>> Wouldn't it be better if voters could carry a copy of their vote home with them so that it could be accounted for after the fact if necessary?
I believe this is discouraged because of the possibility of someone sitting outside the polling place and threatening people whose copy of their vote doesn't show the 'right' votes. And it can also be used for buying votes, you show me the copy of your vote and if it is for the person I want I will give you a beer/wine/crack/whatever.
This has been one of the problems with auditing. You don't want the person to have the liability that can be used to identify what/who they voted for, yet you want to be able to prove thier vote was counted correctly.
The IP address in the headers, assuming I can get the correct one, at best tells me what the ip address of the computer that sent the email, when it sent the email. It may or may not have the same ip address later.
It does not identify a person, an email address to reply to, a company, an email server to report to, or any other useful information. Knowing an ip address was used at some time doesn't help a whole lot.
I think one of the problems with this is that if you put your pc out there unprotected you don't get infected with most of these bots without user action. Most of the bots spread from opening attachments in email, the next most likely place to get infected is to browse to a web page that distributes this crap. There are not many worms that are infecting computers with bots, some but not many.
As far as someone having to say attack, well maybe but in a in-direct way. From what I understand a lot of these bot-nets are thousands of computers. Someone is not sitting there telling each one to go attack. More likely is that the bots check for instructions from other infected computers or the old faithfull IRC channels. So maybe the person is still around controlling them, or they could have set the 'attack' flag and disappeared into the ethernet.
I am not a supporter of bots, my email suffers greatly from it. But I am not sure I want ISP's deciding if someones content is objectionable and needs to be blocked and stopped. That seems to be an opening for blocking any content that someone in control doesn't like.
I would much rather find a way to fix/replace the SMTP protocol to allow knowing the users to accept or deny incoming email in a more reliable manner. I want to know who exactly sent an email, so I can contact the person sending it. I want to be able to tell that a user knows their computer is sending emails, and that it is not an unknown bot on the machine doing it.
There is no list of 'acceptable' smtp senders. Almost any computer on the internet is able to run a smtp server and be a smtp sender.
The current enviroment is that we by default say everyone is an acceptable sender, UNLESS we use RBL or something to look them up and find them un-acceptable. There are many RBL lists out there, and one of the problems with them is that they can say they no longer like slashdot and put it in the un-acceptable list. There is no control over them, so you have to make sure you find one that dislikes the same people you do.
Some lists will go out and scan your computer from the internet and if they find something they don't like they will list you. Others will only list you if send spam/junk to them, they never look to see what you do just do you send to them. Some will list you if your ISP allows spamming, even if you don't spam yourself. Lot of different choices.
But as you can guess, this isn't a real good solution. If I wait until you send me spam before I block you then I am slow at blocking spam from new bots and some gets through. And I only block the one bot that sent to me, not the 1000's of others in the same bot net. But if I start blocking because I don't like what ports are open on your computer, or what your dns name is, or because I got an email from your ip that I didn't like 5 years ago, then we start blocking legit emails.
If we tried to keep a list of 'acceptable' smtp servers, we would have to have a way for every computer that is sending legit email to notify us of their ip address, and to notify us of when it changes. And each of those servers would have to keep a list of everyone they had to notify if they changed their ip address. Big nightmare.
You are missing the problem. When you send email you do not have to use your isp's smtp server. If you send email without using your isp's smtp server then their server cannot scan what you are sending. Now take this a step farther, to where we are at today, instead of using any isp's smtp server the bots use a built in smtp server. Now the only smtp server seeing the email is the receiving side, and that is where we are seeing the increases in spam.
And what makes matters worse/better, is the receiving smtp server knows it is getting email from ip address 1.2.3.4 but has no sure way of knowing if that is joe blows windows box or some isp for a major potential client. The 'basic' idea is to throw away the email from joe blow but let the major potential client through. For that we just make an educated guess (spam filters). An isp has to receive email from ip blocks that belong to other isps, otherwise you could not email someone on a different service.
Do we really want isp's doing something when they don't like some activity from/on our computers? Should they also block file sharing? That is something that can cause problems. How about blocking going to certain websites? Or maybe just block posting to certain websites? Is having the isp do 'something' to their users something we really want?
Big part of the problem is that the outgoing email is NOT going through the isp's email server. The client computer is sending the email directly to the target email server. So the isp can look all they want but they won't see the spam come through them.
I don't know the legal answer to this, but I think part of it may come down to if a person is responsible for the activity that goes on over an internet connection they have purchased. I tend to think they should be, but that is not for sure.
Your excuses may cloud the issue, or they may come back and say 'prove someone else has been using your connection without your knowledge', which you cannot do without showing that you could have known about it when it was happening. Or they may ask to provide the records of who was using it and when, same as your ISP provided to them when they got your name.
You can try it, but I think I would have a backup plan in place.
Re:Could also be because IIS is easy to get runnin
on
Apache down, IIS up
·
· Score: 1
Run an ASP page, yes. Does that with no config. Although in W2k3 I think you might have to allow them on a config page, single check box.
SqlServer, it's not the web server that talks to the database, it's the ASP or PHP web pages. So the issue there isn't about talking to the database as much as installing the database. SQLServer installs pretty easy, just run setup and keep clicking next. I have no idea what MySQL is like.
Re:Uhhmm,Property Rights?
on
Online Revenge
·
· Score: 1
And what is "uncopyrighted material"?
Everything has a copyright, the owner may grant unlimited use of the work but they still own the copyright.
>>The price of Windows is already artificially high as it is. Compare to hardware prices and Windows should cost about 5-10$ today at most.
And how or why would you compare a software product to a piece of hardware? And what hardware? My car is hardware, so that proves Windows should cost how much? Car prices have done what in the past 20 years? Hardware is cheaper?
Windows is software generally created by service professionals. Software is labor based. A better example would be comparing computer programming costs to accounting costs, or the price of lawyers.
Comparing the cost change of software to hardware makes no sense at all. Just be cause the cost of a pencil doesn't go up over the years doesn't mean that the people writing with them don't get paid more.
How hard would it be for Slashdot to be paying those same blackhat coders in Russia, and then they have something nasty on the net in 24 hours for a new story against Microsoft!
I would guess that if that is what you want, then that is the computer you should buy.
It would also be worth saying that if you think there is a money making market in that product then you should start a company selling it and get rich yourself.
Only problem is then we couldn't complain about other people getting rich selling us things we don't want.
I keep saying that about having to stay equipped with a PDF reader. Worst it keeps adding all those other things to my startup and it always has updates to download.
>> And Microsoft is complicit in this by not putting enough pressure on the application developers to fix their apps to not require administrator access.
And that is what we all want? Microsoft putting more pressure on application developers on how to write their code?
Think that one through again, I don't think it is a real good idea myself.
Slashdot Mirror
And does this Internet Radio Recorder work in my car while I am traveling?
>> Wouldn't it be better if voters could carry a copy of their vote home with them so that it could be accounted for after the fact if necessary?
I believe this is discouraged because of the possibility of someone sitting outside the polling place and threatening people whose copy of their vote doesn't show the 'right' votes. And it can also be used for buying votes, you show me the copy of your vote and if it is for the person I want I will give you a beer/wine/crack/whatever.
This has been one of the problems with auditing. You don't want the person to have the liability that can be used to identify what/who they voted for, yet you want to be able to prove thier vote was counted correctly.
So they need to rename the page you open?
Does that mean I get tanks and nukes? The two things I want most for Christmas.
You need to quit confusing people with facts! Especially here on /.
>> Article shows just how screwed a Band will Get for Signing a contract
I think if anyone signs a bad contract they can get screwed. That is why you are supposed to read them and agree to them before you sign.
This is a if you don't like the terms don't sign the contract.
The IP address in the headers, assuming I can get the correct one, at best tells me what the ip address of the computer that sent the email, when it sent the email. It may or may not have the same ip address later.
It does not identify a person, an email address to reply to, a company, an email server to report to, or any other useful information. Knowing an ip address was used at some time doesn't help a whole lot.
I think one of the problems with this is that if you put your pc out there unprotected you don't get infected with most of these bots without user action. Most of the bots spread from opening attachments in email, the next most likely place to get infected is to browse to a web page that distributes this crap. There are not many worms that are infecting computers with bots, some but not many.
As far as someone having to say attack, well maybe but in a in-direct way. From what I understand a lot of these bot-nets are thousands of computers. Someone is not sitting there telling each one to go attack. More likely is that the bots check for instructions from other infected computers or the old faithfull IRC channels. So maybe the person is still around controlling them, or they could have set the 'attack' flag and disappeared into the ethernet.
I am not a supporter of bots, my email suffers greatly from it. But I am not sure I want ISP's deciding if someones content is objectionable and needs to be blocked and stopped. That seems to be an opening for blocking any content that someone in control doesn't like.
I would much rather find a way to fix/replace the SMTP protocol to allow knowing the users to accept or deny incoming email in a more reliable manner. I want to know who exactly sent an email, so I can contact the person sending it. I want to be able to tell that a user knows their computer is sending emails, and that it is not an unknown bot on the machine doing it.
There is no list of 'acceptable' smtp senders. Almost any computer on the internet is able to run a smtp server and be a smtp sender.
The current enviroment is that we by default say everyone is an acceptable sender, UNLESS we use RBL or something to look them up and find them un-acceptable. There are many RBL lists out there, and one of the problems with them is that they can say they no longer like slashdot and put it in the un-acceptable list. There is no control over them, so you have to make sure you find one that dislikes the same people you do.
Some lists will go out and scan your computer from the internet and if they find something they don't like they will list you. Others will only list you if send spam/junk to them, they never look to see what you do just do you send to them. Some will list you if your ISP allows spamming, even if you don't spam yourself. Lot of different choices.
But as you can guess, this isn't a real good solution. If I wait until you send me spam before I block you then I am slow at blocking spam from new bots and some gets through. And I only block the one bot that sent to me, not the 1000's of others in the same bot net. But if I start blocking because I don't like what ports are open on your computer, or what your dns name is, or because I got an email from your ip that I didn't like 5 years ago, then we start blocking legit emails.
If we tried to keep a list of 'acceptable' smtp servers, we would have to have a way for every computer that is sending legit email to notify us of their ip address, and to notify us of when it changes. And each of those servers would have to keep a list of everyone they had to notify if they changed their ip address. Big nightmare.
You are missing the problem. When you send email you do not have to use your isp's smtp server. If you send email without using your isp's smtp server then their server cannot scan what you are sending. Now take this a step farther, to where we are at today, instead of using any isp's smtp server the bots use a built in smtp server. Now the only smtp server seeing the email is the receiving side, and that is where we are seeing the increases in spam.
And what makes matters worse/better, is the receiving smtp server knows it is getting email from ip address 1.2.3.4 but has no sure way of knowing if that is joe blows windows box or some isp for a major potential client. The 'basic' idea is to throw away the email from joe blow but let the major potential client through. For that we just make an educated guess (spam filters). An isp has to receive email from ip blocks that belong to other isps, otherwise you could not email someone on a different service.
Do we really want isp's doing something when they don't like some activity from/on our computers? Should they also block file sharing? That is something that can cause problems. How about blocking going to certain websites? Or maybe just block posting to certain websites? Is having the isp do 'something' to their users something we really want?
Big part of the problem is that the outgoing email is NOT going through the isp's email server. The client computer is sending the email directly to the target email server. So the isp can look all they want but they won't see the spam come through them.
I don't know the legal answer to this, but I think part of it may come down to if a person is responsible for the activity that goes on over an internet connection they have purchased. I tend to think they should be, but that is not for sure.
Your excuses may cloud the issue, or they may come back and say 'prove someone else has been using your connection without your knowledge', which you cannot do without showing that you could have known about it when it was happening. Or they may ask to provide the records of who was using it and when, same as your ISP provided to them when they got your name.
You can try it, but I think I would have a backup plan in place.
Run an ASP page, yes. Does that with no config. Although in W2k3 I think you might have to allow them on a config page, single check box.
SqlServer, it's not the web server that talks to the database, it's the ASP or PHP web pages. So the issue there isn't about talking to the database as much as installing the database. SQLServer installs pretty easy, just run setup and keep clicking next. I have no idea what MySQL is like.
And what is "uncopyrighted material"?
Everything has a copyright, the owner may grant unlimited use of the work but they still own the copyright.
>>The price of Windows is already artificially high as it is. Compare to hardware prices and Windows should cost about 5-10$ today at most.
And how or why would you compare a software product to a piece of hardware? And what hardware? My car is hardware, so that proves Windows should cost how much? Car prices have done what in the past 20 years? Hardware is cheaper?
Windows is software generally created by service professionals. Software is labor based. A better example would be comparing computer programming costs to accounting costs, or the price of lawyers.
Comparing the cost change of software to hardware makes no sense at all. Just be cause the cost of a pencil doesn't go up over the years doesn't mean that the people writing with them don't get paid more.
But let's get ever more honest....
How hard would it be for Slashdot to be paying those same blackhat coders in Russia, and then they have something nasty on the net in 24 hours for a new story against Microsoft!
So it NOT Symantec, it's SLASHDOT!!!
I would guess that if that is what you want, then that is the computer you should buy.
It would also be worth saying that if you think there is a money making market in that product then you should start a company selling it and get rich yourself.
Only problem is then we couldn't complain about other people getting rich selling us things we don't want.
I keep saying that about having to stay equipped with a PDF reader. Worst it keeps adding all those other things to my startup and it always has updates to download.
>> And Microsoft is complicit in this by not putting enough pressure on the application developers to fix their apps to not require administrator access. And that is what we all want? Microsoft putting more pressure on application developers on how to write their code? Think that one through again, I don't think it is a real good idea myself.
>> OS/2 came out at a time when we all wanted something 'not Microsoft',
???
I thought Microsoft wrote OS/2 with IBM?
>> This is a DELIBERATE attempt by Microsoft to allow spyware to be installed and remain on user machines.
It would be so much better if Microsoft refused to allow programs on user machines that Microsoft didn't like.
Then we could all start supporting them!
>> How else would I know when I have to boot Windows again?
And I remember the days when people said you had to reboot multiple times a day.
Now we need reminders to reboot.
Be the same on either. The guy doing the work is there from 8 to 5, sometimes just sitting there! So does it make a difference if it was a slow day?
>> the pure fact that they outsource their servers is a sign of pure incompetence
And how do you come to this conclusion?
Is running their own servers in the US a sign of pure competence?
Do the two balance out?