Slashdot Mirror


39 Years Ago The World's First Spam Was Sent (mercurynews.com)

An anonymous reader write: Wednesday was the 39th anniversary of the world's first spam, sent by Gary Thuerk, a marketer for Massachusetts' Digital Equipment Corporation in 1978 to over 300 users on Arpanet. It was written in all capital letters, and its body began with 273 more email addresses that wouldn't fit in the header. The DEC marketer "was reportedly trying to flag the attention of the burgeoning California tech community," reports the San Jose Mercury News. The message touted two demonstrations of the DECSYSTEM-20, a PDP-10 mainframe computer.

An official at the Defense Communication Agency immediately called it "a flagrant violation of the use of Arpanet as the network is to be used for official U.S. government business only," adding "Appropriate action is being taken to preclude its occurence again." But at the time a 24-year-old Richard Stallman -- then a graduate student at MIT -- claimed he wouldn't have reminded receiving the message...until someone forwarded him a copy. Stallman then responded "I eat my words... Nobody should be allowed to send a message with a header that long, no matter what it is about."
The article reports that today the spam industry earns about $200 million each year, while $20 billion is spent trying to block spam. And the New York Times even has a quote from the DEC employee who sent that first spam. "People either say, 'Wow! You sent the first spam!' or they act like I gave them cooties."

60 comments

  1. Best quote by twdorris · · Score: 2

    [quote]Thuerk prefers to receive e-mail from people he has cleared first.[/quote]
    Funny that.

    1. Re:Best quote by twdorris · · Score: 2

      [quote]Thuerk prefers to receive e-mail from people he has cleared first.[/quote]
      Funny that.

      LOL...even better that I screwed up quoting it.

  2. I thought they were talking about the meat. by Pezbian · · Score: 0

    Maybe I've been watching too many WolfePit videos, but I wasn't thinking email.

    --
    In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
    1. Re:I thought they were talking about the meat. by Pezbian · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone mod this down as overrated? Slashdot's getting creepy as hell lately.

      --
      In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
    2. Re:I thought they were talking about the meat. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Maybe they didn't want any off-topic cultural references? Perhaps it simply shows the quality of your character.

      If I was modding, I'd mod down your whine, too. Never whine about mods.

    3. Re:I thought they were talking about the meat. by Pezbian · · Score: 1

      When I was told in 2012 that Slashdot's dying, I didn't believe it. I do now...

      Fark takes the lead then.. ew.

      --
      In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
    4. Re:I thought they were talking about the meat. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You're just a new kid, how would you have any idea if the slashdot culture had lived or died?

      There was a time before you were born when we would have downvoted that shit just for mentioning a video and not a manual, book, or transcript. But even now we're at least sophisticated enough to downvote a reference to some pop culture shit that you point at to try to look cool.

      You didn't even say wtf your stupid video is about. So don't talk about it. Don't make hanging references to pop culture bullshit because this isn't a website full of that. There is nothing in your statement that leads me to believe it has anything to do with technology or stuff that would be interesting to computer nerds. So kudos to the mod who downvoted you.

    5. Re:I thought they were talking about the meat. by Pezbian · · Score: 1

      Jesus you're still here? I was looking for advice and you puked all over the dining table. Your sub-100K UID and a dollar will buy you a Coke.
      Spam the meat came before spam the junkmail term and I was referencing that, Senor Me-too. May you live forever.

      --
      In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
    6. Re:I thought they were talking about the meat. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Sorry, while you were busy throwing up you must have clicked on the wrong reply link. You didn't ask for advice, you only made a stupid comment about slashdot dying. Which was an old, tired thing to say before you ever signed up.

  3. Costs more to fight it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a business model only anti-virus vendors would love. Or Republicans.

    1. Re: Costs more to fight it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Right, because if Democrats are known for anything, it's small government and little waste.

  4. 200M vs. 20B by gweihir · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One of the best definitions of "evil" is to accept a large damage to somebody else for a relatively small personal gain. Why are we tolerating these people on this planet again?

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:200M vs. 20B by fustakrakich · · Score: 0

      Why are we tolerating these people on this planet again?

      Well, for one reason, it is trivial to block. Whitelisting is one of many ways...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:200M vs. 20B by sexybomber · · Score: 4, Funny

      Your post advocates a

      ( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based (x) vigilante

      approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

      ( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
      ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
      ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
      ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
      ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
      ( ) Users of email will not put up with it
      ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
      (x) The police will not put up with it
      ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
      (x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
      ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
      ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
      (x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

      Specifically, your plan fails to account for

      (x) Laws expressly prohibiting it
      ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
      ( ) Open relays in foreign countries
      ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
      (x) Asshats
      ( ) Jurisdictional problems
      ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
      ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
      ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
      ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
      ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
      ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
      ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
      (x) Extreme profitability of spam
      ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
      ( ) Technically illiterate politicians
      ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
      ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
      ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
      ( ) Outlook

      and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

      (x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
      ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
      ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
      ( ) Blacklists suck
      ( ) Whitelists suck
      (x) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
      ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
      ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
      ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
      ( ) Sending email should be free
      ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
      ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
      ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
      ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
      ( ) I don't want the government reading my email
      (x) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

      Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

      (x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
      ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
      ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
      house down!

    3. Re:200M vs. 20B by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it too late to kill him?

    4. Re:200M vs. 20B by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It could work without most of those problems if he was willing to sacrifice himself for the good of the many.

    5. Re:200M vs. 20B by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      Classic, and well played.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    6. Re:200M vs. 20B by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Well, funny. Except that you did not read (or maybe did not understand) what I wrote. For example, I nowhere advocate a "vigilante approach".

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:200M vs. 20B by swillden · · Score: 1

      Well, funny. Except that you did not read (or maybe did not understand) what I wrote. For example, I nowhere advocate a "vigilante approach".

      What you said was:

      Why are we tolerating these people on this planet again?

      How were proposing to remove them from the planet? Or in what other way were you suggesting we not tolerate them?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    8. Re:200M vs. 20B by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The CAN-SPAM act - in essense - legalizes and sanctions spam.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      No need for violence (yet), just repeal this crappy law and let spammers risk private civil and state court actions.

  5. Re:We sent you an email!! by Foxhoundz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Thank you sir. It's technologically inept individuals like yourself that keep me at work and put a roof over my head.

  6. Hey, Stallman! by moehoward · · Score: 1

    Hey RMS!

    How did your point number 4 work out for you?

    Thought so.

    --
    "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
  7. Worse than cooties... by Grand+Facade · · Score: 1

    Die Spammer DIE!!!

    --
    Rick B.
    1. Re:Worse than cooties... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was ist mit den Spammern?

  8. "...he wouldn't have reminded receiving..." by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1
    1. Re:"...he wouldn't have reminded receiving..." by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Member your own business.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  9. Ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    20 Million vs 20 Billion of any currency is a major difference. In US dollars it is a HUGE difference (for now at least). The Spam industry is easily criminal as the harm caused so vastly outweighs the gain that if they were simply paid direct protection money it would be cheaper. Yes, that equates Spam with the mafia.

  10. culture shift by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wasn't on the internet in 78, but I was in 84, and I remember years and years of spam-free usenet before the Canter and Siegel "event". It seems to me that the flood of non-technical people into the net brought a cultural acceptance of spam and online advertising that the earlier technical crowd did not tolerate. I don't even recall getting a single email spam until the mid 1990's, and certainly never on my bang address.

    When spam started to become a problem, some of us took steps to combat it, but by then, technical users were diluted and didn't have as much influence as in the past. Then when the web appeared, it was a similar story with web based advertising, and then web based tracking. Those things exist today because they work. They would not work if 99% of internet users had blocked that shit from the moment it appeared. It would not have been financially viable, so it would have died out. But the influx of non-technical users brought a culture shift which accepted advertising and mass commercial surveillance as if the internet was supposed to be TV 2.0.

    Captcha = "corpse". Nicely done, captcha bot...

    1. Re:culture shift by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yup. Eternal September was the beginning of the tidal wave that changed the net forever. Usenet is no longer what it once was, and the net is a little bit lesser since the days of Kibo, Ludwig Plutomium, alt.folklore.urban, Seder Argic, Ted Frank, Joel Furr and the Green Card Spamming t shirts, et. al. I sold stuff to folks all over the globe on a simple promise to pay when they got it and never got screwed. Time and change ...

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    2. Re: culture shift by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://twitter.com/tedfrank seems to be getting revenge on Canter & Siegel by trolling lawyers for a living.

  11. Temporal anomaly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    B-b-but how could spam exist in '78 when Shiva Ayyadurai wouldn't even invent email until '79? It's like someone is a pathological liar or something, but who?

  12. I know that feeling... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    If I post a comment about IT or Trump, the asshats act like I gave them the cooties. If I post a comment on any other topic, everything is fine. Go figure.

    1. Re:I know that feeling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get over yourself you fat clown.

    2. Re:I know that feeling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      faggot

    3. Re:I know that feeling... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Get over yourself you fat clown.

      You're confusing me with the wrong part of the circus. Try strong man.

      https://twitter.com/cdreimer/status/861287512802705408

    4. Re:I know that feeling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see a huge neck roll and no bicep? You just look like a fat guy flexing.

    5. Re:I know that feeling... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I see a huge neck roll and no bicep? You just look like a fat guy flexing.

      You're not looking at the whole picture. Or maybe you did double-click to see the whole picture, but didn't like the idea that a 350-pound person can have a slim waist from years of long-distance bike riding. Which is why people ask me if I ever played high school football.

  13. Re:We sent you an email!! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

    It's technologically inept individuals like yourself that keep me at work and put a roof over my head.

    That's why I give thanks to Microsoft for my daily bread and butter.

  14. Re:We sent you an email!! by aix+tom · · Score: 1

    The last time one of MY emails ended up flagged as spam was because the spam filter of the receiving mail-server did a sender check with my mail server, but that sender check didn't conform to the SMTP specs, so it was refused as spam attempt by my mail server.

    ( On the plus side, the receiving mail server didn't just silently drop it or put it in a spam folder, but it refused delivery with a 5xx code, so that I could notify the recipient via other channels. )

  15. Spam is as old as me... by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 2

    ... and, some years ago, I was seriously thinking that should fight it, that I could contribute towards its eradication. How could a stupidity-based method succeed?

    I was sooo naive and spammers were way ahead of me in the adequate understanding of the sad real nature of most of people: they are intrinsically idiots; idiots who feel safer among idiots and idiocy; idiots who prefer to complain about not understanding, being afraid, being fooled, etc. than making the slightest effort to actually understand.

    Now, I do understand stupidity much better than before. That's why I also understand why spam (and many other things) exist, will continue existing and I shouldn’t spend even a second of my life by trying to change that reality. I will always fight for what is right, but stupidity-related stuff isn’t a concern for me anymore. Now, I plainly accept it, its unfixable essence and, eventually, enjoy it.

    --
    Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    1. Re:Spam is as old as me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It takes stupidity to recognize stupidity. After reading your homepage, I can see why you gave up.

    2. Re:Spam is as old as me... by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 0

      ?! You mean my main webpage (customsolver.com), my secondary webpage (varocarbas.com) or the description in my profile here? What part is more confusing for your evident limited understanding skills (a frustration which you seem to release via arbitrary attacking people you don't know).

      BTW, what you mean with giving up? I haven't given up on anything! I have plainly accepted that some people (like you) are too stupid to understand anything no matter how hard I try to help them understand (perhaps, eventually, some day they might get something right). That's why there are spammers, scammers, liars, people-like-you-arbitrarily-getting-offended-and-COWARDLY-attacking-another-person, etc. all these are just the answer to the infinite stupidity resources. Your attitude is precisely what explains why all these things exist; and am not giving up on you, I plainly accept that you are meant to be cheated, lied, tricked, etc. (perhaps because you would do the same thing; perhaps because this is an easier option for you than getting a deeper understanding; perhaps because you don't know any better; no idea why) and that no matter what I do, nothing will change (other than me getting tired and disappointed). I haven't given up on anything, have just accepted the reality and started living accordingly (= as far from stupids and their nonsense as I can).

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    3. Re:Spam is as old as me... by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      AC wrote : .

      After reading your homepage, I can see why you gave up.

      CustomSolvers2 replied :

      ?! You mean my main webpage (customsolver.com), my secondary webpage (varocarbas.com) or the description in my profile here?

      By your "homepage" I suppose he meant the thing reached by the link marked "homepage" in your comment's header.

    4. Re:Spam is as old as me... by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it was pretty clear. In fact, I was looking at the corresponding site visitor logs in that moment and saw a couple of visits from this thread. It was just an excuse to somehow censure that pathetically arbitrary attack a bit more (some people have serious difficulties to understand too-many-word/complex ideas). I think that differentiating between the important and not-important-at-all parts in my comment is pretty easy; and I guess that focusing on the extremely irrelevant parts doesn't make too much sense, right? I mean not too much sense by assuming what a priori seems your intention of being helpful and constructively contributing to a conversation, right? Or perhaps, I am assuming too many things.

      Let me put an easier example: in the sentence "by the way, I think that you should live and let live rather than arbitrarily bothering others. I understand that the increasing complexity of the world might be somehow overwhelming for a dishonest and insecure person whose only goal is being accepted, what can only happen within groups of very stupid people. But you should try to be honest, fair and respectful and will be surprised with the results; even the pieces of crap you call friends will respect your new attitude, because what dishonest, unfair idiots despise the most is precisely people like them! Even the most pathetically coward piece of shit will respect honest, fair and brave attitudes. Ironic, don't you think?". There are two types of persons: the ones reading this sentence, adequately understanding it (by asking as many questions as they need + doing some research) and acting accordingly (e.g., agreeing with it, disagreeing with it, wanting to discuss certain parts, etc.); and the ones plainly focusing on irrelevant parts (e.g., "why are you using 'by the way' at the start of the sentence when..."). What do you think that your comment is telling about your personality regarding this differentiation? To which group do you think that the aforementioned born-to-be-lied idiots belong?

      To be completely honest with you, the exact motivation of your post doesn't seem too clear to me. Were you the AC? (Certainly not the person who modded me down although you might have other accounts and/or be part of some kind of group). Even in case of being that AC, the motivation of that first comment wouldn’t be clear. Why posting in a so secondary thread, after a so innocent-in-appearance post, reacting so aggressively (or passive-aggressively or ignorant-aggressively, not sure how to define your last comment)? It seems like you didn't find my comment by pure chance and/or answered it regardless of its author. It seems that you were especially interested in "answering" (= attacking) me. What might be your motivation to do such a thing? Your nick, the "nuke" part, might be kind of helpful to understand this point. Note that I have recently participated in a fusion-related thread where quite a few fanatics seemed to think that their stupid nonsense had anything to do with me; there I got my first enemy (or foe or freak obsessed with me) ever, not just in Slashdot, in general; at least, the first one clearly telling me so! All this is certainly curious(ly sad)! But as said in my first comment here, I now fully accept the sad reality and that's why I will not try to help anyone understand. This post is more about bothering a bit + providing a clear picture about myself to future non-stupid readers :)

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
  16. Don't celebrate by sending spam! by shanen · · Score: 2

    Not sure what is supposed to be the point of this article. A celebration of human failure? A monument to how a small amount of greed can drive a YUGE scam-and-anti-scam industry? Okay, $200 million sounds like a lot of money to you or me, so maybe the greed seems justified, but that $20 billion on the other side is just plain insane.

    Causes:
    (1) SMTP ignores accounting
    (2) "Live and let spam" is a bad business model

    Solution:
    Let's work together to break the spammers' business models. That means the email providers AND the victims of the spammers. Not just the obvious victims like the suckers who lose money or the corporations that suffer damage to their reputation or the customers of those corporations who are victimized through their (dying) trust in those corporations, but even the MILLIONS of little suckers who lose some time whenever the spammers can steal a bit of their attention.

    Obviously filtering has failed. How about an iterative analytic approach where we, the victims, would help identify the problems and countermeasures of each spam message. Also would allow for prioritization of the proper countermeasures along with better targeting.

    Trivial example for a phishing scam spam. Even the google is not smart enough to know all my bank accounts (at least I hope so), but I would be able to say "Whoa. That's a GREAT looking phishing scam. Almost makes me sad that I've never had an account at that bank." Working together to share that kind of information would allow Gmail to stomp on it more quickly.

    Yeah, I know no one is listening and Slashdot is pointless, but I'll still close with the joke: "Lots more details available upon polite request." I know that because of prior reactions and replies, but before you waste your keystrokes let me say:

    (1) I'm quite willing to answer questions, including for clarifications where I'm too terse.
    (2) If you want to defend spammers, then I think you are (a) insane, (b) a spammer, or (c) worse.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  17. Re:We sent you an email!! by XanC · · Score: 1

    The whole spam digest/folder/quarantine thing is one of my biggest peeves.

    People seem to think that obvious spam should be rejected, questionable stuff should be put in a folder or a digest or otherwise hidden, and the obvious good stuff should go through.

    That's treating the outright, no-doubt spam much better than the iffy stuff! Totally wrong. If you're not going to deliver to the user, then reject, so that the sender has some chance of even knowing there's a problem.

  18. Re:We sent you an email!! by ElectricHellKnight · · Score: 1

    I wonder how many online orders of yours have been cancelled.

  19. A failure to foresee the future. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The way our email protocols were created show a total lack of consideration for this type of bad behavior. If it happened on Arpanet, it should have been fixed by the time it became Darpanet. This shows a real lack of foresight in the creation of SMTP (in 1982).

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:A failure to foresee the future. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now it's Derpanet and it has still not been fixed.

      But as the your-solution-won't-work form letter shows, fixing spam is really quite difficult. How would you do it, if you could implement the protocol from scratch?

    2. Re:A failure to foresee the future. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, it's HARD to foresee the future. Ask any stock broker, or software developer.

      As far as "lack of consideration for this type of bad behavior", you're obviously too young to have known about the history of the internet and it's precursor - the ARPANET. It was meant as a way to get academia, government, and the military to collaborate in response to the launch of SPUTNIK. Each of these groups and subgroups had their own computer systems, which, up to that point, were incompatible. ARPANET was meant to create a bridge across these different computer systems.

      Implied in the creation of this network was trust and etiquette.

      Could anyone have foreseen that such a network might be abused? That etiquette would ever seem "quaint"? Do you practice etiquette?

      Once businesses were allowed on the internet, anything went. Who would have predicted that the internet would be used to track your every move? To shove advertisements in your face? To create walled gardens? To send you unsolicited e-mail?

      A highly controlled e-mail system may not be what you like either. You'd never be able to post things ANONYMOUSLY. Anonymity is important for whistle blowers.

      I can't claim to have an anwer to spam. I do point to the creation of the Penny Black as a hint. Making SPAM unprofitable would kill it.

  20. I went apesh*t the first time I received a spam by sandbagger · · Score: 2

    I sent the message to his network administrator and then even phoned the guy demanding to know what the heck he was doing polluting my in-box.

    --
    ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
  21. TIL. I thought the first was Canter and Siegel. by Chemical+Serenity · · Score: 1

    Turns out theirs was the first big Usenet spam, not the first ever.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    "People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
  22. An open letter to NYTimea by blibbo · · Score: 2

    Dear NYTimes,

    Clearly you have no interest in people linking to your content.

    This is demonstrated by your page source looking like diarrhea under high magnification.

    Let me tell you about a href html page jump tags href="#blahblah". I think you will find them very useful, and they have widespread browser support due to their pre-Jurassic era creation date.

    Regards,
    ihateyouverymuch.


    Dear Slashdot readers,

    If you too want to experience the pain of finding TFA, please follow the link to James Comey / brexit etc and scroll/search most of the way down the page to the section labelled "Back Story".

    Regards,
    dontblaimthesubmiter-nytimessux

  23. Re:An open letter to NYTimes by blibbo · · Score: 1

    Typo in the title. I give up.

  24. Off by over 100 years by hwolfe · · Score: 1

    Maybe that's when the first e-mail spam was sent, but according to this link, the first record of spam being sent was back in 1864, via telegraph.

  25. 24 year old Stallman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The biggest traitor in the history of Western Civilization and nobody outside of the tech BUSINESS knows who he is.

  26. How to end spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If a sender is not on an approved list, they get an email from the receiving system requiring them to fill out a form for whitelist approval. Forged headers are detected and automatically trashed without review

  27. PDP-10 Mainframe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A PDP-10 is a minicomputer.