David P James wrote:
On Mon 24 May 2004 08:50, Katipo wrote:
David P James wrote:
On Sun 23 May 2004 18:56, Katipo wrote:
David P James wrote:
No system is ever going to be completely accessible to the
destitute,
So let's make sure they stay where they belong?
Shri Shrikumar wrote:
On Mon, 2004-05-24 at 14:34, David P James wrote:
The reasons for that is a whole other
issue, but it's safe to conclude that free email access isn't going
to solve their destitution (because if it would, it would already
have happened or at least be underway).
Com
Kirk Strauser wrote:
At 2004-05-24T12:50:01Z, Katipo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I have a number of personal acquaintances from Somalia. One is the eldest
son of the ex-prime minister.
Would you tell him to quit sending me email? I am *not* going to give him
my bank account information, r
On Mon, 2004-05-24 at 14:34, David P James wrote:
> >
> > > The reasons for that is a whole other
> > >issue, but it's safe to conclude that free email access isn't going
> > > to solve their destitution (because if it would, it would already
> > > have happened or at least be underway).
> >
> > Co
At 2004-05-24T12:50:01Z, Katipo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a number of personal acquaintances from Somalia. One is the eldest
> son of the ex-prime minister.
Would you tell him to quit sending me email? I am *not* going to give him
my bank account information, regardless of how much m
Incoming from Katipo:
> My point is that in being more highly evolved, human beings are capable
> of discerning where the point of suicide lies. This is where the
> 'Tragedy' scenario fails. When a shared dependency upon a particular set
What a load of crap. The point of the 'Tragedy of The Co
Lee Braiden writes:
> Maybe you didn't INTEND to condone anything, but I got the same
> impression that Katipo did.
I didn't. And I don't particularly like to see political rants on
debian-user.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
David P James wrote:
On Mon 24 May 2004 08:50, Katipo wrote:
No, in the terminologies you employ, you accept the situation and
thereby condone it.
You're insane. You're being rude and insulting. I accept that the
situation exists but that's a long from condoning it.
Maybe you didn't INTEND to cond
Hi David
'xcuse the top post but what a well reasoned argument.
You get my vote ;)
Thanks
Clive
On (24/05/04 20:50), Katipo wrote:
> David P James wrote:
> >On Sun 23 May 2004 18:56, Katipo wrote:
> >
> >
> >>David P James wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Sat 22 May 2004 14:07, John L Fjellstad w
On Mon 24 May 2004 08:50, Katipo wrote:
> David P James wrote:
> >On Sun 23 May 2004 18:56, Katipo wrote:
> >>David P James wrote:
>
> >>>No system is ever going to be completely accessible to the
> >>>destitute,
> >>
> >>So let's make sure they stay where they belong?
> >
> >Take that back - right
David P James wrote:
On Sun 23 May 2004 18:56, Katipo wrote:
David P James wrote:
On Sat 22 May 2004 14:07, John L Fjellstad wrote:
David P James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Not everybody has the same buying power. A few pennies might not
be much for someone living in the Western Wo
David P James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If someone is living such a hand-to-mouth existence it's highly unlikely
> they'll even have access to the internet.
Not true. There are internett cafes. Public libraries. Schools. As to
email, you can get free email accounts (which will probably go
On Sun 23 May 2004 12:39, Pigeon wrote:
>
> And who would provide the money to pay for all the emails that
> debian-user sends out?
You'd exempt it when you signed up. It would probably have to be made a
condition of signing up in fact. Likewise, sending email to the list
would have to be restri
On Sun 23 May 2004 18:56, Katipo wrote:
> David P James wrote:
> >On Sat 22 May 2004 14:07, John L Fjellstad wrote:
> >>David P James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >>Not everybody has the same buying power. A few pennies might not
> >> be much for someone living in the Western World, but it m
David P James wrote:
On Sat 22 May 2004 14:07, John L Fjellstad wrote:
David P James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Now suppose you could demand a payment whenever someone sent you an
email. It would only need to be a few pennies in all probability.
Not everybody has the same buying pow
Pigeon writes:
> And who would provide the money to pay for all the emails that
> debian-user sends out?
Yahoo Groups would, of course, be exempt.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscri
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 08:07:17PM +0200, John L Fjellstad wrote:
> David P James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Now suppose you could demand a payment whenever someone sent you an
> > email. It would only need to be a few pennies in all probability.
>
> Not everybody has the same buying pow
David P James wrote:
On Sat 22 May 2004 14:07, John L Fjellstad wrote:
David P James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Not everybody has the same buying power. A few pennies might not be
much for someone living in the Western World, but it might mean a
meal for someone from Somalia or Vietnam.
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 12:21:50AM +1000, Darryl Luff wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 2004 10:35 am, Steve Lamb wrote:
Trade offs, no doubt.
> - I have a few email addresses. When I send email from home that is work
> related, I set my From: address to my work email. When I send
> sourceforge-relate
David P James writes:
> As an economist, I look at the billions of dollars, resources and
> manhours wasted on dealing with spam and think of all the investments,
> jobs and other more useful spending and activities that didn't take place
> because of it. The same goes with Microsoft's monopoly ren
On Sat 22 May 2004 14:07, John L Fjellstad wrote:
> David P James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Now suppose you could demand a payment whenever someone sent you an
> > email. It would only need to be a few pennies in all probability.
>
> Not everybody has the same buying power. A few pennies mig
David P James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now suppose you could demand a payment whenever someone sent you an
> email. It would only need to be a few pennies in all probability.
Not everybody has the same buying power. A few pennies might not be
much for someone living in the Western World,
On Thu, 20 May 2004 10:35 am, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Bojan Baros wrote:
> > Link: http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
> >
> > So, what's everyone take on this?
>
> How would it be any better than this?
>
> SPF. http://spf.pobox.com/
Domainkeys uses digital signatures and SPF seems to be like mic
Forgot to mention:
apt-get install gnupg-doc
And read /usr/share/doc/gnupg-doc/GNU_Privacy_Handbook/html/
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTE
Roberto Sanchez writes:
> s/clown/child/ s/car/gun/
Straw man. Attractive nuisance doctrine is not the subject.
> OR s/steals/breaks\ into/ s/car/property/ s/has\ a\ fatal\
> accident/drowns\ in\ your\ pool/
If the clown is an adult I am not liable.
> Still don't think you can be held liable f
Tom Allison writes:
> All the spammers would do is create thousands of dummy accounts (hence a
> community) to run around and trust each other and build a concensus of
> trust.
So they can all send each other spam. How nice. Doesn't matter to me as
long as no one in my web of trust is also in
Incoming from Tom Allison:
>
> And you comment about 65% being manageable. Maybe for you. But if you
> are trying to process email for 1,000+ accounts this quickly adds up to
> major hardware and network investments just to manage the cruft.
> Without the cruft it would be easy.
You probably
Incoming from Tom Allison:
>
> All the spammers would do is create thousands of dummy accounts (hence a
> community) to run around and trust each other and build a concensus of
> trust.
Forgive my ignorance on this subject. I'm still bringing myself up to
speed on this. The "Web Of Trust" thi
John Hasler wrote:
Katipo writes:
This is the scenario now, where if some clown steals your car and has a
fatal accident, you are legally liable because you are the registered
owner.
This may be true where you live but it most certainly is not true in the
USA.
s/clown/child/ s/car/gun/
OR
s/steals
Incoming from richard lyons:
> On Friday 21 May 2004 22:50, s. keeling wrote:
> [...]
> > We don't have to have that problem. We have spamassassin and
> > procmail. Spam is only a problem for ISPs who have to receive it
> > or reject it, and Windows users who have few to no effective means
> > to
On Friday 21 May 2004 21:54, James Buchanan wrote:
> > If nothing changes email will soon be unusable.
[...]
> Someone needs to write a really good RFC for a new email "next
> generation" service and make it impossibly hard for spammers, that
> is simple and quick to implement. No 6-part RFCs with
s. keeling writes:
> I've heard of a few things that let you review the contents of a remote
> mailbox, cleaning out the cruft prior to downloading.
Headers only, with POP. Helps a bit.
> Or, there are services you can pay for.
> ...
> Worst case, you can pay somebody to do it for you, one way o
On Friday 21 May 2004 22:50, s. keeling wrote:
[...]
> We don't have to have that problem. We have spamassassin and
> procmail. Spam is only a problem for ISPs who have to receive it
> or reject it, and Windows users who have few to no effective means
> to protect themselves from it. Mine is tra
James Buchanan wrote:
If nothing changes email will soon be unusable.
I've often thought about refusing to use email at all, and communicating
with people I know with IRC on a server I host, and sharing files with
good old FTP.
Maybe the Internet community needs to get together and write a new RFC
s. keeling wrote:
Even at %65 (according to Economist/Brightmail) of overall traffic, spam
is still very manageable with the right software.
though, or my mailbox will overflow. When it reaches 99+% I shall have to
give up email entirely.
Worst case, you can pay somebody to do it for you, one way
Incoming from John Hasler:
> s. keeling writes:
> > Mine is trapped (by procmail + spamassassin) at my ISP's shell account
> > and deleted there unseen.
>
> I have no shell account nor any possibility of one. I have to download it
> all and filter it here.
I've heard of a few things that let you
s. keeling writes:
> Mine is trapped (by procmail + spamassassin) at my ISP's shell account
> and deleted there unseen.
I have no shell account nor any possibility of one. I have to download it
all and filter it here.
> Even at %65 (according to Economist/Brightmail) of overall traffic, spam
> i
Incoming from Tom Allison:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/12/spam_king_vs_spamcop/
>
> It's articles like this one that leave me in doubt. They did get
> repealed shortly after, but the fact that they made enough progress to
> block spamcop is something.
Re-read the article. All th
James Buchanan writes:
> I've often thought about refusing to use email at all, and communicating
> with people I know with IRC on a server I host...
IRC is not a replacement for email. I couldn't use it if I wanted to.
> Maybe the Internet community needs to get together and write a new RFC
> f
On Fri 21 May 2004 08:36, Tom Allison wrote:
> Tim Connors wrote:
...
> >
> > The only solution is education, but unforuntalely, 50% of the
> > population are just too god damn fucking stupid to get it - witness
> > the spam for some kind of drug with plenty of spelling errors, that
> > advertises
> If nothing changes email will soon be unusable.
I've often thought about refusing to use email at all, and communicating
with people I know with IRC on a server I host, and sharing files with
good old FTP.
Maybe the Internet community needs to get together and write a new RFC
for spam free emai
Katipo writes:
> This is the scenario now, where if some clown steals your car and has a
> fatal accident, you are legally liable because you are the registered
> owner.
This may be true where you live but it most certainly is not true in the
USA.
> One man's spam is another's information, and we
Mark Ferlatte wrote:
Katipo said on Sat, May 22, 2004 at 08:43:58AM +0800:
Mark Ferlatte wrote:
Uh, it is open source, and copyleft:
http://domainkeys.sourceforge.net/
The only reference to possible patent issues is the general "if we have a
patent on it, you get a royalty-free license" sta
On Friday 21 May 2004 20:23, Tom Allison wrote:
> Adam Aube wrote:
> > Tom Allison wrote:
> >>Spam RBL's are being attacked on the legal front which puts black
> >> lists in jepardy. The idea being that businesses have a legal
> >> right to solicit their customers and a third party cannot block
>
Katipo said on Sat, May 22, 2004 at 08:43:58AM +0800:
> Mark Ferlatte wrote:
> >Uh, it is open source, and copyleft:
> >
> >http://domainkeys.sourceforge.net/
> >
> >The only reference to possible patent issues is the general "if we have a
> >patent on it, you get a royalty-free license" statement
Adam Aube wrote:
Tom Allison wrote:
Spam RBL's are being attacked on the legal front which puts black lists in
jepardy. The idea being that businesses have a legal right to solicit
their customers and a third party cannot block that.
Spammers will never win a case against RBL operators, because
Mark Ferlatte wrote:
richard lyons said on Thu, May 20, 2004 at 05:59:23PM -0400:
On Wednesday 19 May 2004 17:05, Bojan Baros wrote:
Link: http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
So, what's everyone take on this?
Another software patent. Any really good idea that is to become the
new
on Thu, May 20, 2004 at 09:39:35PM +, Brett Carrington ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 05:25:24PM -0400, Bojan Baros wrote:
> > And about the idea that Bill Gates floated out there, about solving
> > a computer puzzle that would require 10 seconds or so of CPU time to
> >
On Friday 21 May 2004 13:40, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
> richard lyons said on Thu, May 20, 2004 at 05:59:23PM -0400:
> > On Wednesday 19 May 2004 17:05, Bojan Baros wrote:
> > > Link: http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
> > >
> > > So, what's everyone take on this?
> >
> > Another software patent. An
richard lyons said on Thu, May 20, 2004 at 05:59:23PM -0400:
> On Wednesday 19 May 2004 17:05, Bojan Baros wrote:
> > Link: http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
> >
> > So, what's everyone take on this?
> >
>
> Another software patent. Any really good idea that is to become the
> new standard _h
Tom Allison wrote:
> Spam RBL's are being attacked on the legal front which puts black lists in
> jepardy. The idea being that businesses have a legal right to solicit
> their customers and a third party cannot block that.
Spammers will never win a case against RBL operators, because the RBLs
th
Tim Connors wrote:
Gates' idea is being put to use every day on this very mailing list.
Notice those GnuPG signatures lots of us seem to use? Try assigning higher
"non-spam" scores to GnuPG signed messages.
So spammers will simply write their own pgp signatures.
After all, PGP only tells you that
On Friday 21 May 2004 03:38, Tim Connors wrote:
[...]
> So spammers will simply write their own pgp signatures.
>
> After all, PGP only tells you that the person who signed the
> message was the one who wrote it. Unfortunately, PGP doesn't come
> with an evil-bit.
>
> Reemember, anything the anti-s
Brett Carrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Thu, 20 May 2004 21:39:35 +:
> On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 05:25:24PM -0400, Bojan Baros wrote:
> > And about the idea that Bill Gates floated out there, about solving a
> > computer puzzle that would require 10 seconds or so of CPU time to send
> > the
On Wednesday 19 May 2004 17:05, Bojan Baros wrote:
> Link: http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
>
> So, what's everyone take on this?
>
Another software patent. Any really good idea that is to become the
new standard _has_ to be released open source and copyleft.
--
richard
--
To UNSUBSCRIB
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 05:25:24PM -0400, Bojan Baros wrote:
> > Bojan wrote:
> >>
> >> 0.5 FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD 'From' yahoo.com does not match 'Received'
> >> headers
> >> 0.8 PRIORITY_NO_NAME Message has priority setting, but no
> >> X-Mailer
> >> 4.3 CONFIRMED_FORGED Received
> Bojan wrote:
>>
>> 0.5 FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD 'From' yahoo.com does not match 'Received'
>> headers
>> 0.8 PRIORITY_NO_NAME Message has priority setting, but no
>> X-Mailer
>> 4.3 CONFIRMED_FORGED Received headers are forged
>>
>
> Ahh the irony. You forge your From address and t
Bojan wrote:
>
> 0.5 FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD 'From' yahoo.com does not match 'Received'
> headers
> 0.8 PRIORITY_NO_NAME Message has priority setting, but no
> X-Mailer
> 4.3 CONFIRMED_FORGED Received headers are forged
>
Ahh the irony. You forge your From address and that's exact
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 05:05:18PM -0400, Bojan Baros wrote:
> Link: http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
>
> So, what's everyone take on this?
Yahoo has less than zero credibility when it comes to spam.
1. They host spammer web sites.
2. They host spammer dropboxes.
3. They host spammer mailing
Bojan Baros wrote:
> Link: http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
> So, what's everyone take on this?
How would it be any better than this?
SPF. http://spf.pobox.com/
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connect
60 matches
Mail list logo
