I was simply replying to your statement of "selling a product that will one day make ours obsolete".
You yourself say that they "sell primarily gasoline powered vehicles", hence the product is not electric, and will be made obsolete by Tesla's electric offerings. I was simply asking whether you were making the "horse drawn carriage" argument.
Anyway, not sure why you're getting so agitated here.
Exactly. You pick the least relevant piece of my comment, and try to make it the focus of debate -thus deflecting focus from the core of the discussion. Lawyer, politician, or lobbyist?
We have engineered a law to protect ourselves from competition, and since we choose not to sell their product, we can use this law to keep them from selling their product either!"
You do understand that Tesla wants a monopoly on Tesla sales --- which, for all practical purposes, will give it a monopoly in the maintenance and service of the Tesla, and, quite likely, a monopoly in used car sales of the Tesla as well?
Tesla sets the price and that is that.
Well, as the manufacturer, Tesla already has a monopoly on Tesla sales.
Anyone can maintain and service a Tesla... assuming they know what they are doing (whether or not Tesla will warranty the work done by "Greasy Bill" is another issue entirely.)
Tesla does not in any way prevent resales of Tesla manufactured vehicles. They have not gone out of their way to encourage dealerships to purchase in bulk and have the vehicles sitting around in case someone wants one. Why would they? There is a waiting list to get a Tesla. They are all spoken for before they come off the production line (so far...)
To (badly) paraphrase:
Westlake: Monopoly!
Inigo: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
"Stop them! They are competing unfairly, by selling a product that will one day make ours obsolete!
We have engineered a law to protect ourselves from competition, and since we choose not to sell their product, we can use this law to keep them from selling their product either!"
You really think this is a petrol engine versus electric thing?
No. I do not think it is a petrol vs electric thing. It is a greed thing. It just happens that all of the dealers happen to sell primarily gasoline powered vehicles, with a few electric vehicles appearing as the big automakers begin to roll them out in response to consumer demand (brought on by companies like Tesla).
You don't think this is a "I want to make money as a middleman, and don't want this 'direct to customer' sales model to take off" thing, instead?
I think they are (ab)using a law to prevent (potential)competitor from selling a competing product thus avoiding any "unfair" competition from taking away their legally-mandated position of profitability. You plainly missed the point the first time I said it.
"Stop them! They are competing unfairly, by selling a product that will one day make ours obsolete!
We have engineered a law to protect ourselves from competition, and since we choose not to sell their product, we can use this law to keep them from selling their product either!"
We live in the time of Peak Coffee production. It is all downhill from here. The world has a finite supply, and we are pumping it at unprecedented levels. Levels which cannot be sustained indefinitely. In fact, we may have to introduce artificial controls to limit how may pounds per day are sold on the global market. We are not trying to artificially inflate the price to make ourselves richer, we are just looking out for your future.../parody
I admit I am ignorant in this case beyond the headlines. Did the judge order the exact wording of the apology? Did the judge order the exact location on a web site that the apology must appear? Did the judge order the exact page of newspapers the apology must appear? Also, we're the quotes attributed to the judge not accurate?
The thing with judges is that they believe in their own authority. And they don't like it when someone fucks with them. (**Suddenly a mis-quote from "Pulp Fiction" is running through my head...**)
When a judge tells you to do something, they are telling you to follow their intent not to find an alternative interpretation of their words. If you interpret their directives in a way other than what they intended for you to do, they can punish you for it.
Sure, you can appeal that punishment, but then it goes to another judge (or judges) to decide if you were being treated unfairly -and all judges believe that their authority as a judge is sacrosanct: anything that challenges the authority of a judge is a potential challenge to the authority of all judges. Even when a judge disagrees with the decision handed down by another judge, they dislike being forced to admit that any judge may have been wrong as it creates an implied challenge to their own authority.
...the cost of litigating would make the likely gain for the patent holder really miniscule.
The point of patent litigation is not to make money directly from the litigation, it is to suppress competition -especially small, innovative, and potentially disruptive technologies.
I agree with this decision. These days, email is a surrogate for snail-mail sent in "the old days", and a company could NOT open a sealed/stamped letter without a court order or permission of the sender (or recipient if on the receiving end).
When I pay you to: sit in my chair, at my desk, in my building, and use my pen to write on my paper (letterhead bearing my name and address), seal it in my envelope, and attach my stamp to it, write the return address of my building on it, hand it to the person I am paying to collect and distribute papers for me, and they take it (along with many other documents I paid you and others to create) to the postal distribution center, and hand it over to the postal authorities to deliver...
Am I entitled to know what was written on that paper?
Am I liable for what was written on that paper?
What if instead of it being on a piece of paper, sealed in an envelope, it is written on a postcard?
there are national services that compile this kind of data and sell it to corporations
not a big deal
Except that those services are expensive (for a small business anyway -thus the "unreasonable burden" argument against collecting taxes on online sales), and do not indemnify you from errors.
Just to add to this, the shipping and handling is actually the source of profit for many companies on Amazon. I personally knew the owner of a company that sells $0.99 computer games on Amazon, but charges $5.99 shipping on them, which turns into a $5-plus profit on each game sold. I recently fell for this tactic when I bought a copy of the Hulk Video Game for $3.96 and got charged $4.59 in shipping. This is also the case with many used-book sellers on Amazon, who sell the book for a dollar, charge you five in shipping, and then send it using the library book rate, which only costs them pennies.
While I agree with your sentiment, your facts are... inaccurate.
It depends on the category the item is being offered under. Amazon has defined different categories for items, and for most of those categories, Amazon has set the shipping fee that the seller is paid (see http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?ie=UTF8&nodeId=537734&#rates). There are categories where Amazon allows a seller to specify their own fees, but your example of used books (Amazon category: media) is one that Amazon regulates. The shipping fee is set to $3.99 for domestic sales. As for using Library Mail for shipping -unless the item is going to/from an approved (by the USPS) library/museum/school that is postal fraud (see http://pe.usps.com/text/dmm300/173.htm#1115292). What is typically used to ship used books is Media Mail (see http://pe.usps.com/text/dmm300/173.htm#1113509).
Charges for shipping (what I am charged by the courier, and an approximate cost of packaging materials) are not considered as part of the sale, and I am not required to collect sales tax.
Charges for handling (additional charges beyond the courier and packaging materials) are considered as part of the sale (as they are part of my business income), and I am required to collect sales tax.
A shipping and handling charge is taxable as it does not differentiate the taxable amount from the non-taxable amount.
It all comes down to how you advertize it, and how the invoice is itemized.
True, you can play WoW adequately on many laptops. I have done some significant amounts of gaming on my Atom based netbook. But running up against hardware limitations when you have just developed a strong desire to play some hot new game, is bit of a buzzkill. If the budget is there to buy a computer, and the purpose is for a gaming machine, a desktop will get you farther for less money.
I maintain a machine much like the one to be used by your son. You are right to give up on trying to get these games working in Wine. Even if you succeed, the next patch might break it. It creates an unreasonable amount of recurring effort, which you can avoid entirely for the cost of an OEM Windows licence, which is really, really cheap in comparison. Sure, this is not what Stallman would say, but then he does not support PCs for a family.
Here are some suggestions:
1. Windows 7 on a new laptop.
2. Install Microsoft Security Essentials. It's free (beer). Don't bother with Norton.
3. Create a regular user account for your son. Ensure the account is not able to modify system files without asking for the admin password. This prevents most of the nasty things malware tries to do. WIndows security is actually really good these days.
4. Order a Blizzard authenticator to go with WoW. This excludes more nasty things that malware might do... just in case!
5. Back up the machine after you install the games but before you hand it over to your son. Use backup software that will generate a disk image like Macrium Reflect Free Edition. Restore this disk image from a live CD (Reflect can create one for you) if your son has any problems. You have to use a full disk image for Windows because restoring an install is not just a matter of copying the files and rerunning update-grub.
6. When working with Windows, use the same patience you have to use when working with an unfamiliar Linux distribution. Don't expect everything to be straightforward or logical, and be pleasantly surprised when it is. The only extra thing you need to beware of, but Linux users do not, is that there are scam sites which offer to "help" you with common problems, e.g. device driver issues, and serve up malware instead of help. Good practice is to research Windows problems on a Linux machine.
It really is not difficult.
The above suggestion is good. I would do a couple things differently:
1. Windows 7 on a new laptop.
For gaming purposes I would recommend a desktop, with a discrete video card. It does not need to be a high end (expensive) system, but the additional performance from a non-mobile version of one of the current generation processors, and of a discrete video card, will be noticeable.
5. Back up the machine after you install the games but before you hand it over to your son. Use backup software that will generate a disk image like Macrium Reflect Free Edition. Restore this disk image from a live CD (Reflect can create one for you) if your son has any problems. You have to use a full disk image for Windows because restoring an install is not just a matter of copying the files and rerunning update-grub.
Windows 7 included backup is quite capable. It can make full system images (bare metal) as well as pretty much any other type of backup you desire, either on demand or on a schedule. Recovery can be done from within windows, or by booting from the windows install disk, choosing repair, and selecting the option to restore from backup. If you only do a full system backup, remember to make a new one every once in a while, as it can be tedious to have to apply a long series of updates to an out-of-date backup.
Arguable statements? It's pretty well established now that free newspaper sites are failing. They do not earn their keep. It is a known fact, a done deal.
If a site's traffic is not generating sufficient revenue to pay it's bills, then operating a website site is not a viable business model. Sometimes that's OK, as the site is not the revenue generating arm of the business, but more of a promotional expense. If a business model does not work, you change the business model.
Who said "lots of money"? I'm talking adequate money. And as for constructive proposals... how about the RTFA...?
It is a pretty short article. nearly half of it is quoted in the summary above. What is not quoted doesn't include any constructive ideas. "Gimme!" is really not a constructive idea.
Pay the content providers a cut of advertising revenue for providing the content that makes Google News the most visited news site on the planet.
Google (as a search provider) has the data to determine which links are (or are statistically likely to become) popular, and provides aggregated lists (such as their news page) as starting points for people to find content without having to actually run a search query for "things I might be interested in". Google then sells advertizing space on their site, but the greater value still lies in the data they collect about people using their services -it allows them to develop new services that people will want to use (thus generating even more data for them) and sells access to portions of that data to others. It is the selling of distilled portions of this data that makes Google money.
As for requiring a share of these revenues in exchange for allowing Google to include links to a site's content in an aggregated list. I don't believe it is legally valid under current international business practices. Further I do not expect Google to agree under any circumstances. It is a line in the sand for them, beyond which lies the slippery slope of every website being paid to have their content indexed/aggregated by search providers, or indeed being paid by anyone who indirectly makes use of their sites existence as part of their own business! It would spell the end for companies that live on "the Google method" (i.e. providing services to users in exchange for collecting data about what they do with those services, and then selling the results of that market research data.)
This is wrong. Spamhaus maintain four blocklists (and an aggregate blocklist) and the DBL is exactly as the grandparent described. It blocks the domains that are found in the content of spam messages. Not the IP addresses of the domains... the actual domains.
I stand corrected. Not for the first, or last time...
But... that is a horrible concept for a block list! I can see using such information to identify potential spam messages by content filtering, but since they are not the originators of the message I don't see how walling them off will in any way reduce the amount of crap in my inbox. I guess it is an application of the "starve them out" method. If you cut off business to those paying the spammers, they will stop paying the spammers, and then spammers will die out. It sounds logical on the surface, but...it really is not even remotely likely to succeed.
I run several (very basic) mailing lists and have never heard of this before. I imagine an awful lot of "spam" emails being sent (via one of the list services I truly hope never to use again...) containing the words google, microsoft, apple, spamhaus, us.gov, ftc.gov, riaa.org, and a few others... with instructions to the recipients to please report the message as spam. Just as an experiment, of course -I assume that such major targets already have agreements ($) in place to prevent their being added to any such blocklist.
If one considers the DBL a list of domains who have appeared in emails to spamtraps
Fail. That is not how the lists are generated. The domain would have to be seen as the source of the email in order to be added to the blocklist. Simply having your domain name appear in the text of an email which has been flagged as spam is not going to add your domain to a blocklist.
Secondly, how sure are you somebody didn't forward your email to their own not-so-double-opt-in list which got reported as spam.
This would not add the proxy servers listed in the email to the DBL. Blocklists are created by logging the source of the spam, not by searching through the text of the spam for possible domains then listing those domains as spammers (although such content filters are useful for identifying messages as spam)
The misuse and abuse of the spamhaus DBL is the problem.
It was never intended as a tool for registrars to use in vetting customers.
It does not (as the OP suggested) add entries based on their inclusion in a list contained within an email message.
It does collect, and collate, information from email providers, users, ISPs regarding domains from which spam has been sent. If the OPs mailing list were the problem, the domain from which the list is sent would be the one marked as a spammer if that were the case (so the info regarding following best practices, and using opt-in confirmation, etc is irrelevant here...)
If the OPs clients are using the provided proxy's to send their spam from, they could very easily end up on the spamhaus DBL -and they should!
Deal with your clients. If you have a TOS, find a way to enforce it.
Deal with your providers. They are in violation of their own rules, and you can call them on it, if you care enough.
Wednesday morning, I noticed some gas stations near me (silicon valley, ca) had raised their prices by $0.40 or more since the previous day. By Thursday, all the local gas stations had caught up. That is approximately a 9% jump. If prices went up again yesterday (which I haven't noticed...) then the overall increase this past week is more like 15%.
That's OK. I am going to spend the same amount of money anyway... It just leave less for the tip.
I pay for drinks in bars with cash, 1-2 dollars per drink as a tip, with a bigger tip at the beginning of the night to make sure that when its busy I get my order taken before the schlubs. If the price goes up at random, I will just pay the same amount I did before. It is the server who suffers... and then the management who have unhappy servers... and then the owners who cant keep their places staffed. Go for it.
Slashdot Mirror
I was simply replying to your statement of "selling a product that will one day make ours obsolete".
You yourself say that they "sell primarily gasoline powered vehicles", hence the product is not electric, and will be made obsolete by Tesla's electric offerings. I was simply asking whether you were making the "horse drawn carriage" argument.
Anyway, not sure why you're getting so agitated here.
Exactly. You pick the least relevant piece of my comment, and try to make it the focus of debate -thus deflecting focus from the core of the discussion. Lawyer, politician, or lobbyist?
We have engineered a law to protect ourselves from competition, and since we choose not to sell their product, we can use this law to keep them from selling their product either!"
You do understand that Tesla wants a monopoly on Tesla sales --- which, for all practical purposes, will give it a monopoly in the maintenance and service of the Tesla, and, quite likely, a monopoly in used car sales of the Tesla as well?
Tesla sets the price and that is that.
Well, as the manufacturer, Tesla already has a monopoly on Tesla sales.
Anyone can maintain and service a Tesla... assuming they know what they are doing (whether or not Tesla will warranty the work done by "Greasy Bill" is another issue entirely.)
Tesla does not in any way prevent resales of Tesla manufactured vehicles. They have not gone out of their way to encourage dealerships to purchase in bulk and have the vehicles sitting around in case someone wants one. Why would they? There is a waiting list to get a Tesla. They are all spoken for before they come off the production line (so far...)
To (badly) paraphrase:
Westlake: Monopoly!
Inigo: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You really think this is a petrol engine versus electric thing?
No. I do not think it is a petrol vs electric thing. It is a greed thing. It just happens that all of the dealers happen to sell primarily gasoline powered vehicles, with a few electric vehicles appearing as the big automakers begin to roll them out in response to consumer demand (brought on by companies like Tesla).
You don't think this is a "I want to make money as a middleman, and don't want this 'direct to customer' sales model to take off" thing, instead?
I think they are (ab)using a law to prevent (potential)competitor from selling a competing product thus avoiding any "unfair" competition from taking away their legally-mandated position of profitability. You plainly missed the point the first time I said it.
tl:dr WWWHHHOOOOOOSSSHHH !!!
"Stop them! They are competing unfairly, by selling a product that will one day make ours obsolete!
We have engineered a law to protect ourselves from competition, and since we choose not to sell their product, we can use this law to keep them from selling their product either!"
We live in the time of Peak Coffee production. It is all downhill from here. The world has a finite supply, and we are pumping it at unprecedented levels. Levels which cannot be sustained indefinitely. In fact, we may have to introduce artificial controls to limit how may pounds per day are sold on the global market. We are not trying to artificially inflate the price to make ourselves richer, we are just looking out for your future... /parody
I admit I am ignorant in this case beyond the headlines. Did the judge order the exact wording of the apology? Did the judge order the exact location on a web site that the apology must appear? Did the judge order the exact page of newspapers the apology must appear? Also, we're the quotes attributed to the judge not accurate?
The thing with judges is that they believe in their own authority. And they don't like it when someone fucks with them. (**Suddenly a mis-quote from "Pulp Fiction" is running through my head...**)
When a judge tells you to do something, they are telling you to follow their intent not to find an alternative interpretation of their words. If you interpret their directives in a way other than what they intended for you to do, they can punish you for it.
Sure, you can appeal that punishment, but then it goes to another judge (or judges) to decide if you were being treated unfairly -and all judges believe that their authority as a judge is sacrosanct: anything that challenges the authority of a judge is a potential challenge to the authority of all judges. Even when a judge disagrees with the decision handed down by another judge, they dislike being forced to admit that any judge may have been wrong as it creates an implied challenge to their own authority.
...the cost of litigating would make the likely gain for the patent holder really miniscule.
The point of patent litigation is not to make money directly from the litigation, it is to suppress competition -especially small, innovative, and potentially disruptive technologies.
I agree with this decision. These days, email is a surrogate for snail-mail sent in "the old days", and a company could NOT open a sealed/stamped letter without a court order or permission of the sender (or recipient if on the receiving end).
When I pay you to: sit in my chair, at my desk, in my building, and use my pen to write on my paper (letterhead bearing my name and address), seal it in my envelope, and attach my stamp to it, write the return address of my building on it, hand it to the person I am paying to collect and distribute papers for me, and they take it (along with many other documents I paid you and others to create) to the postal distribution center, and hand it over to the postal authorities to deliver...
Am I entitled to know what was written on that paper?
Am I liable for what was written on that paper?
What if instead of it being on a piece of paper, sealed in an envelope, it is written on a postcard?
Note that this is contradicted by laws/legal precedence in most other jurisdictions...
there are national services that compile this kind of data and sell it to corporations
not a big deal
Except that those services are expensive (for a small business anyway -thus the "unreasonable burden" argument against collecting taxes on online sales), and do not indemnify you from errors.
Just to add to this, the shipping and handling is actually the source of profit for many companies on Amazon. I personally knew the owner of a company that sells $0.99 computer games on Amazon, but charges $5.99 shipping on them, which turns into a $5-plus profit on each game sold. I recently fell for this tactic when I bought a copy of the Hulk Video Game for $3.96 and got charged $4.59 in shipping. This is also the case with many used-book sellers on Amazon, who sell the book for a dollar, charge you five in shipping, and then send it using the library book rate, which only costs them pennies.
While I agree with your sentiment, your facts are... inaccurate.
It depends on the category the item is being offered under. Amazon has defined different categories for items, and for most of those categories, Amazon has set the shipping fee that the seller is paid (see http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?ie=UTF8&nodeId=537734&#rates). There are categories where Amazon allows a seller to specify their own fees, but your example of used books (Amazon category: media) is one that Amazon regulates. The shipping fee is set to $3.99 for domestic sales. As for using Library Mail for shipping -unless the item is going to/from an approved (by the USPS) library/museum/school that is postal fraud (see http://pe.usps.com/text/dmm300/173.htm#1115292). What is typically used to ship used books is Media Mail (see http://pe.usps.com/text/dmm300/173.htm#1113509).
In California at least:
Charges for shipping (what I am charged by the courier, and an approximate cost of packaging materials) are not considered as part of the sale, and I am not required to collect sales tax.
Charges for handling (additional charges beyond the courier and packaging materials) are considered as part of the sale (as they are part of my business income), and I am required to collect sales tax.
A shipping and handling charge is taxable as it does not differentiate the taxable amount from the non-taxable amount.
It all comes down to how you advertize it, and how the invoice is itemized.
Microsoft has Patch Tuesday, Oracle has Patch February...
The reason you don't get it is because you are not the quack in question, nor are you his insurer, nor his employer...
True, you can play WoW adequately on many laptops. I have done some significant amounts of gaming on my Atom based netbook. But running up against hardware limitations when you have just developed a strong desire to play some hot new game, is bit of a buzzkill. If the budget is there to buy a computer, and the purpose is for a gaming machine, a desktop will get you farther for less money.
I maintain a machine much like the one to be used by your son. You are right to give up on trying to get these games working in Wine. Even if you succeed, the next patch might break it. It creates an unreasonable amount of recurring effort, which you can avoid entirely for the cost of an OEM Windows licence, which is really, really cheap in comparison. Sure, this is not what Stallman would say, but then he does not support PCs for a family.
Here are some suggestions:
1. Windows 7 on a new laptop.
2. Install Microsoft Security Essentials. It's free (beer). Don't bother with Norton.
3. Create a regular user account for your son. Ensure the account is not able to modify system files without asking for the admin password. This prevents most of the nasty things malware tries to do. WIndows security is actually really good these days.
4. Order a Blizzard authenticator to go with WoW. This excludes more nasty things that malware might do... just in case!
5. Back up the machine after you install the games but before you hand it over to your son. Use backup software that will generate a disk image like Macrium Reflect Free Edition. Restore this disk image from a live CD (Reflect can create one for you) if your son has any problems. You have to use a full disk image for Windows because restoring an install is not just a matter of copying the files and rerunning update-grub.
6. When working with Windows, use the same patience you have to use when working with an unfamiliar Linux distribution. Don't expect everything to be straightforward or logical, and be pleasantly surprised when it is. The only extra thing you need to beware of, but Linux users do not, is that there are scam sites which offer to "help" you with common problems, e.g. device driver issues, and serve up malware instead of help. Good practice is to research Windows problems on a Linux machine.
It really is not difficult.
The above suggestion is good. I would do a couple things differently:
1. Windows 7 on a new laptop.
For gaming purposes I would recommend a desktop, with a discrete video card. It does not need to be a high end (expensive) system, but the additional performance from a non-mobile version of one of the current generation processors, and of a discrete video card, will be noticeable.
5. Back up the machine after you install the games but before you hand it over to your son. Use backup software that will generate a disk image like Macrium Reflect Free Edition. Restore this disk image from a live CD (Reflect can create one for you) if your son has any problems. You have to use a full disk image for Windows because restoring an install is not just a matter of copying the files and rerunning update-grub.
Windows 7 included backup is quite capable. It can make full system images (bare metal) as well as pretty much any other type of backup you desire, either on demand or on a schedule. Recovery can be done from within windows, or by booting from the windows install disk, choosing repair, and selecting the option to restore from backup. If you only do a full system backup, remember to make a new one every once in a while, as it can be tedious to have to apply a long series of updates to an out-of-date backup.
Arguable statements? It's pretty well established now that free newspaper sites are failing. They do not earn their keep. It is a known fact, a done deal.
If a site's traffic is not generating sufficient revenue to pay it's bills, then operating a website site is not a viable business model. Sometimes that's OK, as the site is not the revenue generating arm of the business, but more of a promotional expense. If a business model does not work, you change the business model.
Who said "lots of money"? I'm talking adequate money. And as for constructive proposals... how about the RTFA...?
It is a pretty short article. nearly half of it is quoted in the summary above. What is not quoted doesn't include any constructive ideas. "Gimme!" is really not a constructive idea.
Pay the content providers a cut of advertising revenue for providing the content that makes Google News the most visited news site on the planet.
Google (as a search provider) has the data to determine which links are (or are statistically likely to become) popular, and provides aggregated lists (such as their news page) as starting points for people to find content without having to actually run a search query for "things I might be interested in". Google then sells advertizing space on their site, but the greater value still lies in the data they collect about people using their services -it allows them to develop new services that people will want to use (thus generating even more data for them) and sells access to portions of that data to others. It is the selling of distilled portions of this data that makes Google money.
As for requiring a share of these revenues in exchange for allowing Google to include links to a site's content in an aggregated list. I don't believe it is legally valid under current international business practices. Further I do not expect Google to agree under any circumstances. It is a line in the sand for them, beyond which lies the slippery slope of every website being paid to have their content indexed/aggregated by search providers, or indeed being paid by anyone who indirectly makes use of their sites existence as part of their own business! It would spell the end for companies that live on "the Google method" (i.e. providing services to users in exchange for collecting data about what they do with those services, and then selling the results of that market research data.)
This is wrong. Spamhaus maintain four blocklists (and an aggregate blocklist) and the DBL is exactly as the grandparent described. It blocks the domains that are found in the content of spam messages. Not the IP addresses of the domains... the actual domains.
I stand corrected. Not for the first, or last time...
But... that is a horrible concept for a block list! I can see using such information to identify potential spam messages by content filtering, but since they are not the originators of the message I don't see how walling them off will in any way reduce the amount of crap in my inbox. I guess it is an application of the "starve them out" method. If you cut off business to those paying the spammers, they will stop paying the spammers, and then spammers will die out. It sounds logical on the surface, but...it really is not even remotely likely to succeed.
I run several (very basic) mailing lists and have never heard of this before. I imagine an awful lot of "spam" emails being sent (via one of the list services I truly hope never to use again...) containing the words google, microsoft, apple, spamhaus, us.gov, ftc.gov, riaa.org, and a few others... with instructions to the recipients to please report the message as spam. Just as an experiment, of course -I assume that such major targets already have agreements ($) in place to prevent their being added to any such blocklist.
If one considers the DBL a list of domains who have appeared in emails to spamtraps
Fail. That is not how the lists are generated. The domain would have to be seen as the source of the email in order to be added to the blocklist. Simply having your domain name appear in the text of an email which has been flagged as spam is not going to add your domain to a blocklist.
an Afilias issue, not a Spamhaus issue.
Agreed!
Secondly, how sure are you somebody didn't forward your email to their own not-so-double-opt-in list which got reported as spam.
This would not add the proxy servers listed in the email to the DBL. Blocklists are created by logging the source of the spam, not by searching through the text of the spam for possible domains then listing those domains as spammers (although such content filters are useful for identifying messages as spam)
The misuse and abuse of the spamhaus DBL is the problem.
It was never intended as a tool for registrars to use in vetting customers.
It does not (as the OP suggested) add entries based on their inclusion in a list contained within an email message.
It does collect, and collate, information from email providers, users, ISPs regarding domains from which spam has been sent. If the OPs mailing list were the problem, the domain from which the list is sent would be the one marked as a spammer if that were the case (so the info regarding following best practices, and using opt-in confirmation, etc is irrelevant here...)
If the OPs clients are using the provided proxy's to send their spam from, they could very easily end up on the spamhaus DBL -and they should!
Deal with your clients. If you have a TOS, find a way to enforce it.
Deal with your providers. They are in violation of their own rules, and you can call them on it, if you care enough.
Even a stopped clock gets it right twice a day.
Wednesday morning, I noticed some gas stations near me (silicon valley, ca) had raised their prices by $0.40 or more since the previous day. By Thursday, all the local gas stations had caught up. That is approximately a 9% jump. If prices went up again yesterday (which I haven't noticed...) then the overall increase this past week is more like 15%.
Yes. I have no problem with business models changing. My concern is with the economy being upended.
They're not at all the same thing.
The economy is fucked already -look around at all the people struggling to feed/shelter their families.
Disruptive technologies causing a paradigm shift in outdated business models is the only chance for our future.
That's OK. I am going to spend the same amount of money anyway... It just leave less for the tip.
I pay for drinks in bars with cash, 1-2 dollars per drink as a tip, with a bigger tip at the beginning of the night to make sure that when its busy I get my order taken before the schlubs. If the price goes up at random, I will just pay the same amount I did before. It is the server who suffers... and then the management who have unhappy servers... and then the owners who cant keep their places staffed. Go for it.