So why does Konqueror, which is also both a browser and file manager, not suffer the same problems of acting as an infection vector to systems running KDE? So, if the KDE folks can code a dual file manager/browser which does not leave the system open to attack, then the excuse that IE is both file manager and internet browser holds no water.
So get the webhoster (or whoever is hosting the DNS) to set up the SPF record correctly so that the ISP's mail servers are allowed to send email for the customer's domain.
Which brings up another point, the owner of the domain should have 'control' of the DNS (and thus make the decision on whether or not to publish SPF ecords) for their domain.
The computer dealers are not without blame either. They ship pre-installed operating systems which are at a 'base' level without up-to-date security patches applied. They should be made to either supply the OS and applications with all the current (at time of sale) security patches already applied or supply those patches on CD so that the purchaser does not have to connect to the internet to download the patches (during which time the system is vulnerable to whatever attacks are fixed by the patches)
How do you detect if someone is accessing via a proxy (maybe not even knowingly, as some ISPs have 'transparent' proxies) which does not honour the no-cache and similar directives? If such a proxy retrieves the page is there any way of telling if it is then served to 1 or 1000 people?
Why should a web site have "target demographics" anyway? In considering advertising, should the advertising not be made appropriate for the people who do visit rather than the text be made appropriate for the target audience of the advertising?
The piano roll (where this started) is not sampling either - it is reproducing the whole work. The law was made so that this became legal on payment of a flat fee and that the copyright owner could not prevent it. The piano roll maker (or modern day remixer) pays the fee and is allowed to do the deed.
Are US District Attorneys not elected officials? If they are, could spam not be made a campaign issue (by the voters) when the official comes up for (re-)election?
Or even if the PC was shipped with the OS security updates already applied. Or if that is too much of a burden for suppliers, supply the latest patches on CD so that the buyer does not have to expose themself to infection when connecting the 'virgin' system to the internet in order to download the security updates.
Re:CD's are really a bargain when you put it this
on
The Way the Music Died
·
· Score: 2, Informative
When you purchase a CD you really aren't promoting the artist, but rather the label instead.
For a very good example of this, you only have to look at Richard Branson and the Virgin group. Until the release of Tubular Bells (Virgin 1), Virgin just ran a few small record shops. It was the sucess Tubular Bells that made Richard Branson and launched the Virgin Group.
So not only does this not stop spam -- it doesn't stop joe-jobs either. Who cares what MAIL FROM says? It's what in the From:-line that the clients use and the users see.
But bounces are sent to the MAIL FROM line. From the mail administrator's point of view, one of the worst aspects of being Joe Jobbed is the receipt of bounces for mail which did not come from your site.
If the recipient not only reads the email but replies to it when the tracker says it has not been read, will this cause 'average Joe' to doubt the accuracy of other 'not read' reports?
It would be nice if AOL were to implement SPF on incoming mail as well as publish SPF records which identify legimate senders of email from the AOL domain. I often get bounces from AOL servers for mails which have not originated in my domains, and they all publish SPF records with -all (ie fail rather than soft-fail)
And if they did that, the ISPs (and others wishing to block spam) could use that 'signifying' characteristic to block the spam and would not need to refer to spamcop (or other blocking lists).
OSS should not need to file patents. The objects of the patent system and OSS are quite similar - to put information on public view rather than kept as trade secrets (as the old guilds used to do). OSS publishes source code, so this should act as prior art and publication as far as patents are concerned. So that it should be impossible for anyone to obtain a patent on something that is already done by OSS. Therefore, there is no advantage (and as has already been noted, the cost of a patent is a disadvantage) in OSS obtaining any patents.
Which is why elected representitives should be made to represent the interests, wishes and view of the people whom they represent. The representitive should not vote according to "the party line" or his/her own views but according to the (majority) views/wishes of the community which elected them.
In a corporate environment Joe User should not need to have access to a privileged account. That is what the IT staff are there for. I remember the days when the corporate desktop computer would be a 'dumb' terminal onto the mainframe. Users seemed to cope quite well with data entry on forms etc. The vast majority of business, as opposed to home, users should not need to even know what OS their computer is running. All they should need to know is how to use the applications which they need to do their job.
It is not a bad thing that a writer get to control whether their work is released. However, I believe that once the copyright owner has authorised a copy to be made then they should have no control over what happens to that copy (apart from restricting further copies being made). So once a CD or DVD pressing has been authorised, the copyright owner should have no control over where (or for what price) that copy is sold, nor over what equipment is used to 'play' the work.
I know that the law (in at least most countries) does allow the copyright owners to exercise such control, but I beleive that this should be changed.
How often is it the arist who is imposing this restriction? Is it not normally the record label? So might it help to write to the arists (if that is possible) and tell them the reason they have lost a fan.
Even that would not work. For one thing multiple companies can own the same trademark, but for use in different areas of business. Secondly, the same trademark can be owned by separate companies in different countries, even if they are in the same line of business. So even with a.reg TLD there could still be disputes as to which trademark holder is entitled to the domain.
But is AOL using SPF on its incoming mail servers? I know that it is publishing SPF records for its outgoing mail servers, which will help prevent spammers joe-jobbing AOL..
I would say that, almost by definition, a consumer is a non-commercial client. Certainly much UK 'trading' law (eg Sale of Goods Act, the EU Distance Selling Regulations) give more rights to a non-commercial (consumer) client than to a business (commercial) client.
Will it check that every computer connected to an internal network, probably hidden behind an internal NATing router, has the appropriate protection installed?
Slashdot Mirror
So why does Konqueror, which is also both a browser and file manager, not suffer the same problems of acting as an infection vector to systems running KDE? So, if the KDE folks can code a dual file manager/browser which does not leave the system open to attack, then the excuse that IE is both file manager and internet browser holds no water.
So get the webhoster (or whoever is hosting the DNS) to set up the SPF record correctly so that the ISP's mail servers are allowed to send email for the customer's domain.
Which brings up another point, the owner of the domain should have 'control' of the DNS (and thus make the decision on whether or not to publish SPF ecords) for their domain.
The computer dealers are not without blame either. They ship pre-installed operating systems which are at a 'base' level without up-to-date security patches applied. They should be made to either supply the OS and applications with all the current (at time of sale) security patches already applied or supply those patches on CD so that the purchaser does not have to connect to the internet to download the patches (during which time the system is vulnerable to whatever attacks are fixed by the patches)
How do you detect if someone is accessing via a proxy (maybe not even knowingly, as some ISPs have 'transparent' proxies) which does not honour the no-cache and similar directives? If such a proxy retrieves the page is there any way of telling if it is then served to 1 or 1000 people?
Why should a web site have "target demographics" anyway? In considering advertising, should the advertising not be made appropriate for the people who do visit rather than the text be made appropriate for the target audience of the advertising?
The piano roll (where this started) is not sampling either - it is reproducing the whole work. The law was made so that this became legal on payment of a flat fee and that the copyright owner could not prevent it. The piano roll maker (or modern day remixer) pays the fee and is allowed to do the deed.
Are US District Attorneys not elected officials? If they are, could spam not be made a campaign issue (by the voters) when the official comes up for (re-)election?
Or even if the PC was shipped with the OS security updates already applied. Or if that is too much of a burden for suppliers, supply the latest patches on CD so that the buyer does not have to expose themself to infection when connecting the 'virgin' system to the internet in order to download the security updates.
For a very good example of this, you only have to look at Richard Branson and the Virgin group. Until the release of Tubular Bells (Virgin 1), Virgin just ran a few small record shops. It was the sucess Tubular Bells that made Richard Branson and launched the Virgin Group.
But bounces are sent to the MAIL FROM line. From the mail administrator's point of view, one of the worst aspects of being Joe Jobbed is the receipt of bounces for mail which did not come from your site.
If the recipient not only reads the email but replies to it when the tracker says it has not been read, will this cause 'average Joe' to doubt the accuracy of other 'not read' reports?
It would be nice if AOL were to implement SPF on incoming mail as well as publish SPF records which identify legimate senders of email from the AOL domain. I often get bounces from AOL servers for mails which have not originated in my domains, and they all publish SPF records with -all (ie fail rather than soft-fail)
SPF does not claim to cure the spam problem. The main form of attack which SPF guards against is the Joe Job.
And if they did that, the ISPs (and others wishing to block spam) could use that 'signifying' characteristic to block the spam and would not need to refer to spamcop (or other blocking lists).
OSS should not need to file patents. The objects of the patent system and OSS are quite similar - to put information on public view rather than kept as trade secrets (as the old guilds used to do). OSS publishes source code, so this should act as prior art and publication as far as patents are concerned. So that it should be impossible for anyone to obtain a patent on something that is already done by OSS. Therefore, there is no advantage (and as has already been noted, the cost of a patent is a disadvantage) in OSS obtaining any patents.
Which is why elected representitives should be made to represent the interests, wishes and view of the people whom they represent. The representitive should not vote according to "the party line" or his/her own views but according to the (majority) views/wishes of the community which elected them.
The physical letter may belong to the recipient, but the copyright belongs to the writer.
In a corporate environment Joe User should not need to have access to a privileged account. That is what the IT staff are there for. I remember the days when the corporate desktop computer would be a 'dumb' terminal onto the mainframe. Users seemed to cope quite well with data entry on forms etc. The vast majority of business, as opposed to home, users should not need to even know what OS their computer is running. All they should need to know is how to use the applications which they need to do their job.
It is not a bad thing that a writer get to control whether their work is released. However, I believe that once the copyright owner has authorised a copy to be made then they should have no control over what happens to that copy (apart from restricting further copies being made). So once a CD or DVD pressing has been authorised, the copyright owner should have no control over where (or for what price) that copy is sold, nor over what equipment is used to 'play' the work.
I know that the law (in at least most countries) does allow the copyright owners to exercise such control, but I beleive that this should be changed.
How often is it the arist who is imposing this restriction? Is it not normally the record label? So might it help to write to the arists (if that is possible) and tell them the reason they have lost a fan.
Even that would not work. For one thing multiple companies can own the same trademark, but for use in different areas of business. Secondly, the same trademark can be owned by separate companies in different countries, even if they are in the same line of business. So even with a .reg TLD there could still be disputes as to which trademark holder is entitled to the domain.
But is AOL using SPF on its incoming mail servers? I know that it is publishing SPF records for its outgoing mail servers, which will help prevent spammers joe-jobbing AOL..
I would say that, almost by definition, a consumer is a non-commercial client. Certainly much UK 'trading' law (eg Sale of Goods Act, the EU Distance Selling Regulations) give more rights to a non-commercial (consumer) client than to a business (commercial) client.
An OS which leaks like a sieve should not be trusted, nor should you trust anyone or any other system which claims such an OS is trusted.
Will it check that every computer connected to an internal network, probably hidden behind an internal NATing router, has the appropriate protection installed?