America (in the form of the unwashed masses) believes that what Clinton did is worse than what Bush did. This is the only logical explanation of the facts. (Well, the only one that I can think of.)
SpamCop is not haphazard. SpamCop is an organisation that provides some servers and an algorithm. It is a hub for a bunch of people to decide who sends good mail, and who sends bad mail. Those people are all entitled to their opinion, and entitled to share it.
SpamCop automates the collection of these opinions, and publishes the results of this 'voting' to ISPs, recommending that they more carefully check any mail coming from the bad senders. The ISPs say, "Screw that, your judgement is good enough for me" and just block the stuff.
Yes, occasionally this means innocent victims get their mail blocked. However, the ISPs are aware of this and make the judgement that blocking the crap is worth the loss of a few valid messages.
I'm not seeing anything illegal or even immoral here.
most users have been told "never click on the unsubscribe link"
They should have been told "never click on the unsubscribe link of an email you didn't sign up for"
Using an unsubscribe in combination with a proper confirmed opt-in is the only safe way to run a mailing list. Even then, there will be occasional false reports; but organisations such as SpamCop won't list you for a single report. They will only list you if you're sending out a high ratio of unwanted to wanted mail.
The point is, informed users don't follow 'unsubscribe' instructions in emails that thay didn't solicit. That's just a way of signing up from more spam.
If the 'click to unsubscribe' method is useless, the only method to sue is confirmed opt-in, even if that generates one extra email.
If the users can't cope with replying to the confirmation email, then how do they manage to email to ask why they're not on the list?
New Zealand will also wind up paying a fortune that can ill be afforded as a result of signing it. Not that I think it was a bad idea to sign it, just that it was not motivated by financial gain.
Don't underestimate the strength Joe & Janet Sixpack's wish to timeshift their soaps & reality TV fixes. That might be enough, if the bit does it wrong.
If it was just a delay, the spammer could get software that was sending out emails simultaneously - i.e. it sends one, then while waiting for a response initiates the send for the next however many, then when it gets a response it completes the send of the first...
The computationally expensive option forces the sender's server to be occupied and unable to do anything else.
please dont blather on and on about bandwidth, the fiber in the ground and the networks attached to it is used at a small fraction of it's capacity
That's small consolation for those of us paying for the bandwidth. Spammers are adding insult to injury when they steal my bandwidth in order to waste my time.
Telecom NZ used to charge extra for an unlisted number. Someone complained to the commerce commission or some other regulatory body, and Telecom were forced to stop doing this. Now you pay for an additional listing if you want more than one, but being listed once is free and being unlisted is also free.
I had a friend who used to list his diallup connection under a fake (and unrealistic) name, since it wasn't attached to a valid phone and he didn't want to pay for an unlisted number for it, back in the days when it wasn't free.
The point was not that it's a small number and therefore no-one should feel guilty about stealing it, it was that the number was so small that it fell within the margin of statistical error. That means they can't be sure that there are sales lost overall. There might be, but it's not possible to tell given the data they had.
The data they did get significant results for was the increase in sales of the most popularly downloaded tracks. That would seem to imply (but not conclusively) that people are gaining the power of choice via downloading, not getting away with not paying for the music they like.
Another possible interpretation is that people who like alternative music are reluctant to pay for music.
The overwhelming conclusion is that sales are decreasing due to other reasons. That could be due to anything from a depressed economy, to a poor selection available, to the availability of alternative distribution channels. But the RIAA is certainly trying to assign too much of blame for their problem to sharers.
The solution is for the original to be produced using a lot of extra computer time to get a high-quality, small file. People would then prefer to download the smaller version.
If it takes several days for the ad-stripped version to appear, and it's a larger file, then only people who are enthusiasts and who want to keep it for their collection will download. They will probably also have downloaded the original version and watched it with ads, so the original's purpose will have been met. And probably multiple people will post the stripped version. More copies of it will mean that for each example, there'll be fewer sources available - so it'll still be easier to find the original anyway.
There's definitely scope for versions with ads, provided they're not more annoying than the kind you get on regular tv.
A proper formal investigation may well determine that it is not in America's best interests for ANY politician to make new laws in any period less that 72 hours AFTER taking Viagra.
I can just see the warning label...
WARNING: As long as you are feeling drowsy or dizzy, do not drive, use machines, pass laws, or do anything else that could be dangerous if you are dizzy or are not alert.
Driving a vehicle does require a license. I think that's as it should be.
Picking your career will usually depend on at least some other people's input - an employer or an investor, an educator, or some other party.
And procreation by those who turn out to be incapable of caring for those offspring is generally considered to be a sad thing, even though it's a right.
It's been demonstrated that there are people to stupid - or rather, too ignorant, because it doesn't necessarily require stupidity - to be trusted to run an email server. There are open relays/proxies out there, and even if there weren't there are plenty of 0wn3d PCs. Creating an area where people who are members are held to a higher level of responsibility can be a positive thing, provided the low responsibility option is still out there, albeit it with some penalties (ie, sometimes your mail is blocked as spam - just like it would be without the new area).
Spammers can't afford to pay that every time they have to register a new domain because the old one got taken down due to violation of the spam rules of the hoster. And you can bet they would be taken down, if SpamHaus has anything to do with writing the rules.
That sounds like a poster child situation for the click to view more feature. If the main ad said what it was for, and the click through part had the 'fine print' equivalent, would that satisfy the FDA?
I know we don't read the article here on/., but I didn't realise we weren't supposed to read the question either.
The users weren't accidentally misclassifying the messsages as spam; they were accidentally hitting the wrong button. And even if you don't ever send to them again, the problem is that there's a multitude of users and if enough of them hit the wrong button even once, none of your AOL subscribers can now receive the messages. Add to this that the messages are paid for, and you can understand the poster's question/problem.
Unfortunately by some people's logic the casino would be culpable. We are living in an era when people no longer accept their own responsibility for their actions.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand they're prepared to rent them out, when the cause is right.
Why would you assume that?
America (in the form of the unwashed masses) believes that what Clinton did is worse than what Bush did. This is the only logical explanation of the facts. (Well, the only one that I can think of.)
SpamCop automates the collection of these opinions, and publishes the results of this 'voting' to ISPs, recommending that they more carefully check any mail coming from the bad senders. The ISPs say, "Screw that, your judgement is good enough for me" and just block the stuff.
Yes, occasionally this means innocent victims get their mail blocked. However, the ISPs are aware of this and make the judgement that blocking the crap is worth the loss of a few valid messages.
I'm not seeing anything illegal or even immoral here.
Using an unsubscribe in combination with a proper confirmed opt-in is the only safe way to run a mailing list. Even then, there will be occasional false reports; but organisations such as SpamCop won't list you for a single report. They will only list you if you're sending out a high ratio of unwanted to wanted mail.
If the 'click to unsubscribe' method is useless, the only method to sue is confirmed opt-in, even if that generates one extra email.
If the users can't cope with replying to the confirmation email, then how do they manage to email to ask why they're not on the list?
Not very neighbourly of you. How would this buyer ever get any feedback, if no-one will ever let him bid on anything?
Besides, any software originally written for any PC will still run on the mac, as we've already established...
Second, anything that distracts shrub from coming up with more fun-and-games that turn into PR disasters in Iraq, is good.
Agreed. Mostly, they achieve this by having a much smaller run than US shows - in the order of 8 shows per season rather than 20.
FYI, Charmed is not a reality show. HTH. HAND.
New Zealand will also wind up paying a fortune that can ill be afforded as a result of signing it. Not that I think it was a bad idea to sign it, just that it was not motivated by financial gain.
Don't underestimate the strength Joe & Janet Sixpack's wish to timeshift their soaps & reality TV fixes. That might be enough, if the bit does it wrong.
The computationally expensive option forces the sender's server to be occupied and unable to do anything else.
Or at least, that's how I understand it to be.
I don't know why you're seeing a reduction in your spam. You must have been getting a different kind from the stuff I get.
I had a friend who used to list his diallup connection under a fake (and unrealistic) name, since it wasn't attached to a valid phone and he didn't want to pay for an unlisted number for it, back in the days when it wasn't free.
The data they did get significant results for was the increase in sales of the most popularly downloaded tracks. That would seem to imply (but not conclusively) that people are gaining the power of choice via downloading, not getting away with not paying for the music they like.
Another possible interpretation is that people who like alternative music are reluctant to pay for music.
The overwhelming conclusion is that sales are decreasing due to other reasons. That could be due to anything from a depressed economy, to a poor selection available, to the availability of alternative distribution channels. But the RIAA is certainly trying to assign too much of blame for their problem to sharers.
If it takes several days for the ad-stripped version to appear, and it's a larger file, then only people who are enthusiasts and who want to keep it for their collection will download. They will probably also have downloaded the original version and watched it with ads, so the original's purpose will have been met. And probably multiple people will post the stripped version. More copies of it will mean that for each example, there'll be fewer sources available - so it'll still be easier to find the original anyway.
There's definitely scope for versions with ads, provided they're not more annoying than the kind you get on regular tv.
WARNING: As long as you are feeling drowsy or dizzy, do not drive, use machines, pass laws, or do anything else that could be dangerous if you are dizzy or are not alert.
Picking your career will usually depend on at least some other people's input - an employer or an investor, an educator, or some other party.
And procreation by those who turn out to be incapable of caring for those offspring is generally considered to be a sad thing, even though it's a right.
It's been demonstrated that there are people to stupid - or rather, too ignorant, because it doesn't necessarily require stupidity - to be trusted to run an email server. There are open relays/proxies out there, and even if there weren't there are plenty of 0wn3d PCs. Creating an area where people who are members are held to a higher level of responsibility can be a positive thing, provided the low responsibility option is still out there, albeit it with some penalties (ie, sometimes your mail is blocked as spam - just like it would be without the new area).
Spammers can't afford to pay that every time they have to register a new domain because the old one got taken down due to violation of the spam rules of the hoster. And you can bet they would be taken down, if SpamHaus has anything to do with writing the rules.
The users weren't accidentally misclassifying the messsages as spam; they were accidentally hitting the wrong button. And even if you don't ever send to them again, the problem is that there's a multitude of users and if enough of them hit the wrong button even once, none of your AOL subscribers can now receive the messages. Add to this that the messages are paid for, and you can understand the poster's question/problem.
Unfortunately by some people's logic the casino would be culpable. We are living in an era when people no longer accept their own responsibility for their actions.