Actually Sender-ID and SPF are the exact same thing. Both allow the sender to describe their email sending configuration in identical terms. The only difference is what receivers decide to do with the information.
But it's a huge difference for the receiver, whether or not you feel it's sane.
1) SPF regulates the envelope sender. Sender-ID regulates the TO: field.
2) SPF can be used to reject incoming messages before any data is sent. Sender-ID has to (at least) wait for the TO: field to be sent along with the rest of the DATA part -- which doesn't limit bandwidth consumption very much.
3) If the MTA isn't going to reject messages and only add to the score, then Sender-ID will be fine for you. If you want to reject messages to avoid tying up your MTA (and lower your bandwidth consumption), SPF is the way to go.
And for the parting shot (not against the parent), DomainKeys is just too much of a load on a busy server, IMHO, because it requires computing a hash for every single message. It just doesn't scale. It has other severe problems too, but I saw them adequately discussed earlier.
...thousands of Slashdot readers with severe cases of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) go into shock as the president does something they can't somehow link with the end of the world and everyone's freedoms.
GB2 has only ever vetoed one bill. He's a rubber-stamping president. (The one bill he did veto was about stem-cells and that had to do more with religion than anything else.) He doesn't deserve credit for any bill coming across his desk.
" For now, Internet service providers are prohibited from discriminating against connections to particular sites on the Internet: they are required to treat traffic to Google exactly the same as traffic to Yahoo! or MSN."
Incorrect. They are not *required* to do anything. There aren't any laws that specifically prohibit data discrimination.
"It's simple. Because the cell phone carriers control what services are allowed to use their networks. There is no net neutrality on the cell phone network."
And this is much like how AOL used to be (in the past: Prodigy, CompuServe, and many bulletin boards).
Criticize your employer and be prepared for the consequences, including job termination, even if you are 100% correct. No one should be surprised. Hopefully the woman in the article has another job lined up.
I respect your article referral, but the reference only speculates on future gasoline usage and omits empirical data. For at least the past several years (and likely longer) gasoline usage has increased in California or remained the same year over year -- taxable revenue has always increased.
"We've already seen this happening in the western states like CA, and Oregon. Lots of people using less gasoline...and now the states are trying to come up with imaginative new ways to collect lost tax revenue to keep the roads up.."
Gasoline usage is increasing. These states are no exception.
In the link you mentioned, they ask for you to look at the graphs on the next page. If you do, you'll see a sharp rise in CO2 levels unmatched in level or rate by any other point or rise in the ice core data.
I figured someone would be confused by this. However, the article expains: "The color bit depth [of today's displays] is typically 24-bits RGB - that gets you 16 million colors, and the human eye can distinguish that," Chard said. "That leads to scaling and onscreen effects which you can pick up. Either 36-bit or 48-bit RGB is beyond the ability of the human eye to distinguish."
Right now your eye can see the color transitions. The point is to make it so you can't see the transitions.
There are two shareholders who hold a combined majority of the stock, Sergey Brin and Larry Page. Since they also run Google, it follows that every decision they make is in the "shareholders' best interest." As long as Brin and Page agree, the other shareholders can't do squat.
Same with Google; a bunch of guys had a nifty idea about using search technology to sell classified ads--by using a delivery system belonging to other companies and paid for by you and me.... Meanwhile, companies like Google reap huge profits off the infrastructure without contributing anything to its maintenance or development.
What? Are you seriously saying Google gets its Internet connection for *free*? If that's the case, you're horribly misguided. I responded to a similar comment in another posting, which you can read here.
Thus, it is not the obligation of the owners of these 'highways' to let anyone use it or let anyone use it for a lower market value.
Every backbone provider is being paid for use of their networks. I fault the "cloud" concept of the Internet for the public's ignorance, because people just assume their data magically gets to the other side through sheer benevolence on the part of the unseen network providers. When people say that Level 3 doesn't pay AT&T for carrying traffic, and then they use that premise to promote quality of service fees, what is not largely understood (or purposely left out) is that AT&T doesn't pay Level 3 for carrying traffic either! If AT&T starts degrading Level 3's traffic unless a fee is paid, AT&T will see either Level 3 asking AT&T for money for its traffic, or Level 3 will drop its peering and start routing traffic around AT&T (as will every other backbone network), thus leaving AT&T to pay *more* for connectivity or live in a black hole.
Please read up on Internet Peering, the practice of two large networks exchanging traffic for mutual benefit.
(sigh...) The Bells (the article is wrongly lumping them in with other ISPs) already make money from both sides of the pipe. What they want now is triple-dipping, i.e. charge another fee for ensuring a particular provider's content makes it through unhindered.
What's controversial is RFID smartcards and implants containing personal data, not necessarily biometrics itself. Your driver's license and passport have had biometrics for a long time.
Comparing degradation to an Interstate is the wrong way to go. AT&T is not a government entity.
What we should be focusing on:
- Bandwidth is already paid for. The consumer and producer pay their respective Internet Service Providers. This has already been discussed above.
- AT&T (and other telephone companies) get tax breaks, tax incentives, and right-of-way because they are common-carrier and a utility. If AT&T wants to start degrading service to individuals unless a fee is paid, then AT&T should lose all its perqs granted by government. They no longer are willing to provide service to everyone, only a select few. Getting tax breaks and right-of-way on top of charging an extra fee is just fleecing the taxpayer -- the perqs are no longer necessary. The subsidies should stop, and the playing field levelled.
What will happen (network-wise) eventually:
Level3 (and all the other non-telephone companies) will stop peering with AT&T networks because there will no longer be any benefit to Level3. AT&T will soon be isolated, unless they stop degradation.
To all those who don't understand network peering, it is essentially a *free* service large networks undertake to exchange traffic. Of course, this only works when both sides benefit somewhat equally. When Level3 starts taking on extra traffic from AT&T customers and AT&T is taking on less traffic from Level3, do you think Level3 will not care? Of course they will.
Soon, we'll see the Bells' networks turn into notworks. And the Internet will chug right along without them.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry for any confusion. I meant to say: Sender-ID regulates the FROM: field.
But it's a huge difference for the receiver, whether or not you feel it's sane.
1) SPF regulates the envelope sender. Sender-ID regulates the TO: field.
2) SPF can be used to reject incoming messages before any data is sent. Sender-ID has to (at least) wait for the TO: field to be sent along with the rest of the DATA part -- which doesn't limit bandwidth consumption very much.
3) If the MTA isn't going to reject messages and only add to the score, then Sender-ID will be fine for you. If you want to reject messages to avoid tying up your MTA (and lower your bandwidth consumption), SPF is the way to go.
And for the parting shot (not against the parent), DomainKeys is just too much of a load on a busy server, IMHO, because it requires computing a hash for every single message. It just doesn't scale. It has other severe problems too, but I saw them adequately discussed earlier.
return(TRUE);
...thousands of Slashdot readers with severe cases of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) go into shock as the president does something they can't somehow link with the end of the world and everyone's freedoms.
GB2 has only ever vetoed one bill. He's a rubber-stamping president. (The one bill he did veto was about stem-cells and that had to do more with religion than anything else.) He doesn't deserve credit for any bill coming across his desk.
" For now, Internet service providers are prohibited from discriminating against connections to particular sites on the Internet: they are required to treat traffic to Google exactly the same as traffic to Yahoo! or MSN."
Incorrect. They are not *required* to do anything. There aren't any laws that specifically prohibit data discrimination.
"It's simple. Because the cell phone carriers control what services are allowed to use their networks. There is no net neutrality on the cell phone network."
And this is much like how AOL used to be (in the past: Prodigy, CompuServe, and many bulletin boards).
What's next, water pipes?
Criticize your employer and be prepared for the consequences, including job termination, even if you are 100% correct. No one should be surprised. Hopefully the woman in the article has another job lined up.
I respect your article referral, but the reference only speculates on future gasoline usage and omits empirical data. For at least the past several years (and likely longer) gasoline usage has increased in California or remained the same year over year -- taxable revenue has always increased.
Here are my references:
Fourth Quarter 1999, 3.71% increase in gasoline usage
Fourth Quarter 2004, 29% increase in service station sales including gasoline (PDF)
"We've already seen this happening in the western states like CA, and Oregon. Lots of people using less gasoline...and now the states are trying to come up with imaginative new ways to collect lost tax revenue to keep the roads up.."
Gasoline usage is increasing. These states are no exception.
What are you looking at? The temperature lags, and CO2 is leading.
In the link you mentioned, they ask for you to look at the graphs on the next page. If you do, you'll see a sharp rise in CO2 levels unmatched in level or rate by any other point or rise in the ice core data.
I figured someone would be confused by this. However, the article expains:
"The color bit depth [of today's displays] is typically 24-bits RGB - that gets you 16 million colors, and the human eye can distinguish that," Chard said. "That leads to scaling and onscreen effects which you can pick up. Either 36-bit or 48-bit RGB is beyond the ability of the human eye to distinguish."
Right now your eye can see the color transitions. The point is to make it so you can't see the transitions.
You might be looking only at Class A shares. There's also a Class B.
Anaesthetica posted earlier describing the stock situation at Google.
Sergey and Larry did not relinquish control when they floated Google stock.
You mean the two majority shareholders, Sergey and Larry?
There are two shareholders who hold a combined majority of the stock, Sergey Brin and Larry Page. Since they also run Google, it follows that every decision they make is in the "shareholders' best interest." As long as Brin and Page agree, the other shareholders can't do squat.
Same with Google; a bunch of guys had a nifty idea about using search technology to sell classified ads--by using a delivery system belonging to other companies and paid for by you and me. ... Meanwhile, companies like Google reap huge profits off the infrastructure without contributing anything to its maintenance or development.
What? Are you seriously saying Google gets its Internet connection for *free*? If that's the case, you're horribly misguided. I responded to a similar comment in another posting, which you can read here.
Thus, it is not the obligation of the owners of these 'highways' to let anyone use it or let anyone use it for a lower market value.
Every backbone provider is being paid for use of their networks. I fault the "cloud" concept of the Internet for the public's ignorance, because people just assume their data magically gets to the other side through sheer benevolence on the part of the unseen network providers. When people say that Level 3 doesn't pay AT&T for carrying traffic, and then they use that premise to promote quality of service fees, what is not largely understood (or purposely left out) is that AT&T doesn't pay Level 3 for carrying traffic either! If AT&T starts degrading Level 3's traffic unless a fee is paid, AT&T will see either Level 3 asking AT&T for money for its traffic, or Level 3 will drop its peering and start routing traffic around AT&T (as will every other backbone network), thus leaving AT&T to pay *more* for connectivity or live in a black hole.
Please read up on Internet Peering, the practice of two large networks exchanging traffic for mutual benefit.
If you're going to rip off your source word-for-word, at least have the courtesy to cite them instead of representing their work as your own.
He did.
Why? By then we'll have an android who will be able to talk to them and point out better sources of food.
Of course, if you just stop kids from using nanotech for science projects, we'll never have to deal with it.
I've never once had a crash with the FreeBSD or Linux monolithic kernels. And unless you're a kernel developer, you haven't either.
I have, and I'm not a kernel developer. RAID and V4L are not bullet-proof.
(sigh...) The Bells (the article is wrongly lumping them in with other ISPs) already make money from both sides of the pipe. What they want now is triple-dipping, i.e. charge another fee for ensuring a particular provider's content makes it through unhindered.
In 2003.
Beat that dead horse some more.
What's controversial is RFID smartcards and implants containing personal data, not necessarily biometrics itself. Your driver's license and passport have had biometrics for a long time.
Comparing degradation to an Interstate is the wrong way to go. AT&T is not a government entity.
What we should be focusing on:
- Bandwidth is already paid for. The consumer and producer pay their respective Internet Service Providers. This has already been discussed above.
- AT&T (and other telephone companies) get tax breaks, tax incentives, and right-of-way because they are common-carrier and a utility. If AT&T wants to start degrading service to individuals unless a fee is paid, then AT&T should lose all its perqs granted by government. They no longer are willing to provide service to everyone, only a select few. Getting tax breaks and right-of-way on top of charging an extra fee is just fleecing the taxpayer -- the perqs are no longer necessary. The subsidies should stop, and the playing field levelled.
What will happen (network-wise) eventually:
Level3 (and all the other non-telephone companies) will stop peering with AT&T networks because there will no longer be any benefit to Level3. AT&T will soon be isolated, unless they stop degradation.
To all those who don't understand network peering, it is essentially a *free* service large networks undertake to exchange traffic. Of course, this only works when both sides benefit somewhat equally. When Level3 starts taking on extra traffic from AT&T customers and AT&T is taking on less traffic from Level3, do you think Level3 will not care? Of course they will.
Soon, we'll see the Bells' networks turn into notworks. And the Internet will chug right along without them.
How is gasoline less toxic than H2 and O2 (or H2O)?
No, I meant what I wrote. There is no second step that needs to be solved. Proceed directly to Karma. :/