9. Rough knowledge of world geographics (that includes natural resources and some basics about climate)
10. Rough knowledge of modern history (say 1789+)
err, no, I'm not French, but European. And I personally think, we tend to get the same problems here. But as in many other (often positive) fields the US are just some years ahead of us.
ok, as we all see, you CAN try to reinvent the wheel. But one question should be allowed: Are there any advantages of using a square wheel on a strangely shaped floor? Something like "lower friction" or "less energy consumption" compared to a standard wheel (the circular one, you know...)
I roughly know the process of getting this through the IETF. And no, I neither can nor want to do it. I'm no programmer and no big provider.
But I know the internet for about 15 years now. And, let me guess one thing: smtp (and email with that) will be dead in less than two years if no solution is found. So I honestly think its better to change smtp than to stop using it.
And no, it's no matter of who is laughing at whom. But I don't understand why people dedicate relevant resources (lots of manpower, lots of money) to fiddeling with filters, blacklists et.al. And at the same time almost nobody tries to solve the original problem (spammers sending mails via unauthenticated, unknown, untracable, constantly changing hosts).
And at last, there is a difference between Secure-smtp and IPv6 you should consider: IPv6 is (was) entirely new. smtps isn't. Every common server software can deal with certificates and originate/answer secure connections by now. Probably you even don't need to change the software. At least in postfix (thats the only software I know en detail) it would be sufficient to change some configuration switches. No new code, no new bugs.
I don't say that this is easy and quickly done. I just say it has to be done something serious. And I don't see good alternatives.
And when people violate it, you track them down how, exactly? Please explain.
Please read my original posting: Use the certificate data.
What you term "slightly improve", I would call "change EVERY mail server and client in the world".
No. You have to change the servers. Updating server software. Thats what admins are for. Should be possible to do in a year or so. After that, if your company server isn't able to send mail to anyone, you will update fast, I bet.
And you don't have to change a single client
. Clients use login/password to authenticate at their server. Again: Please read my posting.
I am very glad you have no ability to carry out any of these actions.
Yeah, and I'm sure it's lot simpler to write about ten or twenty drafts for new mail systems, to maintain lots of blacklists or to develop and continually change algorithms for filtering spam. Thank you.
Everybody is complaining about spam. And at the same time almost everybody comes up with yet another brand-new-weired-looking workaround. Why the hell?
May I suggest just doing a few basic things:
1) Make a law (if your country doesn't have one already) which makes it illegal to send emails with forged FROM fields (= email addresses you don't own)
2) Slightly improve RFC2821 (smtp): Convert the optional ssl layer to a mandatory one. An smtp sender should only allowed to send mail to a server if
a) it uses an ssl encrypted connection and the Hostname in Reverse-DNS matches the name provided with the ssl certificate OR
b) it uses username and password to login into some kind of mailaccount
3) Sue spammers violating law 1) to hell. If you want to find them, you only have to look at the ssl certificate used for the connection.
Yes, I know this prevents everybody from having his own pretty little smtp server. No, I'm perfectly well with that. Use a provider.
Yes, ssl certificates are expensive for now. But any serious provider should be able to afford one.
Using Debian for two or three years now, I'm quite sure it's the best linux distro you can get for a server. Just because it's rock solid.
Using stable only it's even simple to keep the system uptodate with apt-get and/or dselect. But problems start when you want to (or have to) use one or two newer packages from testing/unstable.
As a first try you'll add the needed testing lines to sources.list. Bad result: Dselect displays all testing packages with no chance to distinguish between stable and testing. And you can't install a single testing package without upgrading libc and dozens other "dependent" packages to testing (in fact they're working fine with the older libc, you just can't install them. And no, I definitly don't want to use all of testing).
Second try: Reading the apt howto and adding
APT::Default-Release "stable";
to apt.conf. Dselect stops trying to upgrade all packages, but keeps displaying thousands of packages which are only present in testing and not in stable. And I still can't install a single package from testing because of the dependency issues.
Third try: Using the unofficial backports instead of testing solves the dependency issues. But you still can't distinguish between original stable packages and backported ones.
No, I don't want to use all backported packages. I just want to pick one or two of them using apt-get install [pkg] while keeping apg-get update on using the normal stable distro. Honestly, I've given up, downloaded the packages I need manually and forced them to install with dpkg -i --force. Not really the polite way.
Any clever ideas anyone?
Just wondering, if the suse folks do sell their company voluntarily.
They've some venture capitalists on board. From their press release (german): "Main investors of Suse are e-Millenium 1, Ad Astra Erste Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH and APAX Partners &Co."
I think even the first M$ procuct ever, MS-DOS, wasn't a microsoft invention somewhere back in the 80s. Bill Gates just bought the rights of "QDOS" and fooled his programmer Tim Paterson.
http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa033099.htm
For using the web nowadays I'd consider a fast, simple and unbiased search engine as important as the DNS system. Or almost.
1) I think it's quite important, that such a system isn't owned by microsoft or verisign (remember?) or aol but by the people. As communism is a bit outdated, I'd prefer to simply distribute the shares among as many different people as possible.
2) If it really gets a value of $15 billion at IPO, google simply has to grow big and fat, because it has to generate a hell of revenue - read: agressive advertising, annoying popups, selling aggregated userdata, demanding cash for good ranking at last. This would mean google getting unusable.
3) So it would be wise to keep the company value lower. Yes, that means selling shares a lot cheaper than the market would pay. It should be enough for google founders and venture capitalists to get rich anyway. Auctions are no good idea in this context, I think.
4) Then you've to make sure that the shares get (and stay) in the right hands: With Internet users like you and me and not with Bill Gates or some big fat bank. I'd suggest a google shareholder contest, something like the google programming contest. If you prove your competence by solving a technical riddle or answering some non trivial internet related questions you'll qualify (non transferable...) to buy up to 50 google shares.
5) Yes, it's still possible that people sell their shares afterwards (Microsoft will pay a good price...), but then you really can't complain: If you'd like to have a good search engine, don't sell your stock.
Slashdot Mirror
as a non-US citizen I would like to add:
9. Rough knowledge of world geographics (that includes natural resources and some basics about climate)
10. Rough knowledge of modern history (say 1789+)
err, no, I'm not French, but European. And I personally think, we tend to get the same problems here. But as in many other (often positive) fields the US are just some years ahead of us.
"Education" is the word for what you think must be done. And I'll agree, there seems to be an awful lack of it.
ok, as we all see, you CAN try to reinvent the wheel.
But one question should be allowed: Are there any advantages of using a square wheel on a strangely shaped floor?
Something like "lower friction" or "less energy consumption" compared to a standard wheel (the circular one, you know...)
ok, now we're getting closer...
I roughly know the process of getting this through the IETF. And no, I neither can nor want to do it. I'm no programmer and no big provider.
But I know the internet for about 15 years now. And, let me guess one thing: smtp (and email with that) will be dead in less than two years if no solution is found. So I honestly think its better to change smtp than to stop using it.
And no, it's no matter of who is laughing at whom. But I don't understand why people dedicate relevant resources (lots of manpower, lots of money) to fiddeling with filters, blacklists et.al. And at the same time almost nobody tries to solve the original problem (spammers sending mails via unauthenticated, unknown, untracable, constantly changing hosts).
And at last, there is a difference between Secure-smtp and IPv6 you should consider: IPv6 is (was) entirely new. smtps isn't. Every common server software can deal with certificates and originate/answer secure connections by now. Probably you even don't need to change the software. At least in postfix (thats the only software I know en detail) it would be sufficient to change some configuration switches. No new code, no new bugs.
I don't say that this is easy and quickly done. I just say it has to be done something serious. And I don't see good alternatives.
Please read my original posting: Use the certificate data.
What you term "slightly improve", I would call "change EVERY mail server and client in the world".
No. You have to change the servers. Updating server software. Thats what admins are for. Should be possible to do in a year or so. After that, if your company server isn't able to send mail to anyone, you will update fast, I bet.
I am very glad you have no ability to carry out any of these actions.
Yeah, and I'm sure it's lot simpler to write about ten or twenty drafts for new mail systems, to maintain lots of blacklists or to develop and continually change algorithms for filtering spam. Thank you.
Everybody is complaining about spam. And at the same time almost everybody comes up with yet another brand-new-weired-looking workaround. Why the hell?
May I suggest just doing a few basic things:
1) Make a law (if your country doesn't have one already) which makes it illegal to send emails with forged FROM fields (= email addresses you don't own)
2) Slightly improve RFC2821 (smtp): Convert the optional ssl layer to a mandatory one. An smtp sender should only allowed to send mail to a server if
a) it uses an ssl encrypted connection and the Hostname in Reverse-DNS matches the name provided with the ssl certificate OR
b) it uses username and password to login into some kind of mailaccount
3) Sue spammers violating law 1) to hell. If you want to find them, you only have to look at the ssl certificate used for the connection.
Yes, I know this prevents everybody from having his own pretty little smtp server. No, I'm perfectly well with that. Use a provider.
Yes, ssl certificates are expensive for now. But any serious provider should be able to afford one.
you forgot: :)
6) Ruling the world
Using stable only it's even simple to keep the system uptodate with apt-get and/or dselect. But problems start when you want to (or have to) use one or two newer packages from testing/unstable.
As a first try you'll add the needed testing lines to sources.list. Bad result: Dselect displays all testing packages with no chance to distinguish between stable and testing. And you can't install a single testing package without upgrading libc and dozens other "dependent" packages to testing (in fact they're working fine with the older libc, you just can't install them. And no, I definitly don't want to use all of testing).
Second try: Reading the apt howto and adding to apt.conf. Dselect stops trying to upgrade all packages, but keeps displaying thousands of packages which are only present in testing and not in stable. And I still can't install a single package from testing because of the dependency issues.
Third try: Using the unofficial backports instead of testing solves the dependency issues. But you still can't distinguish between original stable packages and backported ones.
No, I don't want to use all backported packages. I just want to pick one or two of them using apt-get install [pkg] while keeping apg-get update on using the normal stable distro. Honestly, I've given up, downloaded the packages I need manually and forced them to install with dpkg -i --force. Not really the polite way.
Any clever ideas anyone?
Just wondering, if the suse folks do sell their company voluntarily.
They've some venture capitalists on board. From their press release (german): "Main investors of Suse are e-Millenium 1, Ad Astra Erste Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH and APAX Partners &Co."
Not that it makes any difference...
I think even the first M$ procuct ever, MS-DOS, wasn't a microsoft invention somewhere back in the 80s. Bill Gates just bought the rights of "QDOS" and fooled his programmer Tim Paterson. http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa033099 .htm
For using the web nowadays I'd consider a fast, simple and unbiased search engine as important as the DNS system. Or almost.
1) I think it's quite important, that such a system isn't owned by microsoft or verisign (remember?) or aol but by the people. As communism is a bit outdated, I'd prefer to simply distribute the shares among as many different people as possible.
2) If it really gets a value of $15 billion at IPO, google simply has to grow big and fat, because it has to generate a hell of revenue - read: agressive advertising, annoying popups, selling aggregated userdata, demanding cash for good ranking at last. This would mean google getting unusable.
3) So it would be wise to keep the company value lower. Yes, that means selling shares a lot cheaper than the market would pay. It should be enough for google founders and venture capitalists to get rich anyway. Auctions are no good idea in this context, I think.
4) Then you've to make sure that the shares get (and stay) in the right hands: With Internet users like you and me and not with Bill Gates or some big fat bank. I'd suggest a google shareholder contest, something like the google programming contest. If you prove your competence by solving a technical riddle or answering some non trivial internet related questions you'll qualify (non transferable...) to buy up to 50 google shares.
5) Yes, it's still possible that people sell their shares afterwards (Microsoft will pay a good price...), but then you really can't complain: If you'd like to have a good search engine, don't sell your stock.