Australia's Largest ISP Redefines Spam 304
cpudney writes "According to this article in NEWS.com.au, Telstra BigPond, Australia's largest ISP will monitor its customers' e-mails and suspend the accounts of users suspected of sending spam, viruses or denial-of-service attacks. Under changes to its Acceptable Use Policy, BigPond will investigate cable and ADSL Internet customers sending more than 20 e-mails in a 10-minute period, and BigPond management "may suspend the (user's) account while the customer is contacted" if they are suspected of sending spam. Previously, BigPond's definition of spam was held to be 400 messages sent over a 15-minute period and now it's changed to 20 e-mails over 10 minutes. Internet Society of Australia president Tony Hill said BigPond's new definition of spam was very restrictive and he was concerned the limit had been set too low for legitimate e-mail users."
Slashdot style (Score:5, Funny)
Now Telstra's customers are just missing the lameness filter and the moderation. The occasional dupe happens in email allready.
Hm. There's a chance a lot of my work on Healthcare Informatics would be modded -1 Redundant and never reach my professor.
I would have commented on this story sooner... (Score:5, Funny)
...if not for Slashdot's 2-minute delay policy.
Stability of their email (Score:3, Funny)
Picture this: Telstra Bigpond email systems die again (just give it another week) and you cannot send out your email. You have 20 messages in your outbox waiting to be sent. Finally their systems come back on-line (for now) and you send all the emails only to get flagged as a spammer and denied to email again.
You end up back where you started.
To say nothing of (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Honest question (Score:2, Funny)
"Virii" DOES NOT EXIST. BZZZT. defcon4 (Score:5, Funny)
Sections in this document:
English Inflections First off, the OED [oed.com] gives nothing but viruses for the plural. Here's its abbreviated entry:
Other sources that support viruses include Birchfield (n Fowler :-) in Modern English Usage [train4publishing.co.uk] (3rd
Edition), and also the Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language [train4publishing.co.uk].
Classical Inflections
While one would hope that the authoritative sources cited above would
suffice, some writers prefer to maintain the classical inflections on
some English words, particularly in technical writing. For example,
conflicting indexes/indices and minimums/minima are both
easily found, depending on the intended audience and use. In that case, what's
the classical plural of virus?
The simple answer is that there wasn't one. The longer answer follows.
Writers who, searching for a fancy plural to virus, incorrectly write *viri are doubtless blindly applying an overreaching -us => -i rule. This mis-inflects many words. For example, status and hiatus only change the length of the final vowel; genus goes to genera; corpus goes to corpora. Others are even worse if this rule is mis-applied, like syllabus, caucus, octopus, mandamus, and rebus.
Anyway, Latin already had a word viri, but it was the nominative plural not of virus (slime, poison, or venom), but of vir (man), which as it turns out is also a 2nd declension noun. I do not believe that writers of English who write viri are intentionally speaking of men. And although there actually is a viri form for virus, it's the genitive singular[1] [slashdot.org], not the nominative plural. And we certainly don't grab for genitive singulars for the plurals when we've started out with a nominative. Such hanky panky would certainly get you talked about, and probably your hand slapped as well.
This apparently invariant use of virus as a genitive singular may als
Re:"Virii" DOES NOT EXIST. BZZZT. defcon4 (Score:5, Funny)
I've seen grammar nazis before but this is the most incredible thing I've personally ever witnessed.
Re:Oh telstra you dorks (Score:4, Funny)
Cheers,
M
Re:"Virii" DOES NOT EXIST. BZZZT. defcon4 (Score:4, Funny)
j00 h@\/e \/1ru5e5 f001!!!!!!111111233
not
j00 h@\/e \/1r111111 f001!!!!!!!!!11112
?
Re:Sounds familiar -- and not even bad (Score:1, Funny)
That won't work.
What happens when one ISP sends legit email to another ISP? It's very likely to have a sustained rate of 1 email per second. If you throttle the connection, email will take several days/weeks to arrrive.
Oh wait, maybe some idiot at Telstra actually implemented this idea!
They redefined spam? (Score:2, Funny)