Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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

Apparently, the bulk of her case rested on unclear terms of service -- e.g. basically a contract dispute. (Well, that plus "misusing" her personal information, but as far as I can tell, the misuse was not handing stuff over to her.)

She settled out-of-court for an undisclosed amount (she probably didn't have to pay them for all the defamation she threw their way), and life goes on.

One case of unknown outcome 13 years ago in an area that would seem, on the surface, to be ripe for litigation, doesn't seem any more of a cautionary tale than any other hazard of going into business -- obviously companies want to do a good job on their TOS, but missing email just doesn't really seem to be an issue.

For example, there's nothing on wikipedia's email page or "online service provider law" pages about this, so, no, I'm still not convinced it would be a huge deal to tell people that you're dumping spam, and then dump spam.

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

Depending on the operation of the service, it might be appropriate to analyze the message while the sender is connected and reject it immediately, or it might be appropriate to accept the message and analyze it later. If it is analyzed later and found to be spam, then (a) there is no need to deliver it to the user if the determination is conclusive enough; and (b) it should not be returned to the putative source.

This is not rocket science, but too many people running mail servers don't understand the backscattter problem, and are not helping the spam situation.

It's also not legal rocket science. Shit happens, and important mail gets lost/misdirected/classified as spam, and people survive.

Personally, I'd love to be on a jury where some idiot is blaming all the woes of his existence on the fact that an ISP didn't forward a particular message. I've never even heard of such a case; perhaps that's because even the hungry lawyers know better.

Comment Re:Beautifully put (Score 1) 250 250

... and distribute it, of course.

So, no, the number of things you can do that would cause you to have to give back are, in the grand scheme of things, very small, which is why the GPL is sometimes called a communist license -- from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Comment Re:Beautifully put (Score 3, Insightful) 250 250

"you can use my stuff, as long as you give back what you make from it"

That's not how it works at all, and that's how FUD starts. If you use inkscape, you don't have to give away your drawings. If you use Linux, you don't have to give away stuff you do with the OS. Hell, even if you use GCC, your code is still yours.

And if you put something on a server (minus Affero), you still don't have to give anything back.

No, the only people who have to give back are those who write something that can interoperate in certain ways with GPLed software.

Comment Re:Boolean filters are wrong (Score 3, Insightful) 136 136

at some time it is going to be illegal [to throw away spam]

WTF are you smoking, and can I haz some?

No amendment, not even the first, makes it illegal for me to throw away shit that people decide to send to me.

Spam is a valuable resource.

Pigshit is a valuable resource. Spam is spam. The fact that you can look for similarities in it in order to trash more of it doesn't make it a valuable resource.

Comment Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice (Score 1) 171 171

I said in my original post, it looked to me like Bruno cared more about delivering working code than he cared about licensing issues. If that's "glossing over", so be it.

RMS's stance (that delivering a program that can be used in conjunction with another one without redistributing the other one is a copyright violation) is patently ridiculous.

Yes, RMS gave Bruno a choice, but it was a false one. Interestingly, the written decision on Sega v. Accolade came out right in the middle of that exchange. I was paying attention at the time, and I'm sure Stallman was as well. Bruno, not so much.

The reason why worry kills more people than work is that more people worry than work.

Working...