We can lobby consumer router manufacturers to include it. Openwrt has a bcp38 package with no configuration, done by Dave Taht and the Cerowrt folks.

Well, it could be directed to an IPV4 local network multicast address in the range of 224.0.0.0 to 224.0.0.255. That might at least wake up the device owner.

It might take some time for DNS changes to propogate. The IP address was set to localhost for a while to get the attacks off of the net.

First, I'm sure there's lots of Open Source being used in Google's implementation - just not where we can see.

There is a speech recognizer from CMU that might be a good starting point. I haven't heard about plain-language software, though. There is additional rocket science to be done. Not insurmountable given things we've already done.

Training with millions of people? Actually, that's the part that community development is good at.

I remember way back that when you did an alphabetical dump of usenet groups there were several that when listed said "ITTSUCKS" in large block letters.

Apart from the obvious-but-snarky ("Install Linux! hoho I'm so clever!"), you can indefinitely postpone all Windows updates on all versions of Windows 10 by stopping (and disabling if you find a way) the Windows Update service.

Of course, you lose the security updates if you do that too. Whether that's massively important to you depends on how often you run executables downloaded from the Internet, and what TCP/IP services you run on your computer.

Obviously "No security updates" is a bad thing, but if Windows insists on installing an update that actually breaks your PC in some way, no security updates might be the better of two evils, especially if you don't use IE or Edge, run any externally accessible services, and don't run every executable you download from the Internet.

Do we need to rehash the reasons why? You might not have any sympathy for the suckers, or you might not care about attacks on corporate reputations and customers. You might not have any children for the spammers to target, but in that case I think I should extend my sympathies. You don't care about false positives that lose your actual email and you think your time spent with false negatives is too small to matter (and don't care about the multiplication of that time by the millions). You're still getting victimized by the general inefficiency the spammers impose on everyone. Or perhaps worst of all, the basic spammers create noise that helps mask the serious threats of the serious scammers, such as spear-phishermen and identity thieves.

It seems like all of the big email providers have adopted the motto of "Live and Let Spam." Obviously didn't work for Yahoo, did it? Whatever Microsoft paid for the Hotmail brand must have been written off for similar reasons. The google is the saddest case of all, but perhaps that was just the generalized result of dropping "Don't be evil" in favor of "All your attention are belong to us." Anyway, at this point I monitor all three and Gmail clearly has the worst filters, both for false positives and false negatives and for feebleness of their countermeasures. Proof? In the preferences of the spammers themselves, blessing Gmail with the most spam of all.

Doesn't have to be that way. The rational spammers do have economic models that could be attacked. Dropboxes can be nuked and external email services that provide the dropboxes can be pressured. Link shorteners can be subverted against the spammers. Lots of other countermeasures are possible, but the google don't care (and Yahoo can't afford to care and who cares about Outlook).

*sigh* Just venting again, but I really wish someone provided a really good email system, one with tools that would let me help fight the spammers. Why not convert some of the universal hatred of spammers into positive sentiments towards an email system that scares the spammers?

If you surveyed how many citizens would support law against hate speech, it would probably be a significant number. And prospective citizens as well. So I don't think the problem with your proposal has anything to do with people in favor of shari'a law. It would not work with plain Judeo-Christian European European-descended folks.

Z^8

Okay if that's how you feel. At what point would you regard the profits as harmful or even obscene?

I hope I'm not confusing you, but I'm also going to ask if you understand what a monopoly profit is? Also, do you understand the concept of a natural monopoly?

Pretty sure this is stretching you much too far, but if you understand the problems, do you have anything like a remotely constructive solution?

Z^7

Z^6

OK. The folks who run Project Shield have been informed!

I've met Godwin and he'd be horrified that you are trying to shield Trump by invoking his name. The world doesn't need an automatic method to suppress discussion of atrocities, and Mike never meant what he said to be one. In fact, this is a quote of Mike directly:

If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler or Nazis when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician.