Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment What about market adoption aspects (Score 1) 118 118

I wanted to run my own social networking site just for me and my friends using a FOSS project, so I was excited about Diaspora, then I saw that it requires Node.js. I have no interest in setting my server up for that. I imagine this selection was made because developers think Ruby is cool and PHP is boring and lame. Unfortunately, whatever the justification was, to make Diaspora work you need to have, you know, Diasporas, but if the only people using the project are those that manage their own Node.js server, then the already puny market size of available Diasporas has just shrunk by several orders of magnitude. It really needed to be a project that could be installed on any generic LAMP server, but the developers are so rarely interested in this boring aspect (this is actually the case across many engineering fields, it's why companies hire marketers) that left to manage their own projects they fail to achieve their stated goals.

So I took a look at GNU Social, which is written in PHP. Unfortunately, they also fail the marketing test. The project seemed to revolve around making a 'federated' social networking system. However, the actual features of the social networking seemed to be trumped by trying to make the federated system work. From a marketing perspective, they put the cart before the horse. How many users want a circa 2009 facebook clone? I bet a fairly high number, but GNU Social doesn't even offer that level of functionality. The 'federation' of the system should be viewed more as a distribution element, so, you know, before going to distribution, you should have a product that people want to distribute, and GNU Social is not that.

Comment Re:Boolean filters are wrong (Score 1) 136 136

As a follow-up, I just found a message refused by Gmail (sent via Mailgun through public list alias):

"message": "552 5.7.0 This message was blocked because its content presents a potential\n5.7.0 security issue. Please visit\n5.7.0 to review our message\n5.7.0 content and attachment content guidelines. k3si2092734igx.18 - gsmtp",

Comment Re:Boolean filters are wrong (Score 1) 136 136

If the sender's server does not conform to IETF standards, then there can pretty much never be a justification to force a server to accept email. Greylisting is a powerful tool that prevents enormous volumes of spam from ever being received by a server, and uses IETF standards to enforce this policy. Yahoo! strictly follows DMARC p=reject policies and also has sort-of greylist feature that verifies ports are open for inbound traffic on sending servers (I don't fully understand this, but they are one of the few ISPs I have come across that require mail ports be open on sending server - try setting a server's firewall to only allow outbound email traffic and you'll see most servers accept the mail without issue, though I'm sure it violates some standard, and Yahoo! will deposit a message in your mail logs on why they aren't accepting mail from your server).

Comment Re:Works for me - whatever that is worth (Score 1) 136 136

I observed this same problem on the day that Google announced their new Postmaster service. The servers I manage are all small, but nothing has changed, not even an IP address, in years, yet suddenly everything started going to spam folders for all Gmail addresses. I changed nothing in my DNS records and the auth headers all stated pass for SPF, DKIM, and DMARC. I signed up for the service, but the domains are too small for Google to bother reporting anything, so my conclusion is they tweaked their algorithm somewheres.

Comment Re:Proxy ownership (Score 1) 202 202

The problem is well beyond that. The criminals will just provide useless whois info, because that is what criminals already do, and ICANN and all of the authorities will not have the time to investigate claims of false information, plus lots of people suffering from other issues, such as poor local postal service, registrar database errors, false claims of fraud by competitors, etc., will have their domains seized unjustly. The vast majority of people actually impacted by this will be legitimate, law-abiding persons and organizations. and it will be for the worse.

Comment Re:Well... (Score 1) 86 86

Why are owning a domain and running a business from that domain considered the same? What if I own a domain and lease it out? Why should I have my personal details made public for a business which I do not own?

Who is to oversee this whole thing? Most likely, a bureaucracy that is incapable of handling the tsunami of complaints it will receive. The scammers, who presumably this proposal is intended to protect us from, will just fill in fake whois information as they always have and hide behind that, while all of the legitimate users will be hurt by all of the unintended consequences. And, without a doubt, all of the people at ICANN involved in making the proposal will profit, and none of them will be harmed.

Submission + - But are they getting rid of Vine Reviews?->

An anonymous reader writes: Amazon recently announced that they are overhauling their review system. As previously covered on slashdot, many of the reviews from Vine Reviewers are a joke. Ever since reading that article, then the reviews on the book linked to in the article, then following the removal and then reinsertion of the poor reviews, along with Amazon's treating the slashdotted book as if it had been the target of bury brigade, rather than determining whether the reviewers had simply caught the attention of a community that actually understood what the book was about and attempted to alert Amazon customers to the issue, I've started paying close attention to products that have Vine Reviews, and I have to say that this component is possibly the worst of any review system.

A recent example that I came across is Amazon Vine Reviewer cortezhill. I saw a 5-star book review that was nothing but content quoted from the book, followed by "--- excerpt from book's Introduction." I only had to browse to page 4 of the user's reviews to find a review that was not a glowing 5-star review of an item. This is simply the stupidest part of any review system I have ever heard of: send people free stuff and receive positive reviews. Isn't this what review apparatus is supposed to protect against? Amazon's keeping it provides complete transparency on their objective.

Link to Original Source

1000 pains = 1 Megahertz