dolby digital sound test, well, it failed, one of the speakers at the front started to crackle and rumble.
I seem to remember reading that THX would fix this though, that the cinema would have to get certified first? Quality control is always good, and needed in this case, it seems!
Adding *quality* stereo headphone outputs to each seat in the cinema would be a good thing, everyone could take their favourite high quality headphones with them for the ultimate experience.
In summary, I would urge the movie studios and MPAA to *innovate* instead of blaming piracy.
My bet would be that they made it point to localhost solely because it was mentioned on slashdot posts claiming that the site or tracker would have an alleged bootleg allegedly available for download, allegedly through bittorrent, allegedly.
You can still upload. The tracker will give you a list of peers to connect to. Your client will try to connect to as many as it can. If you have parts of the file that other peers are interested, your client will send them to the interested peer.
Note that all connections have been initiated from your side of the firewall.
Unless the firewall restricts uploads, only keeps track of 10 connections or something equally horribly low, you might still have problems.
Of course, this wont enable you to download/upload from other firewalled peers.
You are free to change the license of your library any way you want, of course, the copies of your library that are already floating out there as GPL will remain GPL, and new copies will be LGPL, and any future versions you release will also be LGPL, or any other license you want - as long as the copyright owners (in this case you presented, solely you) agree on it.
;-)
Unless you are schizophrenic or suffer from multiple personality disorder, this should of course be no problem
Hm. I was under the impression that the Soyuz capsule was reusable?
Atleast even NASA's Gemini was reusable (I believe they used the same one twice at one point)
I thought the main reason for using older CPU's was that they're infact the newest ones that are shielded from the higher radiation enviroment in space?
Maybe this is just an Urban Legend, since Astronauts seem to be taking standard laptops with them these days...
Regarding network transparency, http://www.nomachine.com have done marvels at reducing the bandwidth required. I tried their free testdrive, and mozilla felt faster than running it locally, and it still only used the bandwidth of a tiny ADSL connection!
I think the head coder of nomachine said on the XFree mailing lists, that X is really too fast, that it executes the commands from the applications too fast, and thus encourages bad coding practices. If X was say a magnitude slower, and toolkit authors had on top of that have to use it over a 10mbit network, then they would be able to spot if they do something that's really slow. While it might not be noticed later when running on a multi-gigahertz machine with the latest graphics card, it adds up to overall speed..
In top or ps aux output, the column to look for is RSS, that is the true memory usage. The rest is just graphics card memory mapped into X memoryspace, and other such mappings...
Hm. Spamcop publishes the list, and also sends copies of the complaints its users submit to the ISP's.
;-)
I guess the analogy would be more correct then with a Currency Exchange Shop that publishes exchange rates, since they also in a small way affect the exchange rates
The inefficiency of the RBL's in your case can be far worse on a bigger scale than a few false positives on RBL's... Why? Because if everyone starts to make their own lists, and innocent user X once upon a time mistakenly misconfigured his proxy, allowing anyone to spam, he/she will now find him/herself on countless of private lists, and have troubble sending e-mail even after getting removed from the RBL's.
In that respect, even though RBL's do make mistakes, and apply collateral damage tactics, it's easier to clean up your act and prove it to two dozen RBL's, than to convince a few thousand sysadmins that you're no longer bad.
Reminds me of that ISP I can't remember the name of... That openly condoned spam at one point, and got their entire network on tens of thousands of enraged sysadmins' lists. Well the ISP eventually went bankrupt, and was bought out by, ISTR, Telia. Telia quickly found out that the newly acquired IP range was essentially useless, since half the internet shunned it, and getting it removed from the blocks on every ISP in the world was just not feasible. Anyone remember this story in greater detail?
No offence to the poster of the parent, we all do what we have to to keep Spam at bay.
Julian Haight does nothing but maintain a system through which users can report SPAM.
Blaming spamcop for your troubbles is about the same as blaming XE.com currency exchange ratio listings for the dropping dollar..
The great thing about the Internet is that it gives you a wide range of choices. There are atleast two dozen different blacklists out there, just pick the ones you agree with, or pick none at all.
You have the freedom to choose what blacklists you use, you have the freedom to choose what ISP you use, and you have the freedom to not associate yourself with an ISP that allows spammers and ends up on blacklists.
It's all about choice. Don't we all hate spam? At the same time we vote with our money, so be a good champ, and vote for a cleaner internet!
This is what Open Relay and Open Proxy RBL's are for ;-)
A dutch ISP, I think xs4all, goes beyond this. They give their users a configuration panel through www, where they can turn on and off various RBL's, as well as giving brief overview of the policies and methods of the various RBL's.
This of course means they'll atleast have to wait until getting the RCPT TO command from the remote server before being able to decide whether to toss the connection or not, but they can probably avoid receiving the body of the email itself, saving soem bandwidth.
Standardized? Well, as soon as Spammers start to standardize, i.e. send their junk to eachother, then I'm sure SPEWS will be happy to publish their standards!
As it is now, the process for getting onto spews is this:
Ignore emails to abuse@
Get a level 1 listing on spews
Ignore further complaints from users to your abuse@
Get more parts of your network listed
etc...
In the end you end up with your entire ISP listed.
In some cases, where you (the ISP) has allowed a known spammer to sign up with you, you probably end up getting a very broad listing right away.
Once you've cleaned up your act and removed spammers from your system, all of them, you can send a note to NANAE, ignore the trolls, and read the replies to see whether you still have abusers on your systems.
ANd of course, during each stage, CHECK your abuse@ and enforce your AUP!
Reacting quickly and swiftly to complaints is the way to stay off blocklists.
I wish more people would emphasize this. If the worm author had spent a little more time in ironing out the incomplete features and bugs, this would have been one killer of a worm.
Add the missing features, remove that bug that makes it easy(ish) to identify programmatically on IRC, voilá, killerworm of doom.
The real question is, how long before someone actually does this, creates a better worm?
Whoever created Fizzer was on the right track by adding AIM capability (according to f-secure), does AOL have any experience in compating trojan hacker communication through their systems? I bet not. Just imagine what the author could do with a few hundred thousand of these babies, it would make the slashdot effect pale in comparison!
We are sitting on a ticking time-bomb.. it's just a matter of time..
Through outlook, and by the user downloading warez from Kazaa.
See this f-secure article
This does not affect mIRC or any other IRC Client, at all.
The fizzer worm that's currently spreading, spreads through outlook and Kazaa. It also has a IRC backdoor, through which presumably the virus author can access infected computers. This IRC backdoor connects to a list of several irc servers, and sit in a channel.
As the number of infected computers (Please people, update your Anti Virus software!) is growing, this puts a higher load on the irc servers. This is what it's all about, to find a way to get rid of the trojans from the servers, so that nobody can abuse them for DDoS or looking for CC numbers or other private info on infected machines, in a way that doesn't put too much stress on the IRC servers.
Some anti-spam solutions try to detect whether several duplicates of the same email has been sent, or whether the email is identical to one reported as spam previously. They might be doing this by comparing the hash of the email body, or just plain comparison. Spammers combat this by simply adding random junk, to make every email seem unique. The random junk might also be an identification code, so that they can determine from the abuse reports an upstreams ISP might relay to them, who sent the abuse report in the first place, even if the person reporting them removed his email address. Some of the random junk is just your email address ROT-13'd, which is easy to spot (junk@junk.junk), I've seen some spammers base-64 encoding the recipient email address (which also looks like random crap). There are undoubtedly countless of variations on this theme. What they do with that information is anyone's guess, call their buddy spammers (Heaven forbid spammers would use e-mail for actual communication themselves) and say "Hey Bubba, I got another confirmed opt-in address for ya!", most likely, while at the same time, maybe, removing the address from their own lists. But only after ensuring every other spammer on earth has the address, naturally.
Atleast postfix is configurable to accept IP's, however, the correct form for the TO address then becomes user@[xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx]
I very much doubt this works over IPv6, though.