What google has done is open a wildcard on some domains so that anyone launching a dictionary attack on googlegroups.com will send a million messages TO a million different addresses FROM a million different forged addresses. Google then sends a million bounces back to a million different addresses, and if you run a domain that the spammer used as their "from", you suddenly get tens or hundreds of thousands of identical bounce messages from Google.
Yes, but the contents of the message can't be controlled in any meaningful way, so as you said:
No spammer is going to send a million messages with different forged addresses...
... unless they can control the content of those messages.
The distinction is obvious. If spammers can't control the contents of the bounces, the bounces won't get them paid.
Sending to example12345@googlegroups.com, I get this (my email address replaced with name@example.com):
Hello name@example.com,
We're writing to let you know that the group that you tried to contact
(example12345) doesn't exist. There are a few possible reasons why this
happened:
* You might have spelled or formatted the group name incorrectly.
* The owner of the group removed this group, so there's nobody there to
contact.
If you have questions about this or any other group, please visit the Google
Groups Help Center at http://groups.google.com/support.
Thanks, and we hope you'll continue to enjoy Google Groups.
The Google Groups Team
In other words, while this causes backscatter, this is not an avenue for "backscatter spam", since Google isn't delivering the contents of arbitrary messages to arbitrary users.
It sounds like the submitter wants to blow this out of proportion by equating general backscatter (which nearly all mailing list managers on the Internet generate with their "confirmation" messages) with backscatter spam.
Depending on the jurisdiction, "laying off" someone is different legally from "firing" them. Where I live, when you fire someone, you have to do it for cause, but you don't have to give notice or pay in lieu of notice; When you lay someone off, you can do it for any reason (or no reason), but you have to give notice or pay in lieu of notice.
Sure, this printer might be able to reproduce itself, but how can we be sure that it will always reproduce a copy of its complete corresponding source code? Or at least a written offer? What happens if it doesn't honour the written offer? Can its ability to propagate itself be revoked?
Straw man. I propose that the maintainers be alerted at the same time as everybody else. Then there's no advantage of being on the private "maintainers list", and no incentive to infiltrate it for nefarious purposes.
Windows(R) XP has been designed from the ground up to be the best operating system for digital music and entertainment. Now it is easier than ever for you to find, organize, and play back your music and movies, listen to Internet radio, and even transfer files to your portable devices.
Windows Media(TM) Player delivers new Windows XP features such as faster audio CD burning, DVD playback (when configured with a supported third party DVD decoder), and full-screen video controls. The new My Music folder makes it fast and fun to organize your Windows Media Audio and existing MP3 music collections.
By default, I can do whatever I want with the copyrighted works I buy as long as I don't redistribute it later. This is part of the legal concept of "Fair Use".
Is it even part of a "fair use" defense, or is it just plainly not copyright infringement? Private modifications, from what I understand, simply are not part of the monopoly granted by copyright law.
In one case, you're trusting the OpenSSH maintainers, as a group, not to put deliberate backdoors into the code that everyone will see. You're trusting them to behave well when the risk of being discovered is quite high. You also have the option of auditing the code yourself, so you don't even have to give them your complete trust.
In the other case, you are trusting each individual OpenSSH maintainer not to use his newly-acquired knowledge against specific targets when the risk of being discovered is quite low.
The release notes criticize Debian devs for disclosing this publicly before trying to contact OpenSSH privately.
... which is ridiculous. Why should any privileged group get access to this information before the general public does? A great way to start a botnet would be to infiltrate a few of these "private" mailing lists and use/sell the information before the general public finds out about it. Heck, if the software is developed by a public company (not the case with OpenSSH) you could also short the company's stock and make a nice pile of cash.
Four years on, he is bringing a High Court action against the shopping website for allowing his personal details to be compromised. So no more internet shopping? "No, no, no. Once bitten, twice shy," says Mr Bunce, who now sells encryption services.
Abstaining is not having balls. Only 25% "no" votes were needed to defeat this, corruption notwithstanding, and several countries copped out by voting "abstain". Shame on them.
Well, what's an advantage? How does a company that pays Joe Blow to write something, then give all of that code to competitors who did not have to pay Joe Blow, possibly benefit? It makes no business sense, whatsoever, other than PR.
If 5 companies each pay their own Joe Blow to write 5 different apps that do more-or-less the same thing, they could save up to 80% by each publishing 1 of the apps, or by collaborating on all 5 apps.
Also, it grows the pool of potential employees, and helps retain them. The best employees often have a choice of who they're going to work for, and not allowing them to publish free software might mean they won't consider working for you. Or, they might quit in order to work on free software.
Result: Businesses that publish free software can be more competitive than those who don't.
Plus, as a a bonus, Slashdot gets to root for Microsoft in court for a change. Watching some of the anti-Microsoft zealots around here trying to post on *that* should be entertaining, to say the least!
Most of the stuff we hear about Microsoft doing is evil, and we don't like it, therefore, we are anti-Microsoft zealots?
When you discontinue services people rely on, things break. If you're providing that service for free, it's people's own fault.
If they had just let the domain expire, it would have caused spam to just silently get through until somebody malevolent registered the domain and started configuring it to block select targets . . . for a modest fee.
At least this way, people will _notice_ that the service is discontinued. Failing loudly is almost always better than failing silently.
This smells of yet more Microsoft "you only hate us because we're big" astroturf. Microsoft isn't evil because they're big, and others in Microsoft's position would not necessarily act the same way.
I had released at least 3 GPL'd programs that were entirely my own work, a 3-clause BSDL'd one, a couple of scripts dedicated to the public domain, and a several patches to existing free software.
So how about giving us the names of some of these you've written then?
The software itself is irrelevant. sydneyfong hit the nail on the head with this post.
However, I've been programming in C for a while now, and might release a GPL'd Linux app soon.
Might? By the time I finished high school, I had released at least 3 GPL'd programs that were entirely my own work, a 3-clause BSDL'd one, a couple of scripts dedicated to the public domain, and a several patches to existing free software. Nobody sent me to an ivy-league school.
You're going to have to do better than "I might release a GPL'd app someday" if you want to convince the people here that you're the unique snowflake you claim to be. And remember: even if you're brilliant, why should anyone put you through school? What's the payoff for them?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but the contents of the message can't be controlled in any meaningful way, so as you said:
No spammer is going to send a million messages with different forged addresses... unless they can control the content of those messages.
The distinction is obvious. If spammers can't control the contents of the bounces, the bounces won't get them paid.
We're writing to let you know that the group that you tried to contact (example12345) doesn't exist. There are a few possible reasons why this happened:
* You might have spelled or formatted the group name incorrectly.
* The owner of the group removed this group, so there's nobody there to contact.
If you have questions about this or any other group, please visit the Google Groups Help Center at http://groups.google.com/support.
Thanks, and we hope you'll continue to enjoy Google Groups.
The Google Groups Team
In other words, while this causes backscatter, this is not an avenue for "backscatter spam", since Google isn't delivering the contents of arbitrary messages to arbitrary users.
It sounds like the submitter wants to blow this out of proportion by equating general backscatter (which nearly all mailing list managers on the Internet generate with their "confirmation" messages) with backscatter spam.
Do you have sound? You need sound.
Hopefully the ones layed off will be the geniuses from ATI who made the decision to stop publishing the interface between the drivers and the card.
Depending on the jurisdiction, "laying off" someone is different legally from "firing" them. Where I live, when you fire someone, you have to do it for cause, but you don't have to give notice or pay in lieu of notice; When you lay someone off, you can do it for any reason (or no reason), but you have to give notice or pay in lieu of notice.
Sure, this printer might be able to reproduce itself, but how can we be sure that it will always reproduce a copy of its complete corresponding source code? Or at least a written offer? What happens if it doesn't honour the written offer? Can its ability to propagate itself be revoked?
In this context, it probably means something like a logic gate, although the operations on 3-state gates might be different.
Straw man. I propose that the maintainers be alerted at the same time as everybody else. Then there's no advantage of being on the private "maintainers list", and no incentive to infiltrate it for nefarious purposes.
Music and entertainment just got better
Windows(R) XP has been designed from the ground up to be the best operating system for digital music and entertainment. Now it is easier than ever for you to find, organize, and play back your music and movies, listen to Internet radio, and even transfer files to your portable devices.
Windows Media(TM) Player delivers new Windows XP features such as faster audio CD burning, DVD playback (when configured with a supported third party DVD decoder), and full-screen video controls. The new My Music folder makes it fast and fun to organize your Windows Media Audio and existing MP3 music collections.
Is it even part of a "fair use" defense, or is it just plainly not copyright infringement? Private modifications, from what I understand, simply are not part of the monopoly granted by copyright law.
No, it's perfectly rational.
In one case, you're trusting the OpenSSH maintainers, as a group, not to put deliberate backdoors into the code that everyone will see. You're trusting them to behave well when the risk of being discovered is quite high. You also have the option of auditing the code yourself, so you don't even have to give them your complete trust.
In the other case, you are trusting each individual OpenSSH maintainer not to use his newly-acquired knowledge against specific targets when the risk of being discovered is quite low.
Who says the people on the "private" list aren't part of the cracking community? Should everyone have to trust them?
... which is ridiculous. Why should any privileged group get access to this information before the general public does? A great way to start a botnet would be to infiltrate a few of these "private" mailing lists and use/sell the information before the general public finds out about it. Heck, if the software is developed by a public company (not the case with OpenSSH) you could also short the company's stock and make a nice pile of cash.
From the article:
Four years on, he is bringing a High Court action against the shopping website for allowing his personal details to be compromised. So no more internet shopping? "No, no, no. Once bitten, twice shy," says Mr Bunce, who now sells encryption services.Oh no.
Uh, because they're going to need to pretty soon, and DOCSIS 3.0 adds IPv6 support.
So does that mean they'll be providing IPv6 connectivity?
It has nothing to do with Microsoft's products. Microsoft's corruption of the ISO process has nothing to do with its crappy products, for example.
Sounds like they've already made up their minds.
Of course, this could be bias introduced by the uninformed.
Abstaining is not having balls. Only 25% "no" votes were needed to defeat this, corruption notwithstanding, and several countries copped out by voting "abstain". Shame on them.
If 5 companies each pay their own Joe Blow to write 5 different apps that do more-or-less the same thing, they could save up to 80% by each publishing 1 of the apps, or by collaborating on all 5 apps.
Also, it grows the pool of potential employees, and helps retain them. The best employees often have a choice of who they're going to work for, and not allowing them to publish free software might mean they won't consider working for you. Or, they might quit in order to work on free software.
Result: Businesses that publish free software can be more competitive than those who don't.
Most of the stuff we hear about Microsoft doing is evil, and we don't like it, therefore, we are anti-Microsoft zealots?
When you discontinue services people rely on, things break. If you're providing that service for free, it's people's own fault.
If they had just let the domain expire, it would have caused spam to just silently get through until somebody malevolent registered the domain and started configuring it to block select targets . . . for a modest fee.
At least this way, people will _notice_ that the service is discontinued. Failing loudly is almost always better than failing silently.
Oh, stop making excuses for Microsoft!
This smells of yet more Microsoft "you only hate us because we're big" astroturf. Microsoft isn't evil because they're big, and others in Microsoft's position would not necessarily act the same way.
The software itself is irrelevant. sydneyfong hit the nail on the head with this post.
Might? By the time I finished high school, I had released at least 3 GPL'd programs that were entirely my own work, a 3-clause BSDL'd one, a couple of scripts dedicated to the public domain, and a several patches to existing free software. Nobody sent me to an ivy-league school.
You're going to have to do better than "I might release a GPL'd app someday" if you want to convince the people here that you're the unique snowflake you claim to be. And remember: even if you're brilliant, why should anyone put you through school? What's the payoff for them?