Apparently you don't understand how [good] spam tools work, I think is the problem...but first let me suggest that you re-read my previous posts. I suggested that everyone quit whining about spam and install some software. I also made a comment that this was something that could be done at the ISP, leaving the 95% ignorant people on the Internet to have to not do much except forward spams. Now back to how spam tools work...your last couple of statements suggest you don't understand how any good spam filter works. It's not based on a filter list, or an IP list, but the tools actually have the capability of learning new types of spams. This means in 2.5 years time, 100 times more spam will be sent, forwarded into DSPAM, and *learned* by DSPAM without any rules lists to maintain. Spam is always changing, and therefore the only truly effective spam tools much learn. So if you decide you don't want to install a spam filter - fine...enjoy your spam... but 2.5 years from now I still won't have seen much of any spam.
Bogofilter may not be for everyone, but DSPAM implements server-side...which means it's the sysadmins for the ISPs who install it and allow their users to opt-in or opt-out of spam filtering. All the average user has to do is forward messages they deem as 'spam' to an email address. pretty brain-dead easy.
Speak for yourself. I haven't gotten a spam in months, although my quarantine box has caught thousands. My kids aren't going to know what spam is because they'll never see one.
The bulk of spam is in english - you can send english spam from taiwan (or anywhere else) if you want. According to the last spam tech I spoke with, a lot of spammers are using algerian domain names, so actually setting up a box outside of the US is just the next logical step in the progression. How would you like to go to all the trouble of setting up a do-not-spam list, collect literally millions or possibly a billion addresses, and then have one spammer set up operation outside the US? It makes it all not really worth it.
The do-not-spam registry will not work primarily because A. spammers are already breaking the law to spam, and B. it's easy to set up an offshore spam factory outside the US to send spams. Unlike telemarketing, where making phone calls to other countries is too expensive, it's fairly cheap to bypass legislation and spam outside the US...not to mention a do-not-spam registry is stupid in the sole fact that it gives spammers a huge list of millions of VALID email addresses - doing their job FOR them.
Is this really necessary to post a different article every day of someone in our field who agrees spam is bad? It's like there's a template for every article on slashdot about spam:
CEO of [NAME] reported today that SPAM is [GOOD|BAD] and recommends [LEGISLATION|CRACKING DOWN|PRODUCT].
There are enough freely available working solutions out there now that work with Mr. Allman's product (such as DSPAM and BogoFilter) where we really have gotten to the point where we can quit complaining about spam and actually succeed in the high 99% at stopping it. If everyone quit whining and installed one of these tools, nobody would get spam, and the spammers would be out of business.
Solaris is modular, but has a very different interface for enabling/disabling modules. IPF demonstrates this by loading/unloading itself as a kernel module.
Anyone who would criticize an open source tool is a dumbass. The authors have worked hard to create a free tool the community can use. If you don't like it, find something else or write a replacement...but don't be an idiot and put down someone else's hard work.
Pardon, but a pedophile IS in fact breaking the law. A pedophile is a little more than someone who just sits and thinks about children. Most of the time, they are in posession of child pornography (which is illegal), may have harrassed one or more children (which is illegal), and contribute to the delinquency of minors (also illegal). All of this is regardless of whether or not they ever put a hand on that child. All child molesters were pedophiles at one point, and the laws of our country are designed to catch pedophiles before they become molesters. The FBI isn't interested in some freak who is attracted to little girls, the FBI is interested in some freak who is attracted to little girls AND is in posession of (or distributing) kiddie porn, or one or more ILLEGAL things a pedophile does.
That's a lot of work just for this type of behavior. Perhaps it would behoove Microsoft to add an option to disable remote images as a feature to OutHouse^H^H^H^H^HLook ?
Ximian evolution (the client I use) gives you this option too - they took it a little further and let me disable it only for users not in my addressbook. On the other hand, I haven't gotten a spam in months to really test it with (avid DSPAM user)
This is the least of your problems. Users using graphical clients that load images or other objects when you preview the message automatically tells the spammers your address is valid too. They encode your email address or a unique ID into the URL.
Bandwidth is a lot cheaper than time, at least for me...but then again I don't have ten million customers to deal with. Configuring a tool like DSPAM to talk to a routing blackhole that would blacklist IPs from which more than N spams were received within X timeframe would be a great way to stop it at the border.
Give it a week for advanced Bayesian statistical filters (like DSPAM) to learn the new patterns and then you'll never see them again. Honestly, I don't know why people are still complaining about spam - our system has caught 99.9% of all my spams (about 50-60 per day for me, 150 per day for my wife). Why waste cycles when there are free solutions that work.
I'm sure they'll fix that "bug" now that someone's told them about it =) Seriously though, I appreciate your zeal for the google toolbar, but I'm not about to switch to Windows any time soon.
Re: I'm gonna get crap for this, but...
on
Plasma Comes Alive
·
· Score: 1
Evolution deniers? Evolution has yet to prove itself whatsoever. It takes far more faith to believe evolution than it does Creationism (and I've believed both at one point in time). It is just as much "religion" as any other approach to explain human existence, and is dangerous because it is hinged on the presupposition of anti-supernaturalism - which makes it an UN_scientific method because it preemptively ignores data. In response to the other reply, theistic evolution (the idea that God exists, but didn't play a direct role in creating man) is illogical and suggests that God would create a fallable system that constantly requires "tweaking". Bottom line, either God directly created us or there is no God. If you believe there is no God, I certainly see why you'd be so fast to believe in such a fairy tale as evolution.
(By the way, every single "missing link" you base your beliefs in was rejected by science)
Slashdot Mirror
You put Microsoft Secure Computing before your night of passion with Christine Aguilera? Your priorities are whacked, man!
So then we must develop spam tools that do not subject themselves to high false positive training =)
Apparently you don't understand how [good] spam tools work, I think is the problem...but first let me suggest that you re-read my previous posts. I suggested that everyone quit whining about spam and install some software. I also made a comment that this was something that could be done at the ISP, leaving the 95% ignorant people on the Internet to have to not do much except forward spams. Now back to how spam tools work...your last couple of statements suggest you don't understand how any good spam filter works. It's not based on a filter list, or an IP list, but the tools actually have the capability of learning new types of spams. This means in 2.5 years time, 100 times more spam will be sent, forwarded into DSPAM, and *learned* by DSPAM without any rules lists to maintain. Spam is always changing, and therefore the only truly effective spam tools much learn. So if you decide you don't want to install a spam filter - fine...enjoy your spam... but 2.5 years from now I still won't have seen much of any spam.
Da? Well case in point then.
Bogofilter may not be for everyone, but DSPAM implements server-side...which means it's the sysadmins for the ISPs who install it and allow their users to opt-in or opt-out of spam filtering. All the average user has to do is forward messages they deem as 'spam' to an email address. pretty brain-dead easy.
Speak for yourself. I haven't gotten a spam in months, although my quarantine box has caught thousands. My kids aren't going to know what spam is because they'll never see one.
The bulk of spam is in english - you can send english spam from taiwan (or anywhere else) if you want. According to the last spam tech I spoke with, a lot of spammers are using algerian domain names, so actually setting up a box outside of the US is just the next logical step in the progression. How would you like to go to all the trouble of setting up a do-not-spam list, collect literally millions or possibly a billion addresses, and then have one spammer set up operation outside the US? It makes it all not really worth it.
The do-not-spam registry will not work primarily because A. spammers are already breaking the law to spam, and B. it's easy to set up an offshore spam factory outside the US to send spams. Unlike telemarketing, where making phone calls to other countries is too expensive, it's fairly cheap to bypass legislation and spam outside the US...not to mention a do-not-spam registry is stupid in the sole fact that it gives spammers a huge list of millions of VALID email addresses - doing their job FOR them.
Is this really necessary to post a different article every day of someone in our field who agrees spam is bad? It's like there's a template for every article on slashdot about spam:
CEO of [NAME] reported today that SPAM is [GOOD|BAD] and recommends [LEGISLATION|CRACKING DOWN|PRODUCT].
There are enough freely available working solutions out there now that work with Mr. Allman's product (such as DSPAM and BogoFilter) where we really have gotten to the point where we can quit complaining about spam and actually succeed in the high 99% at stopping it. If everyone quit whining and installed one of these tools, nobody would get spam, and the spammers would be out of business.
Solaris is modular, but has a very different interface for enabling/disabling modules. IPF demonstrates this by loading/unloading itself as a kernel module.
Maybe he can get a good job as a PERL programmer and code the next mainstream operating system.
That's because you're using the wrong anti-spam tool. You need an advanced self-teaching anti-spam tool like DSPAM to keep up with the spammers.
Anyone who would criticize an open source tool is a dumbass. The authors have worked hard to create a free tool the community can use. If you don't like it, find something else or write a replacement...but don't be an idiot and put down someone else's hard work.
Pardon, but a pedophile IS in fact breaking the law. A pedophile is a little more than someone who just sits and thinks about children. Most of the time, they are in posession of child pornography (which is illegal), may have harrassed one or more children (which is illegal), and contribute to the delinquency of minors (also illegal). All of this is regardless of whether or not they ever put a hand on that child. All child molesters were pedophiles at one point, and the laws of our country are designed to catch pedophiles before they become molesters. The FBI isn't interested in some freak who is attracted to little girls, the FBI is interested in some freak who is attracted to little girls AND is in posession of (or distributing) kiddie porn, or one or more ILLEGAL things a pedophile does.
This trailer is actually on the 2nd DVD .. nothing new to see here folks, move along.
But will it be fast enough to run Windows 2006.
for the 3 people with UHDV-compatible television sets, and the guys at circut city to enjoy.
I for one welcome our new changelog wielding overlords
That's a lot of work just for this type of behavior. Perhaps it would behoove Microsoft to add an option to disable remote images as a feature to OutHouse^H^H^H^H^HLook ?
Ximian evolution (the client I use) gives you this option too - they took it a little further and let me disable it only for users not in my addressbook. On the other hand, I haven't gotten a spam in months to really test it with (avid DSPAM user)
This is the least of your problems. Users using graphical clients that load images or other objects when you preview the message automatically tells the spammers your address is valid too. They encode your email address or a unique ID into the URL.
Bandwidth is a lot cheaper than time, at least for me...but then again I don't have ten million customers to deal with. Configuring a tool like DSPAM to talk to a routing blackhole that would blacklist IPs from which more than N spams were received within X timeframe would be a great way to stop it at the border.
Give it a week for advanced Bayesian statistical filters (like DSPAM) to learn the new patterns and then you'll never see them again. Honestly, I don't know why people are still complaining about spam - our system has caught 99.9% of all my spams (about 50-60 per day for me, 150 per day for my wife). Why waste cycles when there are free solutions that work.
I'm sure they'll fix that "bug" now that someone's told them about it =) Seriously though, I appreciate your zeal for the google toolbar, but I'm not about to switch to Windows any time soon.
Evolution deniers? Evolution has yet to prove itself whatsoever. It takes far more faith to believe evolution than it does Creationism (and I've believed both at one point in time). It is just as much "religion" as any other approach to explain human existence, and is dangerous because it is hinged on the presupposition of anti-supernaturalism - which makes it an UN_scientific method because it preemptively ignores data. In response to the other reply, theistic evolution (the idea that God exists, but didn't play a direct role in creating man) is illogical and suggests that God would create a fallable system that constantly requires "tweaking". Bottom line, either God directly created us or there is no God. If you believe there is no God, I certainly see why you'd be so fast to believe in such a fairy tale as evolution. (By the way, every single "missing link" you base your beliefs in was rejected by science)