Actually, I make it clear that the reason that they are being hit is because mail to abuse@spammerfriendlydomain.com wasn't getting any results.
Often times the higher-ups are the ones who are keeping the abuse department from doing anything, refusing to allow known criminals to be disconnected.
The speech wouldn't be illegal. The delivery method for the speech -- that is, theft by conversion and trespass to chattel -- would be illegal. It does not matter if the spam is for a charity benefit or pornography, it is wrong all the same and the sender should lose his or her account with his or her ISP.
As someone who escalates complaints to as many corporate addresses as I can find when initial spam complaints are ignored, sending out a message to as many addresses as can be found DOES have an effect. I've managed to really irritate some higher-ups at Qwest, but it wouldn't have been necessary if they would just terminate their criminal clients.
There is no way to "legitimize" unsolicited bulk e-mail. Spammers are, by their very nature, sociopathic scum whose existence is a waste of carbon, oxygen and water. They won't play by the rules, they will do whatever they can to evade filters and they will seek out crime-friendly ISPs like Verio, VDI and Qwest to commit whatever felonies they want. The fact is that I should not have to tell someone not to use MY resources to create advertisements that I DO NOT WANT. "Legitimizing" spamming in any way will simply give the scumbags yet another excuse on which to fall back when someone complains about their unsolicited garbage, yet another reason for them to launch legal threats against anyone who complains about the spam.
Heck, spammers still quote the failed bill proposed by Frank Murkowski as "proof" that their spamming is legitimate (not only citing a non-existent law, but also completely misstating what the law would have done had it passed), and threatening people who complain because they "followed the law". We don't need to give them any more ammo.
Like move it to a civil court, then you should oppose. IF they want to do that, then they think that there is an advantage to doing that. As it is, if they demonstratably broke the law then they have no claim that your lawsuit is frivilous.
Here's an idea along that theme... If you are just giving the address because they demanded one, and you have no reason to expect them to contact you for any reason, set up a filtering/procmail config so that any mail sent to that customized address is automatically forwarded to EVERY corporate address for the site to whom you originally gave it. That way, if someone spams that address, the corporate addresses of the sleazebags who gave it out are the ones who get it returned.
While Rackspace is notorious for actively aiding and abetting criminals hosted on their network, they're hardly the only ones. Verio is also well-kown as a supporter of spamming criminals, as are QWest, AT&T and VDI. All of those ISPs are happy to allow their customers to break whatever laws they want, so long as the check clears. As such, those ISPs are accessories to their customers crimes, but they don't seem to care at all about that.
Spammers are scum. They will use any means to add e-mail addresses to their lists, and that includes dictionary attacks and scouring any website that they can find for e-mail addresses. I should not have to take complicated measures to prevent these crooks from stealing my ISP's resources.
I personally support capital punishment for spammers. I don't consider them worthy of life. Kill them, and you do the world a favour.
The new format is, at least in part, designed for a HD-DVD standard. The idea is that with a larger disc capacity you can use a significantly larger bitrate for significantly higher resolution video. As such, it will still be one disc per movie.
Geez. I've never had any serious problems with Nvidia's drivers. I've only had minor problems with some of the changes required when upgrading (such as adding the RenderAccel option in XF86Config). X takes less than 30 seconds to start up for me.
Spammers from other states/countries will claim that there is no jurisdiction.
Spammers will claim that their e-mails are not spam. One of the colloraries of the rules of spam (I believe that it's a collary of the rule that spammers always lie) is that spammers try to redefine spamming in such a way that they are not doing it.
Spammers are, without exception, immoral thieving scumbags. They won't care about the law, they just care about hawking their shoddy and questionable goods/services by annoying everyone they can and stealing as many resources as possible.
Somebody mod this down. DVD rot is a well-documented phenomenon. My copy of "The Devil's Advocate" has rotted (it's unplayable past the second layer, which irritates me to no end as it's one of the original pressings) and many early WB titles (this was one of them) are notorious for this.
Lossless compression refers to a compression scheme where the original uncompressed information can be restored in entirety from the compressed archive, as opposed to lossy compression such as MP3 or JPEG where information that is 'removed' is gone forever, since it's an 'approximation' of the original data.
It isn't Slashdot's fault that you're ignorant of the terminology.
I'm referring to Nintendo's statement that emulation is, in and of itself, illegal. They did not provide any qualifiers such as 'unless the copyright holder is doing it'. They stated flat-out that emulation is illegal, and now they profit from emulation.
True, it's not like anyone believed Nintendo in the first place, but it's the principle of the matter.
It's a seuqel that is planned, which makes sense as the game's ending (at least at 100%) leaves open the possibility. Considering that Prime takes place almost immedeately after the first Metroid, I don't see how it could easily spawn a prequel.
Their hard-nosed stance on emulation is hypocritical, actually. Nintendo representatives have gone on record as saying that emulation is illegal, period, offering no qualifiers. Oddly, the recent hit Metroid Prime offers a full version of the NES Metroid, played via an emulator on the Gamecube.
There is no 'legal' definition of spamming. Some spammers include a 'disclaimer' about why the message cannot be considered spam, but they are appealing to a nonexistent law from a bill that died in committee that didn't contain any text that defined 'spam' in the first place. This is because all spammers are unrepentant liars.
Spam is bulk e-mail sent unsolicited. If the recipient did not request to be put on the mailing list, it is spam. There is no other qualifier. All spammers are criminal scum who deserve to be tortured to death. If I meet someone who is a spammer, I will probably kill them.
Spam isn't about first amendment issues. Spam is about consent, not content. I couldn't argue first amendment protection if I ran up to people and screamed my opinions into their ears until they went deaf.
Spammers deserve to die because they are criminals and thieves, every one, not because they might be committing some fraud advertised in their spam. I hold all spammers to the same level of contempt, regardless of whether they peddle charity or porn.
if your isp charges you a fixed rate for bandwidth, then i suggest getting a new isp.
I pay a fixed monthly fee for unlimited bandwidth, so 'spam' does not directly increase my ISP bill. However, my ISP still has to deal with the extra bandwidth resulting from the spammers shoving their scam offers into my inbox without my consent. It adds up to a REAL cost that is passed on to the consumers, and the spammers are NOT paying their fair share.
All spammers should be skinned alive, impaled and have salt poured onto them as they are left in fields to die as a warning to all others.
I fully support that if they break in, tie a shotgun to a door handle and blow them away kind of trap. and that is effectively what I did to this kiddie.
Actually, a more appropriate analogy was that you thinly disguised a shotgun as something of value worth stealing and left it out for him to take. He should have known that it wouldn't be that easy, but instead he blew his brains out.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you get splatter complaints because some people are just irritating or because your ISP ignores spammers?
Experience shows that the ISPs who tolerate spammers are also run by techs too incompetent to properly filter mail.
Actually, I make it clear that the reason that they are being hit is because mail to abuse@spammerfriendlydomain.com wasn't getting any results.
Often times the higher-ups are the ones who are keeping the abuse department from doing anything, refusing to allow known criminals to be disconnected.
A proper mailreader can be configured not to respond to that HTML.
Of course, it's another site to whom to send a complaint to get that image pulled.
The speech wouldn't be illegal. The delivery method for the speech -- that is, theft by conversion and trespass to chattel -- would be illegal. It does not matter if the spam is for a charity benefit or pornography, it is wrong all the same and the sender should lose his or her account with his or her ISP.
The objection is about consent, not content.
As someone who escalates complaints to as many corporate addresses as I can find when initial spam complaints are ignored, sending out a message to as many addresses as can be found DOES have an effect. I've managed to really irritate some higher-ups at Qwest, but it wouldn't have been necessary if they would just terminate their criminal clients.
There is no way to "legitimize" unsolicited bulk e-mail. Spammers are, by their very nature, sociopathic scum whose existence is a waste of carbon, oxygen and water. They won't play by the rules, they will do whatever they can to evade filters and they will seek out crime-friendly ISPs like Verio, VDI and Qwest to commit whatever felonies they want. The fact is that I should not have to tell someone not to use MY resources to create advertisements that I DO NOT WANT. "Legitimizing" spamming in any way will simply give the scumbags yet another excuse on which to fall back when someone complains about their unsolicited garbage, yet another reason for them to launch legal threats against anyone who complains about the spam.
Heck, spammers still quote the failed bill proposed by Frank Murkowski as "proof" that their spamming is legitimate (not only citing a non-existent law, but also completely misstating what the law would have done had it passed), and threatening people who complain because they "followed the law". We don't need to give them any more ammo.
Like move it to a civil court, then you should oppose. IF they want to do that, then they think that there is an advantage to doing that. As it is, if they demonstratably broke the law then they have no claim that your lawsuit is frivilous.
Here's an idea along that theme...
If you are just giving the address because they demanded one, and you have no reason to expect them to contact you for any reason, set up a filtering/procmail config so that any mail sent to that customized address is automatically forwarded to EVERY corporate address for the site to whom you originally gave it. That way, if someone spams that address, the corporate addresses of the sleazebags who gave it out are the ones who get it returned.
While Rackspace is notorious for actively aiding and abetting criminals hosted on their network, they're hardly the only ones. Verio is also well-kown as a supporter of spamming criminals, as are QWest, AT&T and VDI. All of those ISPs are happy to allow their customers to break whatever laws they want, so long as the check clears. As such, those ISPs are accessories to their customers crimes, but they don't seem to care at all about that.
Their CEOs should all be shot.
Typical. Blame the spammed and not the spammers.
Spammers are scum. They will use any means to add e-mail addresses to their lists, and that includes dictionary attacks and scouring any website that they can find for e-mail addresses. I should not have to take complicated measures to prevent these crooks from stealing my ISP's resources.
I personally support capital punishment for spammers. I don't consider them worthy of life. Kill them, and you do the world a favour.
The new format is, at least in part, designed for a HD-DVD standard. The idea is that with a larger disc capacity you can use a significantly larger bitrate for significantly higher resolution video. As such, it will still be one disc per movie.
--
Geez. I've never had any serious problems with Nvidia's drivers. I've only had minor problems with some of the changes required when upgrading (such as adding the RenderAccel option in XF86Config). X takes less than 30 seconds to start up for me.
I download Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes, though I use USENET rather than P2P services.
Spammers from other states/countries will claim that there is no jurisdiction.
Spammers will claim that their e-mails are not spam. One of the colloraries of the rules of spam (I believe that it's a collary of the rule that spammers always lie) is that spammers try to redefine spamming in such a way that they are not doing it.
Spammers are, without exception, immoral thieving scumbags. They won't care about the law, they just care about hawking their shoddy and questionable goods/services by annoying everyone they can and stealing as many resources as possible.
Somebody mod this down. DVD rot is a well-documented phenomenon. My copy of "The Devil's Advocate" has rotted (it's unplayable past the second layer, which irritates me to no end as it's one of the original pressings) and many early WB titles (this was one of them) are notorious for this.
Lossless compression refers to a compression scheme where the original uncompressed information can be restored in entirety from the compressed archive, as opposed to lossy compression such as MP3 or JPEG where information that is 'removed' is gone forever, since it's an 'approximation' of the original data.
It isn't Slashdot's fault that you're ignorant of the terminology.
I'm referring to Nintendo's statement that emulation is, in and of itself, illegal. They did not provide any qualifiers such as 'unless the copyright holder is doing it'. They stated flat-out that emulation is illegal, and now they profit from emulation.
True, it's not like anyone believed Nintendo in the first place, but it's the principle of the matter.
It's a seuqel that is planned, which makes sense as the game's ending (at least at 100%) leaves open the possibility. Considering that Prime takes place almost immedeately after the first Metroid, I don't see how it could easily spawn a prequel.
Their hard-nosed stance on emulation is hypocritical, actually. Nintendo representatives have gone on record as saying that emulation is illegal, period, offering no qualifiers. Oddly, the recent hit Metroid Prime offers a full version of the NES Metroid, played via an emulator on the Gamecube.
There is no 'legal' definition of spamming. Some spammers include a 'disclaimer' about why the message cannot be considered spam, but they are appealing to a nonexistent law from a bill that died in committee that didn't contain any text that defined 'spam' in the first place. This is because all spammers are unrepentant liars.
Spam is bulk e-mail sent unsolicited. If the recipient did not request to be put on the mailing list, it is spam. There is no other qualifier. All spammers are criminal scum who deserve to be tortured to death. If I meet someone who is a spammer, I will probably kill them.
If a Chinese admin is unethical enough to allow Alan Ralsky continued hosting, I really don't care if he gets a bullet put into his brain.
Spam isn't about first amendment issues. Spam is about consent, not content. I couldn't argue first amendment protection if I ran up to people and screamed my opinions into their ears until they went deaf.
Spammers deserve to die because they are criminals and thieves, every one, not because they might be committing some fraud advertised in their spam. I hold all spammers to the same level of contempt, regardless of whether they peddle charity or porn.
if your isp charges you a fixed rate for bandwidth, then i suggest getting a new isp.
I pay a fixed monthly fee for unlimited bandwidth, so 'spam' does not directly increase my ISP bill. However, my ISP still has to deal with the extra bandwidth resulting from the spammers shoving their scam offers into my inbox without my consent. It adds up to a REAL cost that is passed on to the consumers, and the spammers are NOT paying their fair share.
All spammers should be skinned alive, impaled and have salt poured onto them as they are left in fields to die as a warning to all others.
Have you asked your ISP why it makes their network an undesirable communication source for others by hosting spammers?
I fully support that if they break in, tie a shotgun to a door handle and blow them away kind of trap. and that is effectively what I did to this kiddie.
:)
Actually, a more appropriate analogy was that you thinly disguised a shotgun as something of value worth stealing and left it out for him to take. He should have known that it wouldn't be that easy, but instead he blew his brains out.
Good on ya!