• 0 Posts
  • 23 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle


  • Yes but that isn’t changed by the amount of data used. There is no cost to supply per kb supplied, only a cost to maintain the equipment that governs the speed of the connection.

    Here’s an analog example. If the city you lived in started charging you more for the water to come into your house faster as well as charging you for the amount of water you use. Obviously you should pay for the amount of a finite resource you use but the speed at which you acquired that resource should be limited only by the physics of the water transportation system.

    Data on the other hand, is not a finite resource. There is no limit to the amount of data one can acquire given endless time and energy. So the only way to bill for that becomes the speed at which you acquire the data. You pay for the data speed and that funds the infrastructure to supply that speed indefinitely. End of story. The only reason data caps exist is that they want to charge more money for you to use less bandwidth so they can sell that bandwidth to other people. When what should really happen is, they should invest in higher bandwidth capacity and sell that to their customers to return on that investment.

    Either supply me infinite speed and bill me for the amount of data used or supply me infinite data and bill me for the bandwidth. Not both.











  • If you brute force using single iterations of all possible combinations sure. But people don’t do that. They use fully readable passwords and letter substitutions. This makes dictionary attacks viable. There are a known number of readable words and phonetic combinations that are significantly easier to brute force. And also the vast majority of numbers are also guessable because most numbers are dates. Series of 2 or 4 or 8 numbers to form important dates means there are lots of numbers between 1940-2024. People don’t usually unconditionally random alphanumeric passwords. Therefore peoples passwords will never be fully secure against sufficiently advanced brute force methods.



  • It’s a really pain in the rear to configure for anyone who doesn’t have a dedicated IT or an MSP. You have to get these DKIM and DMARC records from your exchange provider and then you have to configure them on your DNS host. If your DNS host isn’t modifiable you have to send requests to their support to get those records put in place and then they want to verify your records from your provider as well as a security measure. I’ve had clients that took us a week because of all the song and dance of DKIM and DMARC all because I couldn’t go in and add the records myself.

    Fuck you LOGIX you garbage company from the stone age. Let me manage my clients DNS records. 😤


  • DKIM is the standard for verification right now. This isn’t an anti-competition play. I manage DKIM records for my clients all the time. Yahoo, SB global, and At&t enforced DKIM requirements a few months back and it’s been a headache but it has made a huge difference in spam emails.

    For anyone who doesn’t know what DKIM is, it’s a method of an email provider getting a sort of green flag from the host domain name. So if you have an email address whatever@mybusiness.com and your email provider is Microsoft 365 and your domain provider is goDaddy, Microsoft says to goDaddy, “hey I’m sending this email, can you verify that I have permission to send from the domain my business.com?” And go daddy checks for DKIM records from Microsoft and sees it and says “yes sir, this is approved.” Then M365 sends the email, and if the recipient requires DKIM to receive the email at whomever@yahoo.com, Yahoo looks at the domain and asks, “hey goDaddy, it says you host this, is this email legit?” And goDaddy says “yep it’s all legit, give it to the recipient.”

    This effectively eliminates messages sent from a domain without DKIM records as well as spoofed emails because those spoofed emails never checked in when sending.

    I appreciate the skepticism but this is a security play, not a business one.