My plan for a new goverment, is that everyone in a disicion making department must take a test on what they are trying to regulate. Uf they don't pass the test, they don't get to vote.
I want something similiar. I want the "enlightened democracy" where everyone that wants to vote (for parliament, etc.) need to go through a test - to show that they know what they're voting at. 50 or so questions about what diffrent parties want. If you get more than 75% correct, you may vote. If not, you may go home and rehurse, and come back and take the test again.
The point is - nobody is going to be *excluded*. There should not be "right" and "wrong" meanings. The point is that people should know what they're voting at.
don't youunderstand that down-time is goood??? theserver shouldn't be put under too mch pressre im instlaling nt today since i dont want to run linux anymore because it isnt made by microsoft but by communists and other crap!!! i want to support bill gates who is the smartest man in the word he deserves my money for making the computer in the first place dont you agree!!!!!
and if you donot agree then you violated that eula of that other microsoftsupportingguy and he can su yourass off or something!!!!
dont yu understnad that nt shoudl be everywere???!? of course it should be!!! it is made by the smartest man in the world and his company!!
Do you ask the water company if their water is free of carcinogens? Do you ask the electrical company if they make their electricity available all the time? Do you ask car dealers if the car they sell you will explode when rear-ended? Do you ask your grocer if their produce has been spit on?
None of these questions are releveant. The water company can't be blamed if someone won't turn on the water. The electrical company can't be blamed if the receipent don't want to use their electricity. And I don't understand what the car dealer is in here for at all. The grocerer can't be held liable if there are some people out there who don't want to buy their products.
The ISP is hosting the pages. Nobody is required to download them. Should Water companies be obligied to inform their customers which people don't want to use their company?
I'm more interested in: Since my ISP *knew* I was being censored and didn't tell me about it, are they liable to refund the money I've paid them for the time I've been censored?
No. They did not censor you. Your ISP has done nothing wrong. That someone blocks them is not their fault. it's not their responsibility. They are doing their job. I don't see why they should inform anyone that someone is trying to stop them from sending out pages..?
If the ISP knew that legit sites were being blocked and chose not to tell their customers (*Business* customers), then why is it not their fault. They have an obligation to deliver the goods.
They *Are* delivering the goods. It's the other end that chooses not to accept it.
The only reason they didn't is the fact that they knew if they did, then they would loose money from corporations wanting web site hostings.
And they would lose customers like me who HATE massemails. I've btw registered my last domain at internic, due to their stupid mass-emailing about what they do and so forth. I'm not interested in dealing with companies that send me non-wanted email.
Although it isn't the ISP's fault that Cyber Patrol is blocking my site, it is my ISP's fault that they KNEW ABOUT IT and didn't tell me, or any of their users! They just wanted to keep it hush-hush. I think that was wrong. It was a shrewd business move... As in: "Customers might leave if they know they're being censored, and we're not willing to do anything about it!"
So, every time some stupid sucker blocks their site, they should mass-email all their customers? If I make a little product that blocks a certain kind of ISPs.. then the ISP should be forced to inform all their customers that such a program exist? (If I make sure they know about it..)
I couldn't disagree more. If I was a customer of an ISP that bothered me by mass-emailing about some stupid program vendor blocking them, I would switch ISP to an ISP that didn't send stupid mass-emails. I don't want to know about that kind of junk. People who are stupid enough to use blocking software don't want to see my page
The blocking is not the ISP's fault. Failing to inform customers of the it IS the ISP's fault. It's a form of lying, and lying to take someone's money away is fraud.
Why on earth should they be obligied to inform anyone about that? It would be a nice thing to do - yes. But heck, THEY are not responsible for someone blocking them.
The ISP owes him at least part of his money back. He defrauded him in selling him a limited-access web site without telling him it was limited access. And how do you think it would look if the headhunter figured out "Oh, this guy's resume is on an adult site!"
Nope. The ISP is not limiting access. CyberPatrol is. Big diffrence. If the lusers who want to access the webpage is stupid enough to use cyberpatrol it is their and noone elses fault.
His ISP is NOT limiting ANY access. They are offering FULL web-access. The users ISP is also offering full web access. CyberPatrol is offering their customers a product, and i'm sure they won't claim that no legitimate pages will be blocked. The customers who choose to install the product is the "guilty" ones. NO ONE ELSE.
We never had children disappear from the premises, however we had day care workers leave kids out on the playground unsupervised when it was time to come inside just because they didn't feel like chasing them down... and I guess they didn't realize how easy it is to climb over a cyclone fence.
I really do not see the problem with this. When I was.. 2-6 years or something I was in a day care senter or whatever it's called. We used a lot of time, when the weather was good, outside. We were climbing trees and doing all kinds of 'dangerous' stunts. I remember klimbing some sort of "thingie" made of metal, hanging from my legs and dangling with my head down. I lost my grip with my legs and went 1 - 1.5 meters down, and hit a metal bar.
Of course it was painful - but it was a learning session. I didn't take chances with that again.
Another time a branch of a tree I was climbing broke - and I fell 2meters down.. and the branch hit me in my head. painful. I learned that I should not play on thin branches.
(no wonder I've become what I've become?;))
.. My point is that you learn from that kind of things. Worst case is that a kid breaks an arm - who cares? It's painful, but it'll be all right in a month or so. Okay, worst case IS that someone dies, but accidents will always happen. it's better that kids play and learn and get sharpend, instead of getting dull and non-intelligent, since they can't explore and play around.
I really don't see why this should be so amazing except for the courage of the kid. Every kid knows how to plug and play with wires. (At least every kid with a minimum of intelligence).
Buy your kids a lot of lego. Buy your kids constructions sets - you will find them grow and prosper.:)
I think there need to be distinctions made in the blanket word of "spam".
No! No! No! Any email sent to me in my private mailbox, I have to pay to receive. I don't want to pay for other companies adverts.
Also, I don't want my companys bandwith (we offer webbased emaiservices) to be abused by spammers who want to advertise. EXCEPT of course if the ones they send ads to have *requested* the ads.
If anyone want to send ads to our webusers, they better; 1. Pay us for the bandwidth they use. 2. Pay the users that they send the ads to, for their time, their extra phonebill, and so forth.
ALL spam is a waste. Real-life spam uses up unecessary amounts of papeand ink, and usually ends up cluttering landfills, since the good majority don't recycle. Wrong to have the government step in? How can we NOT have them step in? This isn't "freedom," this is abuse.
Personally I do think some sort of "spam" should be legal. Not electronically, because it fills up my mailbox and its me that has to pay for it. Not to mention that it takes far too much valuable bandwidth that OTHER people than the advertiser has to pay for.
However, there should be a way to distribute information. A way for new, smalltime companies to say "here we are, and this is what we do". I sure as hell don't want all that stuff as papers in my 'In Real Life' mailbox neither - so exactly how to do that is a big question.
Free bulletinboards is one thing. Another good idea is that "you get paid to watch ads". I don't like alladvantage / gotoworld simply because they're pyramidal schemes which make everybody spam all their friends with "hey, be cool, join and put me up as your reference". Not to mention IRC spam and so forth.
The ISP had an anti-spam policy, and this company went against it. Tough darts, farmer! Ya break the usage code, ya get shut down. OTOH, If Nexx doesn't inform their clients that their ISP has a no-spam rule, then 2 lashes for Nexx as well.
Nah, no lashes to nexx whatever was the case. If an ISP does allow spam, it can only do so for ITS customers. No ISP may allow anyone to spam my mailbox.
If nexx didn't explicitly deny their clients to spam - I don't think they could've done anything if one of their customers spammed their other customers...but their customers could of course take direct action.
But the article pointed out that there are legitimate businesses who use e-mail to advertise, much like a circular in the newspaper, and this ruling appearently considers that spam. Laws to outlaw spam would be extremely hard to enforce and leave much room for interpetation. What is spam? Who will decide what is and what isn't?
All email that is sent from someone you do not know, to convince you of something is spam. Everything that is sent to me, without me requesting it - or it originating from someone I know - I regard as spam.
If I post my mailaddress at my webpage, of course people may send me mail there - about my webpage, or even just for fun. But for it to be spidered into spamdatabases - that's not good. I use two mailaddresses. One at hotmail - which is a virtual spamtrap. Using it when I post both to usenet and putting it in guestbooks - it has a tendency to be spammed from here to hell and back. The problem with this, is that it causes extra load to the hotmail servers. Not that I really care about hotmail - but I run my own webbased wemailservices too. And I really am FED UP with spammers who abuse my bandwith, my mailservers processing power and so forth.
And yes - spam DOES hurt. It takes bandwidth, they use 3rd party mailhosts which are misconfigured and allow worldwide relaying. Abusing the poor admins processing power and their connection-bandwidth.
Spam shall be fought, and we shall win the battle. All unsolicited junkmail should be eradicated, and I do not want my bandwidth to be wasted on some company wanting to market itself. If they really want to send email to my customers they should PAY MY NEXT BANDWIDTH UPGRADE.
Phone number? I don't want to call to the US to be removed from a spammers list. If I want to be spammed, I want the choice to ENTER the lists of the spammers. I don't want to be the one who have to take action, to be removed.
>Not that I'm advocating this, but if we were all to >ping flood him, he would die a horrible death.
*Argggh*. Kids at play. Pingflooding is *not*, I repeat *not* a good way to solve a problem. You hurt his ISP, his ISP's upstream, also, all the systems involved in ping'ing the poor sucker will lose some bandwith, and so on.
Flooding hurts the *entire* net. Not only those that get hit. When ISPs have to double their bandwith because half of it get wasted because of smurfattacks.. you should start thinking.
From the jargon dictionary: -- cracker/n./ One who breaks security on a system. Coined ca. 1985 by hackers in defense against journalistic misuse of hacker (q.v., sense 8). An earlier attempt to establish `worm' in this sense around 1981--82 on Usenet was largely a failure.
Use of both these neologisms reflects a strong revulsion against the theft and vandalism perpetrated by cracking rings. While it is expected that any real hacker will have done some playful cracking and knows many of the basic techniques, anyone past larval stage is expected to have outgrown the desire to do so except for immediate, benign, practical reasons (for example, if it's necessary to get around some security in order to get some work done).
Thus, there is far less overlap between hackerdom and crackerdom than the mundane reader misled by sensationalistic journalism might expect. Crackers tend to gather in small, tight-knit, very secretive groups that have little overlap with the huge, open poly-culture this lexicon describes; though crackers often like to describe *themselves* as hackers, most true hackers consider them a separate and lower form of life.
Ethical considerations aside, hackers figure that anyone who can't imagine a more interesting way to play with their computers than breaking into someone else's has to be pretty losing. Some other reasons crackers are looked down on are discussed in the entries on cracking and phreaking. See also samurai, dark-side hacker, and hacker ethic. For a portrait of the typical teenage cracker, see warez d00dz.
It's pretty obvious that you wasn't the main victim. It's pretty obvious that you didn't experience beeing beaten up aproximately 5 out of 10 days you went to school. It's pretty obvious you actually had people to hang around with.
please don't open your mouth when you don't have more "credentials" as you call them.
If you get up in a religion class and say you've wish you had owned a gun, of course someone is going to take it as a sign. I have no pity for anyone punished for saying something like this because they have no common sense, and no respect for the fears of others.
First. The person said that he WISHED he had a gun when he was bullied, and that wasn't in the same grade he was now.
Second. Me, and I bet most other people that have been bullied know what the person is talking about. Hell yes, I was terrorized in school for 9 years. Yes, I've wished that I owned a gun. Yes, I murdered my tormentors in my fantasies thousands of times. And yes. This IS perfectly normal. It IS normal to take back at your tormentors - even if it's only in your own fantasies.
I've spoken to a lot of people who has been bullied. I've never spoken to one that hasn't had his 'revenge' against his tormentors in his mind.
You say it's wrong to tell others about what you think, or have thought in the past. That is the "you should keep quiet" voice. You are one of those that want us to suffer peacefully. Never ever speak of what we really thought of, when we were being bullied. If one cannot face the problem, one can never get rid of it. One gotta force the 'normals' into understanding that they can't treat other people like shit.
--
"Rune Kristian Viken" - arcade@kvine-nospam.sdal.com - arcade@efnet
OK, slashdot does have a great bandwith. Of course you can just setup your filters to filter out spam. Not everybody does have similiar bandwith. Some of us run emailservices on lousy 33k6 and 64kbps connection. Don't tell me that spam should be allowed, I see red whenever I hear such a thing. All spam that is sent into mailboxes causes lag for other, more important, mails - and should therefore be punishable by death!
Slashdot Mirror
My plan for a new goverment, is that everyone in a disicion making department must take a test on what they are trying to regulate. Uf they don't pass the test, they don't get to vote.
I want something similiar. I want the "enlightened democracy" where everyone that wants to vote (for parliament, etc.) need to go through a test - to show that they know what they're voting at. 50 or so questions about what diffrent parties want. If you get more than 75% correct, you may vote. If not, you may go home and rehurse, and come back and take the test again.
The point is - nobody is going to be *excluded*. There should not be "right" and "wrong" meanings. The point is that people should know what they're voting at.
--
don't youunderstand that down-time is goood??? theserver shouldn't be put under too mch pressre im instlaling nt today since i dont want to run linux anymore because it isnt made by microsoft but by communists and other crap!!! i want to support bill gates who is the smartest man in the word he deserves my money for making the computer in the first place dont you agree!!!!!
and if you donot agree then you violated that eula of that other microsoftsupportingguy and he can su yourass off or something!!!!
dont yu understnad that nt shoudl be everywere???!? of course it should be!!! it is made by the smartest man in the world and his company!!
Do you ask the water company if their water is free of carcinogens? Do you ask the electrical company if they make their electricity available all the time? Do you ask car dealers if the car they sell you will explode when rear-ended? Do you ask your grocer if their produce has been spit on?
None of these questions are releveant. The water company can't be blamed if someone won't turn on the water. The electrical company can't be blamed if the receipent don't want to use their electricity. And I don't understand what the car dealer is in here for at all. The grocerer can't be held liable if there are some people out there who don't want to buy their products.
The ISP is hosting the pages. Nobody is required to download them. Should Water companies be obligied to inform their customers which people don't want to use their company?
I'm more interested in: Since my ISP *knew* I was being censored and didn't tell me about it, are they liable to refund the money I've paid them for the time I've been censored?
No. They did not censor you. Your ISP has done nothing wrong. That someone blocks them is not their fault. it's not their responsibility. They are doing their job. I don't see why they should inform anyone that someone is trying to stop them from sending out pages..?
If the ISP knew that legit sites were being blocked and chose not to tell their customers (*Business* customers), then why is it not their fault. They have an obligation to deliver the goods.
They *Are* delivering the goods. It's the other end that chooses not to accept it.
The only reason they didn't is the fact that they knew if they did, then they would loose money from corporations wanting web site hostings.
And they would lose customers like me who HATE massemails. I've btw registered my last domain at internic, due to their stupid mass-emailing about what they do and so forth. I'm not interested in dealing with companies that send me non-wanted email.
Although it isn't the ISP's fault that Cyber Patrol is blocking my site, it is my ISP's fault that they KNEW ABOUT IT and didn't tell me, or any of their users! They just wanted to keep it hush-hush. I think that was wrong. It was a shrewd business move... As in: "Customers might leave if they know they're being censored, and we're not willing to do anything about it!"
.. then the ISP should be forced to inform all their customers that such a program exist? (If I make sure they know about it..)
So, every time some stupid sucker blocks their site, they should mass-email all their customers? If I make a little product that blocks a certain kind of ISPs
I couldn't disagree more. If I was a customer of an ISP that bothered me by mass-emailing about some stupid program vendor blocking them, I would switch ISP to an ISP that didn't send stupid mass-emails. I don't want to know about that kind of junk. People who are stupid enough to use blocking software don't want to see my page
The blocking is not the ISP's fault. Failing to inform customers of the it IS the ISP's fault. It's a form of lying, and lying to take someone's money away is fraud.
Why on earth should they be obligied to inform anyone about that? It would be a nice thing to do - yes. But heck, THEY are not responsible for someone blocking them.
The ISP owes him at least part of his money back. He defrauded him in selling him a limited-access web site without telling him it was limited access. And how do you think it would look if the headhunter figured out "Oh, this guy's resume is on an adult site!"
Nope. The ISP is not limiting access. CyberPatrol is. Big diffrence. If the lusers who want to access the webpage is stupid enough to use cyberpatrol it is their and noone elses fault.
His ISP is NOT limiting ANY access. They are offering FULL web-access. The users ISP is also offering full web access. CyberPatrol is offering their customers a product, and i'm sure they won't claim that no legitimate pages will be blocked. The customers who choose to install the product is the "guilty" ones. NO ONE ELSE.
We never had children disappear from the premises, however we had day care workers leave kids out on the playground unsupervised when it was time to come inside just because they didn't feel like chasing them down... and I guess they didn't realize how easy it is to climb over a cyclone fence.
.. 2-6 years or something I was in a day care senter or whatever it's called. We used a lot of time, when the weather was good, outside. We were climbing trees and doing all kinds of 'dangerous' stunts. I remember klimbing some sort of "thingie" made of metal, hanging from my legs and dangling with my head down. I lost my grip with my legs and went 1 - 1.5 meters down, and hit a metal bar.
.. and the branch hit me in my head. painful. I learned that I should not play on thin branches.
;))
I really do not see the problem with this. When I was
Of course it was painful - but it was a learning session. I didn't take chances with that again.
Another time a branch of a tree I was climbing broke - and I fell 2meters down
(no wonder I've become what I've become?
.. My point is that you learn from that kind of things. Worst case is that a kid breaks an arm - who cares? It's painful, but it'll be all right in a month or so. Okay, worst case IS that someone dies, but accidents will always happen. it's better that kids play and learn and get sharpend, instead of getting dull and non-intelligent, since they can't explore and play around.
I really don't see why this should be so amazing except for the courage of the kid. Every kid knows how to plug and play with wires. (At least every kid with a minimum of intelligence).
:)
Buy your kids a lot of lego. Buy your kids constructions sets - you will find them grow and prosper.
I think there need to be distinctions made in the blanket word of "spam".
No! No! No! Any email sent to me in my private mailbox, I have to pay to receive. I don't want to pay for other companies adverts.
Also, I don't want my companys bandwith (we offer webbased emaiservices) to be abused by spammers who want to advertise. EXCEPT of course if the ones they send ads to have *requested* the ads.
If anyone want to send ads to our webusers, they better;
1. Pay us for the bandwidth they use.
2. Pay the users that they send the ads to, for their time, their extra phonebill, and so forth.
lexx:> telnet lexx.truthandjustice.net 25
.. if the ISP offers shell-logins, get an account and do a good ol' cat /etc/passwd
VRFY scarr
.. or
ALL spam is a waste. Real-life spam uses up unecessary amounts of papeand ink, and usually ends up cluttering landfills, since the good majority don't recycle. Wrong to have the government step in? How can we NOT have them step in? This isn't "freedom," this is abuse.
Personally I do think some sort of "spam" should be legal. Not electronically, because it fills up my mailbox and its me that has to pay for it. Not to mention that it takes far too much valuable bandwidth that OTHER people than the advertiser has to pay for.
However, there should be a way to distribute information. A way for new, smalltime companies to say "here we are, and this is what we do". I sure as hell don't want all that stuff as papers in my 'In Real Life' mailbox neither - so exactly how to do that is a big question.
Free bulletinboards is one thing. Another good idea is that "you get paid to watch ads". I don't like alladvantage / gotoworld simply because they're pyramidal schemes which make everybody spam all their friends with "hey, be cool, join and put me up as your reference". Not to mention IRC spam and so forth.
The ISP had an anti-spam policy, and this company went against it. Tough darts, farmer! Ya break the usage code, ya get shut down.
..but their customers could of course take direct action.
OTOH, If Nexx doesn't inform their clients that their ISP has a no-spam rule, then 2 lashes for Nexx as well.
Nah, no lashes to nexx whatever was the case. If an ISP does allow spam, it can only do so for ITS customers. No ISP may allow anyone to spam my mailbox.
If nexx didn't explicitly deny their clients to spam - I don't think they could've done anything if one of their customers spammed their other customers.
But the article pointed out that there are legitimate businesses who use e-mail to advertise, much like a circular in the newspaper, and this ruling appearently considers that spam. Laws to outlaw spam would be extremely hard to enforce and leave much room for interpetation. What is spam? Who will decide what is and what isn't?
All email that is sent from someone you do not know, to convince you of something is spam. Everything that is sent to me, without me requesting it - or it originating from someone I know - I regard as spam.
If I post my mailaddress at my webpage, of course people may send me mail there - about my webpage, or even just for fun. But for it to be spidered into spamdatabases - that's not good. I use two mailaddresses. One at hotmail - which is a virtual spamtrap. Using it when I post both to usenet and putting it in guestbooks - it has a tendency to be spammed from here to hell and back. The problem with this, is that it causes extra load to the hotmail servers. Not that I really care about hotmail - but I run my own webbased wemailservices too. And I really am FED UP with spammers who abuse my bandwith, my mailservers processing power and so forth.
And yes - spam DOES hurt. It takes bandwidth, they use 3rd party mailhosts which are misconfigured and allow worldwide relaying. Abusing the poor admins processing power and their connection-bandwidth.
Spam shall be fought, and we shall win the battle. All unsolicited junkmail should be eradicated, and I do not want my bandwidth to be wasted on some company wanting to market itself. If they really want to send email to my customers they should PAY MY NEXT BANDWIDTH UPGRADE.
Phone number? I don't want to call to the US to be removed from a spammers list. If I want to be spammed, I want the choice to ENTER the lists of the spammers. I don't want to be the one who have to take action, to be removed.
>Not that I'm advocating this, but if we were all to
.. you should start thinking.
>ping flood him, he would die a horrible death.
*Argggh*. Kids at play. Pingflooding is *not*, I repeat *not* a good way to solve a problem. You hurt his ISP, his ISP's upstream, also, all the systems involved in ping'ing the poor sucker will lose some bandwith, and so on.
Flooding hurts the *entire* net. Not only those that get hit. When ISPs have to double their bandwith because half of it get wasted because of smurfattacks
Oh, I forgot the URL
e r
http://www.netmeg.net/jargon/terms/c.html#crack
Yes, you are a bit confused. ;)
/n./ One who breaks security on a system. Coined ca. 1985 by hackers in defense against journalistic misuse of hacker (q.v., sense 8). An earlier attempt to establish `worm' in this sense around
From the jargon dictionary:
--
cracker
1981--82 on Usenet was largely a failure.
Use of both these neologisms reflects a strong revulsion against the theft and vandalism perpetrated by cracking rings. While it is expected that any real hacker will have done some playful cracking and
knows many of the basic techniques, anyone past larval stage is expected to have outgrown the desire to do so except for immediate, benign, practical reasons (for example, if it's necessary to get around
some security in order to get some work done).
Thus, there is far less overlap between hackerdom and crackerdom than the mundane reader misled by sensationalistic journalism might expect. Crackers tend to gather in small, tight-knit, very secretive
groups that have little overlap with the huge, open poly-culture this lexicon describes; though crackers often like to describe *themselves* as hackers, most true hackers consider them a separate and
lower form of life.
Ethical considerations aside, hackers figure that anyone who can't imagine a more interesting way to play with their computers than breaking into someone else's has to be pretty losing. Some other
reasons crackers are looked down on are discussed in the entries on cracking and phreaking. See also samurai, dark-side hacker, and hacker ethic. For a portrait of the typical teenage cracker, see warez
d00dz.
It's pretty obvious that you wasn't the main victim. It's pretty obvious that you didn't experience beeing beaten up aproximately 5 out of 10 days you went to school. It's pretty obvious you actually had people to hang around with.
please don't open your mouth when you don't have more "credentials" as you call them.
If you get up in a religion class and say you've wish you had owned a gun, of course someone is going to take it as a sign. I have no pity for anyone punished for saying something like this because they have no common sense, and no respect for the fears of others.
First. The person said that he WISHED he had a gun when he was bullied, and that wasn't in the same grade he was now.
Second. Me, and I bet most other people that have been bullied know what the person is talking about. Hell yes, I was terrorized in school for 9 years. Yes, I've wished that I owned a gun. Yes, I murdered my tormentors in my fantasies thousands of times. And yes. This IS perfectly normal. It IS normal to take back at your tormentors - even if it's only in your own fantasies.
I've spoken to a lot of people who has been bullied. I've never spoken to one that hasn't had his 'revenge' against his tormentors in his mind.
You say it's wrong to tell others about what you think, or have thought in the past. That is the "you should keep quiet" voice. You are one of those that want us to suffer peacefully. Never ever speak of what we really thought of, when we were being bullied. If one cannot face the problem, one can never get rid of it. One gotta force the 'normals' into understanding that they can't treat other people like shit.
--
"Rune Kristian Viken" - arcade@kvine-nospam.sdal.com - arcade@efnet
OK, slashdot does have a great bandwith. Of course you can just setup your filters to filter out spam. Not everybody does have similiar bandwith. Some of us run emailservices on lousy 33k6 and 64kbps connection. Don't tell me that spam should be allowed, I see red whenever I hear such a thing. All spam that is sent into mailboxes causes lag for other, more important, mails - and should therefore be punishable by death!