Nothing new. Now at least 99.999999999% of comments on/. are either directly related to American Politics or have some political message in the sig. The rest are advertising free ipods. Something like 60% of stories are politically motivated, another 20% or so are adverts. I think we need slashdot.us, slashdot.ca, slashdot.de, slashdot.jp, slashdot.kr, slashdot.fi, slashdot.uk, slashdot.biz (for the adverts), slashdot.fr, slashdot.pl, and slashdot.ru. Have I missed any of our major reader groups? Slashdot is getting broken; it's time we all got off of our collective asses and fixed it up. Slashcode was OS, last I checked.
I didn't know anyone who read slashdot was expecting to find any journalism. The funny mods still can't even come close to beating Dave Barry, for goodness sake. Slashdot is a mob on a thin leash, and can be expected to produce news at about that level. I don't read slashdot for the news. I read it because I approve of the world view; I don't actually believe that's what the world is really like, but it's fun to imagine. Read slashdot for the same reason you read a novel, and you'll be okay. Read it in search of facts, truth, or fairness, and you're screwed.
What? Admuncher (www.admuncher.com) has been blocking google ads just fine, thank you. Yet another reason not to use firefox. I loathe those ads. I have never seen a google ad that had anything to do with what I was looking for or at. Does firefox not block google ads for good technical reasons, or is it just that nobody can be bothered to do it because of some fuzzy "we have to support google" feeling? I don't even *trust* google, anymore...but that's another rant.
When I said the same amount of harm but in different ways, I did not even mean that blacklists harm servers. Let me break it down for you:
DDOS: This attack harms servers and websites directly, usually crashing them for a short period of time (until the attacks are filtered out), or for a much longer time on less friendly isps.
Blacklists: blacklists delete or block important emails, sometimes without even bothering to notify the sender, and almost never notifying the intended receiver. This causes a permanent (until the blacklist is disabled) breakdown of communications. This can damage businesses, cause loss of important data (a server crash will cause the originator to resend usually several times until it gets through, a blacklist will in some cases just silently fail), serious losses of money on the part of both sender *and* receiver, can be a security risk (did you know road runner was blocking the department of homeland security for a long time?), and can cause other misunderstandings as well as breaking the fundamental concept/point behind email (no authority, anyone can send to anyone).
So, like I say, the same *amount* of harm, just different ways.
I think that was what the parent meant when he claimed that blacklists currently do not work. Sure, they work, it's just a matter of how much else you're willing to hammer along with your spam. This is why blacklists are just not an option for many mail server admins, and they can't afford (in cycles) to do anything else, so unfortunately many people get bad mail filtering, and the rest don't get any. Keyword and other trainable methods of spam filtering are just a stopgap; already spammers are coming up with systems that avoid these. Spam is a huge problem, and filtering is not the way to go. It's like bailing the titanic out with a scoop; it might work for a few minutes, but eventually you're overwhelmed.
The appropriate solution, of course, is mass executions. This decreases the amount of repeat offenders dramatically. Also, it's quick, and doesn't require any bandwidth or CPU resources at all. The best way, imho, is to lobby for a law declaring all spammers terrorists and all mass mailing software weapons of mass destruction (Orin Hatch can try to outlaw email). Then the CIA can track them down using the RFID chips in their passports and neutralize them effectively. The spammers, that is. Software won't be required to have RFID chips until sometime in 2006. Orin Hatch will be neutralized as soon as we can find a way through the RIAA's defenses (that probably involves holding down the shift key).
"You do not have "personal space" when you are on someone else's property."
Huh! You learn something knew every day. I suppose, then, that it's okay for me to strip search, assault, and maybe even *rape* someone as long as they're on my property? I thought all those things were invading someone Else's personal space; but seeing as they don't have one, it must be okay.
"However, an attack WAS made..."
No. I was stating facts. This is far from attacking someone. It is about as much of an attack on antispammers as your statement "Irony is apparently lost on you. Duly noted." It's just stating a fact; I'm not even really clear on the meaning of the word Irony, so how can I claim you're attacking me? You're just stating a (correct) fact. You need to learn the difference between statement of fact and attack.
"I am FOR Blacklists, because they only effect my servers that *I* decide to put them on."
Ah. That, my friend, is wherein lies the entire substance of the disagreement. I never said (or maybe meant, I may have been unclear) blacklists are the same thing as a denial of service. However, they do approximately the same amount of harm, only in different ways and areas. The problem seems to be that you can only see "your server" and are completely unable to look at the bigger picture.
Congratulations, by the way, on ignoring the several cheap shots I shouldn't have taken at you that I took anyway. I'm outclassed. Not wrong, just outclassed.:-)
The difference is that both those companies ship nearly anywhere from nearly anywhere, completely unlike the community takeovers done by companies like Rogers Communications, comcast, AOL broadband, Roadrunner, etc. Many (if not most) communities only have one broadband provider that gives them all the crap they'll take in order to save themselves money (like too harsh spam filtering, giving them an excuse to delete users email); if you live in a community that offers you 2 broadband providers, you should consider yourself extremely lucky.
Yes, but it's the customers email, not their's. If the mailman doesn't want to deliver you some of your mail, well, it's his truck, not yours. Even worse, if the post office doesn't want to accept any more mail from you, well, Tough cookies. It's their mailbox.
Wow, what a flame! If I were a spammer, why would I admit to using spam vampire? Can you please think for a minute before making stupid accusations; I'm not sure if it would help you any, but it couldn't do you any harm. Disconnected from reality? I find that amusing, coming as it does right before a signature that clearly shows how disconnected you yourself must be. You also seem to think that I am, for what ever reason, against blacklists. I choose not to use them personally because I find them inaccurate, but getting back on topic, I believe I have as much right to use one as to turn off a TV invading my personal space with it's noise. Yes, antispammers do damage servers. I never made *any* statements as to the correctness of this, and will not do so now. I was just making a handy comparison, even if I may have sounded slightly bitter (ever tried to get off a blacklist when it wasn't your fault the server is on in the first place? Thought not.). You seem to have lost the entire point of this thread in your need to franticly defend antispammers, even when no direct attack was made. Do you feel guilty about something?
"a fuckwit who thinks your rights trump those around you?" Wah? Hold on. Are you against blacklists and spam vampire or for them? If for, you and I both could fall into that one; if against, you don't and maybe I do. But...can you please sort out some sort of unified position before posting? I realize this is/., but contradicting yourself in one post is low even for this forum. I mean, I think we all still have standards. We like to pretend, anyway.
Et al? Wasn't that guy involved in stealing link commissions? Not that you can trust anything you read on slashdot, but still, I wouldn't listen to any of his music, that's for sure. Sneaky bastard.
"a device that let anyone shutdown any SMTP server that was sending them mail they didn't want to receive, regardless of what it is and who else was using the server."
Oh, do you mean DNS blacklists, like the ones used by AOL, yahoo, and roadrunner?:-) Sure, it's not a complete server shutdown, but those providers make up a large enough portion of email addresses that it might as well be, if you count all the ISPs that contract with yahoo to provide email.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there. antispammers regularly damage the propperty and/or business and/or freedom and/or rights of spammers and spam servers, as well as many many many inosent third parties (see almost any DNS blacklist, esp. sorbs; all filtering should be keyword/training based, but it never is). For a good example of what I'm talking about, see http://www.hillscapital.com/antispam/index.ht m I don't see how anyone who has made use of this site (I regularly do, and I'm sure many other slashdoters also; it was posted here a while back) can come out against this universal off button.
Hmmm, doesn't the same thing apply with regards to spam filtering? It's not on your property, it's not your email server, so what write do you have to give it bad addresses/filter the email it sends you/etc, etc. I'm majorly antispam, but it seems to me that getting junk email and listening to junk from a blaring TV is about the same thing. You own neither TV nor the senders mail server, but you still take action to protect your personal space/inbox. I wish they had the same thing for the store address systems that are always blaring out bad music mixed with "THANK YOU FOR SHOPPING AT $store"/"SPECIAL OFFER!"/"WILL PETER REPORT TO THE TOY DEPARTMENT! RIGHT NOW! WE MEAN IT! PETER TO TOYS!" announcements. How does this make my shopping experience more enjoyable? It's like physical spam.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing new. Now at least 99.999999999% of comments on /. are either directly related to American Politics or have some political message in the sig. The rest are advertising free ipods. Something like 60% of stories are politically motivated, another 20% or so are adverts. I think we need slashdot.us, slashdot.ca, slashdot.de, slashdot.jp, slashdot.kr, slashdot.fi, slashdot.uk, slashdot.biz (for the adverts), slashdot.fr, slashdot.pl, and slashdot.ru. Have I missed any of our major reader groups? Slashdot is getting broken; it's time we all got off of our collective asses and fixed it up. Slashcode was OS, last I checked.
"embarrassing journalistic track record"?
I didn't know anyone who read slashdot was expecting to find any journalism. The funny mods still can't even come close to beating Dave Barry, for goodness sake. Slashdot is a mob on a thin leash, and can be expected to produce news at about that level. I don't read slashdot for the news. I read it because I approve of the world view; I don't actually believe that's what the world is really like, but it's fun to imagine. Read slashdot for the same reason you read a novel, and you'll be okay. Read it in search of facts, truth, or fairness, and you're screwed.
Hey! You sttole my joke! I take off my tinfoil hat for 2 seconds, and see what I get???
What? Admuncher (www.admuncher.com) has been blocking google ads just fine, thank you. Yet another reason not to use firefox. I loathe those ads. I have never seen a google ad that had anything to do with what I was looking for or at. Does firefox not block google ads for good technical reasons, or is it just that nobody can be bothered to do it because of some fuzzy "we have to support google" feeling? I don't even *trust* google, anymore...but that's another rant.
When I said the same amount of harm but in different ways, I did not even mean that blacklists harm servers. Let me break it down for you:
DDOS: This attack harms servers and websites directly, usually crashing them for a short period of time (until the attacks are filtered out), or for a much longer time on less friendly isps.
Blacklists: blacklists delete or block important emails, sometimes without even bothering to notify the sender, and almost never notifying the intended receiver. This causes a permanent (until the blacklist is disabled) breakdown of communications. This can damage businesses, cause loss of important data (a server crash will cause the originator to resend usually several times until it gets through, a blacklist will in some cases just silently fail), serious losses of money on the part of both sender *and* receiver, can be a security risk (did you know road runner was blocking the department of homeland security for a long time?), and can cause other misunderstandings as well as breaking the fundamental concept/point behind email (no authority, anyone can send to anyone).
So, like I say, the same *amount* of harm, just different ways.
I think that was what the parent meant when he claimed that blacklists currently do not work. Sure, they work, it's just a matter of how much else you're willing to hammer along with your spam. This is why blacklists are just not an option for many mail server admins, and they can't afford (in cycles) to do anything else, so unfortunately many people get bad mail filtering, and the rest don't get any. Keyword and other trainable methods of spam filtering are just a stopgap; already spammers are coming up with systems that avoid these. Spam is a huge problem, and filtering is not the way to go. It's like bailing the titanic out with a scoop; it might work for a few minutes, but eventually you're overwhelmed.
The appropriate solution, of course, is mass executions. This decreases the amount of repeat offenders dramatically. Also, it's quick, and doesn't require any bandwidth or CPU resources at all. The best way, imho, is to lobby for a law declaring all spammers terrorists and all mass mailing software weapons of mass destruction (Orin Hatch can try to outlaw email). Then the CIA can track them down using the RFID chips in their passports and neutralize them effectively. The spammers, that is. Software won't be required to have RFID chips until sometime in 2006. Orin Hatch will be neutralized as soon as we can find a way through the RIAA's defenses (that probably involves holding down the shift key).
P.S: Relax. I'm joking. I think.
"You do not have "personal space" when you are on someone else's property."
:-)
Huh! You learn something knew every day. I suppose, then, that it's okay for me to strip search, assault, and maybe even *rape* someone as long as they're on my property? I thought all those things were invading someone Else's personal space; but seeing as they don't have one, it must be okay.
"However, an attack WAS made..."
No. I was stating facts. This is far from attacking someone. It is about as much of an attack on antispammers as your statement "Irony is apparently lost on you. Duly noted." It's just stating a fact; I'm not even really clear on the meaning of the word Irony, so how can I claim you're attacking me? You're just stating a (correct) fact. You need to learn the difference between statement of fact and attack.
"I am FOR Blacklists, because they only effect my servers that *I* decide to put them on."
Ah. That, my friend, is wherein lies the entire substance of the disagreement. I never said (or maybe meant, I may have been unclear) blacklists are the same thing as a denial of service. However, they do approximately the same amount of harm, only in different ways and areas. The problem seems to be that you can only see "your server" and are completely unable to look at the bigger picture.
Congratulations, by the way, on ignoring the several cheap shots I shouldn't have taken at you that I took anyway. I'm outclassed. Not wrong, just outclassed.
The difference is that both those companies ship nearly anywhere from nearly anywhere, completely unlike the community takeovers done by companies like Rogers Communications, comcast, AOL broadband, Roadrunner, etc. Many (if not most) communities only have one broadband provider that gives them all the crap they'll take in order to save themselves money (like too harsh spam filtering, giving them an excuse to delete users email); if you live in a community that offers you 2 broadband providers, you should consider yourself extremely lucky.
Yes, but it's the customers email, not their's. If the mailman doesn't want to deliver you some of your mail, well, it's his truck, not yours. Even worse, if the post office doesn't want to accept any more mail from you, well, Tough cookies. It's their mailbox.
Wow, what a flame! If I were a spammer, why would I admit to using spam vampire? Can you please think for a minute before making stupid accusations; I'm not sure if it would help you any, but it couldn't do you any harm. Disconnected from reality? I find that amusing, coming as it does right before a signature that clearly shows how disconnected you yourself must be. You also seem to think that I am, for what ever reason, against blacklists. I choose not to use them personally because I find them inaccurate, but getting back on topic, I believe I have as much right to use one as to turn off a TV invading my personal space with it's noise. Yes, antispammers do damage servers. I never made *any* statements as to the correctness of this, and will not do so now. I was just making a handy comparison, even if I may have sounded slightly bitter (ever tried to get off a blacklist when it wasn't your fault the server is on in the first place? Thought not.). You seem to have lost the entire point of this thread in your need to franticly defend antispammers, even when no direct attack was made. Do you feel guilty about something?
/., but contradicting yourself in one post is low even for this forum. I mean, I think we all still have standards. We like to pretend, anyway.
"a fuckwit who thinks your rights trump those around you?"
Wah? Hold on. Are you against blacklists and spam vampire or for them? If for, you and I both could fall into that one; if against, you don't and maybe I do. But...can you please sort out some sort of unified position before posting? I realize this is
Et al? Wasn't that guy involved in stealing link commissions? Not that you can trust anything you read on slashdot, but still, I wouldn't listen to any of his music, that's for sure. Sneaky bastard.
"a device that let anyone shutdown any SMTP server that was sending them mail they didn't want to receive, regardless of what it is and who else was using the server."
:-) Sure, it's not a complete server shutdown, but those providers make up a large enough portion of email addresses that it might as well be, if you count all the ISPs that contract with yahoo to provide email.
Oh, do you mean DNS blacklists, like the ones used by AOL, yahoo, and roadrunner?
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there. antispammers regularly damage the propperty and/or business and/or freedom and/or rights of spammers and spam servers, as well as many many many inosent third parties (see almost any DNS blacklist, esp. sorbs; all filtering should be keyword/training based, but it never is). For a good example of what I'm talking about, seet m
http://www.hillscapital.com/antispam/index.h
I don't see how anyone who has made use of this site (I regularly do, and I'm sure many other slashdoters also; it was posted here a while back) can come out against this universal off button.
Hmmm, doesn't the same thing apply with regards to spam filtering? It's not on your property, it's not your email server, so what write do you have to give it bad addresses/filter the email it sends you/etc, etc. I'm majorly antispam, but it seems to me that getting junk email and listening to junk from a blaring TV is about the same thing. You own neither TV nor the senders mail server, but you still take action to protect your personal space/inbox. I wish they had the same thing for the store address systems that are always blaring out bad music mixed with "THANK YOU FOR SHOPPING AT $store"/"SPECIAL OFFER!"/"WILL PETER REPORT TO THE TOY DEPARTMENT! RIGHT NOW! WE MEAN IT! PETER TO TOYS!" announcements. How does this make my shopping experience more enjoyable? It's like physical spam.