RadioBanter - Digikey doth truly rule

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Homebrew (https://www.radiobanter.com/homebrew/)

- - Digikey doth truly rule (https://www.radiobanter.com/homebrew/65104-digikey-doth-truly-rule.html)

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

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