That's the most depressing thing I've heard all day
Usually the boss isn't smart enough to try it or be able to pull it off. It takes enormous nerve to misrepresent the truth so deftly as to focus it clandestinely on a single person. If the request did turn out to be illegal (watch the technicalities) most managers wouldn't have what it takes to start a vendetta over it. His yearly bonus might not be so shining but any prolonged social ostricism requires extreme and precise craft to orchestrate.
Not long at all. This is actually a very effective method of getting a competitors website shut down.
If the business projects the image that it might be aided by spam then I see no problem. Maybe the web will clean up. At the same time any competition spam that tries to target a legitimate business will cause banks and credit companies to take a closer look at marketing firms. This is a win-win all around.
They have no way to prove they are not the ones with the Russian ISP account sending mail
So this could potentially lead to more wars between teenage script kiddies. Darn.
there should be a "war on SMTP"
No, there shouldn't. Any replacement system for worldwide email delivery that could possibly be written would have its exploitable flaws There are enormous logistical problems in coordinating the effort it would take to write it for all OSs on all architectures and then try to deploy it.
How much IM spam do you get? I am sure you have gotten some, but 1000 a day? No. But who wants to go through another IM war?
It would be extremely easy to detect and respond to an IM abuser. IM has a hard-coded delineation between two message types: advertising and other. If anyone would attempt to SPAMvertise on IM clients corporate America would kill them. Corporate America also finds it easier to try and antagonize open source IM clients when they should be watching who they give their money to. Who makes SPAMming profitable? Where does its money come from? Since corporate America holds all the money then its management is their issue. I don't know why they keep blaming users who can't be expected to know much better. It's not a secret that no one reads EULAs.
You want to know what works? Unsubscribe links. Use them!
"Hey Mike, that page for the unsubscribe link, did you name that.asp?57485287647823CDFGD67487265842+2e1 or 2e2?" "+2e1." "Crap. That's the opt in algorithm." "*whistle innocently* Looks like 2e2 now." "Huh." PROFIT!
The only way to stop "SPAM" is to treat the problem, not the symptoms
The symptom is the increased flow of malicious and misleading mail being delivered. The problem is that someone is making spam monetarily profitable. Someone with money must know something. Why should this be my Mom's fault just because she doesn't love her computer?
The other option is that every spammer lives like Timothy Leary did. I doubt it. Most of them probably have pretty little houses in pretty little neighborhoods. _SOMEONE_ must know something.
If you're competing with anyone who could even be remotely associated with a spammage then maybe you should think about your moral obligation to go into a different line of business.
The moment someone tries to reverse spam a legitimate business two things will happen: they'll rue the day and venture capitalists will start auditing marketing firms.
a list of "millions of guaranteed opt-in email addresses!"
It's not that difficult to fathom. Home mortgages, car rental agreements, car purchase agreements, EULAs, employee agreements... any of them could bury a legal jargon form of "opt-in". The majority of people don't read them and those who do usually don't have a positive option.
my retort being that if his boss wanted to pay him to star in gay porn, then would he still be expected to do so?
I understand exactly what you're saying but allow me to mediate. Gay porn is probably outside the job description. The legal rub is that, if his boss were conniving enough, there's really nothing that you can do to prove that his boss is using his position in the company, and access to personal records, to manipulate your friend into gay porn. In reality it would be nearly impossible to push things that far but, legally speaking, your friend has little recourse should his boss decide to sit back and smugly think,"I'm going to tank your career because you wouldn't spam for me."
What happens when spammers do a "fake" spam run to try to get a (non-spamming) competitor's website removed?
If you run a business which could possibly be associated with spam then maybe you need to be poked in the ribs.
The moment spam tries to associate with legitimate business then the venture capital agents who manage business loans will start to be more critical of marketing agencies.
I truly can't see people resorting to trying to advertise competitor's web sites via SPAM to get them shut down.
Indeed. The moment that someone sends out a SPAM which targets a legitimate company the funding for mass-marketing firms is going to start drying up at the bank level.
1. Start ISP 2. Notify business customers that they seem to be associated with a spam organization... 3....but, for an extra $5k/mo., we can make that problem go away, can't we Guido? 4. Guido says yes. 5. Shake down. 6. Profit.
Except the more agressive (and popular) anti-spam organizations do take a "shoot first, ask questions later" policy.
I've never used any of the products. From what I understand they're a filter which interacts with a mail daemon. I don't suspect we'll see SpamCopNAMED replacing BIND any time soon. Then again I don't work in the computer industry. I don't know how much large networks do with routing tables.
How happy would you be if your legitimate, non-spamming online business was blacklisted because someone else forged fake spam?
Whose dog did you kick? Maybe you deserve it.
The likelihood that a good, honest business getting nailed by forged spam is extremely small unless you really feel paranoid that your product or service is so infinitely better than anything else out there that you've really taken the proverbial rug out from under the industry's feet.
No one bemoans losing their personal e-mail address because they were targeted by a spammer using e-mail rewriting. People just bemoan getting spam. It hasn't been a large problem with e-mail addresses. Why should it be a problem with web addresses?
Might be a little harder to convince my ISP that I didn't initiate the spam
You actually do have a business that you're running from your website. It shouldn't be difficult to figure out whose toe you stepped on recently unless you really feel that your product is so unique and groundbreaking that you're cutting into the mafia's profit margin.
Having a foot in the anti-spam business myself, I'd say this is pretty much guaranteed to happen as soon as the first shutdown causes a spammer any real inconvenience.
I doubt it. Most people are sick of seeing spam on their inbox. Tales of good, honest people who lost e-mail accounts due to spam rewriting are extremely low. No one at work complains that their ISP called to eliminate their e-mail address.
If it didn't happen for e-mail addresses, why woud it happen for websites?
Bob may find his computer's been 0wn3d and cleans it up, but wtf, banning the ip address, unless it's fixed (which is unlikely these days) is pointless.
Bob calls his ISP, his ISP sees that Bob doesn't have a business account, the ISP also sees Bob's usage and finds more softcore surfing than web hosting, everything is back to normal.
Besides. I'm not worried. The people who know how to pwn my systems have better things to do than send out junk spam.
I knew that the world was coming to an end when my favorite pub ran out of my favorite beer and my favorite sandwich. It's only logical that the Alpha would be sent to the chopping block.
It has nothing to do with the name of the binary and everything to do with what the binary does
Precisely. My binary DOES integrate with the surrounding environment. Your binary DOES NOT integrate with the surrounding environment.
Windows does not have a program as nice and tidy as netstat.
It sure does: netstat
You can rename your notepad but you will never have vi. You can rename win.exe to linux.exe but you will never have linux. You can rename netsh but you will never have a firewall as good as netfilter.
Windows may have netstat.exe but it does not have a tool as nice and tidy as netstat for the purpose of intrusion detection.
But it cannot be done solely with netstat. Something that you were trying to spin your original statement into
In the context of intrusion detection any user who wasn't a complete bumbling idiot would know the task requires more than netstat. It requires things that Windows does not provide and does not provide for.
And I won't as it falls outside the scope of my disagreement with you
What is the scope? You've been avoiding the socpe since your first nitpick about the name of a binary. The scope is intrusion detection from the CLI. Rather than even consider the scope you've chosen to focus entirely on the existence of a binary which looks similar to *NIX netstat.
To show you that if you have the supporting tools (like grep, awk, sed, etc) you can process the output of Windows' netstat command just like you can in UNIX
That's outside the scope of the disagreement. I said that Windows has no program nearly as neat and tidy as netstat. You've shown that it might if and only if you install the proper tools. Even with your aftermarket additions you still cannot come close to a CLI IDS system. Not only are you behind in functionality but you've completely left the context of my statement.
Just admit that you were unaware that Windows had a netstat command
I was aware that Windows had netstat at one time and, do to the complete inability of the Windows command prompt to integrate usefully with the rest of the system, had forgotten that it existed. Within the scope of the original claim, intrusion detection from the CLI, Windows does not have a program nearly as neat and tidy as netstat.
The telephone had ENORMOUSLY different functionality and so filled a different market. Coded message vs. real-time communication.
the railroad didn't prevent the automobile
The automobile filled a different market. < 40 miles.
So Windows didn't prevent Linux?
The competition here is the same market since the overwhelming amount of general computer usage could made easy on any platform given enough work. We'll have to see how the politics plays out.
You're pointing out a flaw of the tax system, not of capitalism in itself.
You're precisely correct. I believe in capitalism. I also believe that the problem we're experiencing is directly proportional to the value of the (Gross National Product)/(Federal Budget).
The budget is too low, the Federal Reserve needs to be paid, and the loan is on our credit. It's only logical that any number of worthless schemes would be presented to obtain that money in a fashion that avoids a physical confrontation.
It was in the constitution but went straight out the window with the part that gave Congress the right to take out loans on the credit of the entire United States. They _MUST_ pay the money back somehow, and if they're going to have to take care of the business of paying it back, they'll be more than happy to take their fair share for their trouble out of the money you pay for the loan which is on your credit.
This brought a memory to mind. The fellow that taught me about using computers (when I was 8) vehemently insisted that I not get software from anyone but him. He told me that if there was something that I wanted he could get it. He said that if anything went wrong with the hardware he would not help me fix anything if I got software from anyone else. My parents pounded that home that if anything ever went wrong with the computer that he couldn't fix I wouldn't be happy for a long time. Even though there were several other kids in my class who had the same computer I didn't trade my first game with them until I probably was close to 11. I borrowed a game from the first fellow and tried to copy it with a bit-nibbler that I had gotten from a classmate. I wanted the bit-nibbler because it was newer, faster, and made the same claims as the older slower copier (which also was, technically, a bit-nibbler but who's checking at 11?). I took the game back to the first fellow and said,"It wouldn't copy."
"What did you use to try copying it?"
"Uhhh... QCopy."
"Did you try anything else?"
"QCopy-3."
"I told you to use 2. Did you try QCopy-2?"
"Even Mr. Nibble wouldn't copy it!"
"Mr. Nibble? Where did you get that? I have one copy here that I don't give to anyone."
"A friend at school."
"Of course it didn't copy. You tried Mr. Nibble. Go home and use QCopy-2."
"But it takes forever and Mr. Nibble copies everything else."
At this point he gave me a look which said,"Yeah, I know you've been using it for 6 months but you haven't bothered to say anything."
"That's why QCopy-2 works and Mr. Nibble doesn't. QCopy-2 knows what it's doing."
Well... anyways. I don't trust any accessory programs to be secure. They're just more holes in the swiss cheese.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the most depressing thing I've heard all day
Usually the boss isn't smart enough to try it or be able to pull it off. It takes enormous nerve to misrepresent the truth so deftly as to focus it clandestinely on a single person. If the request did turn out to be illegal (watch the technicalities) most managers wouldn't have what it takes to start a vendetta over it. His yearly bonus might not be so shining but any prolonged social ostricism requires extreme and precise craft to orchestrate.
Not long at all. This is actually a very effective method of getting a competitors website shut down.
.asp?57485287647823CDFGD67487265842+2e1 or 2e2?"
If the business projects the image that it might be aided by spam then I see no problem. Maybe the web will clean up. At the same time any competition spam that tries to target a legitimate business will cause banks and credit companies to take a closer look at marketing firms. This is a win-win all around.
They have no way to prove they are not the ones with the Russian ISP account sending mail
So this could potentially lead to more wars between teenage script kiddies. Darn.
there should be a "war on SMTP"
No, there shouldn't. Any replacement system for worldwide email delivery that could possibly be written would have its exploitable flaws There are enormous logistical problems in coordinating the effort it would take to write it for all OSs on all architectures and then try to deploy it.
How much IM spam do you get? I am sure you have gotten some, but 1000 a day? No. But who wants to go through another IM war?
It would be extremely easy to detect and respond to an IM abuser. IM has a hard-coded delineation between two message types: advertising and other. If anyone would attempt to SPAMvertise on IM clients corporate America would kill them. Corporate America also finds it easier to try and antagonize open source IM clients when they should be watching who they give their money to. Who makes SPAMming profitable? Where does its money come from? Since corporate America holds all the money then its management is their issue. I don't know why they keep blaming users who can't be expected to know much better. It's not a secret that no one reads EULAs.
You want to know what works? Unsubscribe links. Use them!
"Hey Mike, that page for the unsubscribe link, did you name that
"+2e1."
"Crap. That's the opt in algorithm."
"*whistle innocently* Looks like 2e2 now."
"Huh."
PROFIT!
The only way to stop "SPAM" is to treat the problem, not the symptoms
The symptom is the increased flow of malicious and misleading mail being delivered. The problem is that someone is making spam monetarily profitable. Someone with money must know something. Why should this be my Mom's fault just because she doesn't love her computer?
The other option is that every spammer lives like Timothy Leary did. I doubt it. Most of them probably have pretty little houses in pretty little neighborhoods. _SOMEONE_ must know something.
If you're competing with anyone who could even be remotely associated with a spammage then maybe you should think about your moral obligation to go into a different line of business.
The moment someone tries to reverse spam a legitimate business two things will happen: they'll rue the day and venture capitalists will start auditing marketing firms.
a list of "millions of guaranteed opt-in email addresses!"
It's not that difficult to fathom. Home mortgages, car rental agreements, car purchase agreements, EULAs, employee agreements... any of them could bury a legal jargon form of "opt-in". The majority of people don't read them and those who do usually don't have a positive option.
my retort being that if his boss wanted to pay him to star in gay porn, then would he still be expected to do so?
I understand exactly what you're saying but allow me to mediate. Gay porn is probably outside the job description. The legal rub is that, if his boss were conniving enough, there's really nothing that you can do to prove that his boss is using his position in the company, and access to personal records, to manipulate your friend into gay porn. In reality it would be nearly impossible to push things that far but, legally speaking, your friend has little recourse should his boss decide to sit back and smugly think,"I'm going to tank your career because you wouldn't spam for me."
and a really stupid idea all around
You're right.
What happens when spammers do a "fake" spam run to try to get a (non-spamming) competitor's website removed?
If you run a business which could possibly be associated with spam then maybe you need to be poked in the ribs.
The moment spam tries to associate with legitimate business then the venture capital agents who manage business loans will start to be more critical of marketing agencies.
I truly can't see people resorting to trying to advertise competitor's web sites via SPAM to get them shut down.
Indeed. The moment that someone sends out a SPAM which targets a legitimate company the funding for mass-marketing firms is going to start drying up at the bank level.
BTW: how gullible can you get? A single opt-in list with about 5% of the Internet-connected population on it? Wow.
Microsoft made the opt-in so easy that it was just like clicking on an EULA.
You don't have a thick enough tin-foil hat.
...but, for an extra $5k/mo., we can make that problem go away, can't we Guido?
So in theory:
1. Start ISP
2. Notify business customers that they seem to be associated with a spam organization...
3.
4. Guido says yes.
5. Shake down.
6. Profit.
Except the more agressive (and popular) anti-spam organizations do take a "shoot first, ask questions later" policy.
I've never used any of the products. From what I understand they're a filter which interacts with a mail daemon. I don't suspect we'll see SpamCopNAMED replacing BIND any time soon. Then again I don't work in the computer industry. I don't know how much large networks do with routing tables.
How happy would you be if your legitimate, non-spamming online business was blacklisted because someone else forged fake spam?
Whose dog did you kick? Maybe you deserve it.
The likelihood that a good, honest business getting nailed by forged spam is extremely small unless you really feel paranoid that your product or service is so infinitely better than anything else out there that you've really taken the proverbial rug out from under the industry's feet.
No one bemoans losing their personal e-mail address because they were targeted by a spammer using e-mail rewriting. People just bemoan getting spam. It hasn't been a large problem with e-mail addresses. Why should it be a problem with web addresses?
Might be a little harder to convince my ISP that I didn't initiate the spam
You actually do have a business that you're running from your website. It shouldn't be difficult to figure out whose toe you stepped on recently unless you really feel that your product is so unique and groundbreaking that you're cutting into the mafia's profit margin.
For users this is nothing but a blessing. w00t!
Having a foot in the anti-spam business myself, I'd say this is pretty much guaranteed to happen as soon as the first shutdown causes a spammer any real inconvenience.
I doubt it. Most people are sick of seeing spam on their inbox. Tales of good, honest people who lost e-mail accounts due to spam rewriting are extremely low. No one at work complains that their ISP called to eliminate their e-mail address.
If it didn't happen for e-mail addresses, why woud it happen for websites?
Bob may find his computer's been 0wn3d and cleans it up, but wtf, banning the ip address, unless it's fixed (which is unlikely these days) is pointless.
Bob calls his ISP, his ISP sees that Bob doesn't have a business account, the ISP also sees Bob's usage and finds more softcore surfing than web hosting, everything is back to normal.
Besides. I'm not worried. The people who know how to pwn my systems have better things to do than send out junk spam.
someone wants to impact the upcoming election, they should go door to door convincing people locally to vote for
Doesn't work. People will agree with you to get you to go away. They won't be convinced but, in that small snippet of time, you will believe they are.
I knew that the world was coming to an end when my favorite pub ran out of my favorite beer and my favorite sandwich. It's only logical that the Alpha would be sent to the chopping block.
It has nothing to do with the name of the binary and everything to do with what the binary does
Precisely. My binary DOES integrate with the surrounding environment. Your binary DOES NOT integrate with the surrounding environment.
Windows does not have a program as nice and tidy as netstat.
It sure does: netstat
You can rename your notepad but you will never have vi. You can rename win.exe to linux.exe but you will never have linux. You can rename netsh but you will never have a firewall as good as netfilter.
Windows may have netstat.exe but it does not have a tool as nice and tidy as netstat for the purpose of intrusion detection.
There's nothing illegal about checking the environment.
But it cannot be done solely with netstat. Something that you were trying to spin your original statement into
In the context of intrusion detection any user who wasn't a complete bumbling idiot would know the task requires more than netstat. It requires things that Windows does not provide and does not provide for.
And I won't as it falls outside the scope of my disagreement with you
What is the scope? You've been avoiding the socpe since your first nitpick about the name of a binary. The scope is intrusion detection from the CLI. Rather than even consider the scope you've chosen to focus entirely on the existence of a binary which looks similar to *NIX netstat.
To show you that if you have the supporting tools (like grep, awk, sed, etc) you can process the output of Windows' netstat command just like you can in UNIX
That's outside the scope of the disagreement. I said that Windows has no program nearly as neat and tidy as netstat. You've shown that it might if and only if you install the proper tools. Even with your aftermarket additions you still cannot come close to a CLI IDS system. Not only are you behind in functionality but you've completely left the context of my statement.
Just admit that you were unaware that Windows had a netstat command
I was aware that Windows had netstat at one time and, do to the complete inability of the Windows command prompt to integrate usefully with the rest of the system, had forgotten that it existed. Within the scope of the original claim, intrusion detection from the CLI, Windows does not have a program nearly as neat and tidy as netstat.
The telegraph didn't prevent the telephone
The telephone had ENORMOUSLY different functionality and so filled a different market. Coded message vs. real-time communication.
the railroad didn't prevent the automobile
The automobile filled a different market. < 40 miles.
So Windows didn't prevent Linux?
The competition here is the same market since the overwhelming amount of general computer usage could made easy on any platform given enough work. We'll have to see how the politics plays out.
You're pointing out a flaw of the tax system, not of capitalism in itself.
You're precisely correct. I believe in capitalism. I also believe that the problem we're experiencing is directly proportional to the value of the (Gross National Product)/(Federal Budget).
The budget is too low, the Federal Reserve needs to be paid, and the loan is on our credit. It's only logical that any number of worthless schemes would be presented to obtain that money in a fashion that avoids a physical confrontation.
The capitalist system, at least here in the U.S., is firmly in place.
Please repeat after me: capitalism with a hundred thousand government rules and regulations functions the same way as communism. a + 100000*b = c.
Fairness was never in the equasion.
It was in the constitution but went straight out the window with the part that gave Congress the right to take out loans on the credit of the entire United States. They _MUST_ pay the money back somehow, and if they're going to have to take care of the business of paying it back, they'll be more than happy to take their fair share for their trouble out of the money you pay for the loan which is on your credit.
I'm asking, can you build, in your back yard from raw materials, a general purpose computer?
That's precisely why I studied chemistry. I'm self-sufficient.
...but doing so would probably sentence me to a diagnosis of mentally insane.
Never trust a free executable.
This brought a memory to mind. The fellow that taught me about using computers (when I was 8) vehemently insisted that I not get software from anyone but him. He told me that if there was something that I wanted he could get it. He said that if anything went wrong with the hardware he would not help me fix anything if I got software from anyone else. My parents pounded that home that if anything ever went wrong with the computer that he couldn't fix I wouldn't be happy for a long time. Even though there were several other kids in my class who had the same computer I didn't trade my first game with them until I probably was close to 11. I borrowed a game from the first fellow and tried to copy it with a bit-nibbler that I had gotten from a classmate. I wanted the bit-nibbler because it was newer, faster, and made the same claims as the older slower copier (which also was, technically, a bit-nibbler but who's checking at 11?). I took the game back to the first fellow and said,"It wouldn't copy."
"What did you use to try copying it?"
"Uhhh... QCopy."
"Did you try anything else?"
"QCopy-3."
"I told you to use 2. Did you try QCopy-2?"
"Even Mr. Nibble wouldn't copy it!"
"Mr. Nibble? Where did you get that? I have one copy here that I don't give to anyone."
"A friend at school."
"Of course it didn't copy. You tried Mr. Nibble. Go home and use QCopy-2."
"But it takes forever and Mr. Nibble copies everything else."
At this point he gave me a look which said,"Yeah, I know you've been using it for 6 months but you haven't bothered to say anything."
"That's why QCopy-2 works and Mr. Nibble doesn't. QCopy-2 knows what it's doing."
Well... anyways. I don't trust any accessory programs to be secure. They're just more holes in the swiss cheese.