Is spam even real?

[Ringo]

While it seems we have an OS brushfire going, it hasn’t derailed the thread as yet. Let me digest what we have garnered relevant to the OP.

So, what y’all are telling me is:

• the spammers are generally not the actual retailers, but are more like hired email guns

• some of them do make money, but not great green greasy gobs of it, just what a steady succession of $500 contracts will yield

• about half of spam is dead-end, either being just email verification or the result of the spammers not really caring to relay positive responses to client retailers

• almost all spam is the work of very few people?

• it would be almost impossible to actually order, and receive, a septic tank. And just forget about a septic tank with big tits.

[n3rd]

Originally posted by Derleth *
n3rd: Cracks against Linux seem more prevalent because the Linux world has no reason (coughMARKETINGcough) to keep them secret. No Linux vendor will sue you if you make their flaws known (coughDMCAcough*). Bugtraq is an Open-Source invention, not a Microsoft one. That tells you something.

**
Once again some dubious claims without a cite to back them up. Microsoft has a good policy regarding vulnerability reporting. Please find me one vulnerability for which MS has not released a patch and an associated KB article in due course.

**

As for the shipping with Microsoft OSes pre-installed: Look at the deals Dell and such have signed with MS. If they sell machine 1 with an MS OS on it, they must sell all machiness with MS OSes on them. MS will become extremely annoyed if they do otherwise, especially if they sell Linux.
**

I fail to see the point you’re making in this paragraph; please elaborate.

**
About MS OSes being easier to patch: Uh, sorry, wrong. If you can’t see the source code, how are you going to patch it meaningfully? Do you actually trust the binary-only patches MS ships? I suppose you don’t have any choice, but the security-conscious among us do.

**
You have to be joking, right? Every Linux user goes and checks the source code for the patch, then builds it himself, then installs it? Rubbish! I’d say less than 1% of people who run Linux are going to have a clue as to what the source code means! If you know what’s going on, good for you, but what about the other 99% of the world’s users?

I’d take my chances with MS patches over open source ones, simply because I don’t have time to read tens of thousands of lines of code, let alone decipher them. MS patches are also digitally signed, so third parties can’t pull nasties like this!

**
I’m not saying Linux is the most secure thing around. VMS might well be, or AIX, or something else of that ilk. But try to run VMS (as opposed to its bastard offspring, Windows NT) on modern hardware and then find support for it, all without paying an arm and a leg. (I’m aware of OpenVMS, but I don’t consider it fully mature.) But I am saying that MS has had to keep backwards-compatibility all the way back to MS-DOS, which is not meaningfully securable in any sense of the term, and that has put fatal flaws in their system design. **

Keeping backwards compatibility with MS-DOS is not the reason for the security vulnerabilities - adding new features is. My point stands: similar fatal flaws apply to any OS. Hence, apply best practices, and you won’t get nailed, regardless of the OS that you run.

We have succeeded in derailing this thread. If you would like to continue this debate (it doesn’t really seem to be going anywhere), may I suggest starting a new thread in GD so that this thread can continue. I’m still trying to convert people to my conspiracy theory!