This is a serious issue, about which there is real disagreement. There is so little data, some excellent research, and an enormous amount of hype.
Why do we have to put up with:
Politcally inspired science, state the conclusion required,
justify it by any means neccesary
(data dredging, change acceptance criterea for hypothesis.... ).
Government type agencies frittering away their credibility on scientific issues.
This damnable 'knee jerk' response to arguments: "Who paid for the research/study."
rather than answering the questions raised, particularly when referred to
statistical analysis.
Treating modelling output as though it were data.
Data analysis which lacks any confidence just having the words 'may' and 'might'
added, so that the lack of knowledge is hidden.
Major details hidden down in the subscripts while speculation and hype get the
headlines.
It's hard to see a way of stopping it being created and offered to mail servers,
but if mail creating agents (e.g. Outlook) by default signed email with a traceable signature then we would have the option of rejecting any unsigned email in the same way that my browser rejects https sites with unrecognised certificates. It could be rejected if no signature name is offered before the mail agent OKs it's transmission, and if the offered signature didn't match an email actually received it could be always trashed.
This doesn't seem too heavy handed, as the signing, and hence hopefully traceability, would be entirely optional.
It does require that certificates be free, or very nearly free (cost), but not freely available in bulk. Maybe they could distribute a couple with every paid for copy of windows. CRLs and online databases of spam generating certificates could be consulted by the mail receiving agents.
This all requires no new technology, just a change in operating practice.
I don't really care if some people buy stuff from the spam, to them, presumably, it isn't spam. Meanwhile thank goodness for SpamAssassin.
As a personal opinion of GTA, I completely agree with Hilary Clinton. This is a very rare event.
However in view of the fact that is was she who made this comment, and that she is a US Senator, I am concerned that her proposed solution will be to pass some sort of controlling legislation, which I would most definitely not agree with.
It is not the business of government to get involved with this stuff.
We do not have to like the message that something conveys to allow it to be legal.
We need an internationally agreed solution to this.
ICANN are understandably upset at the slight that
has occured to a large part of the world.
Mozilla's browser couldn't reliably turn IDN
off, that was fixed, but now it's off by default.
The more officially proposed solutions are mostly
registrar based, I don't think that's OK.
Opera now has a fix of it's own.
IE hadn't even got round to implementing IDN.
The problem has been known about for ages, but
only recently taken seriously. It certainly is
serious.
It only matters for secure sites, where one
expects that the site is run by who it appears
to ben run by.
Typing in all secure URLs is unrealistic, they are
often quite long and cryptic after the domain
name.
How about a query button for secure sites which
will reliably show the domain owner data, e.g.
if one clicks on the padlock?
Slashdot Mirror
This is a serious issue, about which there is real disagreement. There is so little
.... ).
data, some excellent research, and an enormous amount of hype.
Why do we have to put up with:
Politcally inspired science, state the conclusion required,
justify it by any means neccesary
(data dredging, change acceptance criterea for hypothesis
Government type agencies frittering away their credibility on scientific issues.
This damnable 'knee jerk' response to arguments: "Who paid for the research/study."
rather than answering the questions raised, particularly when referred to
statistical analysis.
Treating modelling output as though it were data.
Data analysis which lacks any confidence just having the words 'may' and 'might'
added, so that the lack of knowledge is hidden.
Major details hidden down in the subscripts while speculation and hype get the
headlines.
Absolutely it should work that way, and for the major sites in question it does,
yahoo, google, amazon, ebay etc. are all multiply connected Tier 1.
They pay for access too.
I resent being stuck out on a twig of a branch of a limb of the internet, with all the
unreliability that my ADSL telco provides.
It's hard to see a way of stopping it being created and offered to mail servers,
but if mail creating agents (e.g. Outlook) by default signed email with a traceable
signature then we would have the option of rejecting any unsigned email in the same
way that my browser rejects https sites with unrecognised certificates.
It could be rejected if no signature name is offered before the mail agent OKs
it's transmission, and if the offered signature didn't match an email actually
received it could be always trashed.
This doesn't seem too heavy handed, as the signing, and hence hopefully traceability,
would be entirely optional.
It does require that certificates be free, or very nearly free (cost), but not freely
available in bulk. Maybe they could distribute a couple with every paid
for copy of windows. CRLs and online databases of spam generating certificates could
be consulted by the mail receiving agents.
This all requires no new technology, just a change in operating practice.
I don't really care if some people buy stuff from the spam, to them, presumably, it
isn't spam.
Meanwhile thank goodness for SpamAssassin.
Paul
As a personal opinion of GTA, I completely agree with Hilary Clinton. This is a very rare event.
However in view of the fact that is was she who made this comment, and that she is a US Senator, I am concerned that her proposed solution will be to pass some sort of controlling legislation, which I would most definitely not agree with.
It is not the business of government to get involved with this stuff.
We do not have to like the message that something conveys to allow it to be legal.
The Palace offers a knighthood and it takes Bill over a year to fit it into his diary?
We need an internationally agreed solution to this. ICANN are understandably upset at the slight that has occured to a large part of the world. Mozilla's browser couldn't reliably turn IDN off, that was fixed, but now it's off by default. The more officially proposed solutions are mostly registrar based, I don't think that's OK. Opera now has a fix of it's own. IE hadn't even got round to implementing IDN. The problem has been known about for ages, but only recently taken seriously. It certainly is serious. It only matters for secure sites, where one expects that the site is run by who it appears to ben run by. Typing in all secure URLs is unrealistic, they are often quite long and cryptic after the domain name. How about a query button for secure sites which will reliably show the domain owner data, e.g. if one clicks on the padlock?
Sourceforge is the acknowledged place these things
are coordinated, It is great to see a giant like
IBM contributing in the 'commoners' forum.
> but using OpenSource public tools when
> properly funded seems somewhat.. rude, no?
Rude? NO. It is a very good thing.
It is a testament to how good some of the Open Source tools have become.