It can be shown that 100% of cancer incidents reported in California affected patients in California. We must therefore warn you that California may cause cancer.
Or, some foolish legislators, lobbyists and CEOs costing businesses money could fuel the arguments for less government regulation, control and interference. Script kiddies, Anonymous and others of that ilk do not see legislators, lobbyists and CEOs as crusaders of freedom representing the public's interests, but rather as obnoxious criminals pushing their own agenda.
There's the other perspective. The problem is, when it comes to making laws, the legislators, lobbyists and CEOs are the ones in control. When Anonymous acts, it will be the perspective of the legislators that will affect the laws formed in response.
I dropped thousands of dollars on the rings, fancy wedding, etc., and getting her to do any of those things was still much harder than building and programming a robot.
Or, some foolish script kiddies costing businesses money could fuel the arguments for more government regulation, control and interference. Legislators, lobbyists, CEOs and others of that ilk do not see Anonymous as crusaders of freedom representing the public's interests, but rather as obnoxious criminals pushing their own agenda.
Is that what the kids are calling it these days? I wouldn't know - I'm too busy at my job doing this thing we simply call "work" on systems that were built with exactly that in mind. Of course, that is also one of the reasons why I will not be attempting any LFS builds any time soon.
You've obviously never pitted Slashdot against a cheap VPS. Even serving static files, the traffic of a good slashdotting will bring a lightweight server to its knees, and this is a story related to SSH.
End-users should not be using SMTP to communicate directly with recipient servers, and almost none do. (Emphasis added.)
"Almost none"? I believe that Outlook does. Evolution does. Pine does. The mail program on my smart phone uses SMTP to send email. I would hardly call that "almost none".
I very much doubt your mail client is configured to send mail directly. It almost certainly has an SMTP relay configured for sending mail. Nearly all MUAs lack the option to send directly -- they require that a relay be configured.
Nearly all ISPs provide authenticating SMTP relays for their subscribers,
Yes, which talk SMTP to the "end user".
Legitimate large-volume senders have already dealt with this.
They haven't already dealt with some new proposal that requires MX records for sending hosts and "human" limits on sending email.
"This" in my statement above specifically referring to having the appropriate PTR records set up, as the context in the following (unquoted) sentence indicates. No part of my post supports any funky use of MX records or sending volume limits.
End-users should not be using SMTP to communicate directly with recipient servers, and almost none do. Nearly all ISPs provide authenticating SMTP relays for their subscribers, and end-users should be using those ISP-provided SMTP servers or some other mail provider's SMTP servers to relay their mail. If they have some legitimate reason to send mail directly (such as operating their own server), then requiring them to ask their ISP for a port 25 blocking exemption is perfectly reasonable.
Legitimate large-volume senders have already dealt with this. I haven't encountered any legitimate large-volume senders in recent history that do not have valid PTR records for all of their outbound relays.
Blocking servers without a valid RDNS record may not be part of any proper standard, but it is slowly becoming a de facto standard.
There are plenty of rules that could be set up to prevent rogue systems from sending spam, but the problem is with getting network operators and individual server administrators on board. Trying to get all network operators (or ISPs) around the world doing something is like herding cats. Trying to get all individual server administrators to do something is like herding millions of catnip-infused cats.
Your thought about MX records is not quite right. There is a difference between servers that recieve mail (which should be pointed to by MX records) and servers that send mail (which should have valid PTR records in reverse DNS for their IP). While a single server may perform both duties, that is not by any means guaranteed. One action that would block a large number of infected systems from delivering their spam would be receiving mail servers blocking all mail from senders that do not have a valid RDNS record. This is the correct version of your proposal, and some major providers already do this. An even greater benefit could be achieved if all ISPs were to block outbound traffic headed for TCP port 25 by default, requiring subscribers to "opt-in" to initiate port 25 traffic. Some ISPs already do this, but far too many do not. Yet another good measure would be for recipients to block mail from servers that fail to identify themselves with a valid fully-qualified domain name in their HELO message and require that domain to resolve by DNS. Like the RDNS solution, this would require all legitimate mail server operators to set their sending servers up properly. As more receiving operators start blocking non-compliant mail servers, we may slowly push more sending server operators to do things right, but it is a long, slow process when users demand that every legitimate message get through.
Slashdot Mirror
...the 12t of sugar in a can of Coke...
It's actually a full LoC of high-fructose corn syrup, which is complimented by the caffeine to ensure a timely arrival to your death bed.
Careful, there. Being pedantic is known to the State of California to cause cancer.
It can be shown that 100% of cancer incidents reported in California affected patients in California. We must therefore warn you that California may cause cancer.
In California, correlation is sufficient to claim causation.
Everybody knows that everything causes cancer in California.
Or, some foolish legislators, lobbyists and CEOs costing businesses money could fuel the arguments for less government regulation, control and interference. Script kiddies, Anonymous and others of that ilk do not see legislators, lobbyists and CEOs as crusaders of freedom representing the public's interests, but rather as obnoxious criminals pushing their own agenda.
There's the other perspective. The problem is, when it comes to making laws, the legislators, lobbyists and CEOs are the ones in control. When Anonymous acts, it will be the perspective of the legislators that will affect the laws formed in response.
"Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash
Hearing the ticking of a clock and seeing a deadline approaching always has a calming effect!
I'm sure this will be taken every bit as seriously as the Doomsday Clock.
I dropped thousands of dollars on the rings, fancy wedding, etc., and getting her to do any of those things was still much harder than building and programming a robot.
Siri, is that you?
Perhaps if we throw wave after wave of our own men at them, they'll reach their kill limit and become docile workers...
They tried, but they didn't live to tell the tale.
Or, some foolish script kiddies costing businesses money could fuel the arguments for more government regulation, control and interference. Legislators, lobbyists, CEOs and others of that ilk do not see Anonymous as crusaders of freedom representing the public's interests, but rather as obnoxious criminals pushing their own agenda.
Shut up and clean my floors!
*real work*.
Is that what the kids are calling it these days? I wouldn't know - I'm too busy at my job doing this thing we simply call "work" on systems that were built with exactly that in mind. Of course, that is also one of the reasons why I will not be attempting any LFS builds any time soon.
Not at all contradictory. It does not require the use of browser plugins, but the Gate One application supports its own plugins for customization.
You've obviously never pitted Slashdot against a cheap VPS. Even serving static files, the traffic of a good slashdotting will bring a lightweight server to its knees, and this is a story related to SSH.
No, but I did warn them about World War III starting in 1997, just before some asshole turned on his cell phone jammer and cut me off.
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
End-users should not be using SMTP to communicate directly with recipient servers, and almost none do. (Emphasis added.)
"Almost none"? I believe that Outlook does. Evolution does. Pine does. The mail program on my smart phone uses SMTP to send email. I would hardly call that "almost none".
I very much doubt your mail client is configured to send mail directly. It almost certainly has an SMTP relay configured for sending mail. Nearly all MUAs lack the option to send directly -- they require that a relay be configured.
Nearly all ISPs provide authenticating SMTP relays for their subscribers,
Yes, which talk SMTP to the "end user".
Legitimate large-volume senders have already dealt with this.
They haven't already dealt with some new proposal that requires MX records for sending hosts and "human" limits on sending email.
"This" in my statement above specifically referring to having the appropriate PTR records set up, as the context in the following (unquoted) sentence indicates. No part of my post supports any funky use of MX records or sending volume limits.
Context -- it changes things.
End-users should not be using SMTP to communicate directly with recipient servers, and almost none do. Nearly all ISPs provide authenticating SMTP relays for their subscribers, and end-users should be using those ISP-provided SMTP servers or some other mail provider's SMTP servers to relay their mail. If they have some legitimate reason to send mail directly (such as operating their own server), then requiring them to ask their ISP for a port 25 blocking exemption is perfectly reasonable.
Legitimate large-volume senders have already dealt with this. I haven't encountered any legitimate large-volume senders in recent history that do not have valid PTR records for all of their outbound relays.
Blocking servers without a valid RDNS record may not be part of any proper standard, but it is slowly becoming a de facto standard.
There are plenty of rules that could be set up to prevent rogue systems from sending spam, but the problem is with getting network operators and individual server administrators on board. Trying to get all network operators (or ISPs) around the world doing something is like herding cats. Trying to get all individual server administrators to do something is like herding millions of catnip-infused cats.
Your thought about MX records is not quite right. There is a difference between servers that recieve mail (which should be pointed to by MX records) and servers that send mail (which should have valid PTR records in reverse DNS for their IP). While a single server may perform both duties, that is not by any means guaranteed. One action that would block a large number of infected systems from delivering their spam would be receiving mail servers blocking all mail from senders that do not have a valid RDNS record. This is the correct version of your proposal, and some major providers already do this. An even greater benefit could be achieved if all ISPs were to block outbound traffic headed for TCP port 25 by default, requiring subscribers to "opt-in" to initiate port 25 traffic. Some ISPs already do this, but far too many do not. Yet another good measure would be for recipients to block mail from servers that fail to identify themselves with a valid fully-qualified domain name in their HELO message and require that domain to resolve by DNS. Like the RDNS solution, this would require all legitimate mail server operators to set their sending servers up properly. As more receiving operators start blocking non-compliant mail servers, we may slowly push more sending server operators to do things right, but it is a long, slow process when users demand that every legitimate message get through.
You're right, but when Congress gives power and fails to exercise control, it is responsible for what is done with that power.
Well played, sir.
I don't think that needs to be said here - we're all well aware of it.
I should add that the Senator was free to do what Congress tells us all we should do: just accept the damned pat-down and get on the damned plane.