| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"Janithor" |
| Date: |
01 Apr 2004 05:18:58 AM |
| Object: |
Bill Gates on spam |
x-no-archive: yes
I read part of an interview last night, I think it was in Forbes. The
interviewer asked if spam can be stopped, and Gates unequivocally said
"yes". He said there is a technical solution in the works (I didn't
understand it, something about authenticating incoming email), and also
work needs to be done on the legal front.
It's just getting ridiculous. 10-12 spams a day, OK, easy enough to
delete those. But when I check my email, then check 5 minutes later and
5 new messages arrived (all spam), man what a pain. I'm always worried
I'm going to accidentally delete an email from a customer.
.
|
|
| User: "Hap Arnold" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
01 Apr 2004 09:06:55 AM |
|
|
"Janithor" <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:406BFAA1.3020608@comcast.net...
x-no-archive: yes
I read part of an interview last night, I think it was in Forbes. The
interviewer asked if spam can be stopped, and Gates unequivocally said
"yes". He said there is a technical solution in the works (I didn't
understand it, something about authenticating incoming email), and also
work needs to be done on the legal front.
It's just getting ridiculous. 10-12 spams a day, OK, easy enough to
delete those. But when I check my email, then check 5 minutes later and
5 new messages arrived (all spam), man what a pain. I'm always worried
I'm going to accidentally delete an email from a customer.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/feb04/02-24RSAAntiSpamTechVisionPR.asp
It would seem to involve making e-mail semi-stateful. Instead of receiving
blind and not knowing if your supposed sender ever sent the mail, the
recipients' server would walk back the trail a bit to make sure the sender
sent something to the recipient before forwarding it to the next recipient.
Eventually it would reach the destination with 'authenticated' headers.
With higher band-width amongst servers there is no need for one-way
transmissions.
--
E Sempre l'Ora
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
01 Apr 2004 10:17:04 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Hap Arnold wrote:
"Janithor" <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:406BFAA1.3020608@comcast.net...
x-no-archive: yes
I read part of an interview last night, I think it was in Forbes. The
interviewer asked if spam can be stopped, and Gates unequivocally said
"yes". He said there is a technical solution in the works (I didn't
understand it, something about authenticating incoming email), and also
work needs to be done on the legal front.
It's just getting ridiculous. 10-12 spams a day, OK, easy enough to
delete those. But when I check my email, then check 5 minutes later and
5 new messages arrived (all spam), man what a pain. I'm always worried
I'm going to accidentally delete an email from a customer.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/feb04/02-24RSAAntiSpamTechVisionPR.asp
It would seem to involve making e-mail semi-stateful. Instead of receiving
blind and not knowing if your supposed sender ever sent the mail, the
recipients' server would walk back the trail a bit to make sure the sender
sent something to the recipient before forwarding it to the next recipient.
Eventually it would reach the destination with 'authenticated' headers.
With higher band-width amongst servers there is no need for one-way
transmissions.
Don't bother, you and the others already lost me. David Ricardo was a
genius. I'd rather swab toilets, I trust the geeks will figure
something out.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bev Thornton" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
01 Apr 2004 11:53:05 AM |
|
|
Janithor wrote:
I read part of an interview last night, I think it was in Forbes. The
interviewer asked if spam can be stopped, and Gates unequivocally said
"yes". He said there is a technical solution in the works (I didn't
understand it, something about authenticating incoming email), and also
work needs to be done on the legal front.
His plan won't work. It's just a maneuver he's doing so that Microsoft can
gain more control over the Internet and can increase sales. It will also
allow the tracking of everyone's communication that currently travels by
regular mail transfer protocols. All it will really do is increase
Microsoft revenues and decrease user privacy and security.
As an example, Bill Gates years ago proclaimed that they would make the
browser secure. Now they are providing the very most insecure web browser
platform on the Internet, the only one that can actually compromise and
break user's computers.
It's just getting ridiculous. 10-12 spams a day, OK, easy enough to
delete those. But when I check my email, then check 5 minutes later and
5 new messages arrived (all spam), man what a pain. I'm always worried
I'm going to accidentally delete an email from a customer.
You need multiple email addresses and a real email program, not Bill Gates'
plan and Microsoft junkware. Merge the mail and sort it so that all the
stuff that goes to your professional addresses goes into specific folders.
You can do the same for your personal stuff that uses a private email
address. Then aggressively filter what's left.
The solution to UCE spam is competent network administration at the servers
and blacklist pressure on the ISP providers who allow the traffic. Not
throwing money to Microsoft.
Bill Gates wanted Microsoft on every desktop, even though it is horrid
bugware when compared to alternatives. He got it even though the Microsoft
office suite at the time didn't even come close to Lotus. He did it by
sucking governments into buying Microsoft. Then everybody had to follow
along, the same thing continues with the constantly changing file formats
of Word and similar documents. He's got your desktop, now he wants your
network.
Just look what kind of trouble for everyone who uses the Internet that
Microsoft IIS, IE, OE and Outlook have caused and continue to cause. All
that trouble is enabled by the lousy operating system and program design
and software programming that goes on in the temple of Microsoft (you just
have to meet a few employees to see that it is a religious experience for
them).
I've been recommending and installing Thunderbird for people for awhile now.
<http://www.mozilla.org/projects/thunderbird/>
No complaints, no problems. Yet.
--
Compute Free: <http://debian.org/> <http://minix.org/> <http://openbsd.org/>
<http://peacebrigades.org><http://refugeecamp.org/><http://warresisters.org>
<http://www.icrc.org> <http://folding.v3.net> <http://greenpeace.org/>
<http://amnesty.org><http://icbl.org/><http://seruv.org><http://www.msf.org>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
01 Apr 2004 06:57:01 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 11:18:58 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
<(((*> x-no-archive: yes
It's in my headers.
<(((*> I read part of an interview last night, I think it was in Forbes. The
<(((*> interviewer asked if spam can be stopped, and Gates unequivocally said
<(((*> "yes". He said there is a technical solution in the works (I didn't
<(((*> understand it, something about authenticating incoming email), and also
<(((*> work needs to be done on the legal front.
<(((*>
<(((*> It's just getting ridiculous. 10-12 spams a day, OK, easy enough to
<(((*> delete those. But when I check my email, then check 5 minutes later and
<(((*> 5 new messages arrived (all spam), man what a pain. I'm always worried
<(((*> I'm going to accidentally delete an email from a customer.
Kinda puts your Republican knickers in a knot, doesn't it?
On the one hand all the spammers are exercising their
entrepreneurial prerogative to advertise their wares to the
marketplace.
On the other hand, they're flooding your inbox with advertising
that you don't want or need.
And on the third hand, reducing the flow requires governmental
intervention in the form of more regulation.
I'm not laughing at you, either. It's shameful how the
bottom-feeders are screwing it up for the rest of us.
Tara J. Ballance
Montreal, Canada
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
01 Apr 2004 07:28:40 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
thehouse@pooh.corner wrote:
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 11:18:58 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
<(((*> x-no-archive: yes
It's in my headers.
<(((*> I read part of an interview last night, I think it was in Forbes. The
<(((*> interviewer asked if spam can be stopped, and Gates unequivocally said
<(((*> "yes". He said there is a technical solution in the works (I didn't
<(((*> understand it, something about authenticating incoming email), and also
<(((*> work needs to be done on the legal front.
<(((*>
<(((*> It's just getting ridiculous. 10-12 spams a day, OK, easy enough to
<(((*> delete those. But when I check my email, then check 5 minutes later and
<(((*> 5 new messages arrived (all spam), man what a pain. I'm always worried
<(((*> I'm going to accidentally delete an email from a customer.
Kinda puts your Republican knickers in a knot, doesn't it?
On the one hand all the spammers are exercising their
entrepreneurial prerogative to advertise their wares to the
marketplace.
On the other hand, they're flooding your inbox with advertising
that you don't want or need.
And on the third hand, reducing the flow requires governmental
intervention in the form of more regulation.
I'm not laughing at you, either. It's shameful how the
bottom-feeders are screwing it up for the rest of us.
Tara J. Ballance
Montreal, Canada
You realize you bring up my political beliefs more than I do? Your
injecting it into everything I post. When I responded to Kirby, I
wasn't talking about his politics at all.
I know I'm a far right-wing fascist Republican, but I do have some
common sense, believe it or not. You seem to think I'm completely
against any gov't activity except the military. You'd be very mistaken
if that's the case. I've stated many times that good gov't is
absolutely essential to a strong economy and a strong country. It's
everything. Without a good gov't, you have Afghanistan, Somalia, or Haiti.
So to answer your question, no, it doesn't get my Republican knickers
bunched up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hap Arnold" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
01 Apr 2004 08:59:26 AM |
|
|
"Janithor" <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:406C1907.2050609@comcast.net...
x-no-archive: yes
So to answer your question, no, it doesn't get my Republican knickers
bunched up.
My briefs are cotton, but except on agriculture they are non-political.
Where can one find underwear with Republican values or virtues?
--
E Sempre l'Ora
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bev Thornton" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
01 Apr 2004 12:02:28 PM |
|
|
Hap Arnold wrote:
Where can one find underwear with Republican values or virtues?
Any made by manufacturer's that use Third World sweatshops.
<http://www.behindthelabel.org/pdf/Retailindus.pdf>
--
Compute Free: <http://debian.org/> <http://minix.org/> <http://openbsd.org/>
<http://peacebrigades.org><http://refugeecamp.org/><http://warresisters.org>
<http://www.icrc.org> <http://folding.v3.net> <http://greenpeace.org/>
<http://amnesty.org><http://icbl.org/><http://seruv.org><http://www.msf.org>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kirby Cook" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
01 Apr 2004 09:53:44 AM |
|
|
Janithor wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
thehouse@pooh.corner wrote:
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 11:18:58 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
<(((*> x-no-archive: yes
It's in my headers.
<(((*> I read part of an interview last night, I think it was in
Forbes. The <(((*> interviewer asked if spam can be stopped, and
Gates unequivocally said <(((*> "yes". He said there is a technical
solution in the works (I didn't <(((*> understand it, something about
authenticating incoming email), and also <(((*> work needs to be done
on the legal front.
<(((*> <(((*> It's just getting ridiculous. 10-12 spams a day, OK,
easy enough to <(((*> delete those. But when I check my email, then
check 5 minutes later and <(((*> 5 new messages arrived (all spam),
man what a pain. I'm always worried <(((*> I'm going to accidentally
delete an email from a customer.
Kinda puts your Republican knickers in a knot, doesn't it?
On the one hand all the spammers are exercising their
entrepreneurial prerogative to advertise their wares to the
marketplace.
On the other hand, they're flooding your inbox with advertising
that you don't want or need.
And on the third hand, reducing the flow requires governmental
intervention in the form of more regulation.
I'm not laughing at you, either. It's shameful how the
bottom-feeders are screwing it up for the rest of us.
Tara J. Ballance
Montreal, Canada
You realize you bring up my political beliefs more than I do? Your
injecting it into everything I post. When I responded to Kirby, I
wasn't talking about his politics at all.
I know I'm a far right-wing fascist Republican, but I do have some
common sense, believe it or not. You seem to think I'm completely
against any gov't activity except the military. You'd be very mistaken
if that's the case. I've stated many times that good gov't is
absolutely essential to a strong economy and a strong country. It's
everything. Without a good gov't, you have Afghanistan, Somalia, or Haiti.
So to answer your question, no, it doesn't get my Republican knickers
bunched up.
Does mine. I note every step toward taming the wild-west, anarchic
internet with regret.
Kirby
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "judith" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
01 Apr 2004 08:10:47 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 11:18:58 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
I read part of an interview last night, I think it was in Forbes. The
interviewer asked if spam can be stopped, and Gates unequivocally said
"yes". He said there is a technical solution in the works (I didn't
understand it, something about authenticating incoming email), and also
work needs to be done on the legal front.
It's just getting ridiculous. 10-12 spams a day, OK, easy enough to
delete those. But when I check my email, then check 5 minutes later and
5 new messages arrived (all spam), man what a pain. I'm always worried
I'm going to accidentally delete an email from a customer.
My isp has a service called Postini that filters out spam. I check it
every few weeks or even more frequently, and there are hundreds of
emails in there. I don't bother to check them anymore, just delete
them all. I'm sure I'm missing some things I'd like to know about but
scanning page after page of messages about C I A L I S and V*i*a*g*r*a
gets on a body's nerves.
judith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
01 Apr 2004 08:33:49 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
judith wrote:
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 11:18:58 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
I read part of an interview last night, I think it was in Forbes. The
interviewer asked if spam can be stopped, and Gates unequivocally said
"yes". He said there is a technical solution in the works (I didn't
understand it, something about authenticating incoming email), and also
work needs to be done on the legal front.
It's just getting ridiculous. 10-12 spams a day, OK, easy enough to
delete those. But when I check my email, then check 5 minutes later and
5 new messages arrived (all spam), man what a pain. I'm always worried
I'm going to accidentally delete an email from a customer.
My isp has a service called Postini that filters out spam. I check it
every few weeks or even more frequently, and there are hundreds of
emails in there. I don't bother to check them anymore, just delete
them all. I'm sure I'm missing some things I'd like to know about but
scanning page after page of messages about C I A L I S and V*i*a*g*r*a
gets on a body's nerves.
judith
I'm worried about deleting an email from a customer. God forbid I
should forget to check for the dust bunny under someone's monitor
because I didn't see the email! I think the penalty is death, I'll have
to check on that though.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
01 Apr 2004 07:35:02 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 11:18:58 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote:
I read part of an interview last night, I think it was in Forbes. The
interviewer asked if spam can be stopped, and Gates unequivocally said
"yes". He said there is a technical solution in the works (I didn't
understand it, something about authenticating incoming email), and also
work needs to be done on the legal front.
Bill Gates is one person who should know a better way to cut down on spam.
Just ban MSN and Hotmail.
---
FAMOUS, adj. Conspicuously miserable.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
01 Apr 2004 07:37:29 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
CyberDroog wrote:
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 11:18:58 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote:
I read part of an interview last night, I think it was in Forbes. The
interviewer asked if spam can be stopped, and Gates unequivocally said
"yes". He said there is a technical solution in the works (I didn't
understand it, something about authenticating incoming email), and also
work needs to be done on the legal front.
Bill Gates is one person who should know a better way to cut down on spam.
Just ban MSN and Hotmail.
I don't know anything about the issue, I just know it's annoying as
hell. I posted the question a while back, and the consesus here seemed
to be that there's no way to stop it. So I was surprised to see Gates
so confidently state that it can be stopped. The technical stuff is
beyond me, I'm just a nerd, I'm not a geek.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Whiskers" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
01 Apr 2004 08:09:00 AM |
|
|
X-No-Archive: Yes
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 11:18:58 +0000, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
I read part of an interview last night, I think it was in Forbes. The
interviewer asked if spam can be stopped, and Gates unequivocally said
"yes". He said there is a technical solution in the works (I didn't
understand it, something about authenticating incoming email), and also
work needs to be done on the legal front.
It's just getting ridiculous. 10-12 spams a day, OK, easy enough to
delete those. But when I check my email, then check 5 minutes later and 5
new messages arrived (all spam), man what a pain. I'm always worried I'm
going to accidentally delete an email from a customer.
Make e-mails cost money to send; when spamming isn't profitable it will
stop (and people with open relays will have a powerful incentive to get
things set up properly).
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^ Interested in Citroens?
-- Whiskers <http://www.aacit.net>
-- ~~~~~~~~~~ <news:alt.autos.citroen>
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
01 Apr 2004 09:54:49 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 15:09:00 +0100, Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 11:18:58 +0000, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote:
I read part of an interview last night, I think it was in Forbes. The
interviewer asked if spam can be stopped, and Gates unequivocally said
"yes". He said there is a technical solution in the works (I didn't
understand it, something about authenticating incoming email), and also
work needs to be done on the legal front.
It's just getting ridiculous. 10-12 spams a day, OK, easy enough to
delete those. But when I check my email, then check 5 minutes later and 5
new messages arrived (all spam), man what a pain. I'm always worried I'm
going to accidentally delete an email from a customer.
Make e-mails cost money to send; when spamming isn't profitable it will
stop (and people with open relays will have a powerful incentive to get
things set up properly).
E-mails already cost money to send. Someone is paying, even for supposedly
free e-mail services. Free e-mail services are a large part of the
problem, as well as what you pointed out, open SMPT servers.
In the good old days this sort of thing would have been handled with a DOS
attack. Irresponsible system operators would have their bandwidth eaten up
in a cooperative attack by other angered operators.
There are law against that sort of thing now, but an equally effective
method exists to shut down irresponsible systems (including Microsoft's
Hotmail). Just launch a cooperative denial of service only on receipt of
e-mail. Blacklist irresponsible systems and let the responsible ones
bounce all e-mails originating from those systems.
Any responsible paying customers who happen to get their service from an
irresponsible operator will pressure that operator to either start
operating responsibly, or they will find another ISP.
---
The second item in the liberal creed, after self-righteousness, is
unaccountability. Liberals have invented whole college majors - psychology,
sociology, women's studies - to prove that nothing is anybody's fault. No
one is fond of taking responsibility for his actions, but consider how much
you'd have to hate free will to come up with a political platform that
advocates killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers. A callous
pragmatist might favor abortion and capital punishment. A devout Christian
would sanction neither. But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the
liberal view.
- P.J. O'Roarke, Give War A Chance (1992)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
01 Apr 2004 11:35:36 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
Make e-mails cost money to send; when spamming isn't profitable it will
stop (and people with open relays will have a powerful incentive to get
things set up properly).
That would kill, among other things, mailing lists, moderated
newsgroups, and anonymous remailers, while it still would
not stop the spammers from hijacking your PC and then
sending his spam from your PC with you paying the bill. Won't happen.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Whiskers" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
01 Apr 2004 02:53:55 PM |
|
|
X-No-Archive: Yes
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 19:35:36 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
Make e-mails cost money to send; when spamming isn't profitable it will
stop (and people with open relays will have a powerful incentive to get
things set up properly).
That would kill, among other things, mailing lists, moderated newsgroups,
and anonymous remailers, while it still would not stop the spammers from
hijacking your PC and then sending his spam from your PC with you paying
the bill. Won't happen.
You can easily stop anyone from hijacking your PC, even if you persist in
using "Windows"; simply keep all your software bang up-to-date and make
sure your 'firewall' is shut tight (check for free at
<http://grc.com/default.htm>). Your 'anti-virus' program is particularly
important, if you use "Windows". Don't use "Internet Explorer" or
"Outlook Express" or "Outlook".
Whatever your operating system, don't
run programs you don't use, and don't stay connected to the internet when
you aren't actually using it. If you need to ask "why shouldn't I have a
static IP?" then you should not have a static IP.
If you can get a bill for hundreds of Dollars or whatever for all the
spam sent via your 'hijacked PC' or 'open relays' then you'll have a good
reason to learn how to stem the tide - and ISPs and software providers will
be under pressure to make security as easy as possible, rather than the
present confusing minefield.
Individual customers of a normal ISP could be given a limit of say 100
e-mails per day before any charges or blocks are imposed; commercial
customers can negotiate terms just as they do with 'snail mail' carriers.
I know there are wrinkles that would need working out, but I'm sure it can
be done. Of course, none of this requires anyone to buy yet more expensive
software from Microsoft, or indeed any at all, so they won't be in the
forefront of this particular strategy.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^ Interested in Citroens?
-- Whiskers <http://www.aacit.net>
-- ~~~~~~~~~~ <news:alt.autos.citroen>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
02 Apr 2004 12:05:58 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
Individual customers of a normal ISP could be given a limit of say 100
e-mails per day before any charges or blocks are imposed;
I forgot to mention that this is unrealistic as well.
Currently, part of the problem are the thousands if not tens of thousands
of wide-open mail servers out there over which the
malicious forces can send spam and junk without any
user authentication. An ISP which does not limit
sending mails to their (paying or non-paying) customers
will hardly be able to put any such limit into place.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Whiskers" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
02 Apr 2004 02:35:03 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 20:05:58 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
snip
An ISP which does not limit sending mails
to their (paying or non-paying) customers will hardly be able to put any
such limit into place.
They'll learn - or sink.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^ Interested in Citroens?
-- Whiskers <http://www.aacit.net>
-- ~~~~~~~~~~ <news:alt.autos.citroen>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
02 Apr 2004 11:36:28 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 20:05:58 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
An ISP which does not limit sending mails
to their (paying or non-paying) customers will hardly
be able to put any such limit into place.
They'll learn - or sink.
Did you ever hear of any ISP which went belly up
because it had wide open mail servers?
Even if every single UK and US ISP would put such limits into place
(unlikely as some of them are business partners
of the spammers), there still would be thousands if not
tens of thousands of wide open mail servers in the
"rest of the world" (such as Romania, China, Korea, etc.).
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
03 Apr 2004 01:38:15 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 07:36:28 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 20:05:58 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
An ISP which does not limit sending mails
to their (paying or non-paying) customers will hardly
be able to put any such limit into place.
They'll learn - or sink.
Did you ever hear of any ISP which went belly up
because it had wide open mail servers?
Even if every single UK and US ISP would put such limits into place
(unlikely as some of them are business partners
of the spammers), there still would be thousands if not
tens of thousands of wide open mail servers in the
"rest of the world" (such as Romania, China, Korea, etc.).
Correct. Which is why the best way to handle the problem is privately.
All responsible ISP's should start bouncing *all* e-mail from irresponsible
systems.
Then those system *will* sink.
---
People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to
harass rich women than motorcycle gangs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Whiskers" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
03 Apr 2004 12:31:16 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 07:38:15 +0000, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
snip
Did you ever hear of any ISP which went belly up because it had wide open
mail servers?
snip
I do know of two UK ISPs who had to apologise to e-mail customers for
unscheduled loss of service due to 'un-predicted growth in traffic' or
some such; in one case the problems lasted for weeks. I only know about
them because I have accounts with them. Both now operate very strict
terms of service, and both are instituting their own spam and virus
filtering systems on all traffic. One requires SMTP authentication even
for people logged on via the same ISP.
No business is going to tell it's customers "Hey guys, we screwed up our
own system settings so genuine messages will probably bounce like crazy
until we manage to clear up this mess; the extra hardware we need is
somewhere between here and Taiwan so we can't tell you how long this will
take. Please don't check your e-mail more than every ten minutes, or
things will grind to a complete halt, but if you manage to get in via our
web access facility you could re-direct your mail to another service, if
you have one and our servers don't fry first."
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^ Interested in Citroens?
-- Whiskers <http://www.aacit.net>
-- ~~~~~~~~~~ <news:alt.autos.citroen>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
01 Apr 2004 11:49:52 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 19:35:36 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
Make e-mails cost money to send; when spamming isn't profitable it will
stop (and people with open relays will have a powerful incentive to get
things set up properly).
That would kill, among other things, mailing lists, moderated newsgroups,
and anonymous remailers, while it still would not stop the spammers from
hijacking your PC and then sending his spam from your PC with you paying
the bill. Won't happen.
You can easily stop anyone from hijacking your PC, even if you persist in
using "Windows"; simply keep all your software bang up-to-date and make
sure your 'firewall' is shut tight (check for free at
<http://grc.com/default.htm>).
Thats a theory, but if you look at the amount of viruses
and spam in your filters, you must know that this is
not reality, especially not with Bill's hobbyist
swiss cheese virus toolkit. And never mind that
a windoze user will have a virus and a backdoor on his
new PC before he gets a chance to update his firewall and
antivirus software.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
02 Apr 2004 04:08:58 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 07:49:52 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 19:35:36 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
Make e-mails cost money to send; when spamming isn't profitable it will
stop (and people with open relays will have a powerful incentive to get
things set up properly).
That would kill, among other things, mailing lists, moderated newsgroups,
and anonymous remailers, while it still would not stop the spammers from
hijacking your PC and then sending his spam from your PC with you paying
the bill. Won't happen.
You can easily stop anyone from hijacking your PC, even if you persist in
using "Windows"; simply keep all your software bang up-to-date and make
sure your 'firewall' is shut tight (check for free at
<http://grc.com/default.htm>).
Thats a theory, but if you look at the amount of viruses
and spam in your filters, you must know that this is
not reality, especially not with Bill's hobbyist
swiss cheese virus toolkit. And never mind that
a windoze user will have a virus and a backdoor on his
new PC before he gets a chance to update his firewall and
antivirus software.
Like most things, it depends on the user. Linux doesn't run itself. A
newbie user will trash a Linux system or have it rooted before he knows
what hit him. (If you think most home Linux users don't always log on as
root, you're dreaming).
The main danger is from the user himself allowing rogue programs to do
malicious things. That can happen regardless of the system he is using.
With a little thought and knowledge, both Windows and Linux are virtually
bulletproof.
Linux simply isn't popular enough for malicious hackers to create many
rogue programs. It's a matter of survival. Trying to get a Linux virus or
trojan to survive in the wild is about as easy as getting a Commodore 64
bug to take root on the net.
---
In Heaven an angel is nobody in particular.
- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
02 Apr 2004 10:01:48 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Like most things, it depends on the user. Linux doesn't run itself. A
newbie user will trash a Linux system or have it rooted before he knows
what hit him. (If you think most home Linux users don't always log on as
root, you're dreaming).
The main danger is from the user himself allowing rogue programs to do
malicious things. That can happen regardless of the system he is using.
With a little thought and knowledge, both Windows and Linux are virtually
bulletproof.
Both Linux and Windows are quite insecure.
(Contrary to popular belief, Linux is not secure, its just that the
Linux userbase is a little bit more skilled than the Windows userbase)
Linux simply isn't popular enough for malicious hackers
to create many rogue programs.
With any Linux out of the box,
there is a fair chance that your system will get rootkitted
within hours of being connected to the internet.
But the rootkitted Linux system then will not send
out mails with virus attachments, unlike a Windoze box
which caught a virus.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
02 Apr 2004 12:24:21 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 18:01:48 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Linux simply isn't popular enough for malicious hackers
to create many rogue programs.
With any Linux out of the box,
there is a fair chance that your system will get rootkitted
within hours of being connected to the internet.
But the rootkitted Linux system then will not send
out mails with virus attachments, unlike a Windoze box
which caught a virus.
As I said, Linux is nowhere near popular enough to bother creating many
viruses/trojans. They aren't going to propagate.
---
OVERWORK, n. A dangerous disorder affecting high public functionaries who
want to go fishing.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Whiskers" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
02 Apr 2004 06:33:31 AM |
|
|
X-No-Archive: Yes
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 07:49:52 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
snip
Thats a theory, but if you look at the amount of viruses and spam in your
filters, you must know that this is not reality, especially not with
Bill's hobbyist swiss cheese virus toolkit. And never mind that a windoze
user will have a virus and a backdoor on his new PC before he gets a
chance to update his firewall and antivirus software.
That's why it's important not to use IE or OE or Outlook, and to keep the
'firewall' software up-to-date and correctly set up, as well as using
'anti-virus' software. Self-discipline plays a part too: do not succumb
to temptation and open e-mails from strangers without 'turning off' HTML
and scanning any attachments. Microsoft's "ActiveX" is best turned off
too, unless you really need it for some particular reason (I have no idea
why anyone would need it, but it's there so I can imagine that a legitimate
use for it could exist).
I no longer use Windows so I don't take particular notice of the Windows
malware that turns up; it's just more spam which is mostly deleted
automatically either by my e-mail service provider or my own filters. I
expect to get 100 to 200 such garbage messages per day, some even claiming
to be from me, or 'bounces' from servers or PCs whose operators haven't
realised that the 'from' field is no guide to the origin of the message.
I've given up trying to do anything about them, I just delete them.
I do keep my Linux software up-to-date, and keep my PC in what Gibson calls
'stealth mode'. I know that Linux is not immune from possible exploits,
and I try to avoid becoming a victim.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^ Interested in Citroens?
-- Whiskers <http://www.aacit.net>
-- ~~~~~~~~~~ <news:alt.autos.citroen>
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
02 Apr 2004 08:38:57 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 13:33:31 +0100, Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com>
wrote:
I do keep my Linux software up-to-date, and keep my PC in what Gibson calls
'stealth mode'. I know that Linux is not immune from possible exploits,
and I try to avoid becoming a victim.
If you are interested in security, take anything Steve Gibson says with a
grain of salt. He's an idiot. He's so out of the loop that he had the
nerve to claim that his scanning "technology" (nanoprobe?) was some great
breakthrough when in fact it was nothing but SYN packets. He reinvents the
wheel and then takes credit for it.
BTW, stealth mode is probably the most ironically named advertising scam in
the firewall world. Putting your ports into stealth mode actually has the
opposite effect - it *proves* a computer is at the other end. That is
because a "stealthed" response is quite different from the response you
would get if no system existed at the destination. The latter response
would be given by the last router in the chain, the former is from your own
firewall. Stealth is therefore useless.
---
We are here on earth to do good to others. What the others are here for
I don't know.
- W. H. Auden (1907-1973)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
02 Apr 2004 10:00:29 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 07:49:52 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
Thats a theory, but if you look at the amount of viruses and spam in your
filters, you must know that this is not reality, especially not with
Bill's hobbyist swiss cheese virus toolkit. And never mind that a windoze
user will have a virus and a backdoor on his new PC before he gets a
chance to update his firewall and antivirus software.
That's why it's important not to use IE or OE or Outlook, and to keep the
'firewall' software up-to-date and correctly set up, as well as using
'anti-virus' software.
When a normal clueless windows user has bought a new
PC, he will not be able to update the firewall and antivirus
software without getting a virus or worm onto the system, because
that would require downloading the updates on a "secure" system
and then manually installing them on the new system before
first connecting it to the internet.
There are so many services which the user would have to
turn off to make the new system remotely safe, a normal user
is destined to miss one or two.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
02 Apr 2004 12:22:01 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 18:00:29 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
When a normal clueless windows user has bought a new
PC, he will not be able to update the firewall and antivirus
software without getting a virus or worm onto the system, because
that would require downloading the updates on a "secure" system
and then manually installing them on the new system before
first connecting it to the internet.
There are so many services which the user would have to
turn off to make the new system remotely safe, a normal user
is destined to miss one or two.
That is absolutely absurd. You have to be extremely gullible to believe
that every bug in the world is poised and waiting to launch *itself* onto
your system at a moments notice.
No offense, but you sound like a crazy chick named Tracker that frequents
comp.security.firewall.
---
FAMOUS, adj. Conspicuously miserable.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill Gates on spam |
02 Apr 2004 01:17:43 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 18:00:29 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
When a normal clueless windows user has bought a new
PC, he will not be able to update the firewall and antivirus
software without getting a virus or worm onto the system, because
that would require downloading the updates on a "secure" system
and then manually installing them on the new system before
first connecting it to the internet.
There are so many services which the user would have to
turn off to make the new system remotely safe, a normal user
is destined to miss one or two.
That is absolutely absurd. You have to be extremely gullible to believe
that every bug in the world is poised and waiting to launch *itself* onto
your system at a moments notice.
By default, a new windows system might run a collection of RPC service,
the infamous IIS, scripting host server, windows internet
naming service, print server, NetBios, and a few other nasties
all of which contain security bugs which allow malicious
forces to gain control of the Windows PC within less
than a minute after the PC has been connected to the internet.
These buggy services all listen on various ports, eagerly
waiting to have their multiple security weakness exploited
by the script kiddies and existing worms. And the ASN.1 library
which is the core of many of Windows' fake security features
itself is vulnerable for malicious attacks.
I know several skilled users who got their new PC infected
despite having a firewall installed and enabled, just in the
few minutes it took to download updates to the preinstalled
antivirus software and firewall.
To be perfectly clear: there currently are such known security holes
in any Windows OS, even ones which have been known
publicly for more than six months and still are not fixed.
http://www.eeye.com/html/Research/Upcoming/20030910-A.html
http://www.eeye.com/html/Research/Upcoming/20031008.html
(I doubt that you would be interested in German language sources)
Thomas
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
