|
This is a very interesting idea.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
I agree (despite my probably misquoted Homer Simpson reply).
Who the Hell flagged it as spam?
If anything, it's a discussion that guys like us should be having.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Who the Hell flagged it as spam?
I don't see anything about being flagged. It just got caught by the filters, I have released the message
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
The only problem with this is the spammer often hijack e-mail addresses. There was one time when mine was hijacked to sell fake rolexes. For the next 2-3 weeks, I was getting bounced emails form every-which-way, coming from blockers that recognised the text.
Cheers,
Mick
------------------------------------------------
A programmer is a person who always checks both ways when crossing a one-way street.
|
|
|
|
|
Were they the good fakes with almost real sweep?
Any left? How much?
Sin tack
the any key okay
|
|
|
|
|
It's a valid concern! That was why I included the bit about checking DMARC/SPF/DKIM for users whose email providers don't check them closely. But that may not be a complete solution.
|
|
|
|
|
SMTP is both a blessing and a curse. While it succeeds in making it painless for users to send email, it also makes it all to easy to spoof somebody's email address (which you could probably buy a million of them for $20 if you know where to look). With .Net, I wrote an email spoofing application that created a nearly identical email (HTML and all) to that of my director of information security at the time in less than 20 minutes. I found the process informative but the security team did not.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
Foothill wrote: found the process informative but the security team did not.
Did they at least react to it and improved the system?
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
An interesting question, but how do you improve the system in a way that counterfeit copies can't be made of the emails sent within it?
|
|
|
|
|
That's why I am asking the question  
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
And that's why I'm proposing vetting the sender! 
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote the program to test how a new ticketing system responds to spoofed emails. The system didn't detect the spoofing but, luckily, we had the foresight to have an automated confirmation response generated and sent to the sender whenever a security email was received and a ticket created. The spoofee, if they were paying attention, would see that a security request was made for an email that they did not send.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
Member 13118628 wrote: Most solutions look at spam largely from the viewpoint of the content of emails. I've been thinking about it in terms of who the senders are.
I wish companies would stop using email services that have a reply-to/sender line like "sent by wgaf-3521861-a-s-33455@whatever on behalf of SomeCompany"
Kind hard to set up filters when their address changes everydamntime.
|
|
|
|
|
GenJerDan wrote:
I wish companies would stop using email services that have a reply-to/sender line like "sent by wgaf-3521861-a-s-33455@whatever on behalf of SomeCompany"
Well, with the system I'm proposing, companies that choose to do that will risk having their emails ending up in spam filters, like they do today.
Even without my system, I suspect they'll find it's even more of a problem to get their emails delivered as time goes on.
I'm curious though ... have you seen any like that where they weren't sending some kind of commercial email message? Which companies?
|
|
|
|
|
Walt Thiessen wrote: I'm curious though ... have you seen any like that where they weren't sending some kind of commercial email message? Which companies?
I get them like that from Corel for general announcements and such. And another one, that I can't recall off-hand, but the same sort of "on behalf of" nonsense.
There've also been a number of emails from one or another company where the domain changes randomly, like a.email.somecompany.com, b.email.somecompany.com, etc. Not impossible to set up for, but a pain in the butt when I have 12 different rules for the same source.
|
|
|
|
|
GenJerDan wrote: I get them like that from Corel for general announcements and such. And another one, that I can't recall off-hand, but the same sort of "on behalf of" nonsense.
Yes, that's what I thought. "General announcements" are basically low-grade spam messages. They're going to see lower and lower open rates over time.
|
|
|
|
|
If I were to pursue this project, I'd be looking for help from others to create it. Just wondering how many might want to help?
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Works on my machine."
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I guessing that they do not want to have all zones to come on at the same time, causing the water pressure to drop and therefor limit the volume of water that gets to any specific zone.
but, yes, devices like these, or light/socket timers, central heating systems, solar controllers etc. can be pretty bad...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its all about the failure modes and savviness of the users. With the one-zone-at-a-time, any watering issues are clearly user error, whereas the other way, it looks like the timer is broken and needs to be returned.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
N_tro_P wrote: can imagine people reporting on said issues where as what "user" failure do you think is avoided as being reported if it allowed all zones to run?
The user failure, is that they didn't program the timer correctly. That's just as likely no matter which way the timer works. The difference is whether the user sees it as their failure, or a failure of the timer. One behavior skews the user's response to the system failure to suspect their own error rather than the timer being faulty, so naturally, that's the one the manufacturers of the timer went with.
This happens all the time -- the user's response to a perceived system failure is managed. Another example -- the oil pressure gauges in Ford vehicles. They're a gauge with a variable position needle, but they have two display states -- oil pressure OK, oil pressure is zero. Why? Because otherwise, users see a fluctuating needle and assume something's wrong. So, their response to a perceived failure is managed.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
