Great. Another pointless "top X" list spread across twelve ad-ridden pages. Who accepts this crap? Editors? Hello?
Anyways, I disagree with their final decisions too. Their top two are Steam (bloated DRM-ware) and Direct2Drive (also bloated DRM-ware) while giving Impulse (no DRM inherent) third place. In fact, they don't even list DRM as a con of Steam or Direct2Drive (or "no DRM" as a pro of Impulse).
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks (X) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers (X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it (X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money (X) Huge existing software investment in SMTP (X) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches (X) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Actually, no. Only SORBS does that - they're a bloody racketeering operation they are (even if you did nothing wrong, the SORBS admin will only delist you if you donate $50US to "an approved charity").
Your username is quite appropriate - as your entire statement about Entourage and Exchange is quite erroneous indeed. In fact, Outlook and Exchange users on Windows also have to put up with absolute headaches trying to set up SSL anything too (only signed comms is with the RPC over HTTPS proxy, so I assume Entourage uses that - and that's a headache on Windows too)
New Zealand, so same division but possibly slightly different agreements. It's more likely that the vendor in your case lied to you (after all, if they provide a real Windows disk, you'll steamroll their crapware, right?).
Not quite true. The hardware vendors are only allowed to sell modified "OEM" Windows disks because that is all MS chooses to allow.
Not true at all. I also have an OEM System Builder agreement, and you are more than welcome to provide the disc if you like [to the customer]. HP claiming that to you is a flat out lie.
Incorrect. Microsoft doesn't debug the drivers, they sign the drivers after receiving verification from a testing lab (or your own QA team, if you're so inclined) that the drivers have been tested.
Not quite. WHQL actually doesn't do the testing, they merely accept the report from the testing house that did (and yes, you can do your testing in-house) and sign it if the report says all went well.
Later releases don't do that any more. But I assume that one was because of a crash in the "supervisor process" - IE8 still has the problem of it being possible to crash the supervisor (UI) process and all child processes die with it.
You obviously missed the fiasco where Valve actually retroactively revoked a particular game on some buyers because it was purchased in the wrong territory (which is to say, people objected to paying 4X the price, and brought from a cheaper region, so Valve revoked the game and they paid for a coaster).
That's wrong, not informative. Any modern Windows OS (XP SP2, Vista) pops up a box asking what you want to do when you insert the disk (which includes the option "Run the program"). It will not, however, automatically run anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Great. Another pointless "top X" list spread across twelve ad-ridden pages. Who accepts this crap? Editors? Hello?
Anyways, I disagree with their final decisions too. Their top two are Steam (bloated DRM-ware) and Direct2Drive (also bloated DRM-ware) while giving Impulse (no DRM inherent) third place. In fact, they don't even list DRM as a con of Steam or Direct2Drive (or "no DRM" as a pro of Impulse).
Give me Impulse over Steam or D2D any day.
Here we go...
Your post advocates a
(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(X) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(X) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
(X) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
Actually, no. Only SORBS does that - they're a bloody racketeering operation they are (even if you did nothing wrong, the SORBS admin will only delist you if you donate $50US to "an approved charity").
No. Not at all.
Yes it does. Just go to http://exchangeserver/public (replace exchangeserver with the FQDN of your server)
No. Lotus Notes is disqualified due to the "solution" requirement.
Until said clients implement (or maybe decipher, considering Microsoft documentation) the protocol that Outlook uses.
SCREEN SCRAPING?
Why not just implement the fucking native protocol?
No, its not that. Often, if you provide an EHLO to the server, it expects more crap than you feel inclined to type for transactions.
For bonus points, type STARTSSL and see if you can hand-negotiate an SSL connection.
Take a look at GP Store:
http://www.gpstore.co.nz/DVDs/Blu-Ray/
CHEAPEST there is $50, most are $60-$80 or higher. Heroes Seasons 1 and 2 is almost $200. Real Groovy is a bit more reasonable, at $50 for most.
There's even more of a margin over here in NZ...
DVD: $29
Blu-Ray: $99
Well, you can buy an upgrade from MS Office to WordPerfect Office on Microsoft's store... so what's your point again?
We can't quite go so far as to actually get OpenOffice from them, but as you can see they don't necessarily feel they need to squash competition.
Your username is quite appropriate - as your entire statement about Entourage and Exchange is quite erroneous indeed. In fact, Outlook and Exchange users on Windows also have to put up with absolute headaches trying to set up SSL anything too (only signed comms is with the RPC over HTTPS proxy, so I assume Entourage uses that - and that's a headache on Windows too)
WTF? Spamhaus doesn't charge a fee, you may be thinking of SORBS (which is widely known to be a scam racket)
So what is it then? A mobile phone? (Hint: PC stands for "Personal Computer", which by definition includes Macs)
New Zealand, so same division but possibly slightly different agreements. It's more likely that the vendor in your case lied to you (after all, if they provide a real Windows disk, you'll steamroll their crapware, right?).
Now try that on Vista.
Not quite true. The hardware vendors are only allowed to sell modified "OEM" Windows disks because that is all MS chooses to allow.
Not true at all. I also have an OEM System Builder agreement, and you are more than welcome to provide the disc if you like [to the customer]. HP claiming that to you is a flat out lie.
Incorrect. Microsoft doesn't debug the drivers, they sign the drivers after receiving verification from a testing lab (or your own QA team, if you're so inclined) that the drivers have been tested.
Not quite. WHQL actually doesn't do the testing, they merely accept the report from the testing house that did (and yes, you can do your testing in-house) and sign it if the report says all went well.
Later releases don't do that any more. But I assume that one was because of a crash in the "supervisor process" - IE8 still has the problem of it being possible to crash the supervisor (UI) process and all child processes die with it.
Dude, you're arguing with a copyright lawyer. That might not be such a good idea.
No, no it can not.
You obviously missed the fiasco where Valve actually retroactively revoked a particular game on some buyers because it was purchased in the wrong territory (which is to say, people objected to paying 4X the price, and brought from a cheaper region, so Valve revoked the game and they paid for a coaster).
Fuck Steam.
That's wrong, not informative. Any modern Windows OS (XP SP2, Vista) pops up a box asking what you want to do when you insert the disk (which includes the option "Run the program"). It will not, however, automatically run anything.