So first we had TV, then you gave me a DVR so I could fast forward through commercials.
Now the next generation of content delivery is video on demand, delivered via the Internet with embedded commercials that I cannot fast forward through.
I've been using GBS since the day it was released, this is really sad news. I've just swapped over to Foxmarks and so far, so good, but it only appears to sync when the browser is opened or closed. We'll see.
"Then, once you have decided to work on it and have fully absorbed X11 protocol into your being, you basically need a vmware license in order to develop."
We have bi-yearly security training for our users that cover this specifically. They'll still give me their password without me even asking for it and fail phishing tests. Generally I've found that people are more afraid of getting in trouble for what they believe would be insubordination (not giving out their password when asked) than the trouble they may get into for violating security policies by giving it out. You just have to accept that some people aren't very bright.
Yeah, seriously, they're awesome. We're using three clustered C150's at two datacenters right now. You can ditch all your other spam/anti-virus software too. Expect to pay about $15/mailbox/year for 3 appliances. Also might be worth mentioning that they were recently purchased by Cisco.
We use them to automatically scan and encrypt any message containing ePHI (think HIPAA), ABA's, SSN's and credit card numbers. You can also install an outlook plugin to implicitly encrypt messages or create mail rules to always or never encrypt certain messages from certain people or groups (great LDAP integration).
And the spam filtering is phenomenal. I really can't say enough good things about these appliances. They replaced several fedora+clamav+sendmail+SA boxes I was running and I couldn't be happier.
WoW doesn't start until 70. Leveling is learning to play your character. They slowly dole out individual abilities every couple of levels to allow you to slowly acclimate yourself. If they just dumped everything on you and said good luck you'd be completely lost.
1) No, if the message is deleted, it's gone, be it you, or software. You claim to have a 0% error rate, that's just dumb, I can't believe I'm even responding to that.
2) It would not "kill any chance of getting new clients". let's assume your 99.7% is accurate (even though you still haven't cited anything). Now, let's assume that all your clients are whitelisted. This 99.7% only applies to non-whitelisted e-mails. That means, 3 in 1,000 messages will be lost, that could be potential new clients. Are you getting it yet?
3) So is that a 0.3% false positive, false negative, or both? You're also assuming the legitimate e-mails being tagged aren't from your sister's new e-mail address or the thousands of other avenues you get besides potential new clients. You're saying that every single one of the e-mails missed will be a new client which was guaranteed work. That's hilariously bad statistical analysis.
4) Again, you wouldn't lose anything white listed.
So let me get this straight, your clients have no spam filtering whatsoever? You filter their spam for them, or they do? I can't believe someone would rather have to manually sort through 90 pieces of spam to get one legitimate e-mail versus possibly theoretically missing 3 in 1,000 legitimate e-mails.
The best part is, your secretary (assuming you have one) probably has a much lower than 99.7% success rate and you either don't know it or ignore it. She forgets to file X, or call back Y, or whatever, but somehow that's acceptable. Or how about the number of times a potential client called and got a fast busy! OH DEAR! Well there's a lost potential client. Quick, throw out all your phones.
1) You still haven't proven that you're system is more accurate than spam filtering, and, much like spam filtering, you don't know if you deleted it. Unless they call you and tell you, in which case it doesn't matter who deleted it, you, or a piece of software.
2) If you have so few clients, use spam filtering with a white list.
3) Your explanation of the failure rate of a secretary doesn't align with your explanation of why you don't use spam filtering. Your secretary can't call them back if they don't know who it was. At a 99.8% error rate, which, would be acceptable since to quote you everything just needs to be more reliable than 99.7% this random number you made up for spam filtering, she could disconnect 2 calls in 1,000 and that's ok. But 3 e-mails in 1,000 is not ok. Right? Nothing is perfect, everything has an acceptable failure rate, and you'd waste 3 working days of your life a year to receive one extra e-mail. Good game.
4) The rest of us will use spam filtering, you can be the crazy 0.00001% that's afraid of technology because it might delete 1 in 1,000 legitimate e-mails, which, for your admittedly small operation is probably like one message every 5 years. All while you waste 3 business days a year dealing with spam. I'll spend mine on a beach.
If you have that few clients that are that important, explain to them how much you value their business and how unreliable e-mail is, and offer some alternative form of communication. Check in with them regularly. Invest in some type of CRM system for christ sake. What if your e-mail server was down? Or theirs? Or you accidentally deleted their message?
And you still have yet to prove you have a lower failure rate than spam filtering software while processing 17 messages per second.
You seem to make such a big deal about the possibility of a single missed e-mail. Are you OCD or something? I don't understand. What happens if your secretary accidentally disconnects a call? Do you immediately fire her and say that since secretaries don't have 100% success rates in delivering communication that they can't possibly be used? It's just silly.
yes, you manually sort through spam while the rest of the world let's computer software do it for them, and I'm the idiot.
First off - I have of course seen spam, I used to run half a dozen sendmail+sa+clamav boxes located in a couple datacenters in the southeast to handle spam filtering. I've seen more than my fair share of spam.
Second of all, I still doubt you are even 99.7% effective, let alone MORE effective. But its irrelevant, your original point was you could not afford to miss even a single e-mail, a point you now concede isn't in fact the case at all. Both systems have acceptable levels of failure, the difference is that your way also sucks up valuable time.
If spammers were as bad as you indicate by your back-of-the-napkin math then we wouldn't even need spam filters, I could write a one like procmail script and end all spam. The fact of the matter is it's not that simple or easily identifiable.
You seem to be intent on comparing me to you, when the point is I'm comparing what you say to simple reality. I don't care how fast you can sort spam because I'll never do it! Why are you having so much trouble wrapping your brain around that? I'm not impressed because it's not true!
Prove me wrong, make a video of you sorting through thousands of e-mails with ZERO errors in less than 5 minutes. Or wait no the argument changed, now you just need better than 99.7% failure rate, which, is still a statistic I'd like to see cited somewhere, since I can probably find you spam filtering solutions guaranteeing closer to 99.9%.
You continue to ignore the fact that you cannot possibly have 100% accuracy, which, was your entire reason for not using spam filtering software in the first place.
Your numbers are absurd. You're implying that 75% of your messages are duplicates (from ~16 a second to 4 a second).
NO.
I'm not sure what else to tell you, just no, that's not true.
Your analogies are stretched to beyond reason. You are not super human. You are not the Cal Ripkin of spam filtering.
There is "better than" and "impossibly better than". I don't know why you would think I care about how much better you are than me at sorting spam since I DO NOT DO IT AND COULD NOT POSSIBLY CARE.
Sorting through 1,000 individual, nearly unique, messages in 60 seconds - we're talking about analyzing 16.6 messages PER SECOND. It is not feasible. It's just not reaslistic, I'm sorry. Post a video, prove me wrong.
IF YOU CAN POST A VIDEO OF YOU IDENTIFYING AND SORTING WITH 100% ACCURACY 1,000 E-MAILS PER MINUTE I WILL POST A VIDEO OF ME EATING MY OWN SHOE
Second of all, if you cannot turn 3 business days a year of your time into more than $50, you are an absolute moron. It's really that simple since you can find spam filtering services for FAR FAR FAAAAAAAAAR less than $50/year/mailbox.
Third, you're ignoring the point that most of the systems are much better at identifying spam than the average person - especially someone operating at nearly 17 messages per second. You claim their accuracy isn't good enough, implying that yours is better. Impossible. At least not at the rate you claim to process messages.
In summation, you're either an idiot, or a liar -- take your pick.
Your time costs money, too. In time. I've already illustrated that it's cheaper to outsource it, that is not even a point of contention anymore. The only argument you have left is that you're worried you'll lose a single e-mail.
Guess what, manual filtering isn't perfect either. If you try and sit there and tell me that you're 100% accurate while you go through thousands of spam PER MINUTE and *NEVER* not even *ONCE* miss a single legitimate e-mail, you're just lying to yourself, because I don't buy it for a second.
Slashdot Mirror
It has a timeline (top) and a timer (top right)
So first we had TV, then you gave me a DVR so I could fast forward through commercials.
...
Now the next generation of content delivery is video on demand, delivered via the Internet with embedded commercials that I cannot fast forward through.
Seriously?
Yeah as much as they like stealing standards, they hate Sun even more.
I've been using GBS since the day it was released, this is really sad news. I've just swapped over to Foxmarks and so far, so good, but it only appears to sync when the browser is opened or closed. We'll see.
This wouldn't be the same alt.* that contains, I don't know, alt.binaries?
Yeah, I'm sure it's just for those poor, poor children.
FUB and hyperbole with nothing to back it up. Thanks so much for your valuable insight.
Smart? Works on slow connections? Works on wireless? Secure?
You've obviously never used a microsoft terminal services client.
"Then, once you have decided to work on it and have fully absorbed X11 protocol into your being, you basically need a vmware license in order to develop."
Why not just use kvm and qemu?
This isn't designed for most people watching American Idol. Your argument is irrelevant.
We have bi-yearly security training for our users that cover this specifically. They'll still give me their password without me even asking for it and fail phishing tests. Generally I've found that people are more afraid of getting in trouble for what they believe would be insubordination (not giving out their password when asked) than the trouble they may get into for violating security policies by giving it out. You just have to accept that some people aren't very bright.
My password is mustang63 do you have a link or is there like a torrent or something?
The problem is the users. No matter how secure you make an operating system users will still click on every link and give people their passwords.
http://www.ironport.com/
Yeah, seriously, they're awesome. We're using three clustered C150's at two datacenters right now. You can ditch all your other spam/anti-virus software too. Expect to pay about $15/mailbox/year for 3 appliances. Also might be worth mentioning that they were recently purchased by Cisco.
We use them to automatically scan and encrypt any message containing ePHI (think HIPAA), ABA's, SSN's and credit card numbers. You can also install an outlook plugin to implicitly encrypt messages or create mail rules to always or never encrypt certain messages from certain people or groups (great LDAP integration).
And the spam filtering is phenomenal. I really can't say enough good things about these appliances. They replaced several fedora+clamav+sendmail+SA boxes I was running and I couldn't be happier.
WoW doesn't start until 70. Leveling is learning to play your character. They slowly dole out individual abilities every couple of levels to allow you to slowly acclimate yourself. If they just dumped everything on you and said good luck you'd be completely lost.
Kael'thas isn't in BT, he's in TK.
1) No, if the message is deleted, it's gone, be it you, or software. You claim to have a 0% error rate, that's just dumb, I can't believe I'm even responding to that.
2) It would not "kill any chance of getting new clients". let's assume your 99.7% is accurate (even though you still haven't cited anything). Now, let's assume that all your clients are whitelisted. This 99.7% only applies to non-whitelisted e-mails. That means, 3 in 1,000 messages will be lost, that could be potential new clients. Are you getting it yet?
3) So is that a 0.3% false positive, false negative, or both? You're also assuming the legitimate e-mails being tagged aren't from your sister's new e-mail address or the thousands of other avenues you get besides potential new clients. You're saying that every single one of the e-mails missed will be a new client which was guaranteed work. That's hilariously bad statistical analysis.
4) Again, you wouldn't lose anything white listed.
So let me get this straight, your clients have no spam filtering whatsoever? You filter their spam for them, or they do? I can't believe someone would rather have to manually sort through 90 pieces of spam to get one legitimate e-mail versus possibly theoretically missing 3 in 1,000 legitimate e-mails.
The best part is, your secretary (assuming you have one) probably has a much lower than 99.7% success rate and you either don't know it or ignore it. She forgets to file X, or call back Y, or whatever, but somehow that's acceptable. Or how about the number of times a potential client called and got a fast busy! OH DEAR! Well there's a lost potential client. Quick, throw out all your phones.
1) You still haven't proven that you're system is more accurate than spam filtering, and, much like spam filtering, you don't know if you deleted it. Unless they call you and tell you, in which case it doesn't matter who deleted it, you, or a piece of software.
2) If you have so few clients, use spam filtering with a white list.
3) Your explanation of the failure rate of a secretary doesn't align with your explanation of why you don't use spam filtering. Your secretary can't call them back if they don't know who it was. At a 99.8% error rate, which, would be acceptable since to quote you everything just needs to be more reliable than 99.7% this random number you made up for spam filtering, she could disconnect 2 calls in 1,000 and that's ok. But 3 e-mails in 1,000 is not ok. Right? Nothing is perfect, everything has an acceptable failure rate, and you'd waste 3 working days of your life a year to receive one extra e-mail. Good game.
4) The rest of us will use spam filtering, you can be the crazy 0.00001% that's afraid of technology because it might delete 1 in 1,000 legitimate e-mails, which, for your admittedly small operation is probably like one message every 5 years. All while you waste 3 business days a year dealing with spam. I'll spend mine on a beach.
Have a nice day.
You're also still ignoring the secretary analogy, I'd love to hear your response to that.
If you have that few clients that are that important, explain to them how much you value their business and how unreliable e-mail is, and offer some alternative form of communication. Check in with them regularly. Invest in some type of CRM system for christ sake. What if your e-mail server was down? Or theirs? Or you accidentally deleted their message?
And you still have yet to prove you have a lower failure rate than spam filtering software while processing 17 messages per second.
You seem to make such a big deal about the possibility of a single missed e-mail. Are you OCD or something? I don't understand. What happens if your secretary accidentally disconnects a call? Do you immediately fire her and say that since secretaries don't have 100% success rates in delivering communication that they can't possibly be used? It's just silly.
yes, you manually sort through spam while the rest of the world let's computer software do it for them, and I'm the idiot.
First off - I have of course seen spam, I used to run half a dozen sendmail+sa+clamav boxes located in a couple datacenters in the southeast to handle spam filtering. I've seen more than my fair share of spam.
Second of all, I still doubt you are even 99.7% effective, let alone MORE effective. But its irrelevant, your original point was you could not afford to miss even a single e-mail, a point you now concede isn't in fact the case at all. Both systems have acceptable levels of failure, the difference is that your way also sucks up valuable time.
If spammers were as bad as you indicate by your back-of-the-napkin math then we wouldn't even need spam filters, I could write a one like procmail script and end all spam. The fact of the matter is it's not that simple or easily identifiable.
You seem to be intent on comparing me to you, when the point is I'm comparing what you say to simple reality. I don't care how fast you can sort spam because I'll never do it! Why are you having so much trouble wrapping your brain around that? I'm not impressed because it's not true!
Prove me wrong, make a video of you sorting through thousands of e-mails with ZERO errors in less than 5 minutes. Or wait no the argument changed, now you just need better than 99.7% failure rate, which, is still a statistic I'd like to see cited somewhere, since I can probably find you spam filtering solutions guaranteeing closer to 99.9%.
You continue to ignore the fact that you cannot possibly have 100% accuracy, which, was your entire reason for not using spam filtering software in the first place.
Your numbers are absurd. You're implying that 75% of your messages are duplicates (from ~16 a second to 4 a second).
NO.
I'm not sure what else to tell you, just no, that's not true.
Your analogies are stretched to beyond reason. You are not super human. You are not the Cal Ripkin of spam filtering.
There is "better than" and "impossibly better than". I don't know why you would think I care about how much better you are than me at sorting spam since I DO NOT DO IT AND COULD NOT POSSIBLY CARE.
Sorting through 1,000 individual, nearly unique, messages in 60 seconds - we're talking about analyzing 16.6 messages PER SECOND. It is not feasible. It's just not reaslistic, I'm sorry. Post a video, prove me wrong.
IF YOU CAN POST A VIDEO OF YOU IDENTIFYING AND SORTING WITH 100% ACCURACY 1,000 E-MAILS PER MINUTE I WILL POST A VIDEO OF ME EATING MY OWN SHOE
Second of all, if you cannot turn 3 business days a year of your time into more than $50, you are an absolute moron. It's really that simple since you can find spam filtering services for FAR FAR FAAAAAAAAAR less than $50/year/mailbox.
Third, you're ignoring the point that most of the systems are much better at identifying spam than the average person - especially someone operating at nearly 17 messages per second. You claim their accuracy isn't good enough, implying that yours is better. Impossible. At least not at the rate you claim to process messages.
In summation, you're either an idiot, or a liar -- take your pick.
You can't even take the $250 no-recipt deduction anymore. They're really starting to crack down on that stuff.
Your time costs money, too. In time. I've already illustrated that it's cheaper to outsource it, that is not even a point of contention anymore. The only argument you have left is that you're worried you'll lose a single e-mail.
Guess what, manual filtering isn't perfect either. If you try and sit there and tell me that you're 100% accurate while you go through thousands of spam PER MINUTE and *NEVER* not even *ONCE* miss a single legitimate e-mail, you're just lying to yourself, because I don't buy it for a second.