Update - The guys at Yahoo came to our rescue after tracing through the "network" somewhat to find someone that knows someone at Yahoo to help us out. Unfortunately their techies couldn't explain why we'd been bloack listed either but we are now officially on their whitelist so big thanks to the guys for helping us out.
Yahoo are one of the original dotcoms. They've been around for a long time so they should know their business. Imagine my surprise when one of my clients starts complaining that their confirmation emails to yahoo email accounts are permanently being binned as is everything else they send - including personal communications.
Like most mail providers, free or otherwise, Yahoo have a spam policy that will look at an inbound email and then drop it in your inbox or spam folder depending on how it is classified.
As with most techies I have about a dozen email addresses at various providers in order to test exactly these sorts of issues. Especially given that the goalposts are changing all the time.
Sure enough even a personally addressed confirmation email was killed as it came into my yahoo account. "Ah ha," said I, "they've been blacklisted". So off one goes and checks the various blacklisting sites and there's nothing there. Hmmm.
It transpires that yahoo have just taken it on themselves to block that domain. Weirdly though, a personally addressed mail to me from the client with only the word "test" in the subject line is still considered Spam yet an email from some random address that doesn't reply, containing several instances each of the words "penis", "cock", "viagra" and "cialis" made it through to my inbox completely unscathed. At this point the phrase about arses and elbows definitely comes to mind.
Trying to get Yahoo to do anything about this issue is similarly problematic as there are no feedback channels to deal with this problem at all.
So overall we've just had to advise people to not use Yahoo or to check their junk mail periodically and read the mail there.
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Monday, 21 April 2008
Saturday, 22 December 2007
Potent messages of impotent industries
I should probably know better than to open my mouth but the obvious has to be stated on this one. For anyone that is netSavvy enough to know what BitTorrent is, the news that TorrentSpy has just lost its court case against the MPAA isn't exactly surprising.
Hearking back all the way to Naptser we seem to have an annual tag teaming of court cases brought about by the RIAA and the MPAA in order to bring these "nasty pirate companies" such as TorrentSpy to heel.
Sites documenting the ins and outs of the case are plentiful so I won't go into detail. (For more info see the BBC report as it's quite neutral)
After every one of these cases new technologies spring up to either to protect people's privacy better or make the technology better (Naptser giving way to Kazaa and others which gave way to the BitTorrent protocol).
The recording and movie industries are worried because they are no longer the gate keepers to content and can charge what they like for it. As such the "dirty pirates" must be prosecuted even if they are, as in TorrentSpy's case, nothing more than a pointer to where the content is being held.
The great amusement in this particular case is that the only reason the MPAA "won" in this instance is because of TorrentSpy's refusal to provide the tracker and user data because this was a breach of Dutch Data Protection laws. As such the MPAA won by default.
Had this truly been a court case, it would have come to light that TorrentSpy provide a framework for people to post tracker data about any files they have on their machines and indeed they don't have copies of any of the physical files. The MPAA probably would have still had them closed down but their legal case was always going to be shaky.
So TorrentSpy will be closed, they will be bankrupted but there will be a dozen smaller companies waiting in the wings to see if they can bleed the MPAA that little bit drier.
You see the big problem here is that the MPAA can't let up now. It doesn't have the mechanics in place to distribute online properly (unlike same music where iTunes and others provide the service) not least because of the antiquated territorial boundaries films get sold by.
As such we'll be seeing another legal case next year - maybe ISOHunt will be next - and another company collapsed but then dozens more set up for a brief stab at providing content to the people.
The quote from the MPAA spokesman is great:
What's most amusing is that according to many sources, music being downloaded from "official" sources is almost as much as that being downloaded illegally. Surprising how given the tools, a cessation of hostility towards the users and a price point that accurately reflects the product being sold and the consumer comes to the party once again.
The MPAA still has a lot to learn about the Internet - one wonders how much it will cost them in legal fees in the mean time.
Hearking back all the way to Naptser we seem to have an annual tag teaming of court cases brought about by the RIAA and the MPAA in order to bring these "nasty pirate companies" such as TorrentSpy to heel.
Sites documenting the ins and outs of the case are plentiful so I won't go into detail. (For more info see the BBC report as it's quite neutral)
After every one of these cases new technologies spring up to either to protect people's privacy better or make the technology better (Naptser giving way to Kazaa and others which gave way to the BitTorrent protocol).
The recording and movie industries are worried because they are no longer the gate keepers to content and can charge what they like for it. As such the "dirty pirates" must be prosecuted even if they are, as in TorrentSpy's case, nothing more than a pointer to where the content is being held.
The great amusement in this particular case is that the only reason the MPAA "won" in this instance is because of TorrentSpy's refusal to provide the tracker and user data because this was a breach of Dutch Data Protection laws. As such the MPAA won by default.
Had this truly been a court case, it would have come to light that TorrentSpy provide a framework for people to post tracker data about any files they have on their machines and indeed they don't have copies of any of the physical files. The MPAA probably would have still had them closed down but their legal case was always going to be shaky.
So TorrentSpy will be closed, they will be bankrupted but there will be a dozen smaller companies waiting in the wings to see if they can bleed the MPAA that little bit drier.
You see the big problem here is that the MPAA can't let up now. It doesn't have the mechanics in place to distribute online properly (unlike same music where iTunes and others provide the service) not least because of the antiquated territorial boundaries films get sold by.
As such we'll be seeing another legal case next year - maybe ISOHunt will be next - and another company collapsed but then dozens more set up for a brief stab at providing content to the people.
The quote from the MPAA spokesman is great:
"The court's decision... sends a potent message to future defendants that this egregious behaviour will not be tolerated by the judicial system," John Malcolm, the MPAA's executive vice president and director of worldwide anti-piracy operations, said in a statement.
"The sole purpose of TorrentSpy and sites like it is to facilitate and promote the unlawful dissemination of copyrighted content. TorrentSpy is a one-stop shop for copyright infringement."
What's most amusing is that according to many sources, music being downloaded from "official" sources is almost as much as that being downloaded illegally. Surprising how given the tools, a cessation of hostility towards the users and a price point that accurately reflects the product being sold and the consumer comes to the party once again.
The MPAA still has a lot to learn about the Internet - one wonders how much it will cost them in legal fees in the mean time.
Monday, 15 October 2007
Let the new gaming witch hunt begin
I'm in my thirties now and I've been playing computer games from the age of about four when my dad first brought home the venerable Vic 20 - partly because he was doing a computer science degree at University but mostly because he wanted to tinker.
Through my life I've borne witness to the rise of computer gaming as a media format to rival and now surpass film and I've seen countless witch hunts focus on computer games as being the root of many of society's teenage evils - everything from being the cause of the obesity epidemic to turning children into cold blooded murderers and violent criminals.
I'd like to think that I'm pretty normal - whilst I have my own individual quirks as everyone does, psychological assessments that I've taken for a couple of employers have branded me pretty average on the whole "serial killer" metric. And even though I'm now suffering from the onset of a bit of "middle-agd-spread", as a teenager and child I was pretty skinny.
In thirty years of gaming I'd say I'm "above average" in terms of the amount of time I spent gaming. I wouldn't have hit "compulsive" but as a kid I'd spend a good hour or two a day playing on the computer. Conversely though I'd spend an hour or two playing outside per day though the key factor was that I watched virtually no TV.
You see my parents had a rule in our house - TV or Computer but not both. When my mum thought we had been spending a bit too much time in front of either she'd pull the plug out of the wall and summarily kick us out the door with the instructions that "it was a nice day - go enjoy it" - this held true even if it was raining or the middle of winter!
So, in what seems like a biennial event another review of gaming has been started - the Byron Review this time is being headed up by the very smart Dr Tanya Byron - an expert in Child Behaviour (and TV personality to add some celebrity to the proceedings). Whilst the review is supposed to cover the full range of technology, Gaming and the Internet are always the first things to crop up as being responsible for the decline of morality amongst our youth.
What won't be taken into account properly though in my opinion is how the role of the parent has changed in relation to these technologies. My parents looking back on it were pretty good (though I know I didn't think it at the time) in policing our internet and gaming activities (our family had access to the internet through a BBS at my dad's Uni).
The modern parent has completely divested themselves of any responsibility for policing their childs' activities. This isn't just limited to gaming and the internet but is a wider social epidemic we are starting to see the symptoms of - everything from anti-social behaviour to academic performance.
I know of adults who have bought games for their children aged under 10 that are clearly marked as being 18 certified. All because of pester power and the guilt that they have over not seeing their child because they have to go off and work all day. What scares me is the "oh well" attitude of these parents - and the fact that because the console is in their kid's bedroom they don't see the actual content themselves. For me games were played in the living room in full view of the rest of the house.
In the face of this blatant irresponsibilty from parents, what can the games industry do? They've created a product they have submitted to the classification board, risking censorship and potentially loss through narrowing their market but then the parents ignore it and go buy the game for their child anyway.
After the fact, parents are the ones calling for tougher regulation and a realignment of the game makers moral compass when it comes to producing the content but it is their failure and own moral ambiguity that has caused the problem in the first place.
For all the public outcries about video game related violence and exposure to sexual content, there is deafening silence regarding the lack of parenting skills to avoid exactly this situation. My parents could do it as could those of my friends - how have we lost that skill in a single generation?
Through my life I've borne witness to the rise of computer gaming as a media format to rival and now surpass film and I've seen countless witch hunts focus on computer games as being the root of many of society's teenage evils - everything from being the cause of the obesity epidemic to turning children into cold blooded murderers and violent criminals.
I'd like to think that I'm pretty normal - whilst I have my own individual quirks as everyone does, psychological assessments that I've taken for a couple of employers have branded me pretty average on the whole "serial killer" metric. And even though I'm now suffering from the onset of a bit of "middle-agd-spread", as a teenager and child I was pretty skinny.
In thirty years of gaming I'd say I'm "above average" in terms of the amount of time I spent gaming. I wouldn't have hit "compulsive" but as a kid I'd spend a good hour or two a day playing on the computer. Conversely though I'd spend an hour or two playing outside per day though the key factor was that I watched virtually no TV.
You see my parents had a rule in our house - TV or Computer but not both. When my mum thought we had been spending a bit too much time in front of either she'd pull the plug out of the wall and summarily kick us out the door with the instructions that "it was a nice day - go enjoy it" - this held true even if it was raining or the middle of winter!
So, in what seems like a biennial event another review of gaming has been started - the Byron Review this time is being headed up by the very smart Dr Tanya Byron - an expert in Child Behaviour (and TV personality to add some celebrity to the proceedings). Whilst the review is supposed to cover the full range of technology, Gaming and the Internet are always the first things to crop up as being responsible for the decline of morality amongst our youth.
What won't be taken into account properly though in my opinion is how the role of the parent has changed in relation to these technologies. My parents looking back on it were pretty good (though I know I didn't think it at the time) in policing our internet and gaming activities (our family had access to the internet through a BBS at my dad's Uni).
The modern parent has completely divested themselves of any responsibility for policing their childs' activities. This isn't just limited to gaming and the internet but is a wider social epidemic we are starting to see the symptoms of - everything from anti-social behaviour to academic performance.
I know of adults who have bought games for their children aged under 10 that are clearly marked as being 18 certified. All because of pester power and the guilt that they have over not seeing their child because they have to go off and work all day. What scares me is the "oh well" attitude of these parents - and the fact that because the console is in their kid's bedroom they don't see the actual content themselves. For me games were played in the living room in full view of the rest of the house.
In the face of this blatant irresponsibilty from parents, what can the games industry do? They've created a product they have submitted to the classification board, risking censorship and potentially loss through narrowing their market but then the parents ignore it and go buy the game for their child anyway.
After the fact, parents are the ones calling for tougher regulation and a realignment of the game makers moral compass when it comes to producing the content but it is their failure and own moral ambiguity that has caused the problem in the first place.
For all the public outcries about video game related violence and exposure to sexual content, there is deafening silence regarding the lack of parenting skills to avoid exactly this situation. My parents could do it as could those of my friends - how have we lost that skill in a single generation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
