Jump to content
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2749 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

I've always said "at LL's end" and frequently explained that it doesn't mean 'on LL's own servers'.and that it includes LL's own servers. I.e. 'at LL's end' means LL's servers and the systems around LL that deal with emails, such as outsourcing bulk emails. That's what I've said all along. I haven't said that the leak was from LL's own server5s, although it might have been.

I have no doubt that we are at a dead end; i.e. where the addresses were acquired from will not come to light. Not in this thread, anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Okay. I hadn't picked up on it because your posts (during my involvement in thread) were mostly just pressing for justification of my position. I was working off of the OP's definitions because continuity. Hopefully this clears up any leftover confusion between us, a couple of days away from this craziness has been good. :P

I wouldn't have engaged anyone using such a wide definition. No point, LL aren't going to dig around randomly - neither would I.

It's also an interesting note for others, who may still consider this to be LL's direct fault/responsibility or are reading things into your posts that aren't really there.

Hope y'all have a good weekend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So we love each again? That makes me very happy :D

You're right. There was a day of craziness after you dropped out. I hope that's over now because it was destroying the thread.

It's all about where the addresses were obtained from. I have my view, which is based solely on what's been written in this thread. Others, like you, want more information before they form a view, and some don't accept that there could be a leak at LL's end because they have confidence in LL's security. Everyone is entitled to their view, but, unless a lot of people inform LL that they got the phishing email on SL-dedicated addresses, then LL won't look into the possibility of a leak somewhere. The email address for that has been posted here a couple of times and, if a lot of people do inform LL, then LL ought to look into it. Either way, I don't think we were ever going to get the solution in the thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Sorry Phil - "at LL's end" means exactly what it says. Next time you mean something different, either say so off the bat or use another phrasing, such as "the systems in and around LL's servers".

Otherwise you'll get into this same sort of thing again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In your previous posts, you asked me not to respond to you again in this thread, but you kept on writing posts to me, and now you've even dug this thread up again to write to me. Anyway...

I would have thought it obvious that a phrase like "at my end" includes thing over which I have an influence, such as my ISP and my equipment,, and I would have thought it obvious that a phrase like "at LL's end" would include things over which LL has an influence too, especially when I included, "that end includes LL, of course, but isn't limited to LL" (see post #78). Everyone else seemed to understand it.

Nevertheless, I'll inform you now that, if I write "at LL's end" in the future, I mean everything that LL has an influence over. If you remember that, you shouldn't be confused again :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit of a litteralist Phil. "At LL's End" - to me - means exactly that. Not the ISP, not the servers around Linden Lab's systems .... Their systems.

I told you not to respond unlesss you had something worthwhile to say. At the time, you did not.

No, I did not "dig this thead up" - some trigger happy nitwit prevented me from responding for a month and never bothered to correct the entire issue: The "conversation" as a whole and everyone involved in it. Rather typical at that.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Solar Legion wrote:

I'm a bit of a litteralist Phil. "At LL's End" - to me - means 
exactly
that. Not the ISP, not the servers 
around
Linden Lab's systems .... 
Their systems.

Oh hey it's this thread again.

But sure, Solar, I'm on this page too - LL only have actual responsibility over web properties, servers and cables that they own. The Internet (as you and Phil both know) is mostly made up of transit cables, that aren't either user or service operator responsibility.

The only exception is the size of LL - if they make an enterprise level request toward another AS along the route (as has happened occasionally, and may have happened during the recent above.net routing issues) - they can have their concerns listened to. This does spread their sphere of influence (as Phil referenced) a little larger than ours, but both spheres are still quite distant, with a relative No Man's Land in the middle.

No significant investigation was done here, but it is erronous to say that there are only two points of infiltration (again, as I imagine you both know) - any cable or system that the data passes through could expose information to third-parties. PRISM and associated projects across the world demonstrate this. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites


Solar Legion wrote:

I'm a bit of a litteralist Phil. "At LL's End" - to me - means 
exactly
that. Not the ISP, not the servers 
around
Linden Lab's systems .... 
Their systems.

I told you not to respond unlesss you had something worthwhile to say. At the time, you did not.

No, I did not "dig this thead up" - some trigger happy nitwit prevented me from responding for a month and never bothered to correct the entire issue: The "conversation" as a whole and everyone involved in it. Rather typical at that.

Ok, you're a literalist. So, if you don't understand things the way other people understand them, it's down to you. Enough said.

And, btw, I rather imagine that the trigger-happy person you referred was, in fact, you. Remember the thread where you completely lost it? I imagine that's what caused your absence, as I haven't seen you post since then until now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In this case, Freya, it is about SL-dedicated email addresses, and LL outsources bulk emailings, so "at LL's end of things", which was actually said, must include that too - imo, of course :) I.e. something concerning LL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

True enough Freya - however that was not what was being said so far as I am concerned.

 

While I now understand Phil's reasoning, it does not change that what was meant and what was said were two very different things.

 

Most notable however is the notion that the outsourced servers are part of "LL's end" - that's tossing a very wide net for such a thing.

 

That isn't even getting into the gross assumption of the initial post to this thread!

Link to post
Share on other sites


Solar Legion wrote:

And no, it's not down to me I am afraid. If a person means something other than what they have said, they need to say such right out of the box.

 

I rarely deal in ambiguities Phil and I despise it when people do so.

It's entirely up to you if you want to be pedantic about the words that people write. If it causes you problems, as it appears to have done this time, it's of your choosing - especially when the other person (me) writes what is actually meant and you still go on insisting that the original wording should have been written differently. It's entirely your choice, but don't expect people to write things in exactly the way you want them to be written, just because you prefer it that way. It's not going to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Solar Legion wrote:

 

Most notable however is the notion that the outsourced servers are part of "LL's end" - that's tossing a very wide net for such a thing.

I disagree. If I outsource a bulk email, and the email addresses are acquired by a spammer because of it, the fault is at my end of things. I am not at fault, of course, but the fault really is at my end. If your email address had been acquired by a spammer through it, I'm quite sure you'd be pointing he finger at me, perhaps even coming up with some reason or other why I shouldn't have used that bulk email facility ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your explanation came quite a bit AFTER our tussle Phil.

 

And yes, I'm going to insist that people who say/type one thing but mean something different actually try to say/type exactly what they mean.

 

It's not a "choice" to view such things in such a literal light: It is how I think. The only "choice" I make? When talking to friends, family and acquaintances, attempting to speak/type a bit more vaguely.

 

I do no such thing in a forum as it is simply not worth the time to do so.

 

It is as I have said to others, on other forums: Unless otherwise noted, I say exactly what I mean to say and I treat others the exact same way. Any miscommunication resulting from my own posts comes from a misinterpretation of what has been written in the mind of the reader - more often than not, ascribing their own thought process to a post that is very straight-forward. I laugh off their assertions that I am the one who has trouble communicating - after all, if a person responded only to what was directly written, without any further assumptions made by them coloring the response, there would be no miscommunication whatsoever.

 

In any event, this line of conversation is rather off topic. I will close by saying this: Perhaps it is time I altered my signature line to warn users that I WILL respond to their posts as they have written them, not as they wish them to be read.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Solar Legion wrote:

On that, we'll have to agree to disagree Phil. A leak coming from an outsourced section of a system is the primary fault of the owner of the outsourced system, the only fault the outsourcer has is in choosing said system.

Of course such a fault is the primary fault of such a system, but it's still at LL's end rather than at the user's end.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Solar Legion wrote:

Your explanation came quite a bit AFTER our tussle Phil.

My explanation came during our difference. You kept on about it after my explanation, as is evidenced by your resurrection of this thread as soon as you were able to post again. The explanation was way back in the thread.

 

And yes, I'm going to insist that people who say/type one thing but mean something different actually try to say/type exactly what they mean.

Then prepare to be confused quite a bit, although, in this case, I typed one thing and actually meant exactly what I typed, even though the words I used could have meant something different.

 

It's not a "choice" to view such things in such a literal light: It is how I think. The only "choice" I make? When talking to friends, family and acquaintances, attempting to speak/type a bit more vaguely.

See above.

 

I do no such thing in a forum as it is simply not worth the time to do so.

That's your choice, of course.

 

It is as I have said to others, on other forums: Unless otherwise noted, I say exactly what I mean to say and I treat others the exact same way.

That isn't really your problem. I said exactly what I meant to say and you understand it to mean something different to what was meant. That's your problem.

Any miscommunication resulting from my own posts comes from a misinterpretation of what has been written in the mind of the reader

Precisely - in this case it was your misinterpretation 
;)

- more often than not, ascribing their own thought process to a post that is very straight-forward. I laugh off their assertions that I am the one who has trouble communicating

I'm not aware of anyone saying that you have trouble communicating but, if that happens to you, it happens. I seem to remember something you wrote in this thread that could have meant two different things. Maybe that's the sort of thing you mean. I replied to both possibilities - and without making an issue of it.

You did have a problem
understanding
my communication though, and you saw fit to make a big issue of it. That's not the best way of using forums, imo.

- after all,
if
a person responded only to what was directly written, without any further assumptions made by them coloring the response, there would be no miscommunication whatsoever.

"If"
:)
It's not always easy to do, as in the example I just mentioned where what you wrote could literally have meant two different things. What I wrote ("
at LL's end
") is another example. It could have meant LL's own systems or it could have meant the systems that LL has dealings with, both of which are at LL's end, as distinct from the user's end, which was being discussed as a possibility. I meant the latter, although "
at LL's end
" does cover both.

 

In any event, this line of conversation is rather off topic. I will close by saying this: Perhaps it is time I altered my signature line to warn users that I WILL respond to their posts as they have written them, not as they wish them to be read.

That's also your choice. However, I suggest that you realise that people don't write things in exactly the way you would like them to be written, and that that will always be true. If you want to make a change, I suggest that you decide not to make side-issues of things like this. By all means, write everything absolutely literally, but realise that things that are written literally can, and often do, have more than one meaning, only one of which was meant by the writer. The main thing is, of course, not to make issues of things like this, but to accept what is meant when it's explained to you, and move on.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, here we're going to have to agree to disagree. The systems at LL's end of things are the systems they themselves own and operate. That is "LL's end". Anything outside of it, including outsourced systems, exists between the user and Linden Lab.

 

To use your own example of an outsourced mail system, the only complaint you would get from me would be in choosing a server handler that may not have had the best record for security. After that, I'd be doing a bit of digging to track down a method of contact for that handler to rake THEM over the coals.

 

And I have done similar things in the past with outsourced IT work.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Solar Legion wrote:

Again, here we're going to have to agree to disagree. The systems at LL's end of things are the systems they themselves own and operate. That is "LL's end". Anything outside of it, including outsourced systems, exists between the user and Linden Lab.

Wrong!

From the moment I give LL my email-address, taking care that that info doesn't leak is LL's responsibility. If LL choses to outsource certain things and handover my information to others, then whatever happens is *still* within LL's responsibility. I didn't enter into a contract with that other company, I don't even know that other company.

So whatever information I give LL, it is solely their responsibility to safeguard it. They cannot deny responsibility because they outsource certain things. If LL choses an untrustworthy company to outsource things, then I'll blame LL for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Nicolette Lefevre wrote:

 

So whatever information I give LL, it is solely their responsibility to safeguard it
. They cannot deny responsibility because they outsource certain things. If LL choses an untrustworthy company to outsource things, then I'll blame LL for that.

 

Of course it is. That is how business works, or at least how it works in real life and your situation is strictly real life. If you are dealing with LL and only LL, then LL has full responsibility to you, regardless of where or how they subcontracted anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Dillon Levenque wrote:


Nicolette Lefevre wrote:

 

So whatever information I give LL, it is solely their responsibility to safeguard it
. They cannot deny responsibility because they outsource certain things. If LL choses an untrustworthy company to outsource things, then I'll blame LL for that.

 

Of course it is. That is how business works, or at least how it works in real life and your situation is strictly real life. If you are dealing with LL and only LL, then LL has full responsibility to you, regardless of where or how they subcontracted anything.

Yep, just ask Kathleen Sebelius how "responsibility" works.

;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Nicolette - you're wrong and I won't be discussing this with you at all.

 

You gave Linden Lab your e-mail address and it is up to them to secure it on THEIR server systems. Their responsibility ENDS there.

 

From there, it is the responsibility of whoever owns the systems that address passes through to secure THEIR systems.

 

Sorry, that's the way it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, no one has any control whatsoever over systems they do not directly own or maintain. That is reality, expecting otherwise will lead you to be disappointed again and again.

Feel free to believe otherwise.

Now here is a fun one for you: Linden Lab uses Amazon's SES system for their E-mails now. Who do you blame? Linden Lab or Amazon?

I am doing nothing other than being ralistic with thisL I could not really care any less how things are done by those with unrealistic expecatations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2749 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...