Does it count as vigilantism? That’s subjective, dependent on the definition of vigilantism.
Is vigilantism generally a good or a bad thing? It’s bad. A justice system needs to be designed to be just, which is why we separate the roles of police, jury, and judiciary. The intention being to develop fair and just outcomes. Vigilantism has no process.
Someone just arbitrarily determines someone’s guilt and punishment.
Brave derives revenue from advertising.
Brave devotees are the only people I’ve ever seen defending advertising as a user friendly revenue model.
this is a silly hill to die on
indeed
What filters are these? I’ll have to keep an eye out for the grammar section in the inbound spam/phishing policies next time I’m managing a client in the exchange section of their tenant. Bad luck for those who don’t spell well, can’t use spell check or are ESL, I guess. Mistyped URLs or domains however, sure are a thing.
I can’t believe I need to explain this to Mr exchange server administrator, but you have it the wrong way around. Spelling errors are a common strategy to avoid emails being classified as spam. Bayesian filters collate tables of words that commonly appear in spam. Spelling errors create words that the filter hasn’t seen classified as spam.
a huge number of spelling mistakes screams spam to me
Do you mean to say, you’ve learned to associate spelling errors with spam because most of the spam you see… the spam that gets past your spam filters… has a lot of spelling errors?
The best way to deliver spam is to make it indistinguishable from legit messages.
That’s just not true. The best way to deliver spam is to send it from a reputable address, and to avoid looking like spam.
Bayesian filters need to be trained by a user identifying email as spam. From those emails it learns which words frequently appear in spam emails. Including spelling errors means more unique words rather than words that look like spam.
All the evidence we do have demonstrates that the typos evade Bayesian filters and improve deliverability. This is demonstrably true.
When you hear hoof beats think horses not zebras.
Any minute now one of those brave-browser idiots will be along to tell us all how great ads are because they can make us aware of products that we had not yet discovered or remind us of products we didn’t know were near by.
Oh boy. Sure ok you must know everything about security and spam and scammers because you “work in tech”. Honestly, telling people that doesn’t make you sound any more credible.
Did you honestly just google “scammer typos” so you could provide me with an expert source?
You’re making a very simple assertion - that typos weed out potential victims who are gullible enough to fall for a nigerian prince scam with no typos, but not gullible enough to follow through to actually paying the scammer.
It’s a preposterous claim with absolutely no evidence supporting it. Any idiot can see it doesn’t withstand a moment’s thought.
On the other hand, it’s demonstrably true that typos can help to evade bayesian filters.
The actual situation, which both you and mr security blog guy have gravely misunderstood, is that including typos in order to evade filters improves response rates because it improves deliverability and does not discourage a significant number of victims.
Er go, the type of people who become victims are not likely to be discouraged by typos.
That’s not the same as including typos in order to discourage people who are not good victims.
Sure but there’s no evidence that the typos effectively weed out the ones they don’t want.
I understood you the first time. My point is, it’s nonsensical.
If you’re sending emails to potential victims you want as many responses as you can get.
It’s an absurdity to suggest that typing errors would intelligently select for people more likely to be scammed.
Sure ok. I’ll readily acknowledge that I’m a pretty weird guy.
I probably also have a lot of left over baggage from being a substance abuser of minimal socio-economic means. That is to say I just like to pay for my own stuff, and there’s a short list of people I might be very generous with but beyond that I’m not generous (with money) at all.
I guess it’s a bit different if the guy is interacting with a lot of different people every day.
I had envisaged a situation where I work in some kind of cubicle hell scape and every lunch time I need to sneak past old-mates cube in case he sees me and tries to swindle me into contributing some crisps or something.
If you can spot it, you aren’t the mark.
This doesn’t make any sense to me.
Why would you deliberately make your bait less appealing to filter out the fish that might wriggle off the hook before you land them?
The typo’s are in order to evade bayesian spam filters which get suspicious about certain words.
The common formats are used because those are the ones that work.
Yeah this is pretty much me.
I have unusual eating habits so not the same stuff.
I generally go to the green grocer (farmers shop?), then there’s a wholefoods shop for nuts and pulses and things, then the butcher, then at the supermarket it’s just bits and pieces.
We’ve gotten pretty good at getting things in bulk when they’re on special. Some items are way cheaper to buy on-line like toiletries and medications.
This would get old real quick.
I was a smoker in a past life.
Occasionally you encounter other smokers who are trying to cut down, or quitting, and limiting their intake by refusing to buy a pack of smokes and simply bumming smokes off the people they encounter.
Sounds nice in principle but obviously this very quickly deteriorates into a parasitic arrangement.
What I mean is, if I went to work every day and there was a guy there with a cup, obviously I’d happily give him whatever, but at any given lunch break if he was hungry he’d know he could search me out for a bite to eat.
This sounds like unsupported nonsense to me, sorry.
No sovereign country would buy military hardware that could simply be switched off by the providing country, doing so would be tantamount to being annexed.
To me it’s absurd to suggest that this type of hardware could just be switched off remotely either on the tarmac or in the air. It’s an unconscionable security risk even for planes operated by the US. Imagine having this single point of failure for your entire air force.
It sounds like the on board computer communicates with a support service in the US and I have no doubt that if the relationship soured they could probably figure out how to do some nasty things through that API. However, you obviously wouldn’t plug your fancy plane’s computer in to your adversary’s API.
That said, the providing country could certainly make things difficult for you as regards parts and support. However, it sounds like there’s arrangements in place whereby all consumers of this type of equipment participate in manufacturing parts. That is to say that switzerland for example is responsible for the production of a selection of F-35 parts, as are other nations that use that plane.
The idea being that if the US withdrew support it would be a pain in the ass but not the end of the plane.
Because they’re paying you money for it?
If you don’t sell your planes to them they will just buy from someone else. They will still have planes to potentially use against you.
You may as well sell weapons to your allies because the chances they will turn them on you is minimal, and you want money.
Fair enough.
Having known victims of vandalism I can say it hurts more than theft.
allegedly costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses.
Also it’s sabotage, which might attract heavier penalties than mere theft?
Yeah IDK anything about this, other than to say that when I’m twitchy and crampy I take magnesium and it usually sorts me right out.
Yeah. It’s one of the great mysteries of conservative politics IMO.
They just magically get to be “better economic managers” despite any facts to the contrary.
There’s a variety of reasons.