Spammers are criminals who make money by hijacking PCs and selling advertising services. You want to eliminate the need to sell advertising services and pay them directly. They will now start hijacking PCs to send themselves mail, sticking the former PC owners with the bill. Very good for the spammers, very bad for everyone else.
And please don't say there will be a foolproof authentication scheme. If there were such a thing, we could just use it for free mail and skip the payments, right?
What stops spammers from shifting their strategies to match your economic model? Any economic change requires a payment from someone to someone. If the payment is to email recipients, spammers will become recipients. If it is to ISPs, spammers will become ISPs. Forcing pay-for-email schemes on the internet creates opportunities for abuse, it doesn't solve anything.
1) They are sending a complete message, which just needs to be routed. This could be sent through your smtp server (port 25) just as easily as through their company server.
2) They are actually doing a mail submission, so that the mail will be "From" theircompany.com. This should be on port 587 using secure authentication.
Nothing like rushing into something before its been fully studied. Buckyballs and nanotubes both present unknown amounts of harm to the environment and to the health of animal life. This is a case where we might want to figure out disposal methods first, because there is evidence that these substances can accumulate in certain environments.
I guess you're in favor of not shipping Firefox until those 10,000 open bugs are fixed. Please check out bugzilla bug 19963 filed 11/23/99 which is still open and active.
and instead of complaining about the limits of IPv4 addressing, Graham goes off on a rant about how DNSBLs are bad. If there were a better way to block spammers, I would use it. In fact I use popfile, but I still filter 60% of the spam up front with SBL-XBL and DSBL.
Just look at the connotations of the terms: IT resource, coder, programmer, software engineer, computer scientist. Some of them make what I do seem downright respectible.
Disks have fewer platters than they used to, so this optimization is less useful than it used to be. The Seagate 120 GB drive with NCQ only has two platters (4 heads). But I suppose you're right overall. A smart scheduler should be able to get some speedup even with just one disk on the bus. They also have an 8MB cache on these things, which is bigger than I expected.
... is somewhat similar to a work rule we reviewed in
Lafayette Park Hotel, supra, and found lawful. There, the employer's rule mandated that "[e]mployees are not allowed to fraternize with hotel guests anywhere on hotel
property."
Obviously, employers can control activity on their property. How can that be extended to what a free person does on their own time? No twisting needs to be done. The Guardsmark case already makes it clear that employers have abused the rights of employees.
For your example to work, the block has to be in the drive's 1MB or so of cache, but not the much larger OS block cache. One possibility would be if the drive is doing readahead, but not the OS, and the data is sequential on disk. But it can also be bad to do readahead since it slows down non-sequential I/O, so it would not normally be turned on on the disk. Hmmm.
Another example would be if the disk does an elevator sort on its requests and satisfies the shortest seeks first. But this can cause long delays to I/O at the disk edges, especially if the system is very busy. Hmmmm
Command queueing allows the host to disconnect while the drive completes a command. The drive isn't any faster. Queuing only speeds up operation if there are multiple drives so commands would otherwise wait for the bus to be free. This only helps in RAID, or when you have a drive and a CD connected SATA.
The only reason the NLRB exists is to protect the rights of workers to band together and form unions. I've known someone fired for union organizing. His supervisor kept a nazi helmet on his desk. Management wasn't very sympathetic to complaints. We finally did organize and struck. I got a new job during the strike and never looked back.
If you don't think this is political, you need some mental Drain-O.
Most of this discussion has focussed on the envelope, but maybe its the content. My spam filter (popfile) tends to classify html mail as spam, for example. When you send plain text do you get classified as spam?
"The only reason FreeBSD now uses ELF is the GNU tools support ELF better. Otherwise the old FreeBSD a.out is just as good."
GNU tools don't support a.out well? They've had, what, 30 years to work on it? a.out didn't support dynamically loaded libraries. ELF appeared before and independently of linux to solve the problem (mid 80s?).
Please add "freebsd pr machine" to your sig. You have earned the label.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets see where this is on the crackpot index
-5 starting
195 for capital letters
10 for evolution being a religion
50 for having no testable predictions
I make it to be about 250. That's pretty good for a short post.
And that evolution is working backwards.
No. It u love.
Spammers are criminals who make money by hijacking PCs and selling advertising services. You want to eliminate the need to sell advertising services and pay them directly. They will now start hijacking PCs to send themselves mail, sticking the former PC owners with the bill. Very good for the spammers, very bad for everyone else.
And please don't say there will be a foolproof authentication scheme. If there were such a thing, we could just use it for free mail and skip the payments, right?
What stops spammers from shifting their strategies to match your economic model? Any economic change requires a payment from someone to someone. If the payment is to email recipients, spammers will become recipients. If it is to ISPs, spammers will become ISPs. Forcing pay-for-email schemes on the internet creates opportunities for abuse, it doesn't solve anything.
There are 2 cases:
1) They are sending a complete message, which just needs to be routed. This could be sent through your smtp server (port 25) just as easily as through their company server.
2) They are actually doing a mail submission, so that the mail will be "From" theircompany.com. This should be on port 587 using secure authentication.
So no reason not to block port 25.
Nothing like rushing into something before its been fully studied. Buckyballs and nanotubes both present unknown amounts of harm to the environment and to the health of animal life. This is a case where we might want to figure out disposal methods first, because there is evidence that these substances can accumulate in certain environments.
I guess you're in favor of not shipping Firefox until those 10,000 open bugs are fixed. Please check out bugzilla bug 19963 filed 11/23/99 which is still open and active.
and instead of complaining about the limits of IPv4 addressing, Graham goes off on a rant about how DNSBLs are bad. If there were a better way to block spammers, I would use it. In fact I use popfile, but I still filter 60% of the spam up front with SBL-XBL and DSBL.
Just look at the connotations of the terms: IT resource, coder, programmer, software engineer, computer scientist. Some of them make what I do seem downright respectible.
Disks have fewer platters than they used to, so this optimization is less useful than it used to be. The Seagate 120 GB drive with NCQ only has two platters (4 heads). But I suppose you're right overall. A smart scheduler should be able to get some speedup even with just one disk on the bus. They also have an 8MB cache on these things, which is bigger than I expected.
Whoops, that ones's old. It should be:
206.132.244.5 (BroncoSingles.com, et al)
Damn posting delay.
207.195.226.85 according to NANAE
The prior decision that they cite:
... is somewhat similar to a work rule we reviewed in
Lafayette Park Hotel, supra, and found lawful. There, the employer's rule mandated that "[e]mployees are not allowed to fraternize with hotel guests anywhere on hotel
property."
Obviously, employers can control activity on their property. How can that be extended to what a free person does on their own time? No twisting needs to be done. The Guardsmark case already makes it clear that employers have abused the rights of employees.
For your example to work, the block has to be in the drive's 1MB or so of cache, but not the much larger OS block cache. One possibility would be if the drive is doing readahead, but not the OS, and the data is sequential on disk. But it can also be bad to do readahead since it slows down non-sequential I/O, so it would not normally be turned on on the disk. Hmmm.
Another example would be if the disk does an elevator sort on its requests and satisfies the shortest seeks first. But this can cause long delays to I/O at the disk edges, especially if the system is very busy. Hmmmm
Not sure I see a clear-cut win.
Command queueing allows the host to disconnect while the drive completes a command. The drive isn't any faster. Queuing only speeds up operation if there are multiple drives so commands would otherwise wait for the bus to be free. This only helps in RAID, or when you have a drive and a CD connected SATA.
The only reason the NLRB exists is to protect the rights of workers to band together and form unions. I've known someone fired for union organizing. His supervisor kept a nazi helmet on his desk. Management wasn't very sympathetic to complaints. We finally did organize and struck. I got a new job during the strike and never looked back.
If you don't think this is political, you need some mental Drain-O.
Just put spam filtering in the hands of a large, trusted organization with experience in secure systems such as Diebold.
1) Judith Miller didn't "disseminate" the name, Novak did. Why is Miller the one in jail?
2) How do you know what's in Valerie Plame's bra?
3) The US Constitution has this "Free Press" thingy. Maybe you didn't notice.
Those are metric dollars.
Since lisp is based on Alonzo Church's Lambda Calculus, I'm not sure how you can call it an accident.
The Programming Pearls books by Jon Bentley give readable, elegant solutions to common programming tasks. I've used several of them.
The Daily WTF gives readable, inelegant solutions to common programming tasks. I've avoided many of them.
Worse, yet its misleading:
"Autocad LT -- Basic 2D CAD, overpriced. Poor format support."
The only thing sensible in the whole article is that IrfanView is a good program.
Most of this discussion has focussed on the envelope, but maybe its the content. My spam filter (popfile) tends to classify html mail as spam, for example. When you send plain text do you get classified as spam?
"The only reason FreeBSD now uses ELF is the GNU tools support ELF better. Otherwise the old FreeBSD a.out is just as good."
GNU tools don't support a.out well? They've had, what, 30 years to work on it? a.out didn't support dynamically loaded libraries. ELF appeared before and independently of linux to solve the problem (mid 80s?).
Please add "freebsd pr machine" to your sig. You have earned the label.
Her full name is Grandma Theft Auto. Its just a ploy to get more publicity.