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