"We already have some of our clients threatening us to cancel their contracts with us if we don't fix this."
Fine. They go elsewhere, find out their new provider can't force their ads through and do it again. (After all, if you try avoiding the keywords, Symantec will just adjust their tests to match.) How many times will they spemd the money to move their site before they figure out that they're wasting money because nobody can do what they want? And, for every customer you lose this way, you'll probably end up with another one moving for the same reason. You can probably stop most of your clients from leaving by pointing this out, and the ones that go anyway were probably more trouble than they were worth in the long run.
Everybody's been missing the most important point. It doesn't really matter if you call it spyware or adware. No matter what you call it, it's still obnoxous crap.
Currently, I have one cat, a youngish tom. He's a brown/black tabby, and you'll know what his face looks like if you can spot the reference in his name: Gully Foyle.
I used to like strong coffee. Now that I've read Issola, by Steven Brust, I prefer klava. Good, strong coffee, flavored with vanilla and wood chips then sweetened with honey as needed. Yum!
"I have a hard time seeing the Zealots as any different from terrorists because of the nature of their threats. I expect one of them -- or perhaps a group of them -- will go too far at some point and do significant damage to the open-source movement, the ongoing litigation with SCO or their employers."
Terrorists try to make people so afraid of what the terrorists will do next that they cave in and allow the terrorists to win just to protect themselves. What could linux zealots do that could possibly have this effect? Granted, they can make muisnces of themselves, but ther's just now way they can make (let's say) MicroSoft support open source because it's afraid of what they'll do next.
Actually, the colors make sense. When a color marks a certain value, it's easier to distinguish them.
I remember hearing claims that when different denominations are different colors, people look at the color not the printing, making counterfiting easier. At the time, this was given as the reason all US bills were the same color. Now, either they've changed their minds, or decided to do what's popular instead of what's effective. If they have changed their minds about the effect of having different bills different colors, I'd be interested in knowing their reasoning.
For a few months, I worked as a telemarketer, because I needed a job. We were only interested in talking to businesses, as we were trying to get long-term customers for printer ribbons and other supplies. If we called a residence, we were under instructions to appoligize for bothering them, assure them we'd remove them from our list and end the call. Then, we crossed them off. Also, if a business told us they didn't want to be bothered, we'd do the same. Why? Because calling people that don't want to listen to us wasted our time, as well as theirs; time that could be spent talking to a potential customer, and maybe earning some money. Not all telemarketers are brain-dead scum, although it sometimes seems so.
The system is more than just a port scanner. If you think you can evade it simply by blocking probes, you're dead wrong. The system is more than that, it also incorporates passive monitoring. Here's a hint. There ain't no way to disguise high bandwidth. No encryption, no port changes, nothing that will hide that. If you're downloading massive amounts of data, you will be found. Period.
This makes me feel much better about the program. The original article made it look like it was actually examining the computers for the programmers. This is more like keeping a log of what phone numbers call in and which get called without recording the conversations. Still something of an invasion of privacy, but not as obtrusive as it appeared.
I agree that you have to search out and stop those that waste bandwith on such things, but wouldn't it be easier just to block those ports at your own routers? I know some ISPs block outgoing connections to port 25 to prevent spammers from relaying through open SMTP servers. Couldn't you just block the appropriate ports and be done with it?
They may be paying for use of the network, but so are the hundres (or thousands) of other students. Bandwidth is not unlimited and the campus agency responsible for it has to make sure it's available for legitimate purposes.
I don't like the idea of a university thinking it has the right to snoop into student's computers, but who pays for the bandwidth brings up another point. Stuednts using an excessive ammount of bandwidth to download music is just the same as spammers using excessive ammounts of resources to send their spam, especially when you consider that neither one is paying for what they're using. Giving each student a quota, and charging them for excess usage would not only teach them that bandwidth isn't free, it will probably cut down the trafffic considerably, especially when you consider how little money many students have.
I'd say that based on the intent of the law, the answer to that is "no", but it could be argued that point (2) does apply to your situation.
(1) An e-mail address furnished by an electronic mail service provider that sends bills for furnishing and maintaining that e-mail address to a mailing address in this state.
No. As your bill is sent to IL, not CA, you're not a California resident for the purposes of this bill.
I did tech support for an ISP for a number of years. One day, I got a call from a man who'd been getting those "You have a message" banners, and always clicked on them. Naturally, all his did was send him into a twisty little maze of pop-ups, all different. I never did manage to make him understand that these were just banner ads, not real messages, but after fifteen minutes or so, I did get him to stop clicking on them.
Just now, while writing this, I realized what I should have done. I should have taken him into his Display Properties and had him change the color for the title bars for open windows, then re-open his browser and go back to that site. This way, he could have seen that the banner's fake title bar wasn't the right color and that it wasn't a real window.
I worked for Earthlink for almost seven and a half years, until the Pasadena Call Center was closed. Earthlink has never made "side deals" with spammers or let them get away with anything. Earthlink has probably done more to get rid of spammers than any other ISP. Five years ago, when spam was a much smaller issue, Earthlink sued Spamford Wallace for Theft of Service, forcing him to stop using Earthlink SMTP servers without permission. Frankly, I'm astonished that the moderators haven't marked you as the trolling flamebait you are.
What you are really saying is that spammers have an absolute right to steal service, waste other people's bandwidth and fill their mailboxes with unwanted messages. Forcing the vast majority of people to do the needed work to get rid of this trash is OK, but preventing it from being sent isn't. No, you're not Mr. Opposition, you're in contention as the poster boy for spam.
I'd go a step further: block outgoing Port 25 connections with no exceptions. That way, none of my customers could rape open relays, making it hard to deny they'd spammed. And, as long as my servers don't relay, any spam coming through them would have to be from a customer, making it easier to enforce a no spam policy. Granted, there's always a few people wanting to run their own SMTP, but so what? As long as my servers do their job properly, my customers can use them and won't need their own.
"There ought to be a law" sounds good, but how do you enforce it? Unless the spammers are inside the law's jurisdiction, there's nothing you can do. Even National laws can't do much about people in other countries. The only time I ever heard of a spammer being stopped cold is when a group of vigilantes ping-flooded cyberpromo.com off of so many different backbones that Spamford Wallace finally gave up.
What we may need is a way to force service providers to stop letting spammers work. Maybe we need to UDP the offenders, or, in some cases, UDP certain tld's.
I guess I must be more sensative than you are. Granted, being TII, I only need to check once a day, but I wouldn't call it painless. Not a big deal, mind you, but it always hurts, or at least stings a little. Possibly, in a few more years (I've only been doing it for about a year now.) I won't notice it anymore, but for now, "almost painless" is more accurate.
Agreed. Not only that, business critical servers should use the simplest drivers possible, as fast graphics and so on aren't important on a server. However, the statement was meant as a conditional. IF 2k3 still has this issue then I will distrust it. See?
Slashdot Mirror
Fine. They go elsewhere, find out their new provider can't force their ads through and do it again. (After all, if you try avoiding the keywords, Symantec will just adjust their tests to match.) How many times will they spemd the money to move their site before they figure out that they're wasting money because nobody can do what they want? And, for every customer you lose this way, you'll probably end up with another one moving for the same reason. You can probably stop most of your clients from leaving by pointing this out, and the ones that go anyway were probably more trouble than they were worth in the long run.
Everybody's been missing the most important point. It doesn't really matter if you call it spyware or adware. No matter what you call it, it's still obnoxous crap.
Currently, I have one cat, a youngish tom. He's a brown/black tabby, and you'll know what his face looks like if you can spot the reference in his name: Gully Foyle.
I used to like strong coffee. Now that I've read Issola, by Steven Brust, I prefer klava. Good, strong coffee, flavored with vanilla and wood chips then sweetened with honey as needed. Yum!
"I have a hard time seeing the Zealots as any different from terrorists because of the nature of their threats. I expect one of them -- or perhaps a group of them -- will go too far at some point and do significant damage to the open-source movement, the ongoing litigation with SCO or their employers."
Terrorists try to make people so afraid of what the terrorists will do next that they cave in and allow the terrorists to win just to protect themselves. What could linux zealots do that could possibly have this effect? Granted, they can make muisnces of themselves, but ther's just now way they can make (let's say) MicroSoft support open source because it's afraid of what they'll do next.
Same here. Anybody that lists their main phones on the DNC list but not their cell phones is an ID10T and deserves every telemarketing call they get.
I remember hearing claims that when different denominations are different colors, people look at the color not the printing, making counterfiting easier. At the time, this was given as the reason all US bills were the same color. Now, either they've changed their minds, or decided to do what's popular instead of what's effective. If they have changed their minds about the effect of having different bills different colors, I'd be interested in knowing their reasoning.
For a few months, I worked as a telemarketer, because I needed a job. We were only interested in talking to businesses, as we were trying to get long-term customers for printer ribbons and other supplies. If we called a residence, we were under instructions to appoligize for bothering them, assure them we'd remove them from our list and end the call. Then, we crossed them off. Also, if a business told us they didn't want to be bothered, we'd do the same. Why? Because calling people that don't want to listen to us wasted our time, as well as theirs; time that could be spent talking to a potential customer, and maybe earning some money. Not all telemarketers are brain-dead scum, although it sometimes seems so.
This makes me feel much better about the program. The original article made it look like it was actually examining the computers for the programmers. This is more like keeping a log of what phone numbers call in and which get called without recording the conversations. Still something of an invasion of privacy, but not as obtrusive as it appeared.
I agree that you have to search out and stop those that waste bandwith on such things, but wouldn't it be easier just to block those ports at your own routers? I know some ISPs block outgoing connections to port 25 to prevent spammers from relaying through open SMTP servers. Couldn't you just block the appropriate ports and be done with it?
I don't like the idea of a university thinking it has the right to snoop into student's computers, but who pays for the bandwidth brings up another point. Stuednts using an excessive ammount of bandwidth to download music is just the same as spammers using excessive ammounts of resources to send their spam, especially when you consider that neither one is paying for what they're using. Giving each student a quota, and charging them for excess usage would not only teach them that bandwidth isn't free, it will probably cut down the trafffic considerably, especially when you consider how little money many students have.
I guess then, that the USN's use of NT for mission critical programs on ships is violating the EULA?
Get her a cook book.
He left out the mst important benefit of all: the grapes are sour, anyway.
(1) An e-mail address furnished by an electronic mail service provider that sends bills for furnishing and maintaining that e-mail address to a mailing address in this state.
No. As your bill is sent to IL, not CA, you're not a California resident for the purposes of this bill.
I just took a look at mp3.com. In order to download anything, you have to subscribe, and there's a "low monthly fee." doesn't sound free to me.
Just now, while writing this, I realized what I should have done. I should have taken him into his Display Properties and had him change the color for the title bars for open windows, then re-open his browser and go back to that site. This way, he could have seen that the banner's fake title bar wasn't the right color and that it wasn't a real window.
Re-installing the OS twice a year is better than leaving the OS running 24/7 for a year or more without rebooting? How?
So,tell me: was the time you spent working on this worth the cost of a new, real modem?
Top posting isn't the answer; trimming the quoted text is.
I worked for Earthlink for almost seven and a half years, until the Pasadena Call Center was closed. Earthlink has never made "side deals" with spammers or let them get away with anything. Earthlink has probably done more to get rid of spammers than any other ISP. Five years ago, when spam was a much smaller issue, Earthlink sued Spamford Wallace for Theft of Service, forcing him to stop using Earthlink SMTP servers without permission. Frankly, I'm astonished that the moderators haven't marked you as the trolling flamebait you are.
What you are really saying is that spammers have an absolute right to steal service, waste other people's bandwidth and fill their mailboxes with unwanted messages. Forcing the vast majority of people to do the needed work to get rid of this trash is OK, but preventing it from being sent isn't. No, you're not Mr. Opposition, you're in contention as the poster boy for spam.
I'd go a step further: block outgoing Port 25 connections with no exceptions. That way, none of my customers could rape open relays, making it hard to deny they'd spammed. And, as long as my servers don't relay, any spam coming through them would have to be from a customer, making it easier to enforce a no spam policy. Granted, there's always a few people wanting to run their own SMTP, but so what? As long as my servers do their job properly, my customers can use them and won't need their own.
What we may need is a way to force service providers to stop letting spammers work. Maybe we need to UDP the offenders, or, in some cases, UDP certain tld's.
I guess I must be more sensative than you are. Granted, being TII, I only need to check once a day, but I wouldn't call it painless. Not a big deal, mind you, but it always hurts, or at least stings a little. Possibly, in a few more years (I've only been doing it for about a year now.) I won't notice it anymore, but for now, "almost painless" is more accurate.
Agreed. Not only that, business critical servers should use the simplest drivers possible, as fast graphics and so on aren't important on a server. However, the statement was meant as a conditional. IF 2k3 still has this issue then I will distrust it. See?