I think it would be fair to label all who add the SPF records as selfish, because they are feeding those who want to force proprietary standards on others, for their own gain(i.e. to get e-mail through). Those who do not add the SPF records are responsible and looking out for the community.
I'm trying to make sense of that. So, people who properly identify their mailservers are selfish, and those that choose not to are being responsible? SPF is a proprietary standard? SenderID, maybe, but not SPF.
I only hope responsibility prevails only selfishness. BTW I can assure you that spammers will just register lots of cheap domains purely for spam through a country where they can do so easily, and add the SPFs. So it is not only a proprietary standard, but also an ineffective one that will kill more signal than it kills noise.
You *really* don't understand what SPF records are good for, do you? Spammers can register cheap domains until their ears fall off. If a given domain has to use an SPF record to send mail, and that domain starts sending lots of spam, you can cut it off in a heartbeat by not accepting mail from that domain anymore. The spammer cant use forging as a workaround if you implement SPF verification before allowing a mail server to send.
The only way it kills more signal than noise is if lots of people act in the way you identified as "responsible". If people spend the 2 minutes it takes to put an SPF record in place, you kill none of the signal, and make it easy to stop further noise in an instant.
Ahh...I just grokked your first-case scenario. If your ISP is too lazy to add an SPF record for their mailserver(s), you probably have other problems. It's not a big administrative nightmare, and it costs them nothing, so I'd ask loudly why hey're not doing it already.
If your ISP is (for example) yahoo, and you have a yahoo.com e-mail address, and yahoo hasn't yet created any spf records, they need to answer some questions.
Those cases don't apply, because you don't need to switch your mail host in most cases. Scroll up to flakier's response.
SPF records say "this mail host (which could be any mail host anywhere) is allowed to send mail from "mydomain.com" e-mail addresses". If you have zero control over your DNS setup, then it's going to be difficult no matter what you do, but unless you're doing free hosting (in which case, you get what you pay for), you should be able to get an SPF record added pretty easily.
Okay...so you're talking about normal congresscritter business. Stuff something less-than-wholesome into a bill right before a vote. When you said "hidden laws", I assumed you meant laws that existed without the benefit of public scrutiny, which would damn sure be all over the news, regardless of who's running the media.
The media fails to report plenty, and it's not a partisan issue, for the most part. It's about what makes "good" news (i.e. what sells papers and attracts viewers). Unfortunately, news reporting today is a business first and an institution second.
So, what's your point? The whole purpose of SPF was to verify the sending domain, which is still being done. The reason things *still* work out well in your example is that it's relatively simple to shut off mail from "spamer.com". You then have a situation where the spammer in question has to spend more time changing DNS records and registering domain names than it takes for hotmail admins to block them.
Yes, everyone can crapflood hotmail through your server (for a short period of time), but the flood is a lot easier to stop with SPF required.
That's an interesting post. So, Microsoft is saying that SPF records fine and dandy, I don't really care one way or the other. It's not exactly difficult to add an SPF record for your mailserver (no-ip.com even has a little SPF wizard for those on dynamic DSL connections).
For once, this sounds like a solution I can live with. A lot better than AOL's recent decision to stop accepting mail from mail exchangers with no PTR record. Forward resolution is one thing, getting changes to x.x.x.in-addr.arpa zones can be a royal pain.
Can you please provide something by the way of information on that comment? I would imagine that a "hidden laws" clause in any act of legislation would not only be unconstitutional, but also loudly mentioned in every single news and talk outfit in the country. A link would be most appreciated.
Aside from that being a bad analogy...well, that's pretty much the whole problem, isn't it?
Airbus and Boeing are similarly-sized competitors, so anti-trust issues are just not there.
Here's a better analogy. If Airbus was an airline seat manufacturer, and Boeing made their own seats for their planes, then the US government might talk to Boeing about allowing Airbus access to portions of the airplane schematics where the seats attach to the cabin. They might also mandate that Boeing offer their customers the option of not having seats pre-installed in the airplanes the customers bought...
Now, that being said, the issue of whether that's a good thing or a bad thing remains. If you're a die-hard capitalist, you might believe that Airbus (the seat manufacturer) should make better seats at a price that caused Boeing's customers to purchase them and replace the "free" seats they got and paid for the cost of from Boeing.
If you're an average person, you might think that the US govt. doing what I hypothesised is fine.
If you're somebody who loathes capitalism and the idea of competition driving the market, you might think that the government should go farther and force Boeing to install Airbus-supplied seats on a percentage of their airplanes, regardless of their cost or suitability.
Something to think about.
Personally, I think that MS should be allowed to keep whatever it develops in house proprietary and closed (for as long as people will buy into that model), and that they should react to the pressures placed upon them by Open Source Software and Open Standards Definitions as they see fit (with the caveat that I believe copyright should be the only protection for software products, not patents).
You mean the same way a $470.00 PS3 will cause fat-ass kids to go outside and play because their parents won't spend the dough on it, and they can't find new games for their PS2?
How about this: let them keep working for diapers and food and *keep* using their current TV, so they can watch reality TV shows instead of going out and taking out their frustrations on, say, you (king of the magical land where "poor" = "too much free time")?
Yeah, yeah, I know it's feeding the trolls, but come *on*.
That's not a reasonable comparison. Adding UHF stations and closed-captioning to broadcasts did not cause existing televisions to cease to be useful. This change makes every single analog television completely worthless without a set-top box, and (as I just wrote elsewhere), the people who are watching TV via rabbit-ears are the ones with the least dough to spend on more equipment.
I guess that as soon as the FCC goes public with their "free digital set-top converter" program, I'll wholeheartedly agree with you.
Until that time, however, I'm standing with all the people who can't afford a new TV or converter. The primary consumers of normal rf-based (non-satellite, non-cable) broadcasts are precicely the people that can't afford this change. It's a decidedly stupid idea.
Going from Win 98 to Win2K on my old K6-2/300 was like doing a hardware upgrade without upgrading hardware. It also sucked less in terms of BSOD's and odd crashes...especially since I didn't have to shell out any cash for it (thanks Microsoft and an old employer for MSDN media kits).
Of course, LEAF runs nicely on it now, and it makes a better firewall than it ever made a desktop.
Re:Its only the bad things we head about?
on
Safari vs. KHTML
·
· Score: 1
Are you honestly saying that Apple deliberately made their patches as hard as possible to deal with out of malice?
You read the same comment that I did and came to a conclusion that caused you to ask a question.
What I did was look at the question you asked and the context of the surrounding statements and observe that the question was really a statement. Feel free to apply the same excercise to the words "I'd imagine" in my post.
Re:Its only the bad things we head about?
on
Safari vs. KHTML
·
· Score: 1
Does that sound like the KHTML developers gave Apple any special help?
You mean like by developing KHTML?
Sure, they gave that same help to everybody, but I'm unaware of any other entities giving patches back to KDE that are causing this level of irritation. For that matter, are any other developers telling KDE to switch to a different core codebase?
The thing is, the KDE guys did Apple a favor, and DID make it easy for them to get at the code.
That's untrue how, exactly? Again, they did us *all* a favor by making it easy for us to get at the code, but that doesn't make the statement above false.
Re:Its only the bad things we head about?
on
Safari vs. KHTML
·
· Score: 1
You're getting "Open Source" confused with "Free Software".
Open Source is a business model. Free Software is an ideology.
An Open Source advocate would tell you that sharing your code is a good idea because you get the benefit of thousands of potential developers. It's just a smarter way to do development.
A free Software advocate would tell you that software wants to be free (Thanks RMS), and that software development should be done in the open so that proprietary businesses can't spoil things for all of the code hackers out there.
Re:Its only the bad things we head about?
on
Safari vs. KHTML
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I'd imagine he (or she) was saying something along the lines of "after Apple rummaged around in KDE's browser code and started building something, they pretty much ignored repeated requests from the original developers to make things easier on them when dealing with patches".
It's not wrong per-se, but it's definitely rude.
It's easy to pick out one comment from a post that has some feeling in it and go sociology-101 on that poster. It's not much harder to try and see what the whole post is trying to get across.
I believe the patches were needed because of deficiencies in the current gjc and not because of "vendor-specific functionality".
I said: "You have to patch OOo to compile under gjc and OOo is using some vendor-specific functionality."
Two-part statement...I didn't think it looked like I was saying that you needed the patches because of the vendor-specific stuff. The statement I quoted from you is correct, and so was my comment. We agree substantially.
Gambas kind of does that, actually (re-implement Visual Basic)...Java doesn't, really. If they'd turn it into a scripting language for apache, I bet a lot of asp coders would abandon ship...
Well, in the article, they make plenty of mention of gjc. The fact that it's available is not the issue. The issue is that right now You have to patch OOo to compile under gjc and OOo is using some vendor-specific functionality from Sun's Java in order to get a number of improvements and some base functionality.
If the first "O" in OpenOffice stands for "Open", then having to rely on a particular company's implementation of Java is not a good thing. Look at the various Java apps written for Microsoft's version of Java, or webpages of the past that relied on vendor-specific extensions for examples of why that's not a good thing.
Any time a particular implementation that is *not* free (as in speech) becomes a defacto standard, everyone becomes tied to the whims of that vendor's implementation. True, Sun probably won't do anything drastic, but there's still a very real possibility that they won't see eye-to-eye with the OOo developer community on some random issue somewhere down the line.
I would rather have the fallout from such a situation be that Sun was left without the ability to force the developers into a move they didn't like, rather than having the developers be forced to fork and re-engineer the whole shebang or start over from scratch. That much work shouldn't get pissed away over something like that.
Again, that's a possibility, not a certainty, but why take chances?
Definitely...and I'm sure that's the reasoning the OP used when deciding to state who they thought got it right.
Of course, you *could* actually go to Groklaw, and read the rebuttal (more of an article correcting some incorrect aspersions from the Reg article, really). The thread at Groklaw is about Linux on POWER, which is something that SCO is trying to say that they knew nothing about, in their third amended complaint.
Groklaw digging up things that say "SCO knew all about Linux on POWER" is on-point, and correct, as far as the litigation goes.
In the context of this Reg article, yes, The Register is nothing but a tech tabloid...or, at least, they didn't really understand what those Linux on POWER articles were about.
...without any concerns of the final deployment platform.
I'm sorry, but you've got to be fucking kidding me.
NASA knows explicitly what the final deployment platform will look like, from hardware up to OS and available software binaries. It's part of the all-encompassing and overwhelming specification process used when creating a new government (well, NASA/military) project.
For what NASA is doing, what they need is a language that is well-understood (Ada most definitely is), and Java doesn't fall into that category yet...C++, maybe, but not Java.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm trying to make sense of that. So, people who properly identify their mailservers are selfish, and those that choose not to are being responsible? SPF is a proprietary standard? SenderID, maybe, but not SPF.
I only hope responsibility prevails only selfishness. BTW I can assure you that spammers will just register lots of cheap domains purely for spam through a country where they can do so easily, and add the SPFs. So it is not only a proprietary standard, but also an ineffective one that will kill more signal than it kills noise.
You *really* don't understand what SPF records are good for, do you? Spammers can register cheap domains until their ears fall off. If a given domain has to use an SPF record to send mail, and that domain starts sending lots of spam, you can cut it off in a heartbeat by not accepting mail from that domain anymore. The spammer cant use forging as a workaround if you implement SPF verification before allowing a mail server to send.
The only way it kills more signal than noise is if lots of people act in the way you identified as "responsible". If people spend the 2 minutes it takes to put an SPF record in place, you kill none of the signal, and make it easy to stop further noise in an instant.
If your ISP is (for example) yahoo, and you have a yahoo.com e-mail address, and yahoo hasn't yet created any spf records, they need to answer some questions.
SPF records say "this mail host (which could be any mail host anywhere) is allowed to send mail from "mydomain.com" e-mail addresses". If you have zero control over your DNS setup, then it's going to be difficult no matter what you do, but unless you're doing free hosting (in which case, you get what you pay for), you should be able to get an SPF record added pretty easily.
The media fails to report plenty, and it's not a partisan issue, for the most part. It's about what makes "good" news (i.e. what sells papers and attracts viewers). Unfortunately, news reporting today is a business first and an institution second.
Yes, everyone can crapflood hotmail through your server (for a short period of time), but the flood is a lot easier to stop with SPF required.
For once, this sounds like a solution I can live with. A lot better than AOL's recent decision to stop accepting mail from mail exchangers with no PTR record. Forward resolution is one thing, getting changes to x.x.x.in-addr.arpa zones can be a royal pain.
...so who was that from?
Can you please provide something by the way of information on that comment? I would imagine that a "hidden laws" clause in any act of legislation would not only be unconstitutional, but also loudly mentioned in every single news and talk outfit in the country. A link would be most appreciated.
Okay, I'll bite. "Why would you say that?"
Airbus and Boeing are similarly-sized competitors, so anti-trust issues are just not there.
Here's a better analogy. If Airbus was an airline seat manufacturer, and Boeing made their own seats for their planes, then the US government might talk to Boeing about allowing Airbus access to portions of the airplane schematics where the seats attach to the cabin. They might also mandate that Boeing offer their customers the option of not having seats pre-installed in the airplanes the customers bought...
Now, that being said, the issue of whether that's a good thing or a bad thing remains. If you're a die-hard capitalist, you might believe that Airbus (the seat manufacturer) should make better seats at a price that caused Boeing's customers to purchase them and replace the "free" seats they got and paid for the cost of from Boeing.
If you're an average person, you might think that the US govt. doing what I hypothesised is fine.
If you're somebody who loathes capitalism and the idea of competition driving the market, you might think that the government should go farther and force Boeing to install Airbus-supplied seats on a percentage of their airplanes, regardless of their cost or suitability.
Something to think about.
Personally, I think that MS should be allowed to keep whatever it develops in house proprietary and closed (for as long as people will buy into that model), and that they should react to the pressures placed upon them by Open Source Software and Open Standards Definitions as they see fit (with the caveat that I believe copyright should be the only protection for software products, not patents).
'God is an Iron.' - Spider Robinson (I think, unless he borrowed it)
Seriously, though, thanks for that. I was trying to think of an appropriate term, and came up blank.
How about this: let them keep working for diapers and food and *keep* using their current TV, so they can watch reality TV shows instead of going out and taking out their frustrations on, say, you (king of the magical land where "poor" = "too much free time")?
Yeah, yeah, I know it's feeding the trolls, but come *on*.
That's not a reasonable comparison. Adding UHF stations and closed-captioning to broadcasts did not cause existing televisions to cease to be useful. This change makes every single analog television completely worthless without a set-top box, and (as I just wrote elsewhere), the people who are watching TV via rabbit-ears are the ones with the least dough to spend on more equipment.
Until that time, however, I'm standing with all the people who can't afford a new TV or converter. The primary consumers of normal rf-based (non-satellite, non-cable) broadcasts are precicely the people that can't afford this change. It's a decidedly stupid idea.
Of course, LEAF runs nicely on it now, and it makes a better firewall than it ever made a desktop.
You read the same comment that I did and came to a conclusion that caused you to ask a question.
What I did was look at the question you asked and the context of the surrounding statements and observe that the question was really a statement. Feel free to apply the same excercise to the words "I'd imagine" in my post.
You mean like by developing KHTML?
Sure, they gave that same help to everybody, but I'm unaware of any other entities giving patches back to KDE that are causing this level of irritation. For that matter, are any other developers telling KDE to switch to a different core codebase?
The thing is, the KDE guys did Apple a favor, and DID make it easy for them to get at the code.
That's untrue how, exactly? Again, they did us *all* a favor by making it easy for us to get at the code, but that doesn't make the statement above false.
Open Source is a business model. Free Software is an ideology.
An Open Source advocate would tell you that sharing your code is a good idea because you get the benefit of thousands of potential developers. It's just a smarter way to do development.
A free Software advocate would tell you that software wants to be free (Thanks RMS), and that software development should be done in the open so that proprietary businesses can't spoil things for all of the code hackers out there.
It's not wrong per-se, but it's definitely rude.
It's easy to pick out one comment from a post that has some feeling in it and go sociology-101 on that poster. It's not much harder to try and see what the whole post is trying to get across.
I said: "You have to patch OOo to compile under gjc and OOo is using some vendor-specific functionality."
Two-part statement...I didn't think it looked like I was saying that you needed the patches because of the vendor-specific stuff. The statement I quoted from you is correct, and so was my comment. We agree substantially.
Gambas kind of does that, actually (re-implement Visual Basic)...Java doesn't, really. If they'd turn it into a scripting language for apache, I bet a lot of asp coders would abandon ship...
If the first "O" in OpenOffice stands for "Open", then having to rely on a particular company's implementation of Java is not a good thing. Look at the various Java apps written for Microsoft's version of Java, or webpages of the past that relied on vendor-specific extensions for examples of why that's not a good thing.
Any time a particular implementation that is *not* free (as in speech) becomes a defacto standard, everyone becomes tied to the whims of that vendor's implementation. True, Sun probably won't do anything drastic, but there's still a very real possibility that they won't see eye-to-eye with the OOo developer community on some random issue somewhere down the line.
I would rather have the fallout from such a situation be that Sun was left without the ability to force the developers into a move they didn't like, rather than having the developers be forced to fork and re-engineer the whole shebang or start over from scratch. That much work shouldn't get pissed away over something like that.
Again, that's a possibility, not a certainty, but why take chances?
Of course, you *could* actually go to Groklaw, and read the rebuttal (more of an article correcting some incorrect aspersions from the Reg article, really). The thread at Groklaw is about Linux on POWER, which is something that SCO is trying to say that they knew nothing about, in their third amended complaint.
Groklaw digging up things that say "SCO knew all about Linux on POWER" is on-point, and correct, as far as the litigation goes.
In the context of this Reg article, yes, The Register is nothing but a tech tabloid...or, at least, they didn't really understand what those Linux on POWER articles were about.
I'm sorry, but you've got to be fucking kidding me.
NASA knows explicitly what the final deployment platform will look like, from hardware up to OS and available software binaries. It's part of the all-encompassing and overwhelming specification process used when creating a new government (well, NASA/military) project.
For what NASA is doing, what they need is a language that is well-understood (Ada most definitely is), and Java doesn't fall into that category yet...C++, maybe, but not Java.