It's only actually a 'joe-job' if it is an intentional attempt to direct misguided wrath at the target. Joe-jobbery includes deliberately putting a person's e-mail address in the 'from' header so that they will be inundated with bounces and complaints as well as spamming out 'advertisements' for a website in an attempt to make that particular website look bad.
I had someone joe-job me recently (he did it to people who had posted in a particular newsgroup). That was a deliberate act, and if I ever find him, there's going to be a funny story about the spammer, a baseball bat, a container of kerosine and a match.
Re:Keep the government out of this!
on
FTC vs Spammers
·
· Score: 1
Simple. Object to spam based upon the method of delivery and the lack of consent. The message itself isn't an issue unless it is deceptive and/or illegal, but the act of spamming in and of itself is despicable regardless of what is being advertised.
The "free speach" argument is a bogus bullshit line pulled out by just about every spammer. The First Amendment does not grant anyone a right to appropriate the private resources of other people as an advertising medium.
Spammers are criminals. The very act of spamming involves theft of resources. That is why spamming should be outlawed (and spammers put to death), not because they're selling things that we don't want or they're making outlandish and false claims (though just about every spammer does this). It matters not if the spam is for porn, penis enlargement or solicitations for a cancer research fund. Each and every one should be treated with scorn and an effort should be made to have the advertised website blasted off of the Internet.
Re:The FTC now says they can regulate spam
on
FTC vs Spammers
·
· Score: 1
For some reason my previous comment was posted as "Anonymous Coward", but it wasn't meant to be. Sorry. Anyway, gist of it is: legitimate companies don't send spam, so "legitimate companies who use spamming" is a nonsensical term and I commented on the potential danger of a legitimate company being defamed by a spammer and then being investigated by the FTC as a result.
The problem with making it a driver update is that it's not just a matter of magically transforming the video. Creating progressive scan output requires use of one of several different possible algorithms to 'de-interlace' the video, and some methods are better for some video formats (movie, television, etc) than others. A 'generic' progressive scan DVD player could just use a single deinterlacing method, but the results could be worse than a standard interlaced player (I've heard of one Philips DVD player with just that problem). I'm not sure how easy it would be to create a 'driver' to handle all of that for the existing PS2 model.
I'd been looking into progressive scan DVD players some time ago, and one thing that I saw was that the X-Box's DVD playback did NOT support progressive scan output. I wasn't planning on getting one anyway (I settled on a really nice $200 Panasonic model), but I thought it odd that Microsoft often touted the XBox's readiness for newer televisions but didn't support progressive scan DVD playback...
As for the PS2, it can already output a progressive signal if a game uses it. It just doesn't have a lot of games that make use of the feature and it doesn't support such in its DVD playback.
Find the Internet's most notorious spam-supporting ISPs, like Qwest and Verio and anything in China or Brazil. Revoke all of their allocated IP space and give it to ISPs requesting new IP allocations, then redistribute the 69/8 IP addresses to Verio, Qwest, etc. That way no one will need to update their filters.
UBE is spam. It need not be advertising a product or service to qualify.
The responsibility for the spam run falls onto all who were involved in its transmission. This includes the sender as well as any company that might have contracted the spam run. It also includes the admins of any open mail relays used for sending the spam. If the advertisment is spammed as a result of some idiot sending out an advert for a company without their consent, it's an even worse case because the sender has just dragged the name of the company referenced in the advertisement through the mud by association (some criminal spammers have done just this, it's called a 'joe-job', so named for one of the first known victims of such a run).
"Bulk" is hard to define specifically. If you're only sending a mail to two people, then you should probably craft it in such a way that it dosn't look like a generic advertisement. Referencing something specific that they said might be a good idea. I won't hold back from reporting an e-mail just because they might have only sent it to me and one other person if the message contains little more than 'I saw your post on USENET and I thought that you might like this...'
By continuing to host Jason Vale even after it was revealed that he was selling a deadly poison as a "cancer treatment" (and he's been taken to court over that), Yahoo! was aiding and abetting criminal activity. That in itself is a crime. That makes the people at Yahoo! who allowed him to remain connected and selling his product criminals. Therefore, Yahoo! is run by criminals.
ISPs are private companies, and they have clearly posted terms of service. An ISP has the right to terminate the service of any customer they don't like, whether they're spamming or not.
Yes, but I've seen some clueless ISP admins cave in to spammer whinings regarding nonexistent first amendment protections.
OK, so what is spam, legally?
Unsolicited bulk e-mail. E-mail sent en masse without the consent of the recipients on the mailing list.
Does it count as spam if it's sent unsolicited to 25,000 people but isn't actually advertising a product?
Yes.
Does it count as spam if it's only sent to 15 carefully selected people and it advertises a product related to their work?
That depends. If all 15 people specifically solicited information on a product such as the one being advertised, then it's probably okay. If, however, it was sent simply because the recipients 'might' have an interest because of their career, then it's spam.
Does it count as spam if it was sent to a list of people who signed up for a mailing list, even if some of them reported it as spam anyway?
If the recipients signed up for the mailing, then it's not spam. Still, mailing lists should be carefully run to prevent unauthorized subscriptions as they will be able to collect documentation to prove that their mailings were not spam.
What if they signed up for someone else's mailing list, and I bought the list from them?
Unless they specifically requested to be on YOUR mailing list, then it's spam. There have been quite a few companies lambasted for selling their e-mail lists and others lambasted for sending mail to purchased lists, and rightfully so.
A few are honest morons.
I've heard of exactly one "reformed" spammer. He was just ignorant, and once he realised the error of his ways he became an anti-spammer with an attitude. One out of the thousands out there is a very rare exception. It's safe to treat any spammer as a lying thief.
No, spam _is_ cost-shifted advertising. Free speech applies to content, but my objections and the objections of other anti-spammers are based on consent.
The First Amendment does not protect people who steal the resource of others in order to advertise. I don't care if they're sending me viagra ads, charity solicitations or political announcements, if it's unsolicited advertising of ANY kind, I should not have to pay to receive it.
The "frea speach" line is one of the biggest bullshit excuses that spammers use.
Internet portal Yahoo! said it supported the bill, while the DMA and Internet provider America Online said they would work with the Senate to craft an effective bill.
First, the DMA cannot be trusted. They've long supported the 'right' of advertisers to harass and annoy people and to send cost-shifted unsolicited advertising. They should not be allowed to have a say in any anti-spam legislation. Preferrably, they should all be put to death.
Second, Yahoo! is a known spam-friendly place. Anyone at stores.yahoo.com is free to spam out advertisements for their Yahoo! stores and Yahoo! will do nothing. Heck, Yahoo! hosted known criminal Jason Vale for some time even though it's well documented that he sells a lethal poison as a "cancer treatment". Yahoo! is run by criminals and they're openly tolerant of criminal activity on their network. They shouldn't have a say in this either.
Hey, I wouldn't object to dropping a nuke on China and Brazil in order to cut down on the spammer problem.
Of course, full-on raids of known spam-supporting ISPs in the US are also in order. Personally, I think that the world would be a much better place if every manager and salesperson at Verio were killed (in addition to spammers).
...because it wouldn't outlaw spamming, rather it would outlaw one particular tactic used in spamming. Even though the bill doesn't say that it's perfectly acceptable to send junk e-mail with valid return addresses, spammers will still appeal to the wording as 'proof' that their postage-due garbage is 'free speech' and as such their ISPs shouldn't terminate them.
Spam should be outlawed, period. We don't need laws that define 'legal' spam, all spam should be illegal because all spam is postage-due advertising. Anything else will give spammers something to toss into their e-mails as a 'disclaimer' to 'prove' that their mailings aren't spam (notice many spams that STILL reference a bill that died in committee as though it had been passed into law, not only citing a bill that never made it into law but also completely misstating what the bill would have done).
All spammers are thieves and liars. Don't give them any ammunition.
0kpbs. You cannot safely guarantee anything faster than that, lest you have customers threatening lawsuits when a router over which the ISP has no control dies.
What should be offered is a guaranteed average rate.
Right to spam? From where do you derive this? Spammers might have a right to express an opinion, but I'm not aware of any right to appropriate the equipment of other people at their expense and without their consent to make that expression.
Spam is theft. There is no right to steal. Spammers should be killed.
If you kill the people who advertising improperly, they won't be able to hire spammers to do it. Then, if you kill the spammers, they won't be able to spam. Personally, I see that as the ideal solution, but so few agree:(
Um, if you know what you are doing you can compile a NIC module and install it without rebuilding the kernel (or restarting the machine), provided you have the current kernel source available.
Heh. I'm not sure if it was intentional, but the monsters of the Buffy episode Hush (Season 4) seemed very much patterned after The Strangers, but I had to wonder how many people would have noticed since I'd heard very little about Dark City until some DVD buffs recommended it to me.
I can second that. I didn't stop getting spam until I started bouncing all of their mail to every corporate address that I could find (and addresses of their upstream).
It won't work with entering the CD key, unfortunately.
Fortunately there are at least two installers that will do the trick, and someone on the NWN Linux Client forum posted a method of using one of those installers and an edit of system.reg in ~/.wine/config combined with the latest update patch run through wine to get the install up to the lastest version.
Slashdot Mirror
It's only actually a 'joe-job' if it is an intentional attempt to direct misguided wrath at the target.
Joe-jobbery includes deliberately putting a person's e-mail address in the 'from' header so that they will be inundated with bounces and complaints as well as spamming out 'advertisements' for a website in an attempt to make that particular website look bad.
I had someone joe-job me recently (he did it to people who had posted in a particular newsgroup). That was a deliberate act, and if I ever find him, there's going to be a funny story about the spammer, a baseball bat, a container of kerosine and a match.
Simple. Object to spam based upon the method of delivery and the lack of consent. The message itself isn't an issue unless it is deceptive and/or illegal, but the act of spamming in and of itself is despicable regardless of what is being advertised.
The "free speach" argument is a bogus bullshit line pulled out by just about every spammer. The First Amendment does not grant anyone a right to appropriate the private resources of other people as an advertising medium.
Spammers are criminals. The very act of spamming involves theft of resources. That is why spamming should be outlawed (and spammers put to death), not because they're selling things that we don't want or they're making outlandish and false claims (though just about every spammer does this). It matters not if the spam is for porn, penis enlargement or solicitations for a cancer research fund. Each and every one should be treated with scorn and an effort should be made to have the advertised website blasted off of the Internet.
For some reason my previous comment was posted as "Anonymous Coward", but it wasn't meant to be. Sorry.
Anyway, gist of it is: legitimate companies don't send spam, so "legitimate companies who use spamming" is a nonsensical term and I commented on the potential danger of a legitimate company being defamed by a spammer and then being investigated by the FTC as a result.
I'm all for bombing governments that refuse to curb their spamming problem. That includes states within the US, such as Florida.
The problem with making it a driver update is that it's not just a matter of magically transforming the video. Creating progressive scan output requires use of one of several different possible algorithms to 'de-interlace' the video, and some methods are better for some video formats (movie, television, etc) than others. A 'generic' progressive scan DVD player could just use a single deinterlacing method, but the results could be worse than a standard interlaced player (I've heard of one Philips DVD player with just that problem). I'm not sure how easy it would be to create a 'driver' to handle all of that for the existing PS2 model.
I'd been looking into progressive scan DVD players some time ago, and one thing that I saw was that the X-Box's DVD playback did NOT support progressive scan output. I wasn't planning on getting one anyway (I settled on a really nice $200 Panasonic model), but I thought it odd that Microsoft often touted the XBox's readiness for newer televisions but didn't support progressive scan DVD playback...
As for the PS2, it can already output a progressive signal if a game uses it. It just doesn't have a lot of games that make use of the feature and it doesn't support such in its DVD playback.
Find the Internet's most notorious spam-supporting ISPs, like Qwest and Verio and anything in China or Brazil. Revoke all of their allocated IP space and give it to ISPs requesting new IP allocations, then redistribute the 69/8 IP addresses to Verio, Qwest, etc. That way no one will need to update their filters.
UBE is spam. It need not be advertising a product or service to qualify.
The responsibility for the spam run falls onto all who were involved in its transmission. This includes the sender as well as any company that might have contracted the spam run. It also includes the admins of any open mail relays used for sending the spam. If the advertisment is spammed as a result of some idiot sending out an advert for a company without their consent, it's an even worse case because the sender has just dragged the name of the company referenced in the advertisement through the mud by association (some criminal spammers have done just this, it's called a 'joe-job', so named for one of the first known victims of such a run).
"Bulk" is hard to define specifically. If you're only sending a mail to two people, then you should probably craft it in such a way that it dosn't look like a generic advertisement. Referencing something specific that they said might be a good idea. I won't hold back from reporting an e-mail just because they might have only sent it to me and one other person if the message contains little more than 'I saw your post on USENET and I thought that you might like this...'
By continuing to host Jason Vale even after it was revealed that he was selling a deadly poison as a "cancer treatment" (and he's been taken to court over that), Yahoo! was aiding and abetting criminal activity. That in itself is a crime. That makes the people at Yahoo! who allowed him to remain connected and selling his product criminals. Therefore, Yahoo! is run by criminals.
Just because Yahoo! doesn't like spam going to their users, doesn't mean that they don't mind profitting from spammers.
ISPs are private companies, and they have clearly posted terms of service. An ISP has the right to terminate the service of any customer they don't like, whether they're spamming or not.
Yes, but I've seen some clueless ISP admins cave in to spammer whinings regarding nonexistent first amendment protections.
OK, so what is spam, legally?
Unsolicited bulk e-mail. E-mail sent en masse without the consent of the recipients on the mailing list.
Does it count as spam if it's sent unsolicited to 25,000 people but isn't actually advertising a product?
Yes.
Does it count as spam if it's only sent to 15 carefully selected people and it advertises a product related to their work?
That depends. If all 15 people specifically solicited information on a product such as the one being advertised, then it's probably okay. If, however, it was sent simply because the recipients 'might' have an interest because of their career, then it's spam.
Does it count as spam if it was sent to a list of people who signed up for a mailing list, even if some of them reported it as spam anyway?
If the recipients signed up for the mailing, then it's not spam. Still, mailing lists should be carefully run to prevent unauthorized subscriptions as they will be able to collect documentation to prove that their mailings were not spam.
What if they signed up for someone else's mailing list, and I bought the list from them?
Unless they specifically requested to be on YOUR mailing list, then it's spam. There have been quite a few companies lambasted for selling their e-mail lists and others lambasted for sending mail to purchased lists, and rightfully so.
A few are honest morons.
I've heard of exactly one "reformed" spammer. He was just ignorant, and once he realised the error of his ways he became an anti-spammer with an attitude. One out of the thousands out there is a very rare exception. It's safe to treat any spammer as a lying thief.
Spam _is_ free speech.
No, spam _is_ cost-shifted advertising. Free speech applies to content, but my objections and the objections of other anti-spammers are based on consent.
The First Amendment does not protect people who steal the resource of others in order to advertise. I don't care if they're sending me viagra ads, charity solicitations or political announcements, if it's unsolicited advertising of ANY kind, I should not have to pay to receive it.
The "frea speach" line is one of the biggest bullshit excuses that spammers use.
Internet portal Yahoo! said it supported the bill, while the DMA and Internet provider America Online said they would work with the Senate to craft an effective bill.
First, the DMA cannot be trusted. They've long supported the 'right' of advertisers to harass and annoy people and to send cost-shifted unsolicited advertising. They should not be allowed to have a say in any anti-spam legislation. Preferrably, they should all be put to death.
Second, Yahoo! is a known spam-friendly place. Anyone at stores.yahoo.com is free to spam out advertisements for their Yahoo! stores and Yahoo! will do nothing. Heck, Yahoo! hosted known criminal Jason Vale for some time even though it's well documented that he sells a lethal poison as a "cancer treatment". Yahoo! is run by criminals and they're openly tolerant of criminal activity on their network. They shouldn't have a say in this either.
Hey, I wouldn't object to dropping a nuke on China and Brazil in order to cut down on the spammer problem.
Of course, full-on raids of known spam-supporting ISPs in the US are also in order. Personally, I think that the world would be a much better place if every manager and salesperson at Verio were killed (in addition to spammers).
...because it wouldn't outlaw spamming, rather it would outlaw one particular tactic used in spamming.
Even though the bill doesn't say that it's perfectly acceptable to send junk e-mail with valid return addresses, spammers will still appeal to the wording as 'proof' that their postage-due garbage is 'free speech' and as such their ISPs shouldn't terminate them.
Spam should be outlawed, period. We don't need laws that define 'legal' spam, all spam should be illegal because all spam is postage-due advertising. Anything else will give spammers something to toss into their e-mails as a 'disclaimer' to 'prove' that their mailings aren't spam (notice many spams that STILL reference a bill that died in committee as though it had been passed into law, not only citing a bill that never made it into law but also completely misstating what the bill would have done).
All spammers are thieves and liars. Don't give them any ammunition.
Spam costs ISPs quite a bit of money in storage space and processing time.
Spammers are thieves. Spammers belong in jail or, better, in torture chambers until they die.
0kpbs. You cannot safely guarantee anything faster than that, lest you have customers threatening lawsuits when a router over which the ISP has no control dies.
What should be offered is a guaranteed average rate.
Right to spam? From where do you derive this? Spammers might have a right to express an opinion, but I'm not aware of any right to appropriate the equipment of other people at their expense and without their consent to make that expression.
Spam is theft. There is no right to steal. Spammers should be killed.
fits of anger and frustration I've felt like, if the spammer was my neighbor I'd go over and give him a knuckle sandwich.
In my calmer moments, I've contemplated tracking down Alan Ralsky and shooting him.
If you kill the people who advertising improperly, they won't be able to hire spammers to do it. Then, if you kill the spammers, they won't be able to spam. Personally, I see that as the ideal solution, but so few agree :(
Um, if you know what you are doing you can compile a NIC module and install it without rebuilding the kernel (or restarting the machine), provided you have the current kernel source available.
Heh.
I'm not sure if it was intentional, but the monsters of the Buffy episode Hush (Season 4) seemed very much patterned after The Strangers, but I had to wonder how many people would have noticed since I'd heard very little about Dark City until some DVD buffs recommended it to me.
I can second that. I didn't stop getting spam until I started bouncing all of their mail to every corporate address that I could find (and addresses of their upstream).
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
I'm thinking of making a patch file for those who don't want to use Wine to update the default CD install.
It won't work with entering the CD key, unfortunately.
Fortunately there are at least two installers that will do the trick, and someone on the NWN Linux Client forum posted a method of using one of those installers and an edit of system.reg in ~/.wine/config combined with the latest update patch run through wine to get the install up to the lastest version.