Actually I believe that in Tort cases, as with any civil case there doesn't need to be a clear preponderance of the evidence, the jury just needs to be beyond a shadow of a doubt sure.
Complete idiocy, modded up. It's just another day on Slashdot.
I hate spam as much as anyone but this is true. We are talking about somebody put some 1's and 0's where they shouldn't. Is this really a crime? I'm not even sure its a violation of an RFC.
You are arguing that sending spam with forged headers is OK, and still believe that you hate spam as much as anyone? You aren't paying attention. I guarantee that I hate it more than you do - that's why I'm not arguing that spam is OK. (Much less spam with forged headers.)
I wrote previously that virus writers are similar to graffiti artists spray painting the names of their gang on a wall. Got modded down by some l33t script kiddie.
If there is no right and wrong, then your statement cannot be right.
If there is no right and wrong, then his statement can be true.
Different people have different beliefs about "right" and "wrong", and therefore have different morals, because they disagree about what is right and wrong. Or at least, that's what he seems to be saying to me.
Tradewars. Loved it, played it way too much.
It's still around, but those of you who played on single-line BBS's would hardly recognize it. They had a MBBS version for a long time, designed to handle multiple players at a time. That's the version that's still around, over the net.
Not long ago I checked it out a bit. Most games are 5,000 turns a day or more (compared to the 100-200 I'm used to.) Some have no turn limit at all. No time limits, since everyone can be on at once. It makes for a very different game. With so many turns, it makes it less useful to be frugal with them, while at the same time, the trading ports get traded down very fast.
It's still around, but I liked it better "back when"...
If I understood what I read correctly, Gary finally sold it to someone else.
But when a single solution becomes mainstream, spammers will adapt to it. Bayesian filters tend to work very well, but now spammers are adding sprawls of randomly generated green-light text to offset the filter's score.
I can't see how that would change anything. The "bad" keywords are still in the spam. The gobbledy-gook words (usually short clips of random books/stories/something) are legitimate words, but aren't very likely to have a high coincidence of words found on in my legitimate email.
I'm not using bayesian filtering, but I can't see those making much difference.
Yes, that is my opinion. Your opinion is that you have the right to paint whatever crap you want on other peoples property. Just like the virus writers feel they have a right to fuck up other peoples computers.
If you spray paint your crap over my building, you are a vandal. I don't care if you have the skill of Michelangelo, Da Vinci, and Rembrandt combined, you don't have the right to paint on things that belong to other people. If you do, you are a vandal. Period.
True artists can find legitimate outlets - they even get paid. Graffit art is done by gang members and other scum. Virus writers are simiply their online equivilent.
My inbox has dozens of viruses dumped into it every day, which completely and totally pisses me off. However, I'd still shake the hand of the writers of some of the cleverer viruses, I bear them no grudge; they're simply filling a niche created by incompetant programmers at microsoft.
Yeah, and graffiti artists are simply filling a niche created by incompetent designers at Acme Brick.
Sorry, but virus writers are vandals. There isn't any "niche" there, there are just punks who feel that screwing up other peoples computers is fun.
In at least one case, I saw a car alarm REDUCE a car's security.
I've slapped or kicked several cars because they started "Step away from the vehicle BEEP BEEP BEEP" crap when I parked next to them or walked past them in the parking lot. I don't have to be drunk to do this, and I don't feel the least bit bad about it. The car has an asshole owner who thinks that any movement his car can detect is a good excuse to make a bunch of racket. I believe in treating assholes like assholes, so...
Has it already been deemed unviable.. or just dumb?
I'd call it both. Spammers lie about who they are. They send spam using hacked machines that they do not own. If we change the system to charge for email, they'll just force those charges onto innocent victims. Sorry, bud, but when a spammer forges my domain in the spam he sends you, I'm not paying you, him, or anyone else.
In order to charge for email, you have to be able to verify who actually sent the mail. Once you can verify who sent the mail, I don't think charging per email will be necessary.
One possible solution that I've been watching is SPF. Sender Permitted From. http://spf.pobox.com/.
Pay for email doesn't work. It's often talked about, but only by people who haven't thought it through.
Spammers are willing to break the law. They already fake the "from" line in the spams they send, use trojan's to take over computers which they then use to send spam without the owner of that computer realizing it, and try to hide who they are.
So who are you going to bill? Are you going to bill me because the spammers put a whitis.com address in the headers of his crap? Do you think that spammers won't try to force the email charge onto some innocent schmuck who doesn't know what is happening?
In order to charge someone for sending email, you have to know who sent the email. Current protocols for email don't do a very good job of that.
We need a way to tell that the info in the headers is not faked, and that the mail which claims to be from JohnDoe@somerandomISP.net is really from him. Once you can do that, you can throw away all the faked mail.
That doesn't stop spam, but it makes it a lot harder for the spammers to hide, it makes it a lot easier for the legitimate mail to get through, and it means that anyone who wants to spam will soon have the mail they send filtered and thrown away.
Once you can verify the sender, a whole lot of the problem goes away or gets easier to deal with. If you can't verify the sender, then you can't charge anyone for sending the mail.
You say that legitmate companies do have legitmate goods and services. I agree. But legitimate companies don't spam. As soon as they send spam, they are spamming sleazebags, not legitmate companies. Legitimate companies will use opt in lists, with confirmation to stop forged subscriptions.
I've started an online business or two in my time, and carefully-target unsolicited email (aka spam) was an essential part of our business plan, and it brought real benefit to most recipients.
You, like every other spammer, claim that your spam isn't spam, it's good, that recipients want it. Bullshit.
I don't recall ad-free telephones being some sort of fundamental human right. How about turning off the phone at dinner time? Are there no commercial problems that can be solved anymore without the government?
And I don't recall that assholes like you have any fundemental human right to piss off people who don't want to hear from you. I tried telling you "I don't do business with telemarketers, put me on your do not call list". I tried saying "I've got something on the stove, hold on a minute" and going back to whatever I was doing. I tried saying "Fuck off and die, telemarketing scum!".
And you assholes kept calling. So now there is a law, and you still don't get it.
I get more telemarketing calls now (4-6+ a day) than I did *before* the registry.
Telemarketing calls here have practically stopped since the DNC list came out. And we were getting a lot of them prior to the DNC list going into effect.
He states that the individual state licenses we use now should change to a national standard, and that you should use them every time you log onto a computer, purchase liquor (and apparently anything else). And telling the government about every time you log on, every time you buy a 6 pack, and things like that don't sound invasive to you?
I am not a writer. I am not Bill Gates. I am not an 3l1t3 hak0r. I am not a rich man. I am not a marketer, a salesmen, or the widowed wife of an ex-African King. I?m just a long haired hippy who uses his computer a lot. And I realized a long time ago that email spam was going to be a problem. It has (so far) essentially ruined newsgroups. But I?ve never thought that the spammers would win. The more ?effective? they are (from their point of view) the more people they piss off. And since people want email ? a cheap effective means of communication ? then people will eventually fight back when the scum tries to ruin it. That?s starting to happen.
And email will be saved ? unless the ?good guys? mess it up. Microsoft (and I?m no MS basher) wants to make a little bit ? just a tiny bit ? off of every email sent. And that will cause a huge change in how email is used. Does the NYTimes send you email every day? Slashdot? Rueters? The Florida Fowl Fanciers Association? (OK, I made that one up?.) Are you on any technical email lists? (Many programming lists have 50-100 messages a day, or more, to the list, and the list goes to 1,000?s of people.) These are free now. They won?t be if the ?solution? to spam involves the people who run these paying 1/4 cent per email. Either they will pass those costs on to the people who want the mail ? or they will fold, unable to pay the additional costs.
In the meantime, those of you who want to send 20-30 emails a month, all to friends, will pay higher prices.
But that?s if MS gets their way. I don?t think that will happen.
In order for the pay-to-send model to work, you have to have something that doesn?t happen now. As things stand, when you send an email, it is incredibly easy to put any email address you want in the ?From? field. I can send an email from bill.gates@microsoft.com or president@whitehouse.gov without any trouble. And email programs can?t tell that those are, obviously, forgeries.
If you can?t tell who sent the mail, you can?t charge them for sending it.
If you can tell who sent the mail, then verifying that they aren?t lying to you in the header of the email is easy.
If you throw away all mail that doesn?t have legitimate, verifiable headers, then most of the spam goes away ? and filtering for legitimate messages, as well as filing complaints about illegitimate messages ? gets easy.
The pay-per-email systsems that get talked about all require the same verification. So lets do that first. If, after we can verify who the mail came from, it still seems to be needed to charge for mail, then we can start charging for email then . In the meantime, the goal of any geek that cares about spam should be to verify that the mail that claims to be from XXX is really from XXX, not ABC.
One system that I know is working on this is SPF. Sender Permitted From. I?m not convinced that this is the final solution. I am convinced that they are going the right direction.
Slashdot Mirror
Complete idiocy, modded up. It's just another day on Slashdot.
T-Mobile does some of their marketing via email spam. If you do business with them, you are supporting a spammer.
You are arguing that sending spam with forged headers is OK, and still believe that you hate spam as much as anyone? You aren't paying attention. I guarantee that I hate it more than you do - that's why I'm not arguing that spam is OK. (Much less spam with forged headers.)
Bull shit.
Billy the Kid killed 21 men. He was by far the exception, which is why he's remembered so long after his death.
Nowdays, they bomb a building and kill hundreds, making his 21 small-time.
I wrote previously that virus writers are similar to graffiti artists spray painting the names of their gang on a wall. Got modded down by some l33t script kiddie.
If you trust anything the DMA tells you, then you are a fool.
If there is no right and wrong, then his statement can be true.
Different people have different beliefs about "right" and "wrong", and therefore have different morals, because they disagree about what is right and wrong. Or at least, that's what he seems to be saying to me.
I, BTW, am not arguing either side.
Tradewars. Loved it, played it way too much. It's still around, but those of you who played on single-line BBS's would hardly recognize it. They had a MBBS version for a long time, designed to handle multiple players at a time. That's the version that's still around, over the net. Not long ago I checked it out a bit. Most games are 5,000 turns a day or more (compared to the 100-200 I'm used to.) Some have no turn limit at all. No time limits, since everyone can be on at once. It makes for a very different game. With so many turns, it makes it less useful to be frugal with them, while at the same time, the trading ports get traded down very fast. It's still around, but I liked it better "back when"... If I understood what I read correctly, Gary finally sold it to someone else.
It works. Pity you don't understand the joke and come across looking like an idiot...
I can't imagine spending that amount of money over a 20 year period without anything to show for it. But that's the US government for ya...
I can't see how that would change anything. The "bad" keywords are still in the spam. The gobbledy-gook words (usually short clips of random books/stories/something) are legitimate words, but aren't very likely to have a high coincidence of words found on in my legitimate email.
I'm not using bayesian filtering, but I can't see those making much difference.
Yes, that is my opinion. Your opinion is that you have the right to paint whatever crap you want on other peoples property. Just like the virus writers feel they have a right to fuck up other peoples computers.
If you spray paint your crap over my building, you are a vandal. I don't care if you have the skill of Michelangelo, Da Vinci, and Rembrandt combined, you don't have the right to paint on things that belong to other people. If you do, you are a vandal. Period.
True artists can find legitimate outlets - they even get paid. Graffit art is done by gang members and other scum. Virus writers are simiply their online equivilent.
Yeah, and graffiti artists are simply filling a niche created by incompetent designers at Acme Brick.
Sorry, but virus writers are vandals. There isn't any "niche" there, there are just punks who feel that screwing up other peoples computers is fun.
I've slapped or kicked several cars because they started "Step away from the vehicle BEEP BEEP BEEP" crap when I parked next to them or walked past them in the parking lot. I don't have to be drunk to do this, and I don't feel the least bit bad about it. The car has an asshole owner who thinks that any movement his car can detect is a good excuse to make a bunch of racket. I believe in treating assholes like assholes, so...
I'd call it both. Spammers lie about who they are. They send spam using hacked machines that they do not own. If we change the system to charge for email, they'll just force those charges onto innocent victims. Sorry, bud, but when a spammer forges my domain in the spam he sends you, I'm not paying you, him, or anyone else.
In order to charge for email, you have to be able to verify who actually sent the mail. Once you can verify who sent the mail, I don't think charging per email will be necessary.
One possible solution that I've been watching is SPF. Sender Permitted From. http://spf.pobox.com/.
http://www.causs.org/ is an oganization that fights against street spam.
Spammers are willing to break the law. They already fake the "from" line in the spams they send, use trojan's to take over computers which they then use to send spam without the owner of that computer realizing it, and try to hide who they are.
So who are you going to bill? Are you going to bill me because the spammers put a whitis.com address in the headers of his crap? Do you think that spammers won't try to force the email charge onto some innocent schmuck who doesn't know what is happening?
In order to charge someone for sending email, you have to know who sent the email. Current protocols for email don't do a very good job of that.
We need a way to tell that the info in the headers is not faked, and that the mail which claims to be from JohnDoe@somerandomISP.net is really from him. Once you can do that, you can throw away all the faked mail.
That doesn't stop spam, but it makes it a lot harder for the spammers to hide, it makes it a lot easier for the legitimate mail to get through, and it means that anyone who wants to spam will soon have the mail they send filtered and thrown away.
Once you can verify the sender, a whole lot of the problem goes away or gets easier to deal with. If you can't verify the sender, then you can't charge anyone for sending the mail.
You say that legitmate companies do have legitmate goods and services. I agree. But legitimate companies don't spam. As soon as they send spam, they are spamming sleazebags, not legitmate companies. Legitimate companies will use opt in lists, with confirmation to stop forged subscriptions.
You, like every other spammer, claim that your spam isn't spam, it's good, that recipients want it. Bullshit.
Fuck off and die, spamming scum!
And I don't recall that assholes like you have any fundemental human right to piss off people who don't want to hear from you. I tried telling you "I don't do business with telemarketers, put me on your do not call list". I tried saying "I've got something on the stove, hold on a minute" and going back to whatever I was doing. I tried saying "Fuck off and die, telemarketing scum!".
And you assholes kept calling. So now there is a law, and you still don't get it.
Telemarketing calls here have practically stopped since the DNC list came out. And we were getting a lot of them prior to the DNC list going into effect.
Maybe you just didn't read the article.
So you are claiming that child porn is legal?
And email will be saved ? unless the ?good guys? mess it up. Microsoft (and I?m no MS basher) wants to make a little bit ? just a tiny bit ? off of every email sent. And that will cause a huge change in how email is used. Does the NYTimes send you email every day? Slashdot? Rueters? The Florida Fowl Fanciers Association? (OK, I made that one up?.) Are you on any technical email lists? (Many programming lists have 50-100 messages a day, or more, to the list, and the list goes to 1,000?s of people.) These are free now. They won?t be if the ?solution? to spam involves the people who run these paying 1/4 cent per email. Either they will pass those costs on to the people who want the mail ? or they will fold, unable to pay the additional costs.
In the meantime, those of you who want to send 20-30 emails a month, all to friends, will pay higher prices.
But that?s if MS gets their way. I don?t think that will happen.
In order for the pay-to-send model to work, you have to have something that doesn?t happen now. As things stand, when you send an email, it is incredibly easy to put any email address you want in the ?From? field. I can send an email from bill.gates@microsoft.com or president@whitehouse.gov without any trouble. And email programs can?t tell that those are, obviously, forgeries.
If you can?t tell who sent the mail, you can?t charge them for sending it.
If you can tell who sent the mail, then verifying that they aren?t lying to you in the header of the email is easy.
If you throw away all mail that doesn?t have legitimate, verifiable headers, then most of the spam goes away ? and filtering for legitimate messages, as well as filing complaints about illegitimate messages ? gets easy.
The pay-per-email systsems that get talked about all require the same verification. So lets do that first. If, after we can verify who the mail came from, it still seems to be needed to charge for mail, then we can start charging for email then . In the meantime, the goal of any geek that cares about spam should be to verify that the mail that claims to be from XXX is really from XXX, not ABC.
One system that I know is working on this is SPF. Sender Permitted From. I?m not convinced that this is the final solution. I am convinced that they are going the right direction.