I have had access to a "copy box" and battery backed ram cardridges for multiple syystems since the early 80s, could "backup" cardridges that way.
The only thing in those old cardridge based systems that made copying difficult to impossible at times was the fact that cardridges can include other hardware then the roms that store the program.
Around 1985 I had an eprom programmer and piles of blank cardridges, made life a lot easier still.
All that was needed for this was information available in most electronics magazines.
It is upto consumers to decide, the tech industry can only wish, and the entertainment industry can just stick it up their ass if they believe they can get consumers to rebuy their media every couple of years.
Its part of my job, and actually a part that I like a lot. I do not like people or companies wasting my newyear weekend while that could very easily be prevented however, and that is exactly what MS did here.
Hmmm. the size of the screen matters for sure because on such a small screen you won't see much result from a higher resolution, but in general, the resolution matters a lot for playability. 640x480 instead of 320x240 often makes the difference between an enemy in the distance being just a seemingly random pixel or something recognizable. Esp. in multiplayer modes this made quite a difference when playing the original quake and it still does for most such games. As long as it doesn't reduce your framerate unacceptably, a higher resolution is often a direct gaming advantage.
Of course when everyone participating in a game plays at a similar low resolution, it doesn't matter much for playability because everyone has that same disadvantage.
Single player, quake plays well in 320x240 since as others already said, it was designed with that resolution being what most people had.
Ah well, if I'm going to get this GP2X, its to have a pocket sized mame and vice, I don't fancy quake and the like without a good keyboard and trackball or similar controls.
If you read back, I stated that I assume MS and ISC explicitly included the path. This made me doubt that it always defaults to the system32 directory. If there is a guarantee that it always defaults to that then there is no problem obviously, but that I don't know.
Optical drives were designed to be layed horizontal. They were not made to be moved around while in use. Keep those things in mind and I'd bet money that this disc scratching issue goes away.
Back in the first half of the 80s, the first CD player I had was a phillips portable CD player.. About the size of a stack of 5 cd jewel cases with a seperate battery pack or power adapter.
This thing had its problems, mostly with alignment of the optical pickup, and has been back for service some 4 or 5 times over the years.. on the other side, kept workign till the mid 90s, and never scratched a disc.
Portable players have become commonplace, CD systems for cars have become commonplace, many cd-rom and dvd-rom drives have small clamps on the disc holder so they can be used vertically without the disc dropping out when opening it, etc etc...
I'd say that there exist drives designed to be moved around and used in other positions then horizontally, and those have existed since the earliest days of consumer availability of compact discs at least. There is nothing in the gemeral design of optical drives (CD or DVD at least) that prevents it, but a specific drive has to be designed to handle it well.
Which reminds me, I have a late 80s high-end CD player from Kenwood that is built such that it is practically impossible for it to scratch a disc. Anything that could possibly come into contact with a disc is soft and rubbery where it needs to 'grab' the disc, or soft and almost frictionless otherwise. If that thing scratches a disc it is because of sand or dust from outside. Don't know why they went that far since this is not a device you are going to move around while its playing, but it is rather nice to think that even when the mechanics fail, it most likely won't destroy the disc in it.
Hmm, the point of my rant? drives damaging discs is something that should not happen, even when the drive is used on its side, moved around etc. It points at a drive thats either not designed very well, or more likely, badly manufactured.
but the rest works just fine. Did you bother to test it before chiming in?
Yes, and in most cases it works. That said, I doubt it works in all cases, and I am pretty sure that both Microsoft and ISC (and others) explicitly include the path for a reason...
Sure there is. Don't use MSN to IM, for starters. Don't open e-mail from senders you don't recognize. Don't click on hyperlinks in e-mail without verifying that the URL is really what the text states it is. And if you are in a coporate setting and the Network Admin hasn't blocked IM, you've already got bigger problems to worry about.
Not using MSN messenger is not going to help much, it is merely a transport, and not related to the vulnerability itself.
Even when you do not open attachments, this vulnerability can still be triggered by email as has been pointed out by ISC and others. Merely having an infected WMF file anywhere in your system can be enough.
In the console window, type 'regsvr32/u shimgvw.dll' without the quotes and press enter. You will see a notice telling you that the DLL has been unregistered.
One step too much, and possibly incorrect.
start->run
in the dialogbox type 'regsvr32/u %windir%\system32\shimgvw.dll' without the quotes. You will get a popup confirming that the dll has been deregistered.
Sure, people needs lives (e.g., vacation, time off, etc.).
And so do those who work as network administrator etc..
I can tell you that many a company that takes internal security seriously has had people working on this over the last weekend to make sure they are as safe as can be when everyone starts working today.
MS could have had a few employees working on this during the hollidays, get it properly fixed, and have an update installed with windows update.. as it is, they got a few thousand people working on implementing workarounds and unofficial fixes instead. Lots of extra work that has to be undone when the official fix is there.
If you'd have followed your own suggestion, you'd know that for as far as the current IM worm goes, the workaround works perfectly fine.
What is more, re-registering the dll by some bit of software is a possibility, but for this to happen without action from the user, there needs to be another vulnerability that allows running the code to do this (or another way to access this specific vulnerability). If there is another vulnerability then the hotfix won't make you safe, The hotfix does work and provide some extra protection but only for the cases where this specific vulnerability can be exploited through a different path (that does not use shimgvw.dll).
Because you might need your employees to access web sites and get mail. Do you need your employees to use AIM and MSN Messenger?
Well, I spend approx 16 hours/week working for a company that mandates the use of MSN messenger..
At any rate, MSN is transport, and not part of the vulnerability. It is as easily exploited through http, and for at least one worm that exploits this, MSN messenger is only used to bait people, the actual infection happens through http still. E-mail based variations have been spotted in the wild already as well.
So, blocking MSN is going to do extremely little to nothing in preventing this problem, and while there are some good arguments to block IMs at the perimiter, this specific vulnerability is not one of them.
Why, because I replied to a maudlin appeal to emotion with the same techniques - will you feel safer?
No, the post you replied to puts up a number of valid questions, at best you can say the poster also made his own opinion clear about those questions.
You however present something as fact which is definitely not fact and then make a broad and only slightly related appeal on emotion.
Then, the statistics you present are not saying much about this all because they do not present a comparison from which you can anywhere conclude that gun ownership results in less crime so for this argument they are no more then a nice and mostly irrelevant set of numbers.
The argument you made that has some merrit is that having a gun can be a deterrent. I do think you should put a bit more thought in the consequences of that however because as you say correctly, it's not as cut and dry as it seems, and that this reduces crime might seem an obvious conclusion, but it is also an ignorant and short-sighted one.
So, basically, you're saying that because we don't know what the real effects are, we should ban guns just to be safe?
No, first of all I was commenting on this:
Why are you against actions that prevent women from getting raped?
Calling on emotions to convince people when you don't really have a good argument. A technique popular with the current president of the USA, besides some others.
I argued that the 'it prevents crime' argument is at best unproven, and imho rubbish. That does not mean I think there are no good reasons for people to have a gun. Sports and hunting come to mind for example.
I do however believe guns are potentially dangerous items, and I think it is a bad idea to let people have them without proper training. That said, I'm not against people owning guns.
At any rate, you accused me of kneejerk responses, that is quite funny comming from you really.
Show me stats and figure to disprove what I linked to
As long as we can't compare 2 societies that are exactly identical except for the public availability of guns.. no. There are too many other factors that play a role there.
Criminals are deterred when their victim has a chance to fight back. It's simple, it's logical. In economic terms, the opportunity cost of attacking an armed person makes alternatives more attractive.
One alternative is to use violence against the victim before they get a chance to grab their gun. This in fact happens to be such a popular alternative that the link to more violent crime is hard to miss.
Yes, it definitely stops some other crimes, but the overall price might be a bit high..
While at it, also block http, smtp, and actually, any other way in which a user might end up getting a wmf picture.. Maybe better still to disconnect your network entirely..
Seriously, go read up on what the vulnerability is, MSN messenger happens to be the transport in this case, but is in no way required for exploiting the vulnerability.
Hence Microsoft's push for "Trusted" Computing, which is the only real "feature" in Vista that isn't being backported to XP.
Which makes me wonder, if trusted computing can be used to prevent running a 'rogue' player that just brute forces the keys instead of requesting them from the drive properly, it can also be used to prevent running 'rogue' DVD player apps that don't enforce region locking properly.
When looking at this from a tc point of view, it is very usefull to enforce 'cooperation' of DVD drives in creating a trusted path for protected content, but since modern DVD drives do not have the functionality for this, there is no point in disabling older drives that happen to just lack another small and pretty irrelevant 'feature' for it. It needs to be enforced without 'proper' cooperation of the DVD player hardware in either case.
Because Linux isn't exactly known for being user friendly, especially in the desktop market.
'User friendly'...
Some people call a system user friendly when it is easy for an unexperienced user to access the functionality they want.
The problem is that this almost always gets in the way for those who are more experienced users. It does this in many ways, for example by hiding or simply lacking more complex functionality, addressing the user as if (s)he is stupid etc.
In most cases, you start out without experience, after some use you gain experience, and after some more time, you can be said to be a somewhat experienced user. This last phase lasts substantially longer then the 'unexperienced user' phase.
Hence, reasoning that a system that caters to unexperienced users is 'user friendly' is stupid.
Call such a system 'easy accessable' or something else that points at the fact that you need little experience for using it, but don't say it is friendly to the user because for most users it is the opposite.
Ah, but most people do not use their computers enough to ever become an experienced user? True if you talk about 'consumers', but then, thats true for most tech markets that happen to include normal consumers. THere is 'pro' and consumer grade audio equipment, video equipment etc etc. Professional video equipment has a lot more functionality and quality then consumer grade equipment, and usually combines it with a more powerfull interface, putting more power in the hands of the editor. It can only do that if that interface is also 'friendly' to that editor, else it will just be confusing and get in the way.
The same really applies to software on 'general purpose' computers, and it is your choice if you want to act as a 'low grade' consumer or as a (semi) professional. Stop thinking this has anythign to do with one being more 'user friendly' then the other however.
Or is it? For DeCSS to work, the drive must be recognised as a device. If windows keeps saying that the drive does not exist, DeCSS cannot fix the problem.
I think you misunderstood the parent post.
You can have a modern drive that is completely compatible with Vista, region locked and all.
When using a css decoder in software, all this means is that indeed the drive will be recognized, but the region it is set to will be completely and utterly irrelevant. This is because the entire decoding part is handled without the drive cooperating in it. As long as the drive can produce the raw, encrypted data it will work.
To stop this kind of thing, new restrictions in the DVD reader hardware are needed, restrictions that ensure that it cannot produce the raw encrypted data from a css protected disk, and can't produce either encrypted or decrypted data when its region setting and the region of the disc don't match, this all regardless of what software is trying to do with the drive.
Right now however drives will refuse to cooperate in decryption, but since that can easily be done in software anyway this is really completely irrelevant.
Look into a tool like AnyDVD sometime, or just run Linux/FreeBSD or whatever and try mplayer with dvd support.
To witness, my DVD reader is set to region 1 (3 changes left), most of my DVDs are region 2, and they all play with no problem whatsoever using the options mentioned above.
Let's face it, it's easier to get a virus than it is to install RAID drivers. They should just make viruses with payloads that install RAID drivers and be done with it.
Too bad, I have mod points and would have used one on this, but I already posted in this discussion. Thanks for the good laugh there.
Or of course you can use some hack, like AnyDVD - but I think many geeks like me have at least 2 drives, so we can live without any hacking.
You want AnyDVD anyway, regardless of how many drives you have.
Simply being able to access the data on the DVD as if css and regon codes do not exist at all makes live a lot easier, and in fact makes your PC a much better and more convenient media player.
Next question will be if 'Vista' would allow running software like AnyDVD
I think the problems may lie with pariticular implementations of greylisting software, rather than the MTA which is delivering mail.
You are mistaken.
The problem comes down to the delivering MTA treating a temporary failure as a permanent one, and never resending that mail. That is a broken MTA according to the RFCs and is the problem here. There is nothing whatsoever that a greylist implementation can do to prevent this (given we are not using entirely different definitions of greylists)
Of course this is a non-issue if you don't want that mail anyway.
At any rate, I've seen this issue a few times, and it is easily resolved but requires manual intervention. A better solution would of course be for the sender to install a proper MTA.
If you want to nitpick then you can argue that this is not a problem with greylisting but with those MTAs, and right you are, but I want my mail to arrive and it stands in the way of that at times, whereas my current content and rbl based filters don't.
Slashdot Mirror
480 is essentially what you see on a DVD.
576 for those who use pal or secam.
And yes, the difference between 480i and 576i is noticable on a good dispülay already.
I have had access to a "copy box" and battery backed ram cardridges for multiple syystems since the early 80s, could "backup" cardridges that way.
The only thing in those old cardridge based systems that made copying difficult to impossible at times was the fact that cardridges can include other hardware then the roms that store the program.
Around 1985 I had an eprom programmer and piles of blank cardridges, made life a lot easier still.
All that was needed for this was information available in most electronics magazines.
It is upto consumers to decide, the tech industry can only wish, and the entertainment industry can just stick it up their ass if they believe they can get consumers to rebuy their media every couple of years.
Its part of my job, and actually a part that I like a lot. I do not like people or companies wasting my newyear weekend while that could very easily be prevented however, and that is exactly what MS did here.
Hmmm. the size of the screen matters for sure because on such a small screen you won't see much result from a higher resolution, but in general, the resolution matters a lot for playability. 640x480 instead of 320x240 often makes the difference between an enemy in the distance being just a seemingly random pixel or something recognizable. Esp. in multiplayer modes this made quite a difference when playing the original quake and it still does for most such games. As long as it doesn't reduce your framerate unacceptably, a higher resolution is often a direct gaming advantage.
Of course when everyone participating in a game plays at a similar low resolution, it doesn't matter much for playability because everyone has that same disadvantage.
Single player, quake plays well in 320x240 since as others already said, it was designed with that resolution being what most people had.
Ah well, if I'm going to get this GP2X, its to have a pocket sized mame and vice, I don't fancy quake and the like without a good keyboard and trackball or similar controls.
If you read back, I stated that I assume MS and ISC explicitly included the path. This made me doubt that it always defaults to the system32 directory. If there is a guarantee that it always defaults to that then there is no problem obviously, but that I don't know.
Optical drives were designed to be layed horizontal. They were not made to be moved around while in use. Keep those things in mind and I'd bet money that this disc scratching issue goes away.
Back in the first half of the 80s, the first CD player I had was a phillips portable CD player.. About the size of a stack of 5 cd jewel cases with a seperate battery pack or power adapter.
This thing had its problems, mostly with alignment of the optical pickup, and has been back for service some 4 or 5 times over the years.. on the other side, kept workign till the mid 90s, and never scratched a disc.
Portable players have become commonplace, CD systems for cars have become commonplace, many cd-rom and dvd-rom drives have small clamps on the disc holder so they can be used vertically without the disc dropping out when opening it, etc etc...
I'd say that there exist drives designed to be moved around and used in other positions then horizontally, and those have existed since the earliest days of consumer availability of compact discs at least. There is nothing in the gemeral design of optical drives (CD or DVD at least) that prevents it, but a specific drive has to be designed to handle it well.
Which reminds me, I have a late 80s high-end CD player from Kenwood that is built such that it is practically impossible for it to scratch a disc. Anything that could possibly come into contact with a disc is soft and rubbery where it needs to 'grab' the disc, or soft and almost frictionless otherwise. If that thing scratches a disc it is because of sand or dust from outside. Don't know why they went that far since this is not a device you are going to move around while its playing, but it is rather nice to think that even when the mechanics fail, it most likely won't destroy the disc in it.
Hmm, the point of my rant? drives damaging discs is something that should not happen, even when the drive is used on its side, moved around etc. It points at a drive thats either not designed very well, or more likely, badly manufactured.
but the rest works just fine. Did you bother to test it before chiming in?
Yes, and in most cases it works. That said, I doubt it works in all cases, and I am pretty sure that both Microsoft and ISC (and others) explicitly include the path for a reason...
Sure there is. Don't use MSN to IM, for starters. Don't open e-mail from senders you don't recognize. Don't click on hyperlinks in e-mail without verifying that the URL is really what the text states it is. And if you are in a coporate setting and the Network Admin hasn't blocked IM, you've already got bigger problems to worry about.
Not using MSN messenger is not going to help much, it is merely a transport, and not related to the vulnerability itself.
Even when you do not open attachments, this vulnerability can still be triggered by email as has been pointed out by ISC and others. Merely having an infected WMF file anywhere in your system can be enough.
OK, start->run->cmd.exe
/u shimgvw.dll' without the quotes and press enter. You will see a notice telling you that the DLL has been unregistered.
/u %windir%\system32\shimgvw.dll' without the quotes.
In the console window, type 'regsvr32
One step too much, and possibly incorrect.
start->run
in the dialogbox type 'regsvr32
You will get a popup confirming that the dll has been deregistered.
Sure, people needs lives (e.g., vacation, time off, etc.).
And so do those who work as network administrator etc..
I can tell you that many a company that takes internal security seriously has had people working on this over the last weekend to make sure they are as safe as can be when everyone starts working today.
MS could have had a few employees working on this during the hollidays, get it properly fixed, and have an update installed with windows update.. as it is, they got a few thousand people working on implementing workarounds and unofficial fixes instead. Lots of extra work that has to be undone when the official fix is there.
If you'd have followed your own suggestion, you'd know that for as far as the current IM worm goes, the workaround works perfectly fine.
What is more, re-registering the dll by some bit of software is a possibility, but for this to happen without action from the user, there needs to be another vulnerability that allows running the code to do this (or another way to access this specific vulnerability). If there is another vulnerability then the hotfix won't make you safe, The hotfix does work and provide some extra protection but only for the cases where this specific vulnerability can be exploited through a different path (that does not use shimgvw.dll).
Because you might need your employees to access web sites and get mail. Do you need your employees to use AIM and MSN Messenger?
Well, I spend approx 16 hours/week working for a company that mandates the use of MSN messenger..
At any rate, MSN is transport, and not part of the vulnerability. It is as easily exploited through http, and for at least one worm that exploits this, MSN messenger is only used to bait people, the actual infection happens through http still. E-mail based variations have been spotted in the wild already as well.
So, blocking MSN is going to do extremely little to nothing in preventing this problem, and while there are some good arguments to block IMs at the perimiter, this specific vulnerability is not one of them.
Why, because I replied to a maudlin appeal to emotion with the same techniques - will you feel safer?
No, the post you replied to puts up a number of valid questions, at best you can say the poster also made his own opinion clear about those questions.
You however present something as fact which is definitely not fact and then make a broad and only slightly related appeal on emotion.
Then, the statistics you present are not saying much about this all because they do not present a comparison from which you can anywhere conclude that gun ownership results in less crime so for this argument they are no more then a nice and mostly irrelevant set of numbers.
The argument you made that has some merrit is that having a gun can be a deterrent. I do think you should put a bit more thought in the consequences of that however because as you say correctly, it's not as cut and dry as it seems, and that this reduces crime might seem an obvious conclusion, but it is also an ignorant and short-sighted one.
So, basically, you're saying that because we don't know what the real effects are, we should ban guns just to be safe?
No, first of all I was commenting on this:
Why are you against actions that prevent women from getting raped?
Calling on emotions to convince people when you don't really have a good argument. A technique popular with the current president of the USA, besides some others.
I argued that the 'it prevents crime' argument is at best unproven, and imho rubbish. That does not mean I think there are no good reasons for people to have a gun. Sports and hunting come to mind for example.
I do however believe guns are potentially dangerous items, and I think it is a bad idea to let people have them without proper training. That said, I'm not against people owning guns.
At any rate, you accused me of kneejerk responses, that is quite funny comming from you really.
Show me stats and figure to disprove what I linked to
As long as we can't compare 2 societies that are exactly identical except for the public availability of guns.. no. There are too many other factors that play a role there.
Criminals are deterred when their victim has a chance to fight back. It's simple, it's logical. In economic terms, the opportunity cost of attacking an armed person makes alternatives more attractive.
One alternative is to use violence against the victim before they get a chance to grab their gun. This in fact happens to be such a popular alternative that the link to more violent crime is hard to miss.
Yes, it definitely stops some other crimes, but the overall price might be a bit high..
While at it, also block http, smtp, and actually, any other way in which a user might end up getting a wmf picture.. Maybe better still to disconnect your network entirely..
Seriously, go read up on what the vulnerability is, MSN messenger happens to be the transport in this case, but is in no way required for exploiting the vulnerability.
Congratulations, your reasoning skills match those of the current president of the USA.
Hence Microsoft's push for "Trusted" Computing, which is the only real "feature" in Vista that isn't being backported to XP.
Which makes me wonder, if trusted computing can be used to prevent running a 'rogue' player that just brute forces the keys instead of requesting them from the drive properly, it can also be used to prevent running 'rogue' DVD player apps that don't enforce region locking properly.
When looking at this from a tc point of view, it is very usefull to enforce 'cooperation' of DVD drives in creating a trusted path for protected content, but since modern DVD drives do not have the functionality for this, there is no point in disabling older drives that happen to just lack another small and pretty irrelevant 'feature' for it. It needs to be enforced without 'proper' cooperation of the DVD player hardware in either case.
Because Linux isn't exactly known for being user friendly, especially in the desktop market.
'User friendly'...
Some people call a system user friendly when it is easy for an unexperienced user to access the functionality they want.
The problem is that this almost always gets in the way for those who are more experienced users. It does this in many ways, for example by hiding or simply lacking more complex functionality, addressing the user as if (s)he is stupid etc.
In most cases, you start out without experience, after some use you gain experience, and after some more time, you can be said to be a somewhat experienced user. This last phase lasts substantially longer then the 'unexperienced user' phase.
Hence, reasoning that a system that caters to unexperienced users is 'user friendly' is stupid.
Call such a system 'easy accessable' or something else that points at the fact that you need little experience for using it, but don't say it is friendly to the user because for most users it is the opposite.
Ah, but most people do not use their computers enough to ever become an experienced user? True if you talk about 'consumers', but then, thats true for most tech markets that happen to include normal consumers. THere is 'pro' and consumer grade audio equipment, video equipment etc etc. Professional video equipment has a lot more functionality and quality then consumer grade equipment, and usually combines it with a more powerfull interface, putting more power in the hands of the editor. It can only do that if that interface is also 'friendly' to that editor, else it will just be confusing and get in the way.
The same really applies to software on 'general purpose' computers, and it is your choice if you want to act as a 'low grade' consumer or as a (semi) professional. Stop thinking this has anythign to do with one being more 'user friendly' then the other however.
Or is it? For DeCSS to work, the drive must be recognised as a device. If windows keeps saying that the drive does not exist, DeCSS cannot fix the problem.
I think you misunderstood the parent post.
You can have a modern drive that is completely compatible with Vista, region locked and all.
When using a css decoder in software, all this means is that indeed the drive will be recognized, but the region it is set to will be completely and utterly irrelevant. This is because the entire decoding part is handled without the drive cooperating in it. As long as the drive can produce the raw, encrypted data it will work.
To stop this kind of thing, new restrictions in the DVD reader hardware are needed, restrictions that ensure that it cannot produce the raw encrypted data from a css protected disk, and can't produce either encrypted or decrypted data when its region setting and the region of the disc don't match, this all regardless of what software is trying to do with the drive.
Right now however drives will refuse to cooperate in decryption, but since that can easily be done in software anyway this is really completely irrelevant.
Look into a tool like AnyDVD sometime, or just run Linux/FreeBSD or whatever and try mplayer with dvd support.
To witness, my DVD reader is set to region 1 (3 changes left), most of my DVDs are region 2, and they all play with no problem whatsoever using the options mentioned above.
This is why I have a bunch of cd-rw discs around..
Thanks for the info btw, likely to run into this one in the comming months.
Let's face it, it's easier to get a virus than it is to install RAID drivers. They should just make viruses with payloads that install RAID drivers and be done with it.
Too bad, I have mod points and would have used one on this, but I already posted in this discussion. Thanks for the good laugh there.
Or of course you can use some hack, like AnyDVD - but I think many geeks like me have at least 2 drives, so we can live without any hacking.
You want AnyDVD anyway, regardless of how many drives you have.
Simply being able to access the data on the DVD as if css and regon codes do not exist at all makes live a lot easier, and in fact makes your PC a much better and more convenient media player.
Next question will be if 'Vista' would allow running software like AnyDVD
I think the problems may lie with pariticular implementations of greylisting software, rather than the MTA which is delivering mail.
You are mistaken.
The problem comes down to the delivering MTA treating a temporary failure as a permanent one, and never resending that mail. That is a broken MTA according to the RFCs and is the problem here. There is nothing whatsoever that a greylist implementation can do to prevent this (given we are not using entirely different definitions of greylists)
Of course this is a non-issue if you don't want that mail anyway.
At any rate, I've seen this issue a few times, and it is easily resolved but requires manual intervention. A better solution would of course be for the sender to install a proper MTA.
If you want to nitpick then you can argue that this is not a problem with greylisting but with those MTAs, and right you are, but I want my mail to arrive and it stands in the way of that at times, whereas my current content and rbl based filters don't.