Tell them to put you on their internal DNC list. They are specifically required to do so, and to honor that list for several years. Prior relationship or no.
You could also organize a protest outside their place of business, if you're feeling peckish.
Most telemarketers get paid for how many calls they make, not necessarily (only) how many sales they make. They make more for sales, but nobody will pay any telemarketer anything to call the four people who aren't on the national DNC list.
Perhaps things are different in small towns, but around here, police and fireman's charities tell you that they never solicit donations by telephone. That if you get a phone call soliciting donations for a police or fireman related charity, it is a scam, and should be reported to them immediately.
This kind of vigilantism is custom made for spammers to use to attack those they hate. There is no way to tell, from the spam, if the site they advertise is their own, or that of someone they wish to hurt. Go google on the term "joe job" for more details.
If you think reflexology is a science, that there's anything at all to it, you should become a practitioner and apply for the $1,000,000 (that's one MILLION dollars) prize from the James Randi Educational Foundation. There are more details at http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html
Reflexology is specifically listed as qualifying.
If you don't, you're either a fool or a liar. Even if you "aren't interested in the money," think how much "legitimate" research could be done - how many people could be helped - with that million bucks.
That rather supports my point. The IRS is well known for only going after victims who have money. Very few spammers have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of. Mostly, they sit in their trailers, at the edge of the swamp, surrounded by greasy, empty KFC buckets.
Given that virutally all spam is already criminal - advertising products that do not exist, that do not do what is claimed, that are blatantly illegal on their face, like drugs or child porn - and the criminal laws being broken are almost completely unenforced, given all that . ..
Why would you think that a new law would be enforced?
BMI is a ratio of height to weight. It is no, in any way, connected to body fat. That is what makes it pure, unadulterated bullshit. It does not take in to account age, build, or even sex. According to those who preach BMI, a man and a woman of the same height should be the same weight. According to BMI, if you are very muscular, but in such good shape you have 5% body fat, you are overweight.
That isn't just quackery, it's medically dangerous.
So, you're saying the answer to identity theft is free porn?
I think the answer to every problem involves free porn. I think we need a Cabinet level position, to advise the President. A Department of Porn, to use our tax dollars to produce top quality porn.
I mean, really, think about how much less spam we'd have if every American taxpayer were entitles to top quality, government produced porn.
I'm not misappropirating anything. So far as I can tell, both the forwarding server and the final receiving server are compliant with all protocols and specifications that apply to them. I don't think they are run by the same ISP.
That's the problem with SPF. It breaks forwarding on virtual domains, because this is how virtual domains are done. And there are a lot of virtual domains, especially for hosted web sites.
Consider the hosted web site, for a moment. The owner of the domain does not run any of his servers. He probably connects to the internet through a different ISP than the host, and likely cannot send email through any SMTP server other than his dial-up ISP's. If that ISP is of any size, they almost certainly have multiple SMTP servers, possibly dozens, and they probably periodically change IP addresses on them. That means the domain owner cannot reliably keep his SPF records up to date with his ISP's SMTP servers. Hell, he probably can't even *create* SPF records, because his web host controls the DNS records and won't bother with anything custom.
SPF breaks a lot of this kind of virtual domain, and there's nothing the domain owner can do about it.
It's a broken idea, poorly implemented. Hotmail rejecting based on it will, gladly, hasten its death by years.
You are completely, totally, and entirely incorrect, and know nothing about the situation.
We are 100% SPF compliant. Tested and everything. The server we send through is on the only IP address allowed in our SPF record.
The address we send to is a virtual domain that does not offer POP3 mailboxes, only forwarding service. This is not under our control. It forwards to a third domain, also not under our control, that rejects based on SPF, because the second server - the forwarding service - does not rewrite the MAIL FROM address (and is not supposed to, so far as I know, under the RFCS).
All three machines are 100% compliant wit the RFCs, and the two using aspects of SPF are 100% compliant with those specs. And yet, legitimate email is being rejected.
And the only way around it is to misconfigure the server not using any aspect of SPF to violate the RFCs regarding how email is supposed to work.
Or, even better, use -all on our SPF, and thus explicitly enable precisely the kind of forgery that SPF is supposed to prevent.
We want the government to make the internet safer. But when asked about the specific things the government does to make the internet safer - read our email, monitor our porn downloading, etc. - we want the prohibit the government from doing any of those specific things.
Keep in mind, Blars is pretty well known as a raving lunatic. So far as I can tell, the main requirement for him to list you is for him to become aware that you exist.
I would consider it a blessing to be listed there, as anybody stupid enough to block based on his list is simply too stupid to be allowed to email me.
DNSbls do not silently block legitimate email, unless the server it was sent through is badly misconfigured. Legitimate email will generate a bounce message back to the sender when it is rejected.
The only way for a DNSbl to silently block any message is for the sending machine to be misconfigured so as to ignore 5xx replies. This is virtually a guarantee that the sender is a spammer.
Paparazzi photographing celebrities fall under the newsworthy exception. Try it with the average guy on the street and see what happens. (Hint: Put some money away for legal fees. Lots of money.)
There is no place in the United States where it is legal to publish, in a public forum of any kind, any photo, nude or otherwise, of anyone, without their permission (with the exception of stuff that's "newsworthy"). It's called a "model release," and if you don't have one, you take your financial future in your hands if you publish a photo.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell them to put you on their internal DNC list. They are specifically required to do so, and to honor that list for several years. Prior relationship or no.
You could also organize a protest outside their place of business, if you're feeling peckish.
Most telemarketers get paid for how many calls they make, not necessarily (only) how many sales they make. They make more for sales, but nobody will pay any telemarketer anything to call the four people who aren't on the national DNC list.
Perhaps things are different in small towns, but around here, police and fireman's charities tell you that they never solicit donations by telephone. That if you get a phone call soliciting donations for a police or fireman related charity, it is a scam, and should be reported to them immediately.
This kind of vigilantism is custom made for spammers to use to attack those they hate. There is no way to tell, from the spam, if the site they advertise is their own, or that of someone they wish to hurt. Go google on the term "joe job" for more details.
Stop being part of the problem.
Stop helping spammers.
There's always an excuse, isn't there?
If you don't know anything about reflexology, how do you know it's not complete and total bullshit?
If you think reflexology is a science, that there's anything at all to it, you should become a practitioner and apply for the $1,000,000 (that's one MILLION dollars) prize from the James Randi Educational Foundation. There are more details at http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html
Reflexology is specifically listed as qualifying.
If you don't, you're either a fool or a liar. Even if you "aren't interested in the money," think how much "legitimate" research could be done - how many people could be helped - with that million bucks.
We're talking about the IRS here...
That rather supports my point. The IRS is well known for only going after victims who have money. Very few spammers have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of. Mostly, they sit in their trailers, at the edge of the swamp, surrounded by greasy, empty KFC buckets.
Given that virutally all spam is already criminal - advertising products that do not exist, that do not do what is claimed, that are blatantly illegal on their face, like drugs or child porn - and the criminal laws being broken are almost completely unenforced, given all that . . .
Why would you think that a new law would be enforced?
BMI is a ratio of height to weight. It is no, in any way, connected to body fat. That is what makes it pure, unadulterated bullshit. It does not take in to account age, build, or even sex. According to those who preach BMI, a man and a woman of the same height should be the same weight. According to BMI, if you are very muscular, but in such good shape you have 5% body fat, you are overweight.
That isn't just quackery, it's medically dangerous.
So, you're saying the answer to identity theft is free porn?
I think the answer to every problem involves free porn. I think we need a Cabinet level position, to advise the President. A Department of Porn, to use our tax dollars to produce top quality porn.
I mean, really, think about how much less spam we'd have if every American taxpayer were entitles to top quality, government produced porn.
The reason identify theft is the fasteest growing problem is that a lot of crimes that used to be called something else is now called identify theft.
Someone steals your credit card number and orders porn? That's no longer credit card fraud, that's identity theft.
Someone forges a check against your bank account for porn? That's no longer check fraud, that's identity theft.
Somebody ordering a pizza in your name, because they can't afford porn? That's no longer a phone prank, that's identity theft.
Nearly all economic crime can now be classified as identity theft. Nearly all is being so classified.
It's impossible to tell how much of a problem there is, at this point. We're all too distracted by watching the sky falling.
I'm not misappropirating anything. So far as I can tell, both the forwarding server and the final receiving server are compliant with all protocols and specifications that apply to them. I don't think they are run by the same ISP.
That's the problem with SPF. It breaks forwarding on virtual domains, because this is how virtual domains are done. And there are a lot of virtual domains, especially for hosted web sites.
Consider the hosted web site, for a moment. The owner of the domain does not run any of his servers. He probably connects to the internet through a different ISP than the host, and likely cannot send email through any SMTP server other than his dial-up ISP's. If that ISP is of any size, they almost certainly have multiple SMTP servers, possibly dozens, and they probably periodically change IP addresses on them. That means the domain owner cannot reliably keep his SPF records up to date with his ISP's SMTP servers. Hell, he probably can't even *create* SPF records, because his web host controls the DNS records and won't bother with anything custom.
SPF breaks a lot of this kind of virtual domain, and there's nothing the domain owner can do about it.
It's a broken idea, poorly implemented. Hotmail rejecting based on it will, gladly, hasten its death by years.
Neither of the situations you describe match that of the ggp
In fact, if you weren't illiterate, and bothered to read what I said, one of those situations matches exactly.
Our email is being rejected by at least one virtual domain host because we are SPF compliant.
You are completely, totally, and entirely incorrect, and know nothing about the situation.
We are 100% SPF compliant. Tested and everything. The server we send through is on the only IP address allowed in our SPF record.
The address we send to is a virtual domain that does not offer POP3 mailboxes, only forwarding service. This is not under our control. It forwards to a third domain, also not under our control, that rejects based on SPF, because the second server - the forwarding service - does not rewrite the MAIL FROM address (and is not supposed to, so far as I know, under the RFCS).
All three machines are 100% compliant wit the RFCs, and the two using aspects of SPF are 100% compliant with those specs. And yet, legitimate email is being rejected.
And the only way around it is to misconfigure the server not using any aspect of SPF to violate the RFCs regarding how email is supposed to work.
Or, even better, use -all on our SPF, and thus explicitly enable precisely the kind of forgery that SPF is supposed to prevent.
That is the very definition of a broken system.
Since SPF doesn't even claim to be a method of reducing spam, why would anything think it would?
As it happens, a couple of my bosses have been having email rejected recently by the receiver's ISP because we are SPF compliant.
SPF breaks email forwarding, and most mailing lists. It's a bad idea, poorly conceieved, and poorly implemented.
No matter what we do, SPF will cause some of our email to be rejected.
That is a way to help spammers, not hinder them.
We want the government to make the internet safer. But when asked about the specific things the government does to make the internet safer - read our email, monitor our porn downloading, etc. - we want the prohibit the government from doing any of those specific things.
More spam is SPF compliant than is legitimate email. Even the guy who created SPF says it won't stop spam.
Keep in mind, Blars is pretty well known as a raving lunatic. So far as I can tell, the main requirement for him to list you is for him to become aware that you exist.
I would consider it a blessing to be listed there, as anybody stupid enough to block based on his list is simply too stupid to be allowed to email me.
DNSbls do not silently block legitimate email, unless the server it was sent through is badly misconfigured. Legitimate email will generate a bounce message back to the sender when it is rejected.
The only way for a DNSbl to silently block any message is for the sending machine to be misconfigured so as to ignore 5xx replies. This is virtually a guarantee that the sender is a spammer.
In the end, it will be the consumers who suffer the most if the broadcast flag is not mandated for the digital era.'"
"There's nothing on TV."
"There's gotta be a rerun we haven't seen, or something."
"No, really, there's nothing on. Literally, nothing at all."
"Well, let's go on a picnic, then, with the kids."
Yeah, terrible suffering.
So, instead of being only as secure as the programming in your brower, you'd be only as secure as the programming in your sandbox.
I see.
Paparazzi photographing celebrities fall under the newsworthy exception. Try it with the average guy on the street and see what happens. (Hint: Put some money away for legal fees. Lots of money.)
Has nothing to do with copyright. Go look up the right to exploit one's own image. In most states, privacy rights, as well.
You know nothing abouth the subject. You're embarrssing yourself.
Model releases are only needed for commercial ventures and even then they're probably just a safety net.
You obviously know nothing at all about the subject. Or your ass from a hole in the ground.
There is no place in the United States where it is legal to publish, in a public forum of any kind, any photo, nude or otherwise, of anyone, without their permission (with the exception of stuff that's "newsworthy"). It's called a "model release," and if you don't have one, you take your financial future in your hands if you publish a photo.
And rightly so.