|
As long as they can keep getting paid, they'll keep doing it. It's like the war on drugs - it's like stopping the tide. Maybe there should be a law against buying things from spammers. And a law against knowingly providing credit card, banking, or Internet (web hosting, email) services to spammers. Especially the last of these. |
Rich Grise wrote:
The main problem is the morons that comprise the 4 percent that actually buy crap from the spammers. FOUR PERCENT! That's a phenomenal return, even for a pre-qualified mailing list. As long as they can keep getting paid, they'll keep doing it. It's like the war on drugs - it's like stopping the tide. Sigh. Rich We should just declare all spammers as terrorist and turn the world's military loose on them. They obviously use "Weapons of Massive Disruption"! -- Beware of those who post from srvinet.com! Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
"Rich Grise" wrote in message ... On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 05:53:50 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark "Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message The bandwidth problem here is getting worse. If you don't go broadband you might as well give up accessing the net until midnight. Also, newer web design software is so bloated some servers crawl to the point they don't have the capacity or bandwidth to do their job. Must've been sht Spam Queen. Bitch. http://spam.surferbeware.com/spam-spam-queen.htm The main problem is the morons that comprise the 4 percent that actually buy crap from the spammers. FOUR PERCENT! That's a phenomenal return, even for a pre-qualified mailing list. As long as they can keep getting paid, they'll keep doing it. It's like the war on drugs - it's like stopping the tide. Sigh. Rich Make everyone take the Boulder Pledge. |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:39:33 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark
Make everyone take the Boulder Pledge. WTF "Boulder Pledge?" Tks, R |
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:52:20 -0500, the renowned "mc"
wrote: "Tim Shoppa" wrote in message roups.com... So I use the search on DigiKey, check the price, then search by the exact part number on Mouser to see if the price is much lower. I'd feel guilty doing that, but I cannot fault you for being thrifty :-) Why feel guilty for getting competitive bids? It's standard practice. Bugs me that they don't let you sort by price when you do a search. Obviously an intentional omission. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:40:42 -0500, mc wrote:
As long as they can keep getting paid, they'll keep doing it. It's like the war on drugs - it's like stopping the tide. Maybe there should be a law against buying things from spammers. And a law against knowingly providing credit card, banking, or Internet (web hosting, email) services to spammers. Especially the last of these. There already are, if not laws, at least terms of service that prohibit sending spam - in the US. They don't have any effect on the spammers in, say, Elbonia, however. This is why I'm in favor of some kind of central "spammer-list", where people can download the week's list of what IPs should be just dropped at the firewall. I have a "Blacklist" now that's 8585 entries long. Would you like me to post it? I don't actually need it, though, since I don't go online with Windoze any more, and I don't answer spam. It's kinda weird, though, to get empty popups. ;-) (the sponsoring page can have a little popup script, that opens a second window, and tries to show a page from a blacklisted spammer.) Thanks, Rich |
In (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), Rich Grise wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:39:33 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Make everyone take the Boulder Pledge. WTF "Boulder Pledge?" Google can be _your_ friend, too. "Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to me as the result of an unsolicited e-mail message. Nor will I forward chain letters, petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings to large numbers of others. This is my contribution to the survival of the online community." http://www.panix.com/~tbetz/boulder.shtml -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO Tired old sysadmin |
"mc" wrote in message ... As long as they can keep getting paid, they'll keep doing it. It's like the war on drugs - it's like stopping the tide. Maybe there should be a law against buying things from spammers. Well, WTF? There's already a law against spamming, and it doesn't do any good. Why would _you_ think your law would do any better???? And a law against knowingly providing credit card, banking, or Internet (web hosting, email) services to spammers. Especially the last of these. Well, every ISP or ASP has a clause against spamming in their policy. But the problem is they ignore it, and sign 'pink' contracts with spammers. The worst offender by far is UUNet - part of MCI (was Worldcom) See www.spamhaus.org. One big problem is that no one wants to bite the hand that feeds them. The UUNet system supplies connectivity to so many ISPs - it's everywhere - that disabling it would put a serious dent in the connectivity in the U.S. Like, 800 pound gorillas tend to get their way, don'tcha know. :-O Speaking of connectivity. Yesterday I was walking down the street and noticed the manhole covers had the XO ground off, and replaced by Level 3. The FO companies spent zillions of dollars putting all that FO in the ground, and they couldn't get enough of it leased to pay the loans. So the only alternatives were either bankruptcy or merger. Perhaps this is why the ISPs are too lenient on letting the spammers keep on spamming. Money talks, and big money talks loudly. :-/ Wow. I just watched Sunday Morning (CBS). They had a piece on the guy who invented the intermittent windshield wipers. Turned out he eventually won $20 million from Chyrsler and $10 million from Ford for stealing his idea, but ended up paying most of it to the lawyers. For those who don't know, it's a SCR and a few other electronic parts that trigger the W-W intermittently. One thing is certain: the world would be _much_ better off if the LEAs would enforce the existing laws. That sentence implies that they are not being enforced at all. Well, we get an occasional sensational headline that says, "Spammer Convicted" (http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,118493,00.asp). But they say there are only a couple hundred spammers that are reponsible for most of the spam; if the FTC would simply crack down on a few score, or even a few dozen, it would put a serious dent in the spam traffic. I'm not holding my breath, tho. Someone should start a donation fund to pay for law enforcement personnel to track down, arrest and prosecute spammers. I heard that Microsoft and some other agency have a reward out for spammers. If people would just put up the money, the spammers could be decimated. |
"Rich Grise" wrote in message ... On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:40:42 -0500, mc wrote: As long as they can keep getting paid, they'll keep doing it. It's like the war on drugs - it's like stopping the tide. Maybe there should be a law against buying things from spammers. And a law against knowingly providing credit card, banking, or Internet (web hosting, email) services to spammers. Especially the last of these. There already are, if not laws, at least terms of service that prohibit sending spam - in the US. They don't have any effect on the spammers in, say, Elbonia, however. The spammers are here, in the U.S. The laws don't have much of an effect on them, either. This is why I'm in favor of some kind of central "spammer-list", That's already being done. It's called the SBL. www.spamhaus.org There are many others, too. Been that way for many years. where people can download the week's list of what IPs should be just dropped at the firewall. I have a "Blacklist" now that's 8585 entries long. Would you like me to post it? No, your list isn't a current list; you have to delete the non-functioning records from the list, too. [snip] Thanks, Rich |
"Mike Andrews" wrote in message ... In (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), Rich Grise wrote: On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:39:33 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Make everyone take the Boulder Pledge. WTF "Boulder Pledge?" Google can be _your_ friend, too. "Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to me as the result of an unsolicited e-mail message. Nor will I forward chain letters, petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings to large numbers of others. This is my contribution to the survival of the online community." http://www.panix.com/~tbetz/boulder.shtml -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO Tired old sysadmin Thank you. And thank you, Roger Ebert. ;-) (Watch him and Roeper tonight, Sunday, on ABC.) |
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:42:35 -0800, "Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the
Dark Remover\"" wrote: [snip] The spammers are here, in the U.S. The laws don't have much of an effect on them, either. [snip] No, your list isn't a current list; you have to delete the non-functioning records from the list, too. [snip] [snip] I average 6 spam E-mails per month, all of which are caught by my filtering and go straight to Trash. All of them go to a specific publicly-known E-mail address which I'm about to replace with a form on my website. Then I should be receiving zero. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food. |
"Jim Thompson" wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:42:35 -0800, "Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\"" wrote: [snip] The spammers are here, in the U.S. The laws don't have much of an effect on them, either. [snip] No, your list isn't a current list; you have to delete the non-functioning records from the list, too. [snip] [snip] I average 6 spam E-mails per month, all of which are caught by my filtering and go straight to Trash. All of them go to a specific publicly-known E-mail address which I'm about to replace with a form on my website. Then I should be receiving zero. ...Jim Thompson -- C'mon, Jim. We all know that your son is doing that for you. ;-) When you say form, what does that say? A specific error message that refers to another email address? On occasion I still troll the web for instances of my old email addresses. I still find them from prehistoric times, back when I had freebie educational email addresses. They just won't go away, and the spammers still scrape them off the net, trying to sell millions of them to other spammers. I was getting spam on my unix shell acct for a decade, even tho the address hadn't been used for almost that long. |
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:14:42 +0000, Mike Andrews wrote:
In (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), Rich Grise wrote: On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:39:33 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Make everyone take the Boulder Pledge. WTF "Boulder Pledge?" Google can be _your_ friend, too. "Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to me as the result of an unsolicited e-mail message. Nor will I forward chain letters, petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings to large numbers of others. This is my contribution to the survival of the online community." http://www.panix.com/~tbetz/boulder.shtml Chuckle! "And a remarkable amount of bandwidth is devoted to undergraduates telling each other they suck..." - Ebert Thanks! Rich |
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:14:42 +0000, Mike Andrews wrote:
In (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), Rich Grise wrote: On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:39:33 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Make everyone take the Boulder Pledge. WTF "Boulder Pledge?" Google can be _your_ friend, too. "Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to me as the result of an unsolicited e-mail message. Nor will I forward chain letters, petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings to large numbers of others. This is my contribution to the survival of the online community." http://www.panix.com/~tbetz/boulder.shtml Hmmm. Did you also read about the "CAN-SPAM" law? (Link at the bottom of the BP page). http://www.angelfire.com/blues2/blowschunks/index.html It seems Congress has not only de facto legalized spam, they're even overriding states' rights by pre-empting state anti-spam laws! There's a list of emails of congresscritters that voted for the law, and they[0] recommend forwarding all of your spam to them[1]. Thanks! Rich [0] the writers of the page [1] Congress. |
"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" wrote
in message ... Money talks, and big money talks loudly. :-/ When money talks, it swears. Someone should start a donation fund to pay for law enforcement personnel to track down, arrest and prosecute spammers. I heard that Microsoft and some other agency have a reward out for spammers. That's rich, seeing as their bug ridden software provides lots of holes for malware to exploit. It's like them selling you an animal, but without a decent immune system. Then you have to buy endless antiviral medication to keep it healthy. If people would just put up the money, the spammers could be decimated. We've already paid them to do the job of enforcing the law. We should threaten to sue them for not doing their job, not paying extra to do it. |
One thing is certain: the world would be _much_ better off if the LEAs
would enforce the existing laws. I agree wholeheartedly. Most spam violates pre-existing fraud laws, not just CAN-SPAM. |
"Rich Grise" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:14:42 +0000, Mike Andrews wrote: In (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), Rich Grise wrote: On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:39:33 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Make everyone take the Boulder Pledge. WTF "Boulder Pledge?" Google can be _your_ friend, too. "Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to me as the result of an unsolicited e-mail message. Nor will I forward chain letters, petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings to large numbers of others. This is my contribution to the survival of the online community." http://www.panix.com/~tbetz/boulder.shtml Hmmm. Did you also read about the "CAN-SPAM" law? (Link at the bottom of the BP page). http://www.angelfire.com/blues2/blowschunks/index.html It seems Congress has not only de facto legalized spam, they're even overriding states' rights by pre-empting state anti-spam laws! I can see you're another sheeple that hasn't learned to think for himself. Think about it: How can you 'legalize' something that had no prior restrictions? Does what you said make any sense? I agree that it was unwise to override some state laws, especially since Calif had just toughened the spam laws. But don't try to tell us that the law legalizes spam. The law puts restriction on spamming where there were none before (nationally). [snip] |
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:57:58 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark
"Kryten" wrote in message We should threaten to sue them for not doing their job, not paying extra to do it. I don't know where you're at, but (the U.S.) congress had the foresight to include a clause in the act that requires the Federal Trade Commission to report back to congress in 18 months or so with how well the law is working. If it finds that the law isn't effective, then it can change the law, hopefully the worse for spammers. Perhaps when the FTC reports it will tell congress that there is insufficient funding to do the job. Then congress can put up some money and hope it helps. But someday all the i's will get dotted and t's crossed and the spammers will not have any way to hide. That may take IPV6, which seems like it should have been implemented long ago, but still hasn't. Don't hold your breath. This law? http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877.html Or maybe this one? http://www.angelfire.com/blues2/blowschunks/index.html Thanks, Rich |
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:57:58 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark
I don't know where you're at, but (the U.S.) congress had the foresight to include a clause in the act that requires the Federal Trade Commission to report back to congress in 18 months or so with how well the law is working. If it finds that the law isn't effective, then it can change the law, hopefully the worse for spammers. Perhaps when the FTC reports it will tell congress that there is insufficient funding to do the job. Then congress can put up some money and hope it helps. But someday all the i's will get dotted and t's crossed and the spammers will not have any way to hide. That may take IPV6, which seems like it should have been implemented long ago, but still hasn't. Don't hold your breath. I've tracked down a summary of the alleged "anti-spam" law: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquer...108&sel=TOC_0& ---excerpt--- Calendar No. 209 108TH CONGRESS Report SENATE 1st Session 108-102 --CAN-SPAM ACT OF 2003 JULY 16, 2003- Ordered to be printed Mr. MCCAIN, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, submitted the following R E P O R T [To accompany S. 877] The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to which was referred the bill (S. 877) to regulate interstate commerce by imposing limitations and penalties on the transmission of unsolicited commercial electronic mail via the Internet, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass. PURPOSE OF THE BILL The purposes of this legislation are to: (i) prohibit senders of electronic mail (e-mail) for primarily commercial advertisement or promotional purposes from deceiving intended recipients or Internet service providers as to the source or subject matter of their e-mail messages; (ii) require such e-mail senders to give recipients an opportunity to decline to receive future commercial e-mail from them and to honor such requests; (iii) require senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE) to also include a valid physical address in the e-mail message and a clear notice that the message is an advertisement or solicitation; and (iv) prohibit businesses from knowingly promoting, or permitting the promotion of, their trade or business through e-mail transmitted with false or misleading sender or routing information. ---end of excerpt--- Let's analyze this. (i) prohibit senders of electronic mail (e-mail) for primarily commercial advertisement or promotional purposes from deceiving intended recipients or Internet service providers as to the source or subject matter of their e-mail messages In other words, if you don't overtly lie about your product, you're OK, you can legally send all of the spam that you want to. (ii) require such e-mail senders to give recipients an opportunity to decline to receive future commercial e-mail from them and to honor such requests; Yeah, the ever-popular opt-out clause. This does a lot of good, at the bottom of megabytes of popups. (iii) require senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE) to also include a valid physical address in the e-mail message and a clear notice that the message is an advertisement or solicitation; Valid Physical Address. There's a vacant lot just down the street from me. Include a clear notice? How about not send it at all, huh? and (iv) prohibit businesses from knowingly promoting, or permitting the promotion of, their trade or business through e-mail transmitted with false or misleading sender or routing information. So, you can't use your anonymizer. Big deal. It still gets sent! So I tend to agree with this guy: http://www.angelfire.com/blues2/blowschunks/index.html I believe I might start spamming with The Boulder Pledge. Ah Seen Tha Light! Thanks, Rich |
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:41:25 -0500, mc wrote:
One thing is certain: the world would be _much_ better off if the LEAs would enforce the existing laws. I agree wholeheartedly. Most spam violates pre-existing fraud laws, not just CAN-SPAM. No, the problem is that it doesn't violate any fraud laws. They're not defrauding anybody. The problem is that they're loading up everybody's mailbox in the world with worthless spam email, the equivalent of ordinary junk snail mail. But with junk snail mail, at least you could use it for kindling. It doesn't matter that the content isn't deceptive - it's there, and it's jamming the internet. The only thing you could do is prohibit ISPs from allowing any spam to be sent through them, but as has been noted else-thread, they know which side their bread is margarined on. Of course, a solution occurs to me, which would, of course, be even worse, and that would be to charge for bytes times # of recipients. If you send an email with more than five recipients, it costs you a dime apiece for each additional recipient. And you're not allowed to send any more than one email per, say, ten seconds. But that will never be implemented. It makes entirely too much sense. Thanks, Rich |
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:44:55 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark
Remover" wrote: "Rich Grise" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:14:42 +0000, Mike Andrews wrote: In (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), Rich Grise wrote: On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:39:33 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Make everyone take the Boulder Pledge. WTF "Boulder Pledge?" Google can be _your_ friend, too. "Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to me as the result of an unsolicited e-mail message. Nor will I forward chain letters, petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings to large numbers of others. This is my contribution to the survival of the online community." http://www.panix.com/~tbetz/boulder.shtml Hmmm. Did you also read about the "CAN-SPAM" law? (Link at the bottom of the BP page). http://www.angelfire.com/blues2/blowschunks/index.html It seems Congress has not only de facto legalized spam, they're even overriding states' rights by pre-empting state anti-spam laws! I can see you're another sheeple that hasn't learned to think for himself. Think about it: How can you 'legalize' something that had no prior restrictions? Does what you said make any sense? I agree that it was unwise to override some state laws, especially since Calif had just toughened the spam laws. But don't try to tell us that the law legalizes spam. The law puts restriction on spamming where there were none before (nationally). See my other post else-thread about my opinion of these alleged "restrictions." They only make it illegal to defraud, not to send out a hundred million totally honest advertising spams. They don't care that there are "restrictions" on "content" - it's still there clogging my inbox! In a way, it's equivalent to commercials on free TV (and even cable, these days). I pay for the use of the phone co's and the ISP's equipment and bandwidth, and spam is just something I'm going to have to deal with as it presents itself. Hence, the blacklist. And, who cares if it's up to date? Some IP numbers are blocked. Big deal. If you want to take over the IP number of a known spammer who's been sent out of business, you should be required to submit an approval form. Otherwise, those IP numbers are blacklisted forever. ****em. And, just because I'm a rebel, here's mine: http://www.neodruid.net/LATEST_BLACKLIST Thanks, Rich (yes, I own the domains neodruid.com, neodruid.net, and neodruid.org, although neodruid.org is on the computer that I boot to Doze at least once a day to do video games and porno, so won't always be available.) |
"Rich Grise" wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:44:55 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote: "Rich Grise" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:14:42 +0000, Mike Andrews wrote: In (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), Rich Grise wrote: On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:39:33 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Make everyone take the Boulder Pledge. WTF "Boulder Pledge?" Google can be _your_ friend, too. "Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to me as the result of an unsolicited e-mail message. Nor will I forward chain letters, petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings to large numbers of others. This is my contribution to the survival of the online community." http://www.panix.com/~tbetz/boulder.shtml Hmmm. Did you also read about the "CAN-SPAM" law? (Link at the bottom of the BP page). http://www.angelfire.com/blues2/blowschunks/index.html It seems Congress has not only de facto legalized spam, they're even overriding states' rights by pre-empting state anti-spam laws! I can see you're another sheeple that hasn't learned to think for himself. Think about it: How can you 'legalize' something that had no prior restrictions? Does what you said make any sense? I agree that it was unwise to override some state laws, especially since Calif had just toughened the spam laws. But don't try to tell us that the law legalizes spam. The law puts restriction on spamming where there were none before (nationally). See my other post else-thread about my opinion of these alleged "restrictions." They only make it illegal to defraud, not to send out a hundred million totally honest advertising spams. "They" in this case meaning the gov't. That's all that's possible to restrict. If the restrictions were on honest spams, then the law would be declared unconstitutional because it restricts free speech. They don't care that there are "restrictions" on "content" - it's still there clogging my inbox! "They" in this case meaning spammers. In a way, it's equivalent to commercials on free TV (and even cable, these No, it's not! Commercials in the media pay their fair share to the media. Spammers, w/o permission, abuse services from the ISPs and our inboxes without paying their fair share. Spammers are thieves. [snip] Thanks, Rich |
"Rich Grise" wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:57:58 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark "Kryten" wrote in message We should threaten to sue them for not doing their job, not paying extra to do it. I don't know where you're at, but (the U.S.) congress had the foresight to include a clause in the act that requires the Federal Trade Commission to report back to congress in 18 months or so with how well the law is working. If it finds that the law isn't effective, then it can change the law, hopefully the worse for spammers. Perhaps when the FTC reports it will tell congress that there is insufficient funding to do the job. Then congress can put up some money and hope it helps. But someday all the i's will get dotted and t's crossed and the spammers will not have any way to hide. That may take IPV6, which seems like it should have been implemented long ago, but still hasn't. Don't hold your breath. This law? http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877.html Or maybe this one? http://www.angelfire.com/blues2/blowschunks/index.html You can't legalize something that had no prior restrictions because it was _already_ legal. Thanks, Rich |
"Rich Grise" wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:41:25 -0500, mc wrote: One thing is certain: the world would be _much_ better off if the LEAs would enforce the existing laws. I agree wholeheartedly. Most spam violates pre-existing fraud laws, not just CAN-SPAM. No, the problem is that it doesn't violate any fraud laws. They're not The spam is fraudulent when it uses spoofing to hide its origin. Virtually all spam does so. defrauding anybody. The problem is that they're loading up everybody's mailbox in the world with worthless spam email, the equivalent of ordinary junk snail mail. But with junk snail mail, at least you could No, it's not equivalent. Junk mail is paid for by the advertiser. Spammers pay nothing! They're thieves. use it for kindling. It doesn't matter that the content isn't deceptive - it's there, and it's jamming the internet. The only thing you could do is prohibit ISPs from allowing any spam to be sent through them, but as has been noted else-thread, they know which side their bread is margarined on. Of course, a solution occurs to me, which would, of course, be even worse, and that would be to charge for bytes times # of recipients. If you send an email with more than five recipients, it costs you a dime apiece for each additional recipient. And you're not allowed to send any more than one email per, say, ten seconds. But that will never be implemented. It makes entirely too much sense. It already has been implemented by some ISPs. It's called teergrubing. That's the German word for tarpit. Thanks, Rich |
I read in sci.electronics.design that Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the
Dark Remover" wrote (in pernews.com) about 'SPAMMERS (was Digikey doth truly rule', on Mon, 28 Feb 2005: You can't legalize something that had no prior restrictions because it was _already_ legal. It depends on how you define 'legalize'. If no law applies to some activity, it could be taken as 'outside the scope of law', so when a law is applied to it, it becomes within the scope of law, and the verb 'legalize' could well be applied to that action of 'bringing within the scope of law'. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. The good news is that nothing is compulsory. The bad news is that everything is prohibited. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
I read in sci.electronics.design that Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the
Dark Remover" wrote (in pernews.com) about 'SPAMMERS (was Digikey doth truly rule', on Mon, 28 Feb 2005: It already has been implemented by some ISPs. It's called teergrubing. That's the German word for tarpit. Does that make the spammers guilty of moral tarpitude? -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. The good news is that nothing is compulsory. The bad news is that everything is prohibited. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" wrote in message ... But someday all the i's will get dotted and t's crossed and the spammers will not have any way to hide. That may take IPV6, which seems like it should have been implemented long ago, but still hasn't. Don't hold your breath. Yes. And people will whine about the loss of their precious "electronic frontier" as the Internet ceases to be a fantasyland above and beyond the law. The Internet was designed for use within research establishments where people were all, at some level, accountable and trustworthy. It has become a playground for con artists and pests. It may take another half century. I'm reminded of the chaos that afflicted radio before WWI. People just chose their own frequencies and hoped nobody would interfere with them, knowingly or unknowingly. (And thus I bring the subject matter back to that of the newsgroups we're in! :) |
In article ,
Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\" wrote: You can't legalize something that had no prior restrictions because it was _already_ legal. There are those who feel that the CAN SPAM law both legitimizes and legalizes spam, in two ways: - It sets specific Federal boundaries on what sorts of spam are illegal (and thus by implication states that spams which don't cross those boundaries are legitimate), and - It preempts most State laws which had stronger restrictions on spamming, and therefore makes legal certain spams which were previously forbidden by State law. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
a solution...charge for bytes times # of recipients.
If you send an email with more than five recipients, it costs you a dime apiece for each additional recipient. Rich Grise You'd need a waiver for piclist. |
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:56:57 +0000, Dave Platt wrote:
In article , Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\" wrote: You can't legalize something that had no prior restrictions because it was _already_ legal. There are those who feel that the CAN SPAM law both legitimizes and legalizes spam, in two ways: - It sets specific Federal boundaries on what sorts of spam are illegal (and thus by implication states that spams which don't cross those boundaries are legitimate), and - It preempts most State laws which had stronger restrictions on spamming, and therefore makes legal certain spams which were previously forbidden by State law. And this is the part that really ****es me off, because it is in direct violation of Article 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Thanks, Rich |
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:22:48 -0800, JeffM wrote:
a solution...charge for bytes times # of recipients. If you send an email with more than five recipients, it costs you a dime apiece for each additional recipient. Rich Grise You'd need a waiver for piclist. Fine. Put in a mechanism where mailing lists can get a waiver, and if an individual sends a spam to the list, you cut him off. And, of course, configure the majordomo to drop it. Thanks, Rich |
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:34:47 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote:
"Rich Grise" wrote in message .... In a way, it's equivalent to commercials on free TV (and even cable, these No, it's not! Commercials in the media pay their fair share to the media. Spammers, w/o permission, abuse services from the ISPs and our inboxes without paying their fair share. Spammers are thieves. Ok, good point. So, do _you_ want to volunteer to track them down and arrest them so that we can lynch them? In the interim, here's a blacklist: http://www.neodruid.net/LATEST_BLACKLIST Just add them to your firewall's "DROP" list. Cheers! Rich |
"Rich Grise" wrote in message ... On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:34:47 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote: "Rich Grise" wrote in message ... In a way, it's equivalent to commercials on free TV (and even cable, these No, it's not! Commercials in the media pay their fair share to the media. Spammers, w/o permission, abuse services from the ISPs and our inboxes without paying their fair share. Spammers are thieves. Ok, good point. So, do _you_ want to volunteer to track them down and arrest them so that we can lynch them? I did my volunteering back in the mid- to late-'90s. I'm long past the point of being burned out. I used to keep a blacklist of recipes for the procmail filter that I ran on my unix shell acct. I used to get the original King of Spam, Spamford Wallace's Cyberpromo spams. He's recently been in the news for infecting PCs with a spyware in order to sell them a spyware removal program. Dirty, stinking, filthy, ex-spammer rat! BTW, there are spam filters that will run under Procmail or Perl scripts. Check them out, especially if they're Bayesian filters. In the interim, here's a blacklist: http://www.neodruid.net/LATEST_BLACKLIST Just add them to your firewall's "DROP" list. Cheers! Rich |
"John Woodgate" wrote in message ... I read in sci.electronics.design that Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote (in pernews.com) about 'SPAMMERS (was Digikey doth truly rule', on Mon, 28 Feb 2005: It already has been implemented by some ISPs. It's called teergrubing. That's the German word for tarpit. Does that make the spammers guilty of moral tarpitude? Dunno, but I'm not shedding a teer for the grubby little *******s! -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. The good news is that nothing is compulsory. The bad news is that everything is prohibited. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
"mc" wrote in message ... "Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" wrote in message ... But someday all the i's will get dotted and t's crossed and the spammers will not have any way to hide. That may take IPV6, which seems like it should have been implemented long ago, but still hasn't. Don't hold your breath. Yes. And people will whine about the loss of their precious "electronic frontier" as the Internet ceases to be a fantasyland above and beyond the law. Only in their minds. The Internet was designed for use within research establishments where people were all, at some level, accountable and trustworthy. It has become a playground for con artists and pests. All, at some level, accountable and trustworthy? Not really. The first spam was in 1978, so there were problems from the beginning. Basically what you have is the virtual world has become a microcosm of the real world. Nothing more, nothing less. It may take another half century. I'm reminded of the chaos that afflicted radio before WWI. People just chose their own frequencies and hoped nobody would interfere with them, knowingly or unknowingly. Well, they say that 5 years in the virtual world is an eternity... (And thus I bring the subject matter back to that of the newsgroups we're in! :) |
"Dave Platt" wrote in message ... In article , Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\" wrote: You can't legalize something that had no prior restrictions because it was _already_ legal. There are those who feel that the CAN SPAM law both legitimizes and legalizes spam, in two ways: - It sets specific Federal boundaries on what sorts of spam are illegal (and thus by implication states that spams which don't cross those boundaries are legitimate), and In order to be constitutional the law has to meet certain criteria. One is that it has to put limits on commercial speech without being burdensome. The law has to be explicit enough to keep itr from being defeated on appeal. - It preempts most State laws which had stronger restrictions on spamming, and therefore makes legal certain spams which were previously forbidden by State law. For five years, Calif had laws that were on the books but were unenforced. They were challengd as unconstitutional. They and 35 other state laws weren't consistent, making it a mess for the courts and lawyers in every state. We had 36 different tools but they were largely unused. Now there is a consistent set of national laws with much better chance of being enforced. Someone has to light a fire under the feds to get them to step up the enforcement. All this bitching, whining and nmoaning about what used to be and how bad it is now is a huge waste of time. Get over it and proceed on with the tools given to us, and hammer the spammers. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
The Internet was designed for use within research establishments where
people were all, at some level, accountable and trustworthy. It has become a playground for con artists and pests. All, at some level, accountable and trustworthy? Not really. The first spam was in 1978, so there were problems from the beginning. There was very little until the 1990s, and if the first spam was in 1978, then we had about 7 years of good networking before there was any. |
In (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), "Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\"" wrote:
For five years, Calif had laws that were on the books but were unenforced. They were challengd as unconstitutional. They and 35 other state laws weren't consistent, making it a mess for the courts and lawyers in every state. We had 36 different tools but they were largely unused. Now there is a consistent set of national laws with much better chance of being enforced. Someone has to light a fire under the feds to get them to step up the enforcement. All this bitching, whining and nmoaning about what used to be and how bad it is now is a huge waste of time. Get over it and proceed on with the tools given to us, and hammer the spammers. Horse exhaust. You-Can-Spam, under the guise of improving the situation by applying one uniform law everywhere, forced everything into one badly-fitting, Procrustean bed, overriding and effectively nullifying existing state laws, some of which (Washington, California) were *very* much better written and more effective. Yes, those laws got challenged as unconstitutional. A challenge by itself means nothing; it's the *OUTCOME* of the challenge that means something, and the Washington and California laws survived all the challenges against them. It's because they survived those challenges, thereby putting fear into the cryostats[1] of the folks who run the advertising industry and of the Senators from Coca-Cola, Time-Warner, and the other big owners of federal legislators, that You-Can-Spam came to be. Private right of action used to exist because of state laws, but that right now has been removed by You-Can-Spam, and only providers and Attorneys General have standing to sue. You-Can-Spam is tailor-made for the advertising industry, which comes as no surprise to me, because the folks who really wrote it certainly appear to have been advertising industry lobbyists. If you don't like all the bitching, whining, and moaning about what used to be, then you have the right to move somewhere that prohibits it. Choose carefully: places that prohibit it may not let you move out again. Me, I'll stay here and bitch, whine, moan, and lean hard on my congresscritters. [1] We can be quite certain that they don't have hearts. A heart is not capable of pumping liquid Helium. Followups to news.admin.net-abuse.email, where this subthread belongs. -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO Tired old sysadmin |
"Mike Andrews" wrote in message ... In (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), "Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\"" wrote: For five years, Calif had laws that were on the books but were unenforced. They were challengd as unconstitutional. They and 35 other state laws weren't consistent, making it a mess for the courts and lawyers in every state. We had 36 different tools but they were largely unused. Now there is a consistent set of national laws with much better chance of being enforced. Someone has to light a fire under the feds to get them to step up the enforcement. All this bitching, whining and nmoaning about what used to be and how bad it is now is a huge waste of time. Get over it and proceed on with the tools given to us, and hammer the spammers. Horse exhaust. You-Can-Spam, under the guise of improving the situation by applying one uniform law everywhere, forced everything into one badly-fitting, Procrustean bed, overriding and effectively nullifying existing state laws, some of which (Washington, California) were *very* much better written and more effective. Yes, those laws got challenged as unconstitutional. A challenge by itself means nothing; it's the *OUTCOME* of the challenge that means something, and the Washington and California laws survived all the challenges against them. It's because they survived those challenges, thereby putting fear into the cryostats[1] of the folks who run the advertising industry and of the Senators from Coca-Cola, Time-Warner, and the other big owners of federal legislators, that You-Can-Spam came to be. Private right of action used to exist because of state laws, but that right now has been removed by You-Can-Spam, and only providers and Attorneys General have standing to sue. You-Can-Spam is tailor-made for the advertising industry, which comes as no surprise to me, because the folks who really wrote it certainly appear to have been advertising industry lobbyists. If you don't like all the bitching, whining, and moaning about what used to be, then you have the right to move somewhere that prohibits it. Choose carefully: places that prohibit it may not let you move out again. Me, I'll stay here and bitch, whine, moan, and lean hard on my congresscritters. [1] We can be quite certain that they don't have hearts. A heart is not capable of pumping liquid Helium. Followups to news.admin.net-abuse.email, where this subthread belongs. -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO Tired old sysadmin You can belittle others for their opinions, and bitch and whine about the situation at hand. But like they say, when life hands you a lemon, make lemonade. Quitcherbitchin, and get on with life. You're complaining to the wrong crowd - almost everyone really don't care what you or i think. |
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote:
You can belittle others for their opinions, and bitch and whine about the situation at hand. But like they say, when life hands you a lemon, make lemonade. Quitcherbitchin, and get on with life. You're complaining to the wrong crowd - almost everyone really don't care what you or i think. -------------------------------- There ain't no "life". There are people. When these ****-****ing mother-****ing *******s hand you lemons you simply gang-up on them and KILL them. THEN they'll ****ing STOP! THAT'S what Democracy is! -Steve -- -Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com