"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news
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 20:44:55 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark
Remover" wrote:


"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news
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
news
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:44:55 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the
Dark
Remover" wrote:


"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news
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

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
news
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