Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:You have the right to speak but... (Score 3, Insightful) 145

The federal Do Not Call list should be strictly enforced.

Politicians and charities and polling are three exemptions that the politicians wrote into the DNC list. It can be as strictly enforced as you like and you'll still get calls from politicians, charities, and pollsters (even push-pollers.)

Time to close those loopholes.

Comment Re:So make it equally first amendment to block the (Score 1) 145

The actual issue here is just that the ban singled out specific types of robocall instead of blocking them all.

The state law closed the loophole the politicians left in the federal do-not-call system. Yay for the state. Serving the interests of the citizens and not the politicians.

Comment First Amendment ... no, sorry. (Score 4, Informative) 145

A federal judge has ruled that robocalls made on behalf of political candidates are protected by the First Amendment and cannot be outlawed.

It should be illegal for them to ignore the federal do-not-call list, and for them to call cell phones period. The First Amendment doesn't say I have to provide anyone a platform at my expense or my inconvenience.

The state has failed to prove that the statute at issue advances a compelling state interest

Wouldn't it be novel if a law only had to show that it advances a compelling CITIZEN interest?

Comment Re:Why not? (Score 1) 1004

Translation: I'm ignoring the idiocy of Trump's statement, and inventing a rationale that allows me to not feel like a contemptible moron for supporting the man.

Well, you're ignoring the obvious joke in Trump's statement and inventing a rationale that allows you to continue to hate him. I mean, if it's the "damn ruskies" who hacked the DNC to help support Trump as the Democrat theory goes, then why wouldn't they support him by divulging Hillary's illegal emails? It's poking a very big hole in the "Russian" conspiracy, reminding people as well of Hillary's "vast right wing conspiracy" theory.

I think the dead giveaway is the bit about being "rewarded mightily by our press". If you can't see the sarcasm in that statement you are, as gurps puts it, a fool. The US press doesn't give a damn about Hillary and her issues with handling secret documents. After all, the FBI guy said she was innocent, right? (Reminder: no, he didn't, but that's how the press spun it.)

You sound like the kind of guy who would jump up and down shouting how much a liar Trump is if he answered "banana" when you asked him "who's there" as part of a knock-knock joke. He's not a banana, he must be INSANE! It's TREAASON to say you're a banana! It's racist towards true banana republics!

Comment Re: Never happen (Score 1) 44

satellites were considered economically impossible for quite a while.

Satellites were economically impossible for quite a while. When "satellite" consisted of Echostar, it was impossible for there to be enough ground stations to deliver a service like Dishnet.

It got better.

That doesn't mean that the economics or physical constraints on using drones to deliver stuff are going to "get better" to the point that it makes sense to use such a system. There are things where technology can be perfect and it still doesn't make sense to deploy. Like high speed raid outside a high population density area.

Comment Re:Drone deliveries already happening in US (Score 1) 44

And, of course, Part 107 doesn't say that "delivery by drone" is years away. Recent rules from the FAA mean that the requirements for certain commercial uses have been relaxed. It doesn't mean that all other commercial uses are "years away". Part 107 did not eliminate 333 waivers or COA, just make them unnecessary for some uses.

Hyperbole in TFS is getting tiring. As is the consistent failure to link to the actual source instead of some muckraking story about the source. For example, "Recent rules" links not to the actual Part 107 rules, but to a slashdot story where the headline itself is patently false.

Comment Re:Wrong solution (Score 2) 170

that's why you evac. and who cares about trophy mansions in the forest?

And when there's a fire in a city, just evac and let it burn. Who cares about trophy mansions in a city?

How about "the people who live in them, and have paid their money to build them?" When did a house in a wooded area become a "trophy mansion"? A lot of the houses out in the woods are lived in by people who don't have a lot of money and have moved away from the cities because they prefer a different lifestyle. They're hardly "mansions". Sometimes they're barely livable by most people's standards. Sometimes it's an old mobile home. Sometimes it's not even that.

But it is someone's home. And their children live there. What arrogance to ask "who cares".

Comment Re:You've got to appreciate the irony... (Score 1) 80

If they deleted it from their drafts folder, I would expect it to be clobbered from the backup system after the expired time

What is the "expired time"? Is there an RFC that defines this term?

simply because it is only in backed up files of the entire email database.

Drafts are not email, and are not necessarily in the "email database". I've written plenty of drafts that really are "just files", imported to the email client later.

So...it is in a separate database just for drafts (or all non-sent, non-received data)?

You mean, like, "files"? I think people want their files backed up. Yes, I'm pretty sure that most people would be unhappy were the server to crash and their files are all lost.

Comment Re:Just because you have access (Score 1) 94

So it must be verified at the server end too, anyhow.

Most people are not going to know how to modify the javascript, and it isn't trivial anyway. The code isn't verifying the address, it is validating the syntax. You can't verify an address without actually trying to send to it.

It's not for the sender to decide what's valid.

If you can properly manage RFC5322, there is no reason not to flag invalid syntax as soon as possible. The failure is people who ignore the standards, or are working in a job where knowledge of the standards is critical and they just don't care.

Comment Re:Just because you have access (Score 2) 94

In those cases, I have always wondered why the devs try to do this in the first place. In almost all cases, you can ask the e-mail server whether it's a valid address.

The web page designers are pushing the test onto the client so 1) there is immediate response as the user types it in and he can fix it if it truly is a mistake before moving on, and 2) it puts the computation onto the client and doesn't waste a PUT and their server's time with what may be invalid data.

I've looked at the javascript source for this on several pages. It's all the same. And I've given the correct code to at least one site, telling them "add the following lines". It's a virus coming from somewhere that they are copying and assuming it must be right and their customer (who has done this kind of thing for more than two decades) must be wrong.

It can't be pushed onto a mail server, because the javascript has no standard way of asking one. There is no way to even guarantee that the client system is running a mail server to ask.

It's not doing the routing or delivery and has no business telling anyone what's valid e-mail or not.

I have had lengthy email exchanges with the support people at such websites, and it is always fun for them to tell me that "+" is not a valid character in an email address when they are happily conversing with someone who has a "+" in his email address. Obviously it is valid; obviously they are idiots.

Comment Re:Just because you have access (Score 2) 94

It's generally done by some dead-end user that CC's instead of BCC's

You should be aware that BCC is not a guarantee that others will not see addresses. RFC5322 says: " The "Bcc:" field (where the "Bcc" means "Blind Carbon Copy") contains addresses of recipients of the message whose addresses are not to be revealed to other recipients of the message." This SOUNDS like it should be safe to use for sending messages to a lot of people without anyone knowing who else got it, but it isn't. RFC5322 talks about three common ways that mail systems deal with BCC, and says:

In the second case, recipients specified in the "To:" and "Cc:" lines each are sent a copy of the message with the "Bcc:" line removed as above, but the recipients on the "Bcc:" line get a separate copy of the message containing a "Bcc:" line. (When there are multiple recipient addresses in the "Bcc:" field, some implementations actually send a separate copy of the message to each recipient with a "Bcc:" containing only the address of that particular recipient.)

The last sentence implies that some mail systems contain the full BCC line in copies sent to those BCC addresses. (Only "some" create individual BCC lines.) It does not use the mandates of "MUST" or "MUST NOT", so conforming implementations can actually show you, as a BCC recipient, the entire list of other BCC recipients. And I've seen that behaviour.

This is one of those areas where people assume the standards say one thing but actually don't. Like idiot web page designers who think they know the list of acceptable characters in an email address and yet they prohibit "+".

Comment Re:You've got to appreciate the irony... (Score 4, Insightful) 80

I'd say a draft is an email that just hasn't been sent yet.

Drafts do not need to meet any of the standards for Internet messaging, and therefore are not "email". They might contain enough header information to meet the standard, but they don't have to, and many of the drafts I've written certainly do not.

would you argue that what I wrote isn't actually a letter because it's still sitting on my desk?

Would you argue that the federal laws regarding US Mail attach to a piece of paper that you are thinking about maybe someday sending through the US Mail system? I.e., yes, I would say that your piece of paper is not yet mail because it has no stamp, has no address, and hasn't been deposited into a mailbox for sending.

Every sent and received email is also "just a file,"

No, it may be saved in a file, but it is also email. "Just" is an important word here. It conveys the concept of "only". How they are stored is irrelevant when determining "email" status. Your system may save all email as files, but that does not make all files email.

Comment Re:data mining miners mine my mined data (Score 2) 80

If you give your email to a data broker company such as Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, LinkedIn, or whoever... then they have it.

Or even your local Mom and Pop ISP. My ISP decided to outsource email to Google. The day they did that, email I had deleted THREE YEARS PRIOR showed up again.

There is simply no more excuse for not having even the most basic comprehension of how it works.

Of course there is. Because of Eternal September there is a huge number of people who are using at tool without the need or desire to know how it works under the hood. And that analogy is deliberate, both because of the slashdot car meme and the fact that the vast majority of people who use automobiles have no clue how they work under the hood.

Comment Re:You've got to appreciate the irony... (Score 1) 80

Yahoo says this is impossible, then Yahoo does what they claimed was impossible.

It wasn't an email, it was a draft of what could have become an email. As such, it was just a file.

One word: backup. I have tapes on the shelf of files from a decade or more ago. Long deleted from the computer. Still recoverable.

Especially if I was innocent and Yahoo faked emails

It wasn't an email. And there appears (at least in TFS) to be any claim it was faked. In fact, "the means by which Yahoo recovered the emails in question" wouldn't be "recovered email" if they simply faked a file.

Once you hand your files, any files, over to a second party, you have to know that you have lost control of them. And if you expect them to be able to recover your files from a hardware or software failure, then you KNOW they have copies of them in safe places that you don't have direct access to.

Slashdot Top Deals

These screamingly hilarious gogs ensure owners of X Ray Gogs to be the life of any party. -- X-Ray Gogs Instructions