[PLUG] Dictionary attacks
Steve Nelson
steve at out-of-control.com
Sun Feb 22 02:25:03 UTC 2004
Yes............. you make valid arguments.
You should take one last hit on the crack pipe and read what you wrote.
Typical American response............. read it again......... are you
sober when you write such drivel and believe it??
Steve
On Sun, 2004-02-22 at 02:54, Darkhorse wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-02-21 at 21:40, Steve Nelson wrote:
> > As I have mentioned before -- I normally lurk here (which doesn't mean
> > that I don't have opinions -- I do).
> >
> > I have to say that Jeme has effectively answered this email. As a
> > Canadian -- we are slightly less regulated than our US counterparts, but
> > still more regulated than I would like.
>
> Isn't Canada torturing Catholic priests who speak out against homosexual
> couples or any other Catholic teaching that isn't considered politically
> correct? I hear money talking, it's not the Motion Picture Association
> of America though it's definitely someone whose acting like they will
> lose if there is any censorship.
>
> > Email is meant to be free. Go ahead and filter it -- don't read it,
> > delete it -- but for Christ sake -- don't let it get in the hands of
> > Government -- they will just fsck it up worse than it is already.
> Excuse me, why are we taking God's name in vain as if government is
> Satan? What happened to render to Caesar what is Caesar's and God
> what is God's? I have far more faith in government.
>
> > You have the right to delete your email -- you have the right to toss
> > the unsolicited spam that is delivered to your real life mail box (e.g.
> > flyers, and other junk that comes with your newspaper).
>
> Most newspapers don't include porn and viagra ads.
>
> > When we put email in the hands of our Governments -- we have surrendered
> > one more freedom. Spam is easily controlled already -- use SA or train
> > your own filters to delete it.
> >
> > I think that as soon as we complain too loudly for regulation? Indeed we
> > will get regulation. Soon the NSA will read all our email and determine
> > in advance if we really wish to receive a particular email.
> >
> > Steve
>
> There's no freedom when it comes to junk mail, individuals and
> corporations have minimized the usefulness of an important modern tool.
> The NSA won't read everyone's email because there is too much. This is
> never a realistic possibility the way it's being stated and it's not
> something I've proposed.
>
> > > > To a certain degree, shouldn't ISP's be containing virus based spam
> > > > better?
> > >
> > > More control has almost never meant happier results.
>
> We're talking about viruses here, by law ISP's can be restricted from
> perusing any content that doesn't test positive for viruses. If you
> want privacy, encrypt your message, it should still pass a virus test.
>
> > > > The obvious thing to do that won't violate civil rights is to check for
> > > > non content based signs of spamming at this ISP relay hub.
> > >
> > > Uh, the decision that something is spam is a content-based decision.
> > > There is no separation.
>
> A virus is a virus is a virus. I also see nothing wrong with destroying
> improperly formed email where there's an attempt to forge the source or
> return address. Checking for viruses and forged headers does not
> require content analysis. Protecting absolute anarchy on a public
> network makes no sense at all if you value order and utility.
>
> > > > I say give an smtp relay at the ISP on a nonstandard port and block
> > > > outbound traffic for ports not normally used by clients, including the
> > > > standard smtp port.
>
> > > You mean "change the standard".
> Yes, why should untraceable email servers be allowed? You can still
> have your mail server, you'd merely have to program it to send through
> your ISP's relay. I don't consider everything that someone tries
> to send me holy where certain messages can be harmful to mine and
> others' state of mind.
>
> > > > If someone is spammed but can always trace back to an ISP and the ISP's
> > > > are made responsible, the spam problem can be minimized.
> > >
> > > At what cost?
>
> Try tracking an unregistered site. If people only accept from ISP email
> servers and the ISP's are not abusive, it will help. Technology can be
> used to minimize the spam problem as much as custom and policy can be
> leveraged.
>
> > > > If noone sends email onto the Internet from a private server,
> > > > unsolicited email can be completely banned or restricted to safe forms
> > > > by ISP level controls.
>
> > > So only state authorized email can transit the internet. Freakin'
> > > brilliant.
>
> You're forgetting that the net is a collection of homes as much as it is
> a collection of businesses, it should be more difficult to send certain
> content to some places than others in the interest of protecting
> people's privacy and protecting society. Now, I see no reason why there
> can't be an anonymous system where people download ratings from a
> trusted provider that help them deny connectivity altogether to and from
> trouble sites. Government has decency laws to protect children and
> society which are very appropriate and very necessary. There are
> predatory activities on the net that need to be curbed where it's
> going to take government activity to curb them. I remind you that
> private companies would have the say on what crosses the Net guided
> hopefully by their customers. The licensing would be concerned
> with ISP's commitment to contain and control viruses and spammers
> who are their own customers. There are unintrusive ways to determine
> that a customer is sending out spam or viruses. A lot of this trash
> gets into the wild and reeks havoc where that has to be weighed against
> free speech rhetoric. Is destructive speech protected under free
> speech?
>
> > > > This would mean licensing all ISP's and going after the ones that don't
> > > > control their users. I think the ISP's should be licensed and be the
> > > > only ones allowed to put email out on the Internet.
> > >
> > > And through this licensing procedure and narrowing of the internet's
> > > scope, you've just given a single point of control over all internet email
> > > to whatever power structure you've created.
>
> It can be as simple as saying that all ISP's have to force their users
> through proxies offering them ratings from whatever rating body they
> choose.
>
> > > You've just taken something beautifully decentralized and open and closed
> > > up and made it proprietary.
>
> The Internet is heavily abused to the point of destroying hundreds of
> thousands of marriages and worse. It's the Internet that is free while
> too many of it's users suffer from cyber addictions and being stalked by
> predators or advertisers. Media practices that work on more passive
> media aren't appropriate for the Internet. Try an estimated 200k sick
> American men. Now look at 17 year olds online. Content is an issue.
>
> > > And, of course, you have totally ignored the fact that licensing
> > > authorities are not worldwide while the internet is.
>
> Why treat sources outside your own country equally? I have a lot of
> problems with what is coming out of Canada, a nation that has been
> performing gay marriages before it even became an issue here for just
> one example. I'm not impressed with the whole entertainment line up
> that comes out of Canada either, much of this makes local broadcast
> television almost as bad as what's on the net. Does it need to
> be legal for a particular type of content to flow freely across
> the net if the availability of that content brings more harm than
> good to society? Media providers have been asked to regulate
> themselves. Have they? Do today's movies and television demonstrate
> restraint and good taste? Is it right in the name of free speech for
> the Internet to support the worst prostitution operations the world has
> ever seen? Worshiping speech over the welfare of one's fellow man is
> not being his keeper. Free speech twisted to protect what harms society
> reeks of something awful. Was it Ted Bundy who commented that Internet
> erotica made him kill all those women?
>
> Maybe global networks the size of the Internet will be the world's
> undoing. Maybe they are a mistake of mammoth proportions. Is there
> a functional world body capable of regulating the Internet, the U.N.
> along with other similar bodies doesn't even work.
>
> > > I still submit that the forced closing of mail relays has only intensified
> > > the spam problem and narrowed the functionality of the internet with no
> > > benefit in return.
>
> If you have to receive spam to know it's spam, you've already lost. If
> a relay spams someone, I'm all for it being closed. Viruses that
> create junk mail need to be stopped.
>
> As far as Canada goes, Canadians need to stop sending all manner of
> trash around the world. In fairness though, I have to say the same
> for any other country that does too.
>
> It is reasonable to ban adult entertainment from the Internet or
> regulate it more to protect society as a whole. Something similar
> could be done about drug ads and ads in general that are unsolicited.
> For drugs, controlling these ads may lower their cost shifting more
> money to drug developement.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG mailing list
> PLUG at lists.pdxlinux.org
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
--
Steve Nelson <steve at out-of-control.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.pdxlinux.org/pipermail/plug/attachments/20040222/f73e5578/attachment.asc>
More information about the PLUG
mailing list