Re: Are Yahoo! Experienced? Have Yahoo! Ever Been Experienced?
"Please note, sysadmins everywhere."
I'm sure sysadmins everywhere are with you on that. It's the hipsters who want to provide you with experience.
16426 posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"It take some work to switch to another less intrusive and spammy email, considering all the sites I have registered at using the Yahoo address."
It does but it's worth it. I used to have two addresses, a hotmail one for places likely to result in spam & an ISP one. The ISP one survived several buyouts until TalkTalk bought it out. As part of the ISP migration I registered a domain still with a single address on it until that must have leaked and started to get spam.
The current arrangement is that every company I deal with regularly has their own address so if any leak I can (a) identify where the leak came from and (b) replace the address. The hard work is in going through all the different address change mechanisms, some of whom can be a pain. It's also an opportunity to re-evaluate all the businesses to whom you've given an address & cull a few. Finally, every month or so I set up a new temporary address for circumstances where I might need to give out an address for a single transaction and then I kill that after a few weeks. All the live addresses go into a single account and so into a single inbox on Seamonkey. That's been the arrangement for a few months & seems to be working OK. In the long term the work will have paid off.
The Hotmail account receives almost nothing but spam now (the exception are usenet users who simply can't read the instructions in a sig.) and as I never kept an address book online no contacts who used it can get spammed from the Hotmail me apart, possibly, via the occasional numpty who included it in a cc: list. I really should get round to closing it and changing the one registration left using it - el Reg.
"Its only the best all round solution if you don't have any significant delays in loading ads, and they are not poisoned flash files or similar that then infect your PC."
You'd need to have an overall limit, volume and time, on what could be downloaded. And as it would all be sent to /dev/null or whatever equivalent you OS provides poisoned flash files would be no more of a problem than the noisy ones or the animated gifs.
You're quite right. It's rapidly getting the the stage where the general public realises that basic internet access security requires 3 things: anti-virus, noscript and an adblocker. As soon as the adblocker becomes universal it's game over for the entire advertising chain. They need to tackle malvertising urgently if they hope to survive. I'm surprised Google haven't done something about this already although as soon as they do, hoping that adblockers will whitelist them, the rest of the industry will make the usual monopoly complaints while ignoring the fact that it was their own arrogant sloppiness that brought the situation about.
"Give us ad-masking instead"
I don't understand the downvotes. This is the best all-round solution. The website gets paid. The user doesn't get pissed off. The ad networks also get paid. The advertiser? Well, as they haven't succeeded in pissing off the user they haven't lost potential or real customers and their direct costs are no more than they would have been had they paid to lose those customers.
Government should stop treating Silicon Valley (and the rest of the tech world) as an adversary. Get them to explain the issues to you. Listen to them. If you can't understand what they say (which is quite likely) just accept that what they say is true. The hardest thing for you, as a politician, will be to break your normal habits and disregard the Yes Men because inevitably there will be a few trying to sell you snake oil. It might not be what you want to hear but it will be real and real is what you have to live with.
Suitable alternatives are
and for an email address chairman@domain of company
Even better if you can get a direct email address of someone in the marketing dept.
For situations where a real email address may be needed for the transaction I generate a temporary email address every month or so & close it down when the transactions are complete so their spam will bounce.
I offer the following free of charge to anyone looking for a business idea. A service which will provide an email address forwarded to a real address for a preset time but will thereafter bounce further mails with a very pointed message explaining why it's been bounced. Or alternatively forward them cc: (not bcc:) to the reply to addresses of several other such mails. Let the spammers spam each other.
"Been in this situation before, and someone above me decided that they would attend the KPMG IT audit, without letting me know, until after the auditors had been in. Said person simply lied throughout it."
What sort of auditor would simply see one person instead of insisting on checking with a number of other members of staff? (Answers on a postcard)
"It all looked quite normal to him."
That was the problem. It could all look quite normal but unless you knew the area you couldn't be sure. I remember driving along some country roads with a couple of SOCOs who started getting quite nervous. Seeing that these were roads I'd happily driven along quite often taking the wife & kids out at weekends I started to worry. In the end I decided it was just that they were from the other side of Belfast & didn't know where they were.
"I remember hanging out the back of a Mini (45 years ago) banging the fuel pump - was on the Marylebone Rd in London - in rush hour."
A bit earlier than that I had a field trip in N Ireland. I had the hired van with all the kit in it but no heater. A few others were supposed to be following in the departmental Mini. After a very long while they got there. Having spent a few miles periodically driving over the roadside verges to jolt the pump into operation they'd given in and taken it into a garage to get it fixed. Whilst it was up on the lift they could see where lumps of the cooling fins were missing from the sump. That would be where we'd driven it up another mountain a few weeks earlier.
Not Australia but Italy. I had a contract to write some reporting S/W for my client's industrial control system running in their client's factory in Italy. The development was in my client's office in England but I had to go out to install it.
Once I got there I couldn't get through a run of the reports without random crashes. On reboot fsck kept leaving files in lost+found containing random fragments of memory contents. The end-user client didn't want me to leave until it was seen to run and it was still crashing when I should have left - and I was running out of Lira. I'd also had a call from an agent to see a new client on the following Monday with a view to starting contract on Tuesday. Finally the suite ran & so did I. I was told the consequent hardware call identified a bad memory stick; maybe without the extra S/W running the machine never used that area of memory.
"my customers were as happy as Larry- I was well chuffed.
My manager wasn't happy - because we weren't running running around like blue-arsed flies"
It's outputs that matter, not inputs. Politicians reminding us about how much they (they? - we!!) spend on whatever are amongst the worst for failing to grasp this simple fact.
No, the fault of HR. It's all too simple to assume that everyone they recruit has been trained in the basics by someone else. Their induction procedures should cover the basics of data protection including misuse of cc: and make breaches a disciplinary matter. But given the fact that in this case someone then sent out an attempt to recall and in doing so did exactly the same thing makes you wonder about the way they go about recruiting in the first place.
"Maybe I'm remembering through rose tinted glasses but the UK endured an active 20 year bombing campaign with less restrictions on our liberty"
Not really although it was NI which took the brunt. However the response there was internment without trial which was rather counter-productive. Spine or not, oh for one of our representatives to show an ability to learn from past mistakes.
Before they went 0845 a local travel agent had a phone number similar to ours and we'd get the occasional wrong number call intended for them.
Now suppose someone rightly or wrongly suspected of being of interest made one of those when he was wanting to book a flight to visit his granny in Pakistan/go to a jihad training camp/take his kids to Disney. Should I then have become of interest? And what would that have done to my SC clearance?
That's the trouble with meta-data. Not only does it not specifically identify a person as opposed to an address or whatever, it doesn't even tell you why the communication was made or even if it was completed correctly.
"and I would say I have nothing to hide"
You almost certainly do have something to hide and at least some of it you will be contractually bound to hide: login credentials to any internet banking you use, internet merchants you buy from or internet services you use. I doubt anyone who's tried to justify their actions with the "nothing to hide" line has actually lived up to their words & published such information about themselves.
"Perhaps a better solution would be to make it easier for them to get targeted powers to record communications."
Not easier, but properly regulated. A sign-off by a senior officer or a politician is not proper regulation. Neither is a system which does not require justification for the sign-off. Nor a system which doesn't incorporate and use feedback to check that requests were well-targeted and not just fishing expeditions.
It's not unusual to find criminals who think they're brighter than they are but this seems to be an outstanding example.
OTOH am I alone in being worried by the idea of "a web portal which provides access to criminal intelligence and other highly privileged information for law enforcement officials" which can be accessed by a bit of social engineering?
"I don't believe that Microsoft are deliberately snooping actual user data for malicious intent, in any case."
Assuming that to be true then why are their T&Cs written in such a way as to grant themselves the right to all the user's log-in credentials and transactions? It would have been quite easy to specify that it was only the user's credentials and transactions with Microsoft. Are we simply looking at sloppy drafting here? Or are they covering themselves against bugs that wouldn't be able to discriminate between what they need to see and what they don't?
The flaw in the argument is the assumption that the 10,000 instances have a server array to themselves whilst they're running. What's more likely is that rather than have a big server farm with 1,000 spare servers sitting around you have 10,000 servers all active running 9 VMs each or 5,000 running 8 and the 10,000 VMs just get spun up as additional jobs in each server.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019