I have only managed a couple of mail servers in my life, so perhaps you have more info on this topic than I. The way I understand it, the majority of the mail servers out there do both send from specified IP range AND an authentication method such as POP before SMTP or actual authentication in your SMTP software. Within your IP range, you have a decent amount of control and if someone in your building is running a spam server, you can walk over there and shut it down (and fire him). My point was that we are not talking about most of the world complying. This is the reason spam exists. The servers are not hard to find. The point of limiting the access is that even though I may pass the spam along, _my_ server woln't be the one that allowed the spammer spam.
Mandrake with its superior driver support is the way to go for a live CD. I'm excited to hear that there is interest in pursuing this type of OS. My challenge with the live CD distro is that, as I understand it, its a "take it the way we make it" distro. No matter how much you like the way they made it, it just feels wrong. You should be able to build your own cd out of the Mandrake you configured. In any case, I still await the day Linux comes in a distro Grandma can use.
I'm with ya here. We need to send a manned mission to pick up all of the junk we have put there. Clearly the Martians are getting more annoyed my the minute. I read Bradbury.
First, let us note that the S in SMTP stands for simple. What may look like a "flaw" today was indeed an attempt to make a standard that is usable with no regard for OS, system, bandwidth, transmission medium, or any of the other factors which complicate computers today now that everyone and their grandma has one.
Micro$oft's proposal has several issues. First, the proposal itself:
"If I don't know you, I have to prove to you that I have spent a little bit of time in resources to send you that e-mail."
This changes the effort to convincing the system that I know you and we can bypass all of this. Microsoft's track record tells me that this will be accomplished quickly (likely before the software even reaches final release.)
"...use memory latency... that way, it does not matter how old or new a computer is because the system does not rely on processor chip speeds..."
No, it relies on bus speeds and memory speeds, not to mention caching schemes. These change almost as rapidly as processor speeds these days.
All of that is meaningless when you look at the greater problem:
"For this scheme to work, it would want to be something all mail agents would want to do," There are 2 ways to implement such a solution; on the server side and on the client. As for the server: Not just want to do but be able to do. Since SMTP severs began requiring authentication (several years ago), most spammers have turned to using old servers still alive on the net. These would not have new schemes implemented. Denying them to play if they don't update would kill several servers (including several universities). As for the client: Anyone who can say "HELO" can send a mail (see RFC 821, RFC 1123, RFC 2821). This means that any decent coder can write a mail SMTP client in about 30 minutes. We will never be able to assume all spammers are using any e-mail client.
"It is certainly not going to stop all spam for good" And in the aftermath, we will all have slowed our systems with no effect on spam levels.
the problem is that you don't bill. In CA, as im sure in other states, you have the right to bill for a minimum amount of hours if you are contacted off the clock. I belive that it is 3 hours here. as soon as I informed that a question at 10 PM means that i bill 3 hours, the calls stopped
Slashdot Mirror
I have only managed a couple of mail servers in my life, so perhaps you have more info on this topic than I. The way I understand it, the majority of the mail servers out there do both send from specified IP range AND an authentication method such as POP before SMTP or actual authentication in your SMTP software. Within your IP range, you have a decent amount of control and if someone in your building is running a spam server, you can walk over there and shut it down (and fire him). My point was that we are not talking about most of the world complying. This is the reason spam exists. The servers are not hard to find. The point of limiting the access is that even though I may pass the spam along, _my_ server woln't be the one that allowed the spammer spam.
Fix your filters. You woln't have to see the crap. dave
Mandrake with its superior driver support is the way to go for a live CD. I'm excited to hear that there is interest in pursuing this type of OS. My challenge with the live CD distro is that, as I understand it, its a "take it the way we make it" distro. No matter how much you like the way they made it, it just feels wrong. You should be able to build your own cd out of the Mandrake you configured. In any case, I still await the day Linux comes in a distro Grandma can use.
I'm with ya here. We need to send a manned mission to pick up all of the junk we have put there. Clearly the Martians are getting more annoyed my the minute. I read Bradbury.
First, let us note that the S in SMTP stands for simple. What may look like a "flaw" today was indeed an attempt to make a standard that is usable with no regard for OS, system, bandwidth, transmission medium, or any of the other factors which complicate computers today now that everyone and their grandma has one.
... that way, it does not matter how old or new a computer is because the system does not rely on processor chip speeds..."
Micro$oft's proposal has several issues. First, the proposal itself:
"If I don't know you, I have to prove to you that I have spent a little bit of time in resources to send you that e-mail."
This changes the effort to convincing the system that I know you and we can bypass all of this. Microsoft's track record tells me that this will be accomplished quickly (likely before the software even reaches final release.)
"...use memory latency
No, it relies on bus speeds and memory speeds, not to mention caching schemes. These change almost as rapidly as processor speeds these days.
All of that is meaningless when you look at the greater problem:
"For this scheme to work, it would want to be something all mail agents would want to do,"
There are 2 ways to implement such a solution; on the server side and on the client. As for the server:
Not just want to do but be able to do. Since SMTP severs began requiring authentication (several years ago), most spammers have turned to using old servers still alive on the net. These would not have new schemes implemented. Denying them to play if they don't update would kill several servers (including several universities).
As for the client:
Anyone who can say "HELO" can send a mail (see RFC 821, RFC 1123, RFC 2821). This means that any decent coder can write a mail SMTP client in about 30 minutes. We will never be able to assume all spammers are using any e-mail client.
"It is certainly not going to stop all spam for good"
And in the aftermath, we will all have slowed our systems with no effect on spam levels.
Good to see racism is alive and well. Ever wonder why the racists are always named "Anonymous Coward"?
the problem is that you don't bill. In CA, as im sure in other states, you have the right to bill for a minimum amount of hours if you are contacted off the clock. I belive that it is 3 hours here. as soon as I informed that a question at 10 PM means that i bill 3 hours, the calls stopped