Or C. Neither. Thanks for assuming I don't know what I'm doing.

I'm referring to Linode.com. It's possible that it's getting abused by spammers occasionally, but I'm not aware of such complaints, it's a relatively small operation, and the staff seems pretty on-the-ball. The times that UCE-protect has added us to their blacklist that I'm aware of, it has been entirely due to IPs outside the Linode ranges as far as I could tell (which is supported by their arguments on the forum). I could be wrong, of course.

Whether it's a fair world or not, blacklisting entire blocks and not just the bot-infected or spammer hosts does more harm than good, especially when you're talking about blocking entire netblocks that cross multiple businesses full of non-spammer customers.

I am a mail admin, and I'm aware of VPS reputation, but that's not what this is about. I wouldn't use UCE-protect because I see it as nothing but a source of false-positives. Stopping spam is an important service to your users, but getting their legit mail through is more important.

Full STOP yourself.

You're complaining about SORBS but you use uceprotect? Yikes.

Uceprotect is one of those zealots that blocks entire /16 blocks because of a few spam sources, across entire ISPs.

On the VPS service I use, we occasionally get blocked because of some spammer IPs on an entirely different service, because further up the chain we share a common provider. To make it even more ridiculous, if we complain about this amongst ourselves on the VPS service's forum, the uceprotect folks come into the forum (they don't use the VPS service themselves as far as I know) and ARGUE WITH US, trying to tell us why WE'RE TO BLAME, as customers of a VPS service whose datacenter's ISP is shared by a few bots somewhere in the chain.

I'm not defending SORBS, but if you're going to complain about poor practices, you need to unclude uceprotect too.

You can start with one of the other TLD alternatives, and get the .com from the squatter later. Possibly for free.

This worked for me once-- I owned a .org and happily operated it with the .com variant already held by a squatter. As the .com came close to its expiration date, they approached me with an offer that was higher than I was willing to pay. A week later it expired and they renewed, they lowered the price, and I still ignored it. A few days later, during the renewal "grace period", they canceled their renewal, and the domain was up for grabs. So I got it from GoDaddy for about $10.

If you're patient enough, and they realize you're the only potential serious buyer, they may eventually give up.

For a life-size R2 droid, one need not look any further than here in the US (and Europe), with the R2-Builders club.

astromech.net is just one associated website.

Absolutely agreed. I've been content to allow ads through for years, but finally I saw one too many flashing ad, and one too many weight-loss ad with a protruding gut. I have one of my own, I don't need to see them when reading articles.

I've never been bothered by articles in printed magazines. It's these flashing and animated ones that drive me batty, and make me not want to even visit the websites in the first place!

No more need for 365 pairs of underwear to get through the year. We can get away with 52.

In a way it was double-dipping. However, that was the edge that they provided over Netflix, considering that Blockbuster has historically charged more for the same level of service from Netflix.

The advantage was that you could watch more movies while waiting for the new ones to arrive through the mail. That advantage has now been reduced to having quicker access to movies in the short-term only, since it now delays the ones you would receive through the mail.

I wouldn't mind the change in the rules, except that Blockbuster is notorious for intermittently and inconsistently sitting on the returned movies for a week or so before mailing your next ones out. Being able to exchange them locally in the meantime took the sting out of that. Now it's only going to make it worse.

I recall someone mentioning at a previous job that there was an announcement about removal of an rdist that had been in use for quite some time. It was called 'prints'.

The memo referred to the rdist formally known as 'prints'... :)