in the US, where it doesn't expire for another four years.
That's what I was wondering about - why does it last an extra 6 years in the US? Did they wait 6 years to file the patent in the US? Or is there a special "Intellectual Property" law in the US that gives them extra time? (I wouldn't think so, but knowing what's gone on with IP in the US, I wouldn't be too surprised...)
The article says "BT is determined to prove that a patent lodged with the US patent office back in 1980". That's 22 years ago. Doesn't that mean it's already expired even if it were valid (which I doubt)?
Is BT Government-run like the BBC or are they a completely private entity?
Just hope that ISP isn't 'prserv.net'. I've been getting regular spam from their same set of Texas dialup lines, from the same spammer, for the last 3-4 months, despite forwarding to "abuse@prserv.net" AND a couple of phone calls...
At least reporting to the ISP's where the abusive bastard hosts his magic "enlarge your penis" pills (and a variety of other scams) and getting him kicked off has caused him to obfuscate his URL so badly in recent spams that I can't figure out how to view the advertisements even if I TRY...
I'll 'second' that, and add that I'd love to see a book of this general nature that discusses phylogenetic analysis (i.e. how to parse a newick tree, differences between parsimony/maximum likelihood/neighbor-joining/etc. algorithms, etc etc).
It doesn't appear that the "Beginning Perl for Bioinformatics" even mentions the subject, and the earlier (but still quite good) "Developing Bioinformatics Computer Skills" only gives a short overview of the subject (~6 pages, including the listing of some phylogenetic analysis software...).
(Right now, I'd settle for getting my brain wrapped around "how to explain a newick tree to a computer"...)
That way, sorenson stays closed and quicktime keeps that advantage but linux users can play quicktime sorenson coded movies in any player which is coded to call libquicktime.so.
Hmmm. Is there a.dll/.avx/whatever on Windows that is the Sorenson codec?
I've been wondering if MPlayer (which recently added support for the QuickTime file format) might eventually be able to run Sorenson video through this file the way it now can through some of the other Windows codecs. (Only on ix86 linux, though...)
Pros: Good quality/compression
Cons: Not a standard
Well, as someone else posted, not a de facto standard, anyway.
What I've been wondering is if the Ogg file format might get more use if someone implemented a readily available multiplexor/demultiplexor to allow video into it. I understand the Ogg Tarkin project is supposed to be the Free video codec for Ogg, but Tarkin is still some way off - at the moment, they're discussing whether or not to use Quicktime as the development framework for Tarkin, so even an alpha version of an Ogg Tarkin/Vorbis video format seems quite some time away yet. When I mentioned this question in a previous thread, someone mentioned a Window-only "DirectShow" project of some sort for this. Recently, mention of an Ogg-format video with Vorbis sound (and Divx;-) video, presumably) popped up on the MPlayer mailing list...
I just wonder if Ogg will get more acceptance if/when it starts being used for both audio AND video (sort of like.asf?)
Patents are broader. In particular they are critical in the pharmaceutical industry (where there are patent controversies from time to time). Long-term patent granting would be very very dangerous, because it could allow drug companies to put the health care market in a stranglehold. As it stands now, drugs are highly overpriced for the first 20 years of their existence (while patented), and then suddenly become available cheaply. This helps to discourage (but not prevent) abuse.Patents are broader. In particular they are critical in the pharmaceutical industry (where there are patent controversies from time to time). Long-term patent granting would be very very dangerous, because it could allow drug companies to put the health care market in a stranglehold. As it stands now, drugs are highly overpriced for the first 20 years of their existence (while patented), and then suddenly become available cheaply. This helps to discourage (but not prevent) abuse.
You know, it was this industry that taught me that patents no longer serve their intended purpose (to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts"). Evidently, it's common practice in the pharmaceutical industry to patent a drug, wait 20 years, and THEN come with with a patent for a very-slightly-modified variant (i.e. "Now! New Improved Time-Release Prozac!") to hold off the generic drug companies. I can't imagine that it really takes 20 years to come up with a "timed-release" version of an already-developed drug, so I can only assume corporations "sit" on this sort of thing for 20 years, so that they can extend their patent control for as long as possible, to the detriment of "progress of science and the useful arts"...
Will makers of free decoders have to pay $.25 per download? I can't really tell with this.
The clause for encoders seems to be clearer; encoders for private use are $.25 a pop. That's gonna suck if they enforce it on free encoders.
Oddly, I actually wouldn't have a problem, provided they were reasonable about implementing it, with paying $0.25/encoder and/decoder that I use (I'd rather NOT have them bill the writers of free software instead, though - i.e. I would pay for my use, not the developer for my download.). Presumably, each small fee would cover an "implementation" of the mpeg4 standard, which means upgraded versions of the same program would still be covered by the initial $0.25 payment.
In my case, I'd end up spending between $1.00 and $1.50 to cover a handful of programs that I play with.
The trick is, can they set up the payment structure in a reasonable manner, and refrain from harassing people...
I've been 'lurking' on the Tarkin-dev mailing list for a few months now, and it's pretty quiet, unfortunately. The sparse messages on the list indicate that Tarkin is STILL in the stage where the developers are discussing techniques that they MIGHT use when they get started writing code. The GOOD news is that to me, this indicates that serious thought is going into the design, and the final result will kick butt, but the bad news is it's still quite some time in the future.
On the other hand, as I understand it, the Ogg file format already supports having video streams embedded in it (i.e. it wouldn't have to be Tarkin-codec video). I've been ITCHING to see somebody add Ogg format support to a video encoder like ffmpeg (and I suspect MPlayer would have support for playback within days afterwards).
I could cope with e.g. OpenDivx/mpeg1/h.263 video with vorbis audio in Ogg format until Tarkin becomes useable. It'd at least give the Ogg file format more visibility, and perhaps attract some more developers to the Tarkin project...
I've bought a couple of Loki's games (and am quite pleased with them, I might add). Evidently, the moderators haven't been following this story long, though. If the company's been going broke for the last few years, as seems to be the case from the stories that have been coming out, either Draeker had a HUGE savings (possible, I suppose), or has drawn a comfortable paycheck for himself all this time. Either way, his quote implies that he is evidently walking away from this supposedly long-faltering company with enough personal wealth to not need to look for work any time soon. I'm sorry if this thought offends people, but what other interpretation is there?
Yes - the work on which is already DONE. A lazy company only needs to buy the 'license to redistribute' off of Loki, and a CD-copier. A GOOD company will also have a few programmers to work on patches and such, but all in all, the BULK of the work on everything Loki sells is already done, and that's the expensive part...
I think it's kind of funny the way the uptime graph on the netcraft page shows the average uptime plummeting at the point where the server switches from solaris/linux to Windows...
I guess my question is, is it possible to make a site which renders fine in all these browsers but somehow dies a horrible death in Konqueror?
Officially, no. You just need to stick to standards (note, "IE 6" is not a "standard", though I suspect YOU already know that...). Theoretically, any page that follows W3C's appropriate web standards are SUPPOSED to render fine in Konqueror (and if it doesn't, it's a bug, and not your fault).
So, personally, I'd say if your pages are all standards-compliant, I wouldn't worry about it - if it's standards-compliant and doesn't render in Konqueror, it's Konqueror's fault, and not yours.
Here's the reason the page doesn't display in Konqueror (part of page source follows - don't worry, it's short).
<script language=javascript src=/x/inc/get_guid.asp></script>
<script language=javascript src="http://a799.ms.akamai.net/3/799/388/aa5324979 fa989/www.saltlake2002.com/x/js/xtd_funct.js">& lt;/script>
<script language=javascript src="http://a799.ms.akamai.net/3/799/388/cf806351e 98dbd/www.saltlake2002.com/x/js/stdframe.js">&l t;/script>
<noscript>Javascript must be enabled to view this site.</noscript>
Note that this is almost ENTIRELY the content of the page. So, in short, it's a combination of hideous web design and one of the handful of javascript-related features (loading javascript from an alternate location via "src=") that isn't yet implemented in Konqueror.
In the future, completely automated corporations will exist
Hmmmmm....anybody here (really) familiar with corporate laws? Since a corporation is an independent 'legal entity', could someone, say, 'hack' corporate law by setting up two corporations, having one of those two corporations (and not the person who set up the corporation) buy the other from the human being who set it up, and then 'spin it off' into a completely human-free entity?
And, if such a 'human-free' entity existed, and did something 'bad', would the courts finally start revoking corporate charters again?...
This will close up chances for Free Software on these kinds of systems, because no business is going to replace their brand new expensive software with Linux after paying out the ass.
This is something of an issue of "IT Department marketing". No, the higher-ups probably wouldn't be too fond of the idea of "throwing away the stuff we bought"....but they might have no problem whatsoever with "free OS and software upgrade licenses (for, e.g. Linux or BSD and Apache, etc.) available for NT and IIS users (and everybody else, but you don't need to emphasize that, necessarily...)"
if someone grabs that signal on their private property and decodes it then the person who received it is legally responsible
There is, unfortunately, precedent for this, at least in the US (though it strikes me as something probably implemented elsewhere in the world, too).
There are laws on the books that (IIRC) forbid even listening to certain radio frequencies (or, more accurately, criminalizes having equipment capable of picking up those frequencies), because those frequencies are used by police and/or military (or something of the sort). In addition, there are the more familiar laws which (again IIRC) criminalize decoding of cell-phone transmissions.
While I can understand why they WANT to criminalize such things, as you point out, it sets a disturbing precedent. The signal is being sent through MY (and your and everyone else's) property. It is as if Government, Inc. has legslated permission for couriers to walk through your house any time they want, and requires you to cover your eyes whenever they do so, lest you see things the courier is carrying....
With a precedent like that, Government Inc can add laws, if they want, that criminalize receiving certain other channels (including 'channels contained copyright-protected materials such as satellite television broadcasts') 'without proper authorization' (e.g. broadcaster-sanctioned equipment only).
A side effect of things like this that REALLY bugs me is that it inhibits personal educational experimentation. Want to learn about electronics and radio transmissions by building your own receiver? You'd better have the existing skills and ability to design the circuits to specially block out reception of the 'special' frequencies or you're breaking the law. (And this is BEFORE the DMCA, which basically just extended this same prohibition to a ridiculous degree, to include non-broadcast material).
Personally, I think that if Government Inc. would spend the time and money making decent encryption available, instead of 'don't look' laws, the issue would be moot by now....
2) ISPs turn a blind eye or aren't as responsive as they should be.
YES! Most times that I get spam, I trace down the headers to find the source and report the spam to the ISP hosting the address, and the spam stops.
MOST times. It took a while to get through to hinet.net about their 'tom lee designs' spammer, but even then, when I finally got through to somebody the spam was stopped.
For the last three months, I've been dealing with wads of spam from what I believe to be the same spammer due to the headers:
They all have the same style of random-fake-hotmail.com addresses
They all bounce through hijacked foreign servers
They all have the same 'X-Mailer' header ('X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400')
They are repetitions of the same 5-8 advertisements (most for dubious semi-medical supplements e.g. 'increase your ejaculation 581%','stop hair loss', etc. on www.poxteam2001.com)
And, of course, they ALL come from the same bank of apparently Texan addresses on prserv.net (slip.12.64.*.mis.prserv.net).
The ISP in question is AT&T Global. (mail to abuse@prserv.net ends up at postmaster@attglobal). For the last three months or so, I've diligently forwarding the messages, with headers, to abuse@prserv.net (or postmaster@attglobal.net). Until recently, they've been universally coming back with form-letters saying 'this problem has already been reported'. Sometimes the spam stops for a day or two, sometimes it doesn't.
I even looked up their contact number on whois and called THAT a few times (the only human beings there seem to be overworked and underpaid tech support people). The last few days, I've been getting my reports returned in a form letter stamped 'not our domain', as if whoever's getting my messages at AT&T Global is either 'in on it' or just doesn't want to deal with it any more (or perhaps is's just a 'new guy' who's not used to dealing with the headers, or thinks that only AT&T Global user's complaints about spam from their network should be dealt with)....
Point is, with roughly 80 spam messages from the same spammer forwarded, the spam has continued unabated, and I honestly wonder if some salesdrone at AT&T Global's Austin, Texas area POP has an 'understanding' with the spammer and has been willing to re-sign him every time he gets kicked off. Unfortunately, none of the emails I've sent to 'postmaster@attglobal.net' requesting more information about the spammer (including requests on the order of 'who do I contact to find out the proper legal procedure for obtaining the spammer's identity so that I can look into taking action myself') simply come back with more form-letters, or are unanswered...
I called them again today (after last night's two spams came back from them stamped 'not our domain') and for the first time, actually got to speak to someone in the postmaster department. She actually seemed helpful and polite, so hopefully something might finally be DONE about this spammer...
So, anyway, to get back to the point - the ISP's are the ones who have the power to do something about spammers on their network, and if they choose not to, there ought to be some sort of recourse. Small ISP's, you can complain to their upstream provider, but when you're dealing with AT&T Global?....
'scuze the verbosity of this post - this particular spammer/ISP issue has me pretty irritated at the moment...
Then, in traditional US fashion, the government will pay wads of taxpayer money to send the convicted Spammerette to Sweden for a sex change operation.
Once the operation is complete and everything's operating...THEN we castrate them...
(Hey, if we worry about disinfecting equipment used to perform lethal injection....)
Slashdot Mirror
That's what I was wondering about - why does it last an extra 6 years in the US? Did they wait 6 years to file the patent in the US? Or is there a special "Intellectual Property" law in the US that gives them extra time? (I wouldn't think so, but knowing what's gone on with IP in the US, I wouldn't be too surprised...)
The article says "BT is determined to prove that a patent lodged with the US patent office back in 1980". That's 22 years ago. Doesn't that mean it's already expired even if it were valid (which I doubt)?
Is BT Government-run like the BBC or are they a completely private entity?
Just hope that ISP isn't 'prserv.net'. I've been getting regular spam from their same set of Texas dialup lines, from the same spammer, for the last 3-4 months, despite forwarding to "abuse@prserv.net" AND a couple of phone calls...
At least reporting to the ISP's where the abusive bastard hosts his magic "enlarge your penis" pills (and a variety of other scams) and getting him kicked off has caused him to obfuscate his URL so badly in recent spams that I can't figure out how to view the advertisements even if I TRY...
Damn, where are those moderator points when I need them. Can anyone spare a "+1 insightful"?
As another message hinted - "Sendmail Leashed" would likely be a big hit...
I'll 'second' that, and add that I'd love to see a book of this general nature that discusses phylogenetic analysis (i.e. how to parse a newick tree, differences between parsimony/maximum likelihood/neighbor-joining/etc. algorithms, etc etc).
It doesn't appear that the "Beginning Perl for Bioinformatics" even mentions the subject, and the earlier (but still quite good) "Developing Bioinformatics Computer Skills" only gives a short overview of the subject (~6 pages, including the listing of some phylogenetic analysis software...).
(Right now, I'd settle for getting my brain wrapped around "how to explain a newick tree to a computer"...)
Hmmm. Is there a .dll/.avx/whatever on Windows that is the Sorenson codec?
I've been wondering if MPlayer (which recently added support for the QuickTime file format) might eventually be able to run Sorenson video through this file the way it now can through some of the other Windows codecs. (Only on ix86 linux, though...)
Well, I know of one really nice, versatile one, but It's a bit pricey...
...but I somehow doubt that a Sony PictureBook is what you had in mind (*I* want one, though...)
Pros: Good quality/compression
Cons: Not a standard
Well, as someone else posted, not a de facto standard, anyway.
What I've been wondering is if the Ogg file format might get more use if someone implemented a readily available multiplexor/demultiplexor to allow video into it. I understand the Ogg Tarkin project is supposed to be the Free video codec for Ogg, but Tarkin is still some way off - at the moment, they're discussing whether or not to use Quicktime as the development framework for Tarkin, so even an alpha version of an Ogg Tarkin/Vorbis video format seems quite some time away yet. When I mentioned this question in a previous thread, someone mentioned a Window-only "DirectShow" project of some sort for this. Recently, mention of an Ogg-format video with Vorbis sound (and Divx;-) video, presumably) popped up on the MPlayer mailing list...
I just wonder if Ogg will get more acceptance if/when it starts being used for both audio AND video (sort of like .asf?)
You know, it was this industry that taught me that patents no longer serve their intended purpose (to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts"). Evidently, it's common practice in the pharmaceutical industry to patent a drug, wait 20 years, and THEN come with with a patent for a very-slightly-modified variant (i.e. "Now! New Improved Time-Release Prozac!") to hold off the generic drug companies. I can't imagine that it really takes 20 years to come up with a "timed-release" version of an already-developed drug, so I can only assume corporations "sit" on this sort of thing for 20 years, so that they can extend their patent control for as long as possible, to the detriment of "progress of science and the useful arts"...
The clause for encoders seems to be clearer; encoders for private use are $.25 a pop. That's gonna suck if they enforce it on free encoders.
Oddly, I actually wouldn't have a problem, provided they were reasonable about implementing it, with paying $0.25/encoder and /decoder that I use (I'd rather NOT have them bill the writers of free software instead, though - i.e. I would pay for my use, not the developer for my download.). Presumably, each small fee would cover an "implementation" of the mpeg4 standard, which means upgraded versions of the same program would still be covered by the initial $0.25 payment.
In my case, I'd end up spending between $1.00 and $1.50 to cover a handful of programs that I play with.
The trick is, can they set up the payment structure in a reasonable manner, and refrain from harassing people...
I've been 'lurking' on the Tarkin-dev mailing list for a few months now, and it's pretty quiet, unfortunately. The sparse messages on the list indicate that Tarkin is STILL in the stage where the developers are discussing techniques that they MIGHT use when they get started writing code. The GOOD news is that to me, this indicates that serious thought is going into the design, and the final result will kick butt, but the bad news is it's still quite some time in the future.
On the other hand, as I understand it, the Ogg file format already supports having video streams embedded in it (i.e. it wouldn't have to be Tarkin-codec video). I've been ITCHING to see somebody add Ogg format support to a video encoder like ffmpeg (and I suspect MPlayer would have support for playback within days afterwards).
I could cope with e.g. OpenDivx/mpeg1/h.263 video with vorbis audio in Ogg format until Tarkin becomes useable. It'd at least give the Ogg file format more visibility, and perhaps attract some more developers to the Tarkin project...
That's the state something achieves when it is effable and scrutable by a wide range of viewers.
That WAS a serious question people...
I've bought a couple of Loki's games (and am quite pleased with them, I might add). Evidently, the moderators haven't been following this story long, though. If the company's been going broke for the last few years, as seems to be the case from the stories that have been coming out, either Draeker had a HUGE savings (possible, I suppose), or has drawn a comfortable paycheck for himself all this time. Either way, his quote implies that he is evidently walking away from this supposedly long-faltering company with enough personal wealth to not need to look for work any time soon. I'm sorry if this thought offends people, but what other interpretation is there?
With reports of employees in the past not getting paid and such, I have to wonder about Loki's financial problems in light of this quote:
"Draeker: My immediate plans are to take a break and recharge my batteries. After that I'll start looking at different opportunities. "Translation - "I don't need to go look for work right away. I have plenty of money for a while."...or am I misinterpreting that?
Yes - the work on which is already DONE. A lazy company only needs to buy the 'license to redistribute' off of Loki, and a CD-copier. A GOOD company will also have a few programmers to work on patches and such, but all in all, the BULK of the work on everything Loki sells is already done, and that's the expensive part...
I think it's kind of funny the way the uptime graph on the netcraft page shows the average uptime plummeting at the point where the server switches from solaris/linux to Windows...
Officially, no. You just need to stick to standards (note, "IE 6" is not a "standard", though I suspect YOU already know that...). Theoretically, any page that follows W3C's appropriate web standards are SUPPOSED to render fine in Konqueror (and if it doesn't, it's a bug, and not your fault).
So, personally, I'd say if your pages are all standards-compliant, I wouldn't worry about it - if it's standards-compliant and doesn't render in Konqueror, it's Konqueror's fault, and not yours.
Cool! I'd heard Javascript support was undergoing serious upgrading, I guess this proves it.
Time to try CVS again. Though, I suppose if I wait a week or two the official 3.0 release will be out...
Here's the reason the page doesn't display in Konqueror (part of page source follows - don't worry, it's short).
<script language=javascript src=/x/inc/get_guid.asp></script>9 fa989/www.saltlake2002.com/x/js/xtd_funct.js">& lt;/script> e 98dbd/www.saltlake2002.com/x/js/stdframe.js">&l t;/script>
<script language=javascript src="http://a799.ms.akamai.net/3/799/388/aa532497
<script language=javascript src="http://a799.ms.akamai.net/3/799/388/cf806351
<noscript>Javascript must be enabled to view this site.</noscript>
Note that this is almost ENTIRELY the content of the page. So, in short, it's a combination of hideous web design and one of the handful of javascript-related features (loading javascript from an alternate location via "src=") that isn't yet implemented in Konqueror.
Whatever happed to the "KISS" principle?...
Hmmmmm....anybody here (really) familiar with corporate laws? Since a corporation is an independent 'legal entity', could someone, say, 'hack' corporate law by setting up two corporations, having one of those two corporations (and not the person who set up the corporation) buy the other from the human being who set it up, and then 'spin it off' into a completely human-free entity?
And, if such a 'human-free' entity existed, and did something 'bad', would the courts finally start revoking corporate charters again?...
This is something of an issue of "IT Department marketing". No, the higher-ups probably wouldn't be too fond of the idea of "throwing away the stuff we bought"....but they might have no problem whatsoever with "free OS and software upgrade licenses (for, e.g. Linux or BSD and Apache, etc.) available for NT and IIS users (and everybody else, but you don't need to emphasize that, necessarily...)"
Yes. It is (according to legislators/MPAA). See 'Macrovision'. Ever wonder why those 'Macrovision decoder' boxes were criminalized?...
There is, unfortunately, precedent for this, at least in the US (though it strikes me as something probably implemented elsewhere in the world, too).
There are laws on the books that (IIRC) forbid even listening to certain radio frequencies (or, more accurately, criminalizes having equipment capable of picking up those frequencies), because those frequencies are used by police and/or military (or something of the sort). In addition, there are the more familiar laws which (again IIRC) criminalize decoding of cell-phone transmissions.
While I can understand why they WANT to criminalize such things, as you point out, it sets a disturbing precedent. The signal is being sent through MY (and your and everyone else's) property. It is as if Government, Inc. has legslated permission for couriers to walk through your house any time they want, and requires you to cover your eyes whenever they do so, lest you see things the courier is carrying....
With a precedent like that, Government Inc can add laws, if they want, that criminalize receiving certain other channels (including 'channels contained copyright-protected materials such as satellite television broadcasts') 'without proper authorization' (e.g. broadcaster-sanctioned equipment only).
A side effect of things like this that REALLY bugs me is that it inhibits personal educational experimentation. Want to learn about electronics and radio transmissions by building your own receiver? You'd better have the existing skills and ability to design the circuits to specially block out reception of the 'special' frequencies or you're breaking the law. (And this is BEFORE the DMCA, which basically just extended this same prohibition to a ridiculous degree, to include non-broadcast material).
Personally, I think that if Government Inc. would spend the time and money making decent encryption available, instead of 'don't look' laws, the issue would be moot by now....
YES! Most times that I get spam, I trace down the headers to find the source and report the spam to the ISP hosting the address, and the spam stops.
MOST times. It took a while to get through to hinet.net about their 'tom lee designs' spammer, but even then, when I finally got through to somebody the spam was stopped.
For the last three months, I've been dealing with wads of spam from what I believe to be the same spammer due to the headers:
The ISP in question is AT&T Global. (mail to abuse@prserv.net ends up at postmaster@attglobal). For the last three months or so, I've diligently forwarding the messages, with headers, to abuse@prserv.net (or postmaster@attglobal.net). Until recently, they've been universally coming back with form-letters saying 'this problem has already been reported'. Sometimes the spam stops for a day or two, sometimes it doesn't.
I even looked up their contact number on whois and called THAT a few times (the only human beings there seem to be overworked and underpaid tech support people). The last few days, I've been getting my reports returned in a form letter stamped 'not our domain', as if whoever's getting my messages at AT&T Global is either 'in on it' or just doesn't want to deal with it any more (or perhaps is's just a 'new guy' who's not used to dealing with the headers, or thinks that only AT&T Global user's complaints about spam from their network should be dealt with)....
Point is, with roughly 80 spam messages from the same spammer forwarded, the spam has continued unabated, and I honestly wonder if some salesdrone at AT&T Global's Austin, Texas area POP has an 'understanding' with the spammer and has been willing to re-sign him every time he gets kicked off. Unfortunately, none of the emails I've sent to 'postmaster@attglobal.net' requesting more information about the spammer (including requests on the order of 'who do I contact to find out the proper legal procedure for obtaining the spammer's identity so that I can look into taking action myself') simply come back with more form-letters, or are unanswered...
I called them again today (after last night's two spams came back from them stamped 'not our domain') and for the first time, actually got to speak to someone in the postmaster department. She actually seemed helpful and polite, so hopefully something might finally be DONE about this spammer...
So, anyway, to get back to the point - the ISP's are the ones who have the power to do something about spammers on their network, and if they choose not to, there ought to be some sort of recourse. Small ISP's, you can complain to their upstream provider, but when you're dealing with AT&T Global?....
'scuze the verbosity of this post - this particular spammer/ISP issue has me pretty irritated at the moment...
Then, in traditional US fashion, the government will pay wads of taxpayer money to send the convicted Spammerette to Sweden for a sex change operation.
Once the operation is complete and everything's operating...THEN we castrate them...
(Hey, if we worry about disinfecting equipment used to perform lethal injection....)