I long believed that I'd destroyed all copies of this, but a friend had it in hard copy and scanned it in. I think 13 years is long enough. Think of this as the unpublished conclusion from my Ph.D thesis.
Note, Paul Mockapetris wrote none of this, I had his name on it as part of the joke. Paul M convinced me not to submit this as an April 1 RFC that year, in fact.
An instant classic in 2001, and still true and relevant today, whatever year this might be.
So this is a thing now I guess. Hello there, if you're reading this. Welcome to my little corner of the internet where I get to talk about whatever I want! You don't have to read it if you don't want to but really, you've made it this far why not just hear me out this one time.
Here's some things you ought to know about me;
I'm a girl, I'm 15 and about to start my sophomore year of high school.
I live in the California Bay Area with both my parents and my 11 year old little sister.
I have 3 siblings in total, 1 that I live with, 1 who's at college, and 1 who moved out.
Decades ago I worked with the team at MAPS (the world's first anti-spam company; "MAPS" is "SPAM" spelled backward, and we had it mean "Mail Abuse Prevention System") to work up a standard by which a given single e-mail message could be determined to be "spam" or not. This is because a lot of the people who wanted to send bulkish e-mail that nobody wanted to receive were just as cute as they could be about skirting definitions that involved streams of e-mail.
I published it at http://mail-abuse.org/standard.html and I referred to this online location in Chapter 10 of the Second Edition of Sendmail: Theory and Practice. Later we sold the MAPS company to Trend Micro to get money to pay lawyers. At some point Trend Micro redid their web site so that the Standard for spam is no longer at its historic location.
Who Will Bury Whom?
I have two questions for people who are uncomfortable about homosexuality.
I'm in Berlin for the first time and after walking past the Brandenburg Gate and into the park, I saw a plaque. It was in German and English -- the picture here is of the English language side. It made me wonder.
In the waning days of calendar year 2004, I watched some friends as they happily killed off some "botnets", and then pondered the usefulness of this (if any). A "botnet" is a collection of stolen computers, whose owners are still using them. Botnets are useful for sending spam and receiving stolen credit card numbers and all kinds of other things a bad guy wouldn't want to get caught using his or her own computers for. So, why isn't killing "botnets" an unrestricted good idea? Here's what I said about it on 30-December-2004: I want to expand on this point somewhat.
Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the DNS Filtering Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill
This paper describes technical problems raised by the DNS filtering requirements in the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 ("PROTECT IP Act"). Its authors come from the technical, operational, academic, and research communities.
In the past few weeks a lot of people have been forcibly denying Internet service to a lot of other people for political reasons that each attacker thinks are valid. I don't think there's any possible moral justification for this behaviour and I'd like to offer some reasons why both sides ought to cut it out. So if you're pro-Wikileaks and think anyone who won't provide them services is evil, or if you're anti-Wikileaks and you think that anyone who will provide them services is evil, and if you're participating in denial of service attacks on either basis, please listen.
This web site serves the greater La Honda community.