The Perspectives notary system could be updated to include mail servers. Then everyone, including organizations like Google, could check notaries to make sure they weren't getting MITM'd.
ICSI's Certificate Notary offers itself as different: "our notary collects certificates passively from live upstream traffic at multiple independent Internet sites, aggregating them into a central database in near-realtime." I'm not sure this is an improvement.
The primary method of subscription was presumably the thing in question, and so was the thing tested.
More detail: this test proves that the subscribe form on the peacefire.org site does require opt-in. I assume this is the primary, possibly only publicly accessible means by which persons can attempt to add addresses to the list. Your precise reckoning does highlight the possibility that there may be other means and that they may have been subverted. I believe this is unlikely, and I think it's likely Mr. Haselton has investigated the possibility.
Perhaps Mr. Haselton will do something like a binary (or 6-ary) search for which addresses may be reporting to the URIBL and trace how those addresses were added, should future domains listings happen.
I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying a denied spam delivery attempt is a failure?
Oh, from the spammer's perspective.
I didn't think I needed to be explicit. I do not want to receive spam. My filters are designed to deny spam. 4130/4139 spam attempts blocked is largely a success for me.
Paul Graham and yourself are making the same error: blacklists are not all the same.
Don't conflate the mechanism (a list) with the method (how things get on the list).
Graham, showing his misunderstanding (emphasis mine):
Server blacklists tend to go bad, because the power they confer corrupts the people running them. They turn into vigilantes and start blacklisting innocent servers.... This is bad news, not just for the SBL but for the whole idea of blacklists. The SBL was started with the explicit aim of avoiding the kinds of abuses that had tainted other blacklists. So if even they are going the way of the MAPS RBL, one has to assume that every blacklist will, eventually.
So not only is Graham stuck on a single concept of what a blacklist is, but is trying to paint all list-providing organizations with the same brush he denigrated MAPS with at a particular point in time.
If you have ever shopped for blacklists with any degree of detail in your search you know that blacklists are not all generated the same way, they are not a homogeneous mass. One list might be composed of systems probed for open relays. Another might comprise only systems that have sent the list developer spams. Another might be of systems that have scanned the list maker's network. Heck, you could have a list that's just of IPs matching the birthdays of the top dozen R&B artists. Just look at the quantity of lists out there, as seen at (the now outdated)dnsbl.info. 80 blacklists by several dozen organizations — are they all going to be produced the same way, carry the same kinds of information?
So, yeah, the fact that blacklists haven't gotten less blunt as a tool for fighting spam has indeed not gotten less true, because mu, it wasn't true in the first place.
My personal setup gets 99.78% success (9 spam delivered v. 4139 spam attempts in November), so we should set the bar higher for large corporations. I bet their rate is well above your miscalculation.
Not to dismiss the rest of your post. I thought it was insightful.
This man is running a list (among many other activities) supporting individuals' rights to information freedom under repressive governments and you're implying he's either incompetent or, worse, underhanded?
This is inane.
And how much effort is required to fucking test this?
Thank you. A confirmation message has been sent to address redacted. YOU MUST REPLY TO THAT MESSAGE, in order to be subscribed so that we can notify you when new Circumventors are set up. Almost 50% of our subscribers forget to reply, and as a result, do not get added to the list. If you do not reply to that message, then your address will not get added!
What causes rudy_wayne and those who upvoted his post to like the idea that Bennett Haselton is spamming and lying about it? And is their credulity what keeps them from performing such an easy test? Whatever the cause of the inanity, how can we discourage this problem in the future?
nefarious: extremely wicked or villainous; iniquitous
silk road: illegal marketplace
What is illegal isn't necessarily nefarious. Leaping down to lift a child out off of a subway track knowing that you'll get killed is actually illegal because it's suicide.
See, I didn't know about the cloud feature. This app could work very well to ease "password fatigue" without needing cloud synching. Didn't LastPass actually start as only local storage? Maybe moved to cloud synching later? Perhaps after LastPass's acquisition of Xmarks in late 2010?
I think this is a bit better a response, phrasing it from your own perspective and needs. And it's great you pay attention to and honor your limitations. Overextending is a bad idea.
Make sure to keep in mind that everyone else's needs are not the same as your needs. "For others who... are more into physical than emotional intimacy, I can see it working." And for others who don't have your same needs, it's quite possible to have multiple emotionally intimate relationships at one time. They can see that working.
...and don't need to draw up a contract defining just how close you can get to other people.
Meaning that monogamous people don't have to draw up their contracts... because they already exist? There are clearly contracts in monogamous relationships, they just happen to be boilerplates given us by society. Indeed, what one monogamous person thinks of as the contract may conflict with another monogamous person's concept of the contract, resulting in hurt feelings. What's cheating? Having emotional intimacy with another person? But how much emotional intimacy? What kinds? It's good to be explicit.
There's a large and growing contingent who manage polyamory fine and who get a lot out of it. Maintaining a single relationship can be hard. Maintaining multiple relationships is certainly harder. But not impossible. Don't go insulting these people, calling them sociopaths, when you don't know them or much about polyamory itself.
seems basically impossible
A good choice of wording, "seems", pointing out that this is just from your perspective. People need to realize that the cultural context they grow up in and live in is not the only way to live life, and that other cultural ways aren't necessarily wrong or stupid or sociopathic because they're different.
It takes a lot of emotional intelligence, self-esteem, and logistical sense to handle being in polyamorous relationships. It's not for everyone. But it's probably suitable for far more people than you think.
You'd do well to learn more about actual polyamory. Especially before commenting.
It's certainly very hard to know the truth on many matters. And depending on the degree of certainty required, and how philosophical we want to be, we may never be able to know the truth of anything.
But "truthiness" isn't about this deep philosophical issue of whether we can truly know anything. It's about whether we're just deciding on things because we like the ideas versus paying attention to logic and evidence:
Truthiness is a quality characterizing a "truth" that a person claims to know intuitively "from the gut" or because it "feels right" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.
Anyway, the point is that "legal merit" is distinct even from (your concept of) "truthiness". "Legal merit" is about complex, fairly rigid, and codified means of securing facts, presenting facts and theories, and evaluating them. The rules for this game make many kinds of clear factual information invalid for consideration, as just one example of how the process deviates from an optimal method for getting at the truth.
So, your choosing (your concept of) "truthiness" over "legal merit" shows you're getting the basic idea. The fact that you can choose between them indicates you know that they're different. The fact that they're distinct is the point.
Does the constant advertising of overly large portions of food also train us to think that such portion sizes are normal? And if we eat a healthy size instead, do we feel like we're not having enough?
If I sat on the jury, I would probably have a different opinion and could confidently state that my opinion is fact.
To sit on the jury might make you a more informed person, but it wouldn't necessarily make your opinion fact. Do jurors ever disagree? How could that be the case if to be on a jury makes one's opinion fact?
Law is not morality. To equate the two is simplistic — overly simple. More nuanced thinking is required to make sure hell doesn't break loose.
Is abortion legal? Is abortion moral? Does the legality of abortion change over time? Does the morality of abortion change in lockstep with the legality? Clearly abortion is one of the points at which morality and legality might not necessarily synch. How many others things are like this? Are the fines for music copying commensurate with the harm done? Should it be illegal for 20-year-olds to drink alcohol? If someone conceives of a crime that's not covered by any law and manages to harm millions with it, does that mean it's moral?
You seem to be equating "legal merit" with "accuracy" or "truth". I think this is the point of the objection here. "Legal merit" is not necessarily truth. It probably relates to it in a way similar to how "law" relates to "morality".
Slashdot Mirror
The Perspectives notary system could be updated to include mail servers. Then everyone, including organizations like Google, could check notaries to make sure they weren't getting MITM'd.
So this graph is publish by the ICSI. They're getting into the "notary" game: http://notary.icsi.berkeley.edu/
They reference Perspectives as the pioneer of this scheme and also mention Convergence.
ICSI's Certificate Notary offers itself as different: "our notary collects certificates passively from live upstream traffic at multiple independent Internet sites, aggregating them into a central database in near-realtime." I'm not sure this is an improvement.
You are correct. Thank you for your precision.
The primary method of subscription was presumably the thing in question, and so was the thing tested.
More detail: this test proves that the subscribe form on the peacefire.org site does require opt-in. I assume this is the primary, possibly only publicly accessible means by which persons can attempt to add addresses to the list. Your precise reckoning does highlight the possibility that there may be other means and that they may have been subverted. I believe this is unlikely, and I think it's likely Mr. Haselton has investigated the possibility.
Perhaps Mr. Haselton will do something like a binary (or 6-ary) search for which addresses may be reporting to the URIBL and trace how those addresses were added, should future domains listings happen.
I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying a denied spam delivery attempt is a failure?
Oh, from the spammer's perspective.
I didn't think I needed to be explicit. I do not want to receive spam. My filters are designed to deny spam. 4130/4139 spam attempts blocked is largely a success for me.
Paul Graham and yourself are making the same error: blacklists are not all the same.
Don't conflate the mechanism (a list) with the method (how things get on the list).
Graham, showing his misunderstanding (emphasis mine):
So not only is Graham stuck on a single concept of what a blacklist is, but is trying to paint all list-providing organizations with the same brush he denigrated MAPS with at a particular point in time.
If you have ever shopped for blacklists with any degree of detail in your search you know that blacklists are not all generated the same way, they are not a homogeneous mass. One list might be composed of systems probed for open relays. Another might comprise only systems that have sent the list developer spams. Another might be of systems that have scanned the list maker's network. Heck, you could have a list that's just of IPs matching the birthdays of the top dozen R&B artists. Just look at the quantity of lists out there, as seen at (the now outdated)dnsbl.info. 80 blacklists by several dozen organizations — are they all going to be produced the same way, carry the same kinds of information?
So, yeah, the fact that blacklists haven't gotten less blunt as a tool for fighting spam has indeed not gotten less true, because mu, it wasn't true in the first place.
5 fails out of 1000 is 99.50% success.
My personal setup gets 99.78% success (9 spam delivered v. 4139 spam attempts in November), so we should set the bar higher for large corporations. I bet their rate is well above your miscalculation.
Not to dismiss the rest of your post. I thought it was insightful.
This man is running a list (among many other activities) supporting individuals' rights to information freedom under repressive governments and you're implying he's either incompetent or, worse, underhanded?
This is inane.
And how much effort is required to fucking test this?
What causes rudy_wayne and those who upvoted his post to like the idea that Bennett Haselton is spamming and lying about it? And is their credulity what keeps them from performing such an easy test? Whatever the cause of the inanity, how can we discourage this problem in the future?
Is the Cloudmark list of MTAs or URIs?
Maybe Cloudmark provides both kinds of lists now.
My colleague Bathsheba Grossman sells a "Klein Bottle Opener":
http://bathsheba.com/
If you get it monogrammed at this point you may not get it in time for Christmas.
Watch your terms there.
nefarious: extremely wicked or villainous; iniquitous
silk road: illegal marketplace
What is illegal isn't necessarily nefarious. Leaping down to lift a child out off of a subway track knowing that you'll get killed is actually illegal because it's suicide.
Legality is not morality.
Otherwise, good post. Please carry on.
The question wasn't whether BSD was itself newsworthy.
And don't refer to it like it's only historical.
Novelty induces dopamine release.
Depression increases urge for dopamine.
See, I didn't know about the cloud feature. This app could work very well to ease "password fatigue" without needing cloud synching. Didn't LastPass actually start as only local storage? Maybe moved to cloud synching later? Perhaps after LastPass's acquisition of Xmarks in late 2010?
I thought LastPass stored passes locally?
This actually sounds kind of cool.
What kind of connections would this device have?
How would you configure this device?
How do you back up this device?
Slashdot: Where speculation reigns over learning.
WTF am I still doing here? Don't answer.
To convert to practical use. Not simply to use.
Simply using:
Versus turning something to practical use:
So our summary instead reads:
Do folks really use the term "zip gun" for lock pick guns? I thought zip guns were just improvised firearms.
I think this is a bit better a response, phrasing it from your own perspective and needs. And it's great you pay attention to and honor your limitations. Overextending is a bad idea.
Make sure to keep in mind that everyone else's needs are not the same as your needs. "For others who ... are more into physical than emotional intimacy, I can see it working." And for others who don't have your same needs, it's quite possible to have multiple emotionally intimate relationships at one time. They can see that working.
Meaning that monogamous people don't have to draw up their contracts ... because they already exist? There are clearly contracts in monogamous relationships, they just happen to be boilerplates given us by society. Indeed, what one monogamous person thinks of as the contract may conflict with another monogamous person's concept of the contract, resulting in hurt feelings. What's cheating? Having emotional intimacy with another person? But how much emotional intimacy? What kinds? It's good to be explicit.
There's a large and growing contingent who manage polyamory fine and who get a lot out of it. Maintaining a single relationship can be hard. Maintaining multiple relationships is certainly harder. But not impossible. Don't go insulting these people, calling them sociopaths, when you don't know them or much about polyamory itself.
A good choice of wording, "seems", pointing out that this is just from your perspective. People need to realize that the cultural context they grow up in and live in is not the only way to live life, and that other cultural ways aren't necessarily wrong or stupid or sociopathic because they're different.
It takes a lot of emotional intelligence, self-esteem, and logistical sense to handle being in polyamorous relationships. It's not for everyone. But it's probably suitable for far more people than you think.
You'd do well to learn more about actual polyamory. Especially before commenting.
It's certainly very hard to know the truth on many matters. And depending on the degree of certainty required, and how philosophical we want to be, we may never be able to know the truth of anything.
But "truthiness" isn't about this deep philosophical issue of whether we can truly know anything. It's about whether we're just deciding on things because we like the ideas versus paying attention to logic and evidence:
Anyway, the point is that "legal merit" is distinct even from (your concept of) "truthiness". "Legal merit" is about complex, fairly rigid, and codified means of securing facts, presenting facts and theories, and evaluating them. The rules for this game make many kinds of clear factual information invalid for consideration, as just one example of how the process deviates from an optimal method for getting at the truth.
So, your choosing (your concept of) "truthiness" over "legal merit" shows you're getting the basic idea. The fact that you can choose between them indicates you know that they're different. The fact that they're distinct is the point.
Does the constant advertising of overly large portions of food also train us to think that such portion sizes are normal? And if we eat a healthy size instead, do we feel like we're not having enough?
To sit on the jury might make you a more informed person, but it wouldn't necessarily make your opinion fact. Do jurors ever disagree? How could that be the case if to be on a jury makes one's opinion fact?
Law is not morality. To equate the two is simplistic — overly simple. More nuanced thinking is required to make sure hell doesn't break loose.
Is abortion legal? Is abortion moral? Does the legality of abortion change over time? Does the morality of abortion change in lockstep with the legality? Clearly abortion is one of the points at which morality and legality might not necessarily synch. How many others things are like this? Are the fines for music copying commensurate with the harm done? Should it be illegal for 20-year-olds to drink alcohol? If someone conceives of a crime that's not covered by any law and manages to harm millions with it, does that mean it's moral?
Please take a moment to reconsider these ideas and to consider the thinking that produced them.
You may be a stand-up person, with nothing but good intent for the world, doing right things as best you can. That's good. That's appreciated.
These ideas, however, do not serve you in your cause to do right.
You seem to be equating "legal merit" with "accuracy" or "truth". I think this is the point of the objection here. "Legal merit" is not necessarily truth. It probably relates to it in a way similar to how "law" relates to "morality".