 | |
Dreamweaver for mac question
Macromedia Dreamweaver Macromedia Dreamweaver Discussions (macromedia.dreamweaver)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Dreamweaver for mac question -
07-13-2004
, 04:19 PM
|
On 7/13/04 12:32 PM, in article cd16bc$4kv$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com, "seb" sebnewyork (AT) earhlink (DOT) netTakeThisOut> wrote: You're just denying the very existence of a part of the online world whose concerns are not exclusively commercial, or not commercial at all. I suppose that it was I, who was being overly presumptive. Now that I am reminded, I must admit that I am aware of a limited few artists, who are independently wealthy and create their work for their own enjoyment. I was not aware that you were among that group. I was merely thinking of the art community, as a whole, the vast majority of whom, are the so-called "starving artists", who would be ecstatic to be able to actually SELL one of their works, so they could eat for another week (artists have to eat too, don't they). I'm sure that to them, regardless of how abstract or personal their art may be, they don't want to chance driving off that one art lover, who really likes what the artist has created and will actually be willing to exchange some of that horrible "money" for it. Being an art lover, myself, I have had occasion to meet more than a few, now successful, artists. Several have told me that their big break came when just one wealthy patron saw their work and decided to promote them. If the artist had not been at the right place, at the right time, he/she would still be selling his/her art at grungy flea markets, instead of posh galleries. But, it goes beyond that. If the artist's attitude, to the patron, had been so aloof, that the patron was turned off by it, the artist's work would today, be hanging next to a velvet Elvis, rather than in a beautiful foyer, under a crystal chandelier, if it had sold, at all. It was my mistake to assume that you were not one of those wealthy artists, who has no interest at all, in selling your artwork, but only displays it for your own enjoyment. Your case is one of those rare exceptions. But, for the rest of the art world, who have not yet achieved such independence, as you obviously have, they should be aware that doing anything that is likely to annoy a site visitor, could potentially turn off the ONE visitor, who might become their patron, before he ever has a chance to see their work. John Gaver Action America (forget everything to contact me direct) Microsoft: (n) Job security for IT consultants. |
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
wow, you took that thread at heart, I guess that's good. Too bad you're completely off mark. First, let me clear up one misunderstanding: I make good money designing commercial web sites, with no fullscreen nor popup windows, just good-for-all design and functionality. I have nothing against money, and I am nothing of a "wealthy artist" either. Second, when I mention "art" in this context I'm not talking about paintings or sculpture or things like that, which don't have anything to do with the web as a medium. Rather, i talk about the shear experiementalism, playfulness and fun that can be made (and should be made) of the web as a medium, using the medium itself (including the browser window). Finally, isn't it *a little* hypocritical to call "rude" popups and fullscreen practices, compared to cookies, spam and spyware that commercial web sites (and you, if you work for any serious online buziness) love so much. Online "rudeness" and privacy invasion really resides somewhere else than playing with the browser window, and it starts with Microsoft windows OS itself, which you "choose" to use and consider "your own" after (almost) all competition has been crushed down or bought out?.... I bet you also use Windows Media Player, since it was bundled with your OS. Its Sci-fi multicolor shiny design sure makes this mediocre ripp-off look high-tech, a toy that you'll be happy to sherish as your very own little media player that needs respect and no "rude" usage. |
monopoly...probably one shouldn't generalize/stereotype TOO much. :-)
--
Bonnie in Sacramento
kroko at
sbcglobal dot net
#13
| |||
| |||
|
|
Some of us old fogeys do choose to use Realplayer just to spite the monopoly...probably one shouldn't generalize/stereotype TOO much. :-) |
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
Finally, isn't it *a little* hypocritical to call "rude" popups and fullscreen practices, compared to cookies, spam and spyware that commercial web sites (and you, if you work for any serious online buziness) love so much. Online "rudeness" and privacy invasion really resides somewhere else than playing with the browser window, and it starts with Microsoft windows OS itself, which you "choose" to use and consider "your own" after (almost) all competition has been crushed down or bought out?.... I bet you also use Windows Media Player, since it was bundled with your OS. |
Not only are popups and browser window manipulation "rude", but, so are
cookies, spyware and spam and I deal with all of them in more or less the
same way. I have software on most of my systems that blocks browser
manipulation and on the remaining systems my fingers just automatically
close any browser window that opens full screen, usually long before any
text or images appear. My stand-alone firewall blocks all popups, except
from one site. The only system that receives email (a Mac) runs SpamSieve,
which is 99.7% effective in blocking spam while allowing 99.99% of good mail
through. Along with SpamSieve, I run Bouncer, which sends a 550 error
message (address not found) back to the sending server, for every message in
the spam folder. BTW, since I started running Bouncer (almost a year), I
have seen at least a 50% decrease in spam, most of it in the 3rd and 4th
month after starting Bouncer. My firewall settings and my own habits keep
spyware off of my systems, but I occasionally run Adaware, on the PC's
anyway and I have Internet Cleanup on the Macs. The Linux/BSD boxes, that
are special use systems, don't need such software. Cookies are accepted by
domain or IP address only, at the firewall, as is JavaScript, but for
different reasons.
As a web designer, I have only used cookies a couple of times and each time,
it was only for the purpose of following a credit card purchase through a
shopping cart and in each case, the cookies had a 2 day expiration. In fact,
I have actually turned down a lucrative consulting job for a large company
that wanted me to write a cookie tracking mechanism into their site. It
seems that they were going to use the information that they collected, to
add to the mailing list that they were already selling. I first tried to
talk them out of it, but when it became obvious that they wouldn't budge, I
turned down the job, in no uncertain terms, telling the CEO and CTO that I
thought that what they wanted to do, made them the lowest kind of marketer
and that I wouldn't work for them on a bet.
As for Windoze Media Player, what's that? ;-) Actually, I have just about
every piece of software that you can imagine, but I avoid anything that has
a name beginning with "MS-" or "Microsoft". My video viewers of choice are
Videolan (VLC) and QuickTime.
If I ever did have, what I thought was a good reason, to maximize the
visitor's browser window, I would tell him what I was going to do and why
and offer him a button that would allow him the opportunity to "opt-out"
(for lack of a better term). At least, until now, I have never come across a
good reason for wanting to drive visitors away from a web site. Until such a
reason manifests itself, I will maintain that policy and recommend that
others do the same.
BTW, I'm so sorry that you are not one of those wealthy types. It would be
nice to say that I know someone wealthy.
John Gaver
Action America
(forget everything to contact me direct)
Microsoft: (n) Job security for IT consultants.
#15
| |||
| |||
|
|
I run Bouncer, which sends a 550 error message (address not found) back to the sending server |
to it, do you really feel like it does any good?
Quote:
|
Not only are popups and browser window manipulation "rude", |
useful, but I think you mean the unsolicited ones.
--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver - THE BEST WAY TO GET
ANSWERS
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================
"John Gaver" <jgaEVERYver (AT) ActionThingAmerica (DOT) org> wrote
Quote:
|
On 7/13/04 3:19 PM, in article cd1g4p$gfj$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com, "seb" sebnewyork (AT) earhlink (DOT) netTakeThisOut> wrote: Finally, isn't it *a little* hypocritical to call "rude" popups and fullscreen practices, compared to cookies, spam and spyware that commercial web sites (and you, if you work for any serious online buziness) love so much. Online "rudeness" and privacy invasion really resides somewhere else than playing with the browser window, and it starts with Microsoft windows OS itself, which you "choose" to use and consider "your own" after (almost) all competition has been crushed down or bought out?.... I bet you also use Windows Media Player, since it was bundled with your OS. You must have me mistaken for someone else. |
#16
| |||
| |||
|
|
I run Bouncer, which sends a 550 error message (address not found) back to the sending server Since the mailing account is probably long gone by the time this gets back to it, do you really feel like it does any good? |
sudden, my spam folder volume began to decrease in about the 3rd month
(around 15%) and continued to decrease significantly, in the 4th month. I
think that what is happening, is that there are companies out there who sell
so-called, "verified" email address on CD or who will guarantee no more than
a certain number of "not found" responses on their list, as a way of
boosting the price of their lists. When those people repeatedly get a 550
message back from an email address, your address gets bumped from the next
month's CD. I think that explains the long delay, before I began to see a
drop.
Of course, there are the big spam companies, who will hijack an account for
a day, to send their spam and Bouncer will not affect them. But overall, it
is the only thing, to which I can attribute an almost 50% decrease in the
daily spam that I receive, since I began running it. There have been some
ups and downs in the last year, but the downs continue to be lower and
longer. Besides, if it only stopped 5%, instead of 50%, it would be
worthwhile.
Personally, I am looking forward to the next generation of spam filters,
called, "Spam Filters That Fight Back" (SFTFB). Several companies are
developing them today. Since spam wants you to either open their web page or
email them, the technology involves identifying valid URL's or email
addresses, contained within spam and automatically opening those URL's
and/or sending gibberish email to those addresses, a given number of times,
over the next hour or so. No individual would use those links or email
addresses enough for it to qualify as a DOS attack, but if that kind of
software were on just 10% of the systems that received that spam, the result
would overload the spammers system or mailbox.
Imagine a spammer who sends out a million spams and only expects to get 100
or even 1000 valid responses, suddenly having to sift through a million
responses, to find that 100 or 1000 valid responses, simply because only 10%
of recipients had SFTFB software and each had it set to send only 10
responses. Instead of his web site receiving a few hundred hits, he would
receive a bill, from his ISP, for bandwidth overage. Furthermore, that
volume would keep a lot of valid hits from getting through. In short order,
spam would cease to be a problem. This is me drooling in anticipation. 8^)Š
John Gaver
Action America
(forget everything to contact me direct)
Microsoft: (n) Job security for IT consultants.
#17
| |||
| |||
|
|
the technology involves identifying valid URL's or email addresses, contained within spam and automatically opening those URL's and/or sending gibberish email to those addresses, a given number of times, over the next hour or so. No individual would use those links or email addresses enough for it to qualify as a DOS attack, but if that kind of software were on just 10% of the systems that received that spam, the result would overload the spammers system or mailbox. |
This is like cutting off your nose to spite your face in my opinion.
The only thing that will stop spammers is a) visibility, b) fines, and c) a
credible threat of a 'perp-walk' future.
--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver - THE BEST WAY TO GET
ANSWERS
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================
"John Gaver" <jgaEVERYver (AT) ActionThingAmerica (DOT) org> wrote
Quote:
|
On 7/14/04 1:45 PM, in article cd3v0v$kvr$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com, "Murray *TMM*" <forums (AT) HAHAgreat-web-sights (DOT) com> wrote: I run Bouncer, which sends a 550 error message (address not found) back to the sending server Since the mailing account is probably long gone by the time this gets back to it, do you really feel like it does any good? I was beginning to think that it might not be doing any good. Then, all of a sudden, my spam folder volume began to decrease in about the 3rd month (around 15%) and continued to decrease significantly, in the 4th month. I think that what is happening, is that there are companies out there who sell so-called, "verified" email address on CD or who will guarantee no more than a certain number of "not found" responses on their list, as a way of boosting the price of their lists. When those people repeatedly get a 550 message back from an email address, your address gets bumped from the next month's CD. I think that explains the long delay, before I began to see a drop. Of course, there are the big spam companies, who will hijack an account for a day, to send their spam and Bouncer will not affect them. But overall, it is the only thing, to which I can attribute an almost 50% decrease in the daily spam that I receive, since I began running it. There have been some ups and downs in the last year, but the downs continue to be lower and longer. Besides, if it only stopped 5%, instead of 50%, it would be worthwhile. Personally, I am looking forward to the next generation of spam filters, called, "Spam Filters That Fight Back" (SFTFB). Several companies are developing them today. Since spam wants you to either open their web page or email them, the technology involves identifying valid URL's or email addresses, contained within spam and automatically opening those URL's and/or sending gibberish email to those addresses, a given number of times, over the next hour or so. No individual would use those links or email addresses enough for it to qualify as a DOS attack, but if that kind of software were on just 10% of the systems that received that spam, the result would overload the spammers system or mailbox. Imagine a spammer who sends out a million spams and only expects to get 100 or even 1000 valid responses, suddenly having to sift through a million responses, to find that 100 or 1000 valid responses, simply because only 10% of recipients had SFTFB software and each had it set to send only 10 responses. Instead of his web site receiving a few hundred hits, he would receive a bill, from his ISP, for bandwidth overage. Furthermore, that volume would keep a lot of valid hits from getting through. In short order, spam would cease to be a problem. This is me drooling in anticipation. 8^)S John Gaver Action America (forget everything to contact me direct) Microsoft: (n) Job security for IT consultants. |
#18
| |||
| |||
|
|
And the rest of the internet - imagine if everyone were using such a thing. This is like cutting off your nose to spite your face in my opinion. The only thing that will stop spammers is a) visibility, b) fines, and c) a credible threat of a 'perp-walk' future. |
example. Actually, I believe that long before anywhere near 10% of email
users start using Spam Filters That Fight Back technology, the spammers will
have been forced to give up.
When a spammer gets 1000 emails a day and all of them represent a potential
sale, they will continue to use spam as a sales vehicle. But, at some point,
they will be forced to change their tactics. Will it be at 5000 noise
emails, 10,000, 50,000, 100,000 or more? Each spammer will make his own
decision. But, remember that spammers use spam, because it's easy and more
or less automated. At some point, the work load, to identify the few valid
leads among the noise, will make it no longer worthwhile to pursue spam as a
sales vehicle.
End result: A much more wide open Internet, since spam will be only a bad
memory, like acoustic couplers and 8 inch floppies. I'm not sure, but I may
be the only person around here, who has ever used either. Hopefully, in a
few years, some of the younger posters will be able to say the same thing
about receiving spam.
As for fines and such, recent news articles indicate that a number of large
spammers are moving to other countries, that will give them immunity. It
could take years more to force those countries to stop them and Communist
China has no intention of doing that, anyway and they are too big to bully,
over such an issue. The best bet is to use technology against the spammers
and make it not worth the expense. If spammers were to get back just one
email or web hit for every piece of spam that they sent out, it would
bankrupt them and the process would occur over time, so it would have only
limited effect on overall web traffic.
John Gaver
Action America
(forget everything to contact me direct)
Microsoft: (n) Job security for IT consultants.
#19
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 7/14/04 3:01 PM, in article cd43e9$qgp$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com, "Murray *TMM*" <forums (AT) HAHAgreat-web-sights (DOT) com> wrote: And the rest of the internet - imagine if everyone were using such a thing. This is like cutting off your nose to spite your face in my opinion. The only thing that will stop spammers is a) visibility, b) fines, and c) a credible threat of a 'perp-walk' future. I can't imagine it ever getting that far. That's why I used 10% in my example. Actually, I believe that long before anywhere near 10% of email users start using Spam Filters That Fight Back technology, the spammers will have been forced to give up. When a spammer gets 1000 emails a day and all of them represent a potential sale, they will continue to use spam as a sales vehicle. But, at some point, they will be forced to change their tactics. Will it be at 5000 noise emails, 10,000, 50,000, 100,000 or more? Each spammer will make his own decision. But, remember that spammers use spam, because it's easy and more or less automated. At some point, the work load, to identify the few valid leads among the noise, will make it no longer worthwhile to pursue spam as a sales vehicle. End result: A much more wide open Internet, since spam will be only a bad memory, like acoustic couplers and 8 inch floppies. I'm not sure, but I may be the only person around here, who has ever used either. Hopefully, in a few years, some of the younger posters will be able to say the same thing about receiving spam. As for fines and such, recent news articles indicate that a number of large spammers are moving to other countries, that will give them immunity. It could take years more to force those countries to stop them and Communist China has no intention of doing that, anyway and they are too big to bully, over such an issue. The best bet is to use technology against the spammers and make it not worth the expense. If spammers were to get back just one email or web hit for every piece of spam that they sent out, it would bankrupt them and the process would occur over time, so it would have only limited effect on overall web traffic. John Gaver Action America (forget everything to contact me direct) Microsoft: (n) Job security for IT consultants. |
#20
| |||
| |||
|
|
In my mind it simply adds more of a burden on a stressed system. |
will be minimal and short lived, since, as spammers drop off, it will
counter that burden. Only in the very beginning, will there be an increased
burden. In fact, some of the big players in the spam arena are reportedly
looking into other forms or business, in anticipation of SFTFB software.
They might well drop out, before they are forced out, in which case, the
additional burden will be absorbed by their leaving, before the burden
occurs. At any rate, any additional burden will be short lived, since as the
volume of spam goes down, the SFTFB volume will go down, as well.
John Gaver
Action America
(forget everything to contact me direct)
Microsoft: (n) Job security for IT consultants.
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.