Spammers are quite proficient at using authentication, whereas legitimate users are stuck in the 2000s wondering why their forwards don't work anymore.
752 karma · joined February 16, 2022
Spammers are quite proficient at using authentication, whereas legitimate users are stuck in the 2000s wondering why their forwards don't work anymore.
We're at the point where the two countries, with most wars between them in history, stood side by side, ready to defend Greenland against a U.S. invasion.
The monkey has a hand grenade. You lot gave it to him. Twice. You might find that it's a bit late for "relax, he's only kidding".
This isn't just going to go away. You can't just undo what Orange Mussolini is doing, and it'll take far longer than a decade before anything like a trusting relationship can be reestablished.
> even sales in the tens of thousands might not recover the development and tooling costs
If you're looking for an argument against capitalism, this wasn't it.
If only you were the only one doing it...
MX tells a sender where the mail goes.
DMARC allows the recipient to verify the adress in the From header.
Neither has anything to do with the fact whether a server sends emails or not.
Having a balanced diet and enough time to spend in the sun isn't a given, though, and many struggle getting enough vitamin D without suppments.
Of all the stuff Gmail imposes on the rest of the world, requiring proper sender authentication was a good thing and we've helped thousands of senders set up proper authentication because of it.
Forcing the issue finally got rid of the ridiculous practice of ignoring SPF/DKIM failures and just setting the DMARC record to p=none.
None of this changes the fact that Gmail is a problem for so many other reasons, but this specific imposed change was a net benefit for the entire email ecosystem.
Problem is it's often illegal or against the rules to do it since deliberately beating the crap out of a bully isn't self defence in the traditional sense. And in the cases where it doesn't work, the situation may escalate or the victim might end up being punished harder than the bully.
Obviously solar will be decreasingly useful as you get further to the pole, but the Nordics aren't worse off than Alaska or Canada in that regard, and both do solar to some extent AFAIK.
The Nordic power market is a mess, and it's not because solar doesn't work in winter but because the grid needs massive investments on all levels and nobody wants to be left holding the bill for it.
Electrification? Sure, I'll buy an EV when the _local_ grid operator makes sure my lights don't flicker when the neighbor uses an angle grinder. The last update was that they plan to replace the old transformer station from the 60's "when it breaks".
Local generation? Can't get rid of the excess generation if I wanted to.
Is Denmark's power grid expansion still geared at selling Swedish electricity to the Germans?
Sweden? No internal transfer capacity so their consumers have constant high prices while power is exported cheaply.
Norway? Geo-blocked by Sweden.
In some countries it's not just "unethical", but outright illegal. Laws and rules vary, but all is equal to the spam button and the whims of those wielding it.
We'd have just as many consultancy firms and layers of beuraucracy without Microsoft, and France wouldn't be operating their entire government IT stack, all the way down to individual workstations, that much cheaper than it is now.
Centralising things to that level and supporting the users of the entire government structure of a country the size of France -- one of the countries the sun _never_ sets on -- while it's transitioning from decades of Microsoft dependency to an open source ecosystem? Heh, no.
Not all power users. Some re-invent the wheel and/or do things inefficiently, and in most cases there's no business incentive to adapt the service to fit the usage patterns of those users, or of other users that deviate from the norm in regards to resource usage.