This is my biggest complaint about qmail, and I wish I had mod points right now.
You should see the hoops I had to jump through in order to convince qmail to reject spams/viruses during the SMTP session. It can be accomplished with qmail-qfilter, but it ain't pretty.
The problem is, I only run a personal mail server, and I haven't yet found another MTA that is as simple as qmail. This is a low priority for me, so I don't want to spend hours learning a new MTA.
Do you have a recommendation for a simple MTA that integrates well with clamav and spamassassin?
I'm pretty sure you don't know who or what you're talking about, but don't let that stop you from making snide remarks.
Quick summary, for the ADD folks: The activists correctly appear in the NCIC, and the Canadian border guard correctly denied entry to them. They could file some paperwork to clear things up, but they'd rather play the martyr role and grab attention.
More details: The NCIC lists everyone who has been arrested for anything, along with the disposition of the charges (conviction, dismissal, acquittal, etc.) If you're arrested for anything, you go into the NCIC.
The activists in question are fond of getting arrested and convicted on purpose, so it should be no shock that when they tried to enter Canada, the border guard's computer lit up like a Christmas tree. These chicks have rap sheets a mile long.
Canada's admittance policy is public, and you can look it up if you want to. Their eligibility for entry into Canada will depend on the severity of their convictions, and how long it's been since the convictions (time differs for different severities). There is a straightforward formula, and it is not up to the border guard to judge whether or not they are eligible.
This article is sensationalist, and factually wrong. Just so you know.
These people were labled and punished for being dangerous criminals without due process. They wanted to go to Canada but were not able to do so without being "criminally rehabilitated." You severely misunderstand the NCIC, as does the writer of the article.
The NCIC isn't some list of child rapists or something with zero context. The NCIC will list your arrest and trial record. This is for any crime, not just "eight violent crimes".
If you're arrested for drunken driving, that goes in the NCIC. If you are convicted, that goes in the NCIC, too. Or if you are found innocent, that goes in the NCIC.
After that, it's up to the border guard whether or not you are admissible into Canada. There is a strict set of criteria for who may enter and who may not enter. It's based on the severity of the crime and how recent it was. You can look it up with a few minutes of googling, as the policy is publicly-available.
But my point is, the NCIC isn't some secretive blacklist like the infamous no-fly list. The NCIC is detailed, you can view your record and correct it, if it's incorrect. Nothing nefarious is going on here.
I think there is something here that you are not telling us. I've fought two tickets and won them both, and I never had to pay a dime. Certainly not $10,000.00.
I'm going to summarize what you wrote as follows: I work in marketing for Decatur Electronics, and our products are infallible.
It turns out I've heard way too many technology marketers have way too inflated levels of confidence in their wares to take any of what you say at face value.
Here's how I look at it. A GPS unit knows its location to within a few feet. A GPS's clock is synced to the atomic clock. At that point, it's a simple division problem to get the unit's velocity.
On the other hand, there are many documented situations in which police radar is wildly inaccurate (my favorite quote of yours was "those guns have an internal lockout in case of malfunction". I mean really, if the unit is malfunctioning, how can it know that it is malfunctioning? It's malfunctioning, for pete's sake!), and there are a lot of things that have to go right for police radar to be accurate.
This is why I'd be much quicker to believe a GPS unit than a radar unit.
This is not universally true. In DC, they have photo speed enforcement mounted on vans and police cars. I doubt those vans are cutting holes in the road every morning when they set up.
I'm a manager at a tech outfit, a fairly large one. Well, I'm the manager at a tech outfit, a fairly small one. And I see things very differently from you.
What we are looking for are high end techies, and the wage inflation is due to our desperation to get high end techies - programmers and network admins the like. Well, I can't afford to pay those salaries, so I'm not in your market. Instead, I go find inexperienced, yet really fast learners who are personable and throw them into the fire.
Sure, they leave after 5 years or so to go earn more money, but I can always find more. The colleges turn them out at a surprisingly high rate.
Verizon FIOS does not block outgoing SMTP, but their consumer IP addresses are all in the RBLs for dynamic IPs. I think you'll find outgoing SMTP from a dynamic IP to be completely worthless since you'll have mail delivery problems.
On the flip side, Vz does not do any type of egress filtering on their own SMTP servers, so if you just configure your local SMTP server to route all email through Verizon's SMTP server and update your SPF records accordingly, you should be good to go.
All in all, I've found Vz to be a decent ISP with regards to their FIOS customers (I've never had DSL). They're no speakeasy, but they are many times better than, say, Comcast. I run my own mail server (incoming and outgoing, routed through Vz's SMTP servers), and use a lot of bittorrent bandwidth, and they haven't shaped, called, emailed, cancelled, limited, or otherwise harassed me.
I use a pretty good amount of bandwidth on my FIOS connection, and Verizon has not hassled me at all about it. I also host servers, but not a web server (IIRC, they block incoming port 80).
Isn't calling out on the same phone line your modem is using a bit difficult? If you're cheating in poker, hopefully you'd be able to afford a second phone line, or even [gasp] one of these newfangled broadband connections.
Perhaps there was something interesting that you wrote, but it's pretty clear that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing here, so I stopped reading.
There is a great interview posted on the site here.
I haven't listened to it at all, but the file is 37.5 MB. I downloaded it a few times to test the speed of my broadband connection. Seems my broadband connection is working just fine.
Ten years ago, most people had 56kbps (0.05 Mbps) connections to the Internet. Now, it's more like 5Mbps. Whose to think we won't progress 2 more orders of magnitude in the next 10 years? I have no reason to doubt it.
Photo editing is on the order of 10M-10G per image I don't know anybody who works with 10G image files. Modern DSLRs have a RAW filesize in the 20MB range. I've spoken with pros who deal in images around 100MB in size. I'd be curious to know where that 10GB number came from. That's an awfully large amount of data for an image.
I'm not saying that online image editing is an obvious direction for the industry to go in, but I am saying that I don't share your views that it's impossible to create a usable online image editing application.
Said ThinkingInBinary (899485) circa 1997:
Good luck with that. I'd love to see how you're going to implement full-blown, resource-heavy email client in a browser.
I'm a little curious how you think unlawful surveillance is the root problem here. I'm pretty sure the topic of conversation here was unlawful surveillance. Did I miss something?
The Dems caved. I'm not sure why though. Election coming up.
If a terrorist attack happens between now and 11/2008, Democrats are going to have a hard time explaining why they voted against wiretapping the terrorists.
You know and I know that wiretapping terrorists always has been and always will be legal. No one is against wiretapping terrorists. But so far, nobody has managed to explain that in a way that the majority of the general public gets it.
For all their anti-USAPATRIOT Act talk, how many Democrats actually voted against it? And its renewal?
I'm disappointed. Me too. I wish I knew who I could trust to protect my Constitutional Rights.
Why waste time proving actual damages when damages are already fixed by statute?
That just leaves the question of whether or not "making available" constitutes a "distribution". I'll leave the finer points of that discussion to actual lawyers, but I will offer this:
You: I have a box of cookies that I do not want. Please feel free to distribute them at the office. Me: OK, I'll just put the opened box in the break room with a sign that says, "Free Take One (or a fraction thereof)!" Further, I will send out an email to everyone on my floor that says, "I have made available some cookies for anyone that wants! Enjoy! Oh shit, did I just say that?
To me, it seems unreasonable to punish those who are caught for the crimes of those who are not caught. In civil law, anyway.
To me, the idea of civil law is if someone intentionally or negligently causes a loss upon another party, that other party is to be made whole by the negligent or offending party.
By way of example, let's say that you are in a car accident that was the fault of another party. To me, it would seem reasonable that your loss be quantified, and that the negligent party should compensate you in that amount in order to make you whole.
Unless I misinterpret you, you are arguing that the negligent party should actually compensate you more than your actual loss, because sometimes people who cause accidents flee the scene. Because the offender could have hit you and run but instead did not, he should be punished extra and you should be compensated extra, because some people hit and run.
Photoshop is a good example. Photoshop is a good example of the right way to license software. It is a bad example, however, of your point that many users would not actually buy the software because it's too expensive.
What Adobe does, and is actually very clever, is they make available a second package, Photoshop Elements, that does 95% of what full-blown Photoshop does. How much would you pay for this 90% solution? Less than $100. MSRP, IIRC, is $99.99, but I bought Elements OEM for $30.
Elements is, of course, utterly useless to a pro photog. The 5% functionality that Adobe chose to leave out of Elements was not chosen by accident.:) But for amateurs, Elements is more than adequate.
So, yeah, no amateur is going to drop $700 for Photoshop CS3's most basic version, but an amateur would think twice about dropping $30 on Elements. In fact, I'm hard-pressed to come up with any way of all of consumer computing to get more value for $30. (And yes, I do use Linux, and no, I do not consider it to be consumer computing):)
IMHO, those who warez photoshop are just being dicks.
If it did pass, I would expect to pay an extra two bucks for my high-speed service. Well, maybe that's what you'd expect, but that's not what you'd get.
Way back when, I decided to downgrade my landline to the lowest possible cost. After all, my wife and I both have cellphones for outgoing calls. What do we need to pay $50/mo for a landline for? I called Verizon and asked what their cheapest possible plan was. Unless you are low-income, the cheapest plan was $7. I am not low income, so I oped for $7/mo.
Time goes by and I get my first phone bill under the new rate. I figured it'd be about $9 or $10 with taxes and whatnot. I opened it, and to my shock and horror, it was just over $20! I called Verizon to have them correct this obvious mistake. It turns out it was not a mistake. I don't still have the bill (this was several years ago), but it was a few bucks to the county, a few bucks to the state, a few bucks to the feds, 911 charge, universal service fee, etc., etc., etc. All of this nickel and diming added up quickly, practically tripling my bill!
So this is why I am against taxation on internet access. I don't want $20 charges for $7 service. I don't mind paying taxes, but can't we just keep it simple? Property taxes for local gov't, income and/or sales taxes for state, and income for federal. What's wrong with that?
All of these taxes and surcharges really hack me off. They make it impossible to budget and plan, since you never know what something is going to cost before you buy it. Want that $39.99/mo cellphone plan you saw advertised? Well, tough noogies, because it isn't available. Want to know what it really costs? Tough noogies, nobody really knows. You can only find out after committing to pay an unknown amount for 24 months.
Really, you're ok with this? If so, I think you're nuts. No offense.
So let me get this straight. There are 500,000 to 750,000 suspected terrorists in this country, yet we haven't had a major attack since 9/11/2001?
There are 300M people in the US. Are you seriously telling me that at least 1 in 600 is on a terrorist watch list?
Something tells me that getting onto a terrorist watch list involves something other than being a terrorist. Otherwise, this just doesn't make any sense.
Slashdot Mirror
This is my biggest complaint about qmail, and I wish I had mod points right now.
You should see the hoops I had to jump through in order to convince qmail to reject spams/viruses during the SMTP session. It can be accomplished with qmail-qfilter, but it ain't pretty.
The problem is, I only run a personal mail server, and I haven't yet found another MTA that is as simple as qmail. This is a low priority for me, so I don't want to spend hours learning a new MTA.
Do you have a recommendation for a simple MTA that integrates well with clamav and spamassassin?
It took me a while to try to figure out why you were paying for NFS, which is free software. Might want to expand that acronym to be more clear. ;)
I'm pretty sure you don't know who or what you're talking about, but don't let that stop you from making snide remarks.
Quick summary, for the ADD folks: The activists correctly appear in the NCIC, and the Canadian border guard correctly denied entry to them. They could file some paperwork to clear things up, but they'd rather play the martyr role and grab attention.
More details: The NCIC lists everyone who has been arrested for anything, along with the disposition of the charges (conviction, dismissal, acquittal, etc.) If you're arrested for anything, you go into the NCIC.
The activists in question are fond of getting arrested and convicted on purpose, so it should be no shock that when they tried to enter Canada, the border guard's computer lit up like a Christmas tree. These chicks have rap sheets a mile long.
Canada's admittance policy is public, and you can look it up if you want to. Their eligibility for entry into Canada will depend on the severity of their convictions, and how long it's been since the convictions (time differs for different severities). There is a straightforward formula, and it is not up to the border guard to judge whether or not they are eligible.
This article is sensationalist, and factually wrong. Just so you know.
The NCIC isn't some list of child rapists or something with zero context. The NCIC will list your arrest and trial record. This is for any crime, not just "eight violent crimes".
If you're arrested for drunken driving, that goes in the NCIC. If you are convicted, that goes in the NCIC, too. Or if you are found innocent, that goes in the NCIC.
After that, it's up to the border guard whether or not you are admissible into Canada. There is a strict set of criteria for who may enter and who may not enter. It's based on the severity of the crime and how recent it was. You can look it up with a few minutes of googling, as the policy is publicly-available.
But my point is, the NCIC isn't some secretive blacklist like the infamous no-fly list. The NCIC is detailed, you can view your record and correct it, if it's incorrect. Nothing nefarious is going on here.
I think there is something here that you are not telling us. I've fought two tickets and won them both, and I never had to pay a dime. Certainly not $10,000.00.
What is the real story here?
I'm going to summarize what you wrote as follows: I work in marketing for Decatur Electronics, and our products are infallible.
It turns out I've heard way too many technology marketers have way too inflated levels of confidence in their wares to take any of what you say at face value.
Here's how I look at it. A GPS unit knows its location to within a few feet. A GPS's clock is synced to the atomic clock. At that point, it's a simple division problem to get the unit's velocity.
On the other hand, there are many documented situations in which police radar is wildly inaccurate (my favorite quote of yours was "those guns have an internal lockout in case of malfunction". I mean really, if the unit is malfunctioning, how can it know that it is malfunctioning? It's malfunctioning, for pete's sake!), and there are a lot of things that have to go right for police radar to be accurate.
This is why I'd be much quicker to believe a GPS unit than a radar unit.
This is not universally true. In DC, they have photo speed enforcement mounted on vans and police cars. I doubt those vans are cutting holes in the road every morning when they set up.
I hereby sentence you to 1 semester of remedial math or econ. Take your pick. ;)
Sure, they leave after 5 years or so to go earn more money, but I can always find more. The colleges turn them out at a surprisingly high rate.
Verizon FIOS does not block outgoing SMTP, but their consumer IP addresses are all in the RBLs for dynamic IPs. I think you'll find outgoing SMTP from a dynamic IP to be completely worthless since you'll have mail delivery problems.
On the flip side, Vz does not do any type of egress filtering on their own SMTP servers, so if you just configure your local SMTP server to route all email through Verizon's SMTP server and update your SPF records accordingly, you should be good to go.
All in all, I've found Vz to be a decent ISP with regards to their FIOS customers (I've never had DSL). They're no speakeasy, but they are many times better than, say, Comcast. I run my own mail server (incoming and outgoing, routed through Vz's SMTP servers), and use a lot of bittorrent bandwidth, and they haven't shaped, called, emailed, cancelled, limited, or otherwise harassed me.
I use a pretty good amount of bandwidth on my FIOS connection, and Verizon has not hassled me at all about it. I also host servers, but not a web server (IIRC, they block incoming port 80).
Do you think the pun was intended?
Perhaps there was something interesting that you wrote, but it's pretty clear that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing here, so I stopped reading.
In fact, they even added some extra RST packets at no extra charge! You, sir, owe them a thank-you note!
There is a great interview posted on the site here.
I haven't listened to it at all, but the file is 37.5 MB. I downloaded it a few times to test the speed of my broadband connection. Seems my broadband connection is working just fine.
Always good to check! I think I'll check again.
Ten years ago, most people had 56kbps (0.05 Mbps) connections to the Internet. Now, it's more like 5Mbps. Whose to think we won't progress 2 more orders of magnitude in the next 10 years? I have no reason to doubt it. Photo editing is on the order of 10M-10G per image I don't know anybody who works with 10G image files. Modern DSLRs have a RAW filesize in the 20MB range. I've spoken with pros who deal in images around 100MB in size. I'd be curious to know where that 10GB number came from. That's an awfully large amount of data for an image.
I'm not saying that online image editing is an obvious direction for the industry to go in, but I am saying that I don't share your views that it's impossible to create a usable online image editing application.
If a terrorist attack happens between now and 11/2008, Democrats are going to have a hard time explaining why they voted against wiretapping the terrorists.
You know and I know that wiretapping terrorists always has been and always will be legal. No one is against wiretapping terrorists. But so far, nobody has managed to explain that in a way that the majority of the general public gets it.
For all their anti-USAPATRIOT Act talk, how many Democrats actually voted against it? And its renewal? I'm disappointed. Me too. I wish I knew who I could trust to protect my Constitutional Rights.
That just leaves the question of whether or not "making available" constitutes a "distribution". I'll leave the finer points of that discussion to actual lawyers, but I will offer this: You: I have a box of cookies that I do not want. Please feel free to distribute them at the office.
Me: OK, I'll just put the opened box in the break room with a sign that says, "Free Take One (or a fraction thereof)!" Further, I will send out an email to everyone on my floor that says, "I have made available some cookies for anyone that wants! Enjoy! Oh shit, did I just say that?
To me, it seems unreasonable to punish those who are caught for the crimes of those who are not caught. In civil law, anyway.
To me, the idea of civil law is if someone intentionally or negligently causes a loss upon another party, that other party is to be made whole by the negligent or offending party.
By way of example, let's say that you are in a car accident that was the fault of another party. To me, it would seem reasonable that your loss be quantified, and that the negligent party should compensate you in that amount in order to make you whole.
Unless I misinterpret you, you are arguing that the negligent party should actually compensate you more than your actual loss, because sometimes people who cause accidents flee the scene. Because the offender could have hit you and run but instead did not, he should be punished extra and you should be compensated extra, because some people hit and run.
What Adobe does, and is actually very clever, is they make available a second package, Photoshop Elements, that does 95% of what full-blown Photoshop does. How much would you pay for this 90% solution? Less than $100. MSRP, IIRC, is $99.99, but I bought Elements OEM for $30.
Elements is, of course, utterly useless to a pro photog. The 5% functionality that Adobe chose to leave out of Elements was not chosen by accident.
So, yeah, no amateur is going to drop $700 for Photoshop CS3's most basic version, but an amateur would think twice about dropping $30 on Elements. In fact, I'm hard-pressed to come up with any way of all of consumer computing to get more value for $30. (And yes, I do use Linux, and no, I do not consider it to be consumer computing)
IMHO, those who warez photoshop are just being dicks.
Way back when, I decided to downgrade my landline to the lowest possible cost. After all, my wife and I both have cellphones for outgoing calls. What do we need to pay $50/mo for a landline for? I called Verizon and asked what their cheapest possible plan was. Unless you are low-income, the cheapest plan was $7. I am not low income, so I oped for $7/mo.
Time goes by and I get my first phone bill under the new rate. I figured it'd be about $9 or $10 with taxes and whatnot. I opened it, and to my shock and horror, it was just over $20! I called Verizon to have them correct this obvious mistake. It turns out it was not a mistake. I don't still have the bill (this was several years ago), but it was a few bucks to the county, a few bucks to the state, a few bucks to the feds, 911 charge, universal service fee, etc., etc., etc. All of this nickel and diming added up quickly, practically tripling my bill!
So this is why I am against taxation on internet access. I don't want $20 charges for $7 service. I don't mind paying taxes, but can't we just keep it simple? Property taxes for local gov't, income and/or sales taxes for state, and income for federal. What's wrong with that?
All of these taxes and surcharges really hack me off. They make it impossible to budget and plan, since you never know what something is going to cost before you buy it. Want that $39.99/mo cellphone plan you saw advertised? Well, tough noogies, because it isn't available. Want to know what it really costs? Tough noogies, nobody really knows. You can only find out after committing to pay an unknown amount for 24 months.
Really, you're ok with this? If so, I think you're nuts. No offense.
So let me get this straight. There are 500,000 to 750,000 suspected terrorists in this country, yet we haven't had a major attack since 9/11/2001?
There are 300M people in the US. Are you seriously telling me that at least 1 in 600 is on a terrorist watch list?
Something tells me that getting onto a terrorist watch list involves something other than being a terrorist. Otherwise, this just doesn't make any sense.