Let's go ahead and close this thread out, thanks. -- Puryear Information Technology, LLC Baton Rouge, LA * 225-706-8414 http://www.puryear-it.com
Author, "Best Practices for Managing Linux and UNIX Servers" http://www.puryear-it.com/pubs/linux-unix-best-practices Identity Management, LDAP, and Linux Integration Scott Harney wrote: > willhill wrote: >> Scott, what you said is both insulting and wrong. I understand the issues >> but >> don't agree with you. It is a matter of principles and I'm not ashamed of >> that. >> > > My intent was not to insult you. > > I feel that this list is a discussion of technical issues focused on > using Linux. I have deliberately and specifically avoided "moral" or > other non-technical aspects. I am dealing with the situation as it is, > not as it should be. And at least there are viable technical > workarounds, things you can do with your Linux machine. > > That said, what Cox does is no different from pretty much any other > email vendor, including Google. They scan both header and body content. > The only way to stop that with technology is to encrypt the body of the > email. > > I have always thought that, at best, outbound port 25 blocking and email > scanning by providers were at best a bandaid to the spam and virus > problem. Solving it with technology involves changing how email on the > internet works at a very fundamental level. Scanning and blocking are, > technologically, relatively effective right now. As Shannon points out, > the average user is happy by and large. They see the results in their > Inbox and Junk boxes. > > But that behavior for the provider is a slippery slope. They don't even > offer the option of an unfettered pipe. Of course there's no demand for > it, because people don't even recognize the costs vs benefits tradeoff. > And, providers could offer an unfettered pipe and still prevent > nefarious activity. The average user don't grasp that there is a > problem here. > > The ISPs are on a slippery slope. They basically accepted blame for a > problem that was not their fault.(1) And now they've slid further into > user content regulation by filtering bittorrent and (reportedly) ftp > transfers. Even actively altering packets rather than just preventing > their transport. They've been doing the RIAA's dirty work for years, > effectively regulating content residing on their customers' hard > drives. And now they want immunity from lawsuits so they can slurp up > content and forward it to the US government for monitoring. My > inclination is to believe that this is more stupidity and taking the > easy way out on the part of the morons at the top of these companies > rather than malicious intent. They don't understand the implications > what they are doing -- technically or morally. Of course, neither does > the US government or the legal system at this point. So we work around > with technology. > > I don't think they ISPs care a whit that you want to run a local > mailserver and that's not what they are trying to prevent with their > filtering and blocking. They want to make $ and not lose customers. If > they don't filter and email doesn't get delivered because people stop > accepting incoming mail from your ISP, customers will leave. So they > start blocking and filtering because they want to make $. It's a coarse > methodology and it has other ramifications that both you and I have > already mentioned but they either don't care or simply don't get it. I > think that for the most part, it's more ignorance than a willful attack > on individual liberty. The results are the same regardless of motivation. > > And why do email vendors not ship their products with encryption turned > on by default? Imagine a user starts up thunderbird for the first time > and adds his account. As part of the new account wizard, it generates or > imports keys and uploads them to keyservers. When you send a user a > message, it checks the keyserver. If the key is not there, it doesn't > encrypt and perhaps warns the user. > > The US government used to treat strong encryption as munitions and > transfer of that technology to non-US citizens was considered an illegal > arms shipment and a federal crime. This was rescinded by an executive > order by the Clinton administration. But that damage was long done so > the idea of encrypting all in-transit data by default is pretty much > dead. We send everything in the clear. IPv6 could change that(4), but > we're a long way from an all IPv6 internet.... > > (1) In my opinion it's the fault of the spammers and virus writers first > and foremost. It's also partly the fault of the OS vendor and the user. > The latter needs some education though > (2) http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJKgeE0Z-SivATjok-utYBdh9wDwD8UFTUR81 > (3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography and > http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo_crypt_9611_memo.htm - the 1996 order > removing most export controls > (4) "IPsec is a mandatory part of IPv6 (mandatory to implement, not > mandatory to use), and is optional for use with IPv4." > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPsec . > (5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunks >> Your dismissal of principles is more disturbing than your insult. >> Technology >> use should be guided by principles rather than the converse. The whole >> point >> of the exercise is to overcome limitations and improve the world for people. >> >> All of us must exercise moral judgment or we can be used as tools and do >> things we should be ashamed of. >> >> I think I've got both technical and moral issues right on this one. From a >> technical perspective, dumb networks are more efficient than "smart" ones. >> >From a moral perspective, censorship is wrong and censorship to support >> monopoly software shortcomings is doing something wrong for the sake of >> something bad. You can argue that this is the way things are but that only >> proves that things are not as they should be. There's no difference between >> the bits I'm uploading here in this email and the same bits sent by my own >> mail or web server. It's wrong for Cox to keep me from running either and >> that's one aim of their goofey email filter. The problem you have pointed >> out is not caused by people like me, it's caused by an OS that's so easy to >> abuse that it's responsible for the majority of the world's spam. As moral >> implementers of technology, we owe it to people to recommend software that >> works and eliminate software that creates problems. Doing otherwise only >> makes things harder. >> >> Networks, like software, are better when they don't have owners. >> Information >> is always better when you can get it from the source. Network owners have a >> tendency to get in the way and exploit their position. The most egregious >> example of that is state controlled, broadcast media. The more control we >> allow network owners to exert, the less good networks will do. >> >> On Tuesday 29 January 2008 11:22 pm, Scott Harney wrote: >> >>> You either a) don't understand what I am saying or b) don't want to >>> understand what I'm saying because it conflicts with your beliefs in some >>> way. Whatever. >>> >> >> >>> The various other readers of the list will make their own judgements and >>> discuss the technical aspects. >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> General mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net _______________________________________________ General mailing list [email protected] http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
