61440 messages? Am I right? That is a whole bunch!
I'm getting an averag of 400-500 spams a day. That means I'm getting over 61440 spams in five months - and five months from now, unless something changes, that number is likely to rise.
Obviously, if thousands (or millions) of their users are getting the exact same email, it's probably spam.
When the NYTimes sends their daily headlines emails, I'm sure they are emailing thousands/millions of people with the exact same email. Reuters, Google, Slashdot also email me and thousands of others every day, all with the same information, all legitimate opt in mail.
Just because someone is sending thousands or millions of mail does *not* mean that that mail is spam.
How would I go about convincing my ISP (the Sony corporation) to do anything?
I've received spam from Sony, so I suspect that convincing them to do anything to stop spam is going to be difficult. I had just bought a Sony TV when they sent me the spam - I'll never buy from Sony again.
Even once you do get down to claim 7, it's still a patent on the "invention" of doing math. Groan.
Worse, the basis of RSA encryption is the difficulty of solving a math problem (factoring) that mathmeticians have studied for years. The inventors certainly had an advantage, in that lots of study on how to factor had already been done. Yet, when they do similar work, they expect that no one else will be allowed to use the knowledge they developed. Seems a bit hypocritical, to me.
European free software advocates, Green Party activists, Socialists, economists, small business owners, and other radicals are working to keep the European Union from instituting U.S.-style software patents. But don't give up hope.
Radicals? Yes, those radical "economists", the horrible "small business owners", and Oh-My-God, the dreaded "free software advocates"! Horrors! No better than terrorists, most of them...
The spammers are obviously a lot smarter than you.
Forging SMTP headers is trivial, as is using open relays. You feel spammers are "smart" because some of them can make money by spamming everyone else. I would point out that many criminals can make money - but that doesn't make them smart, or make what they do ethical.
I don't care about morality or honesty.
Yes, that's obvious. You seem, in fact, to be pround that your are both imoral and honest, while holding spammers in high esteem.
The spammers are as smart as any other American conman businessman.
Stealing credit card accounts to pay for their throw away accounts, hiding who they are, ripping people off. I see this as no different from a catburgler or bank robber. They are trying to make money by stealing from everyone else, and if they are given the chance, they will ruin email as a useful communications tool - and then they'll move to mugging little old ladies and you'll once again be impressed at their brilliance.
The problem is that the spammers are cleverer, more tenacious, more manipulative, have better survival instincts, and are just BETTER than everyone else bleating and whining about spam.
Oh, bullshit. I get spam in languages I can't recognize. How fucking clever is that? I couldn't possibly buy from them if I wanted to.
How clever is it to send the same person 100 "Make Penis Fast" emails in a day? Every day?
They aren't clever, but the system was designed for honest people, and they aren't honest. They system will change. In the meantime, despite the hundreds of spams I receive daily, it takes my computer a couple of minutes to filter the junk from the real mail, and I don't have to pay attention during those few minutes. (I usually start the process, then go get a Dr. Pepper.)
Their genes are worth keeping because they are better than yours.
Your genes aren't worth a damn, because you believe that anyone who is dishonest enough to lie about who they are should be able to turn a profit on it. Fuck you.
I use windows and I get 1 or 2 spam per week. It's called "being smart with your email addresses".
You call it "being smart". I call it "Hiding".
I can see where hiding your address could be good for some people. But it also makes it harder for legitimate people to contact you. If you register a domain (business/personal doesn't matter) then you have to give out an email address, and it will get spammed. If you have a domain, spam to misc addresses at that domain will show up, regardless of whether those addresses have ever been used.
If you want people to be able to contact you because you help with a local hobby organization, a non-profit, an open sorce project, or a business, then you can either hide your email address from everyone, or you can post it - and it will get spammed.
I don't blame people who choose to hide their address, but I get tired of having people who hide tell me that I'm stupid because I don't hide like they do.
I get 400-600 spams a day. They take a very small amount of time, thanks primarily to MailWasher and a DSL line. I'm just not willing to hide and pretend there isn't a problem the way you are.
Okay. The first link, to "Digital", had no useful information. It is just another guy, like you, who has no evidence of wrongdoing who is bitching and whining.
Lets go look at the next one - maybe something will turn up there. (I have my doubts, based on what I've seen so far. I think if you had evidence, it would have shown up by now.)
Hmmm. Lots of messages - how to begin. Here's a quote I found in some of those.
Some antispam activists are not so worried. "IronPort's reputation is pretty
spotless,'' said Adam Brower, a volunteer at the Spamhaus Project, a spam-fighting group. "They can help improve SpamCop."
Sorry, that doesn't look so bad. As I continue, I find that Digital Impact doesn't seem to be perfect - but there are some pretty good arguments that they aren't intentionally spamming anyone, too.
I don't think you and I will ever agree on this. You believe that any mass mail is spam, and I don't. Neither of us is likely to change. Since you don't trust Ironport, you don't trust Spamcop - and you are unwilling to use one very useful tool in the fight against spam. That's up to you. I'll pass.
Which known spammers? I've asked, quite clearly, for evidence of that. You pointed me to a slashdot article about Ironport buying Spamcop. All available evidence is that Ironport helps legitimate companies send legitimate email. You seem to feel that's a horrible thing.
You claim they aid known spammers. I'm asking which ones. The article you pointed to doesn't say that, and the posts that are highly modded in that discussion never show any evidence of them spamming. Some, like you, *call* them spammers - but they, like you, have no evidence.
Sorry, but it is impossible to send millions of spams and leave no evidence of having done so. Spamcop has done more than you, I, or anyone else posting on Slashdot, so far as I know. And you're now claiming that they are assisting spammers, while refusing to offer evidence. Sorry, but I call bull shit.
So, as I suspected, you can't show any evidence of them sending spam, but you simply believe that any marketing email, even to people who have opted in, is spam.
Free clue - if people request it, regardless of the content, it is not spam. They key is consent, not content.
There is no such thing as unsolicted bulk email that isn't spam.
On that, we agree. So, is there any evidence that they send unsolicited email? So far as I know, there is not. And if they are *not* attempting to send unsolicited email, I can't see why they are being lumped in with the spammers? If they are sending it, then I agree completely - but I haven't seen any evidence that makes me think they are doing it. If I'm wrong, show me.
I do have DSL, so the DL time isn't so bad. And I don't download all the spam. I DL headers, and the filtering gets run on those. The spam then gets deleted - and after there is no spam, I grab the legitimate mail. MailWasher helps.
I use Spamcop, indirectly. Mailwasher will use an IP based blacklist if you want it to. I don't have mail auto-deleted just because it's from a Spamcop listed site, but if mail doesn't get through any of the whitelisting (certain keywords in the subject, certain addresses that don't get spam, friends addresses which are whitelisted, etc) then mail from sites listed in Spamcops blacklist may get a quick glance - or maybe not.
I know some people feel that since Spamcop got bought out by a company with enough money to handle the bandwidth, legal situations, etc, that SpamCop must now be "evil", but I don't get it. Ironport doesn't have a history of sending spam, yet people keep acting like any company that does bulk email is inherently a spammer. You're still using Slashdot, too, but I guarantee they send a lot of email every day.
Spam filtering at the client is not the solution. All my filtering occurs at the server.
That's fine if you run your own server, but most of us don't have static IP's and must rely on a server we don't control. My ISP does not blocking/filtering at all on my mail, at my request. I do it all on the client end. Yes, it eats some of my bandwidth, but it allows me to use the tools I want to use, the way I want to use them. I get 400-500 spams a day, but the filters make them relatively painless to get rid of.
Asking ICANN to step in is a bit foolish, IMO - there's nothing that ICANN can really do to strip the Texan company of its ownership of the domain.
I don't think that's true under the circumstances.
The Register has a good article on this.
Re:...they don't have it already?
on
Iraq Wants .iq TLD
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The Register
has a very good article on this entire story. IMO it should have been linked in the Slashdot header for this discussion.
InfoCom Corporation, current holder of the.IQ TLD, has gotten into big trouble for aiding terrorists. Note that this isn't the same Infocom that made Zork and all of the other adventure games. They no longer exist, but there are several Infocom fan sites available.
First, Spamhaus isn't associated with IronPort in any way. You are thinking of Spamcop.
Second, while you claim you don't like *anyone* to do mass email, you are posting on Slashdot, and you have a registered account here. I'd bet you that Slashdot would qualify under the "mass email" category. They use email when people register accounts, they email people to give them the current headlines, results of their moderations, to let people know someone either replied to or moderated a comment - that's lots of email every day. But none of it is abuse - it's entirely opt in, and anyone that doesn't want those emails can turn them off. (Or, simply not register in the first place.)
Third, if your "all mass mailers are bad" theory were enforced, then there are lots of mailing lists, newsletters, news report services, etc that we could no longer take advantage of. Google News helps keep me informed of news stories on areas I'm interested in - should Google be shut down? The NYTimes and Reuters both send me messages with news headlines. Does that make them evil?
I don't think you understand what spam is. You seem to think "All email except email from close friends is spam", but that simply isn't true.
At the very minimum, you should learn the difference between solicited email and unsolicited email. Without much effort, you could also learn the difference between spammers and Spamhaus, which you imply are the same thing. Learning that Spamhaus and Spamcop are unrelated might also help you get a clue. And you are in desperate need of one.
The contracts were all long-term and while they had provisions against spamming they only covered abuse of the ISPs networks, not abuse elsewhere. This means that their contracts cannot be terminated just because they spam from elsewhere for sites elsewhere, and that's exactly why Wild Rhino still has a nameserver there.
Summary : A small, startup ISP isn't bright enough to get rid of their spammer, so they get listed as supporting spam.
And you have the gall to bitch about being listed!
So my point is that some ISPs may look like their hat is black but if you look closely you'll see that it's actually a doofus-hat awarded for cluelessness.
From the point of view of Spamhaus, what's the difference? Either way, the spammer is still doing business there, Spamhaus knows it, and Spamhaus's job is to tell people "This IP is associated with spam".
The ISP in question needs to quit supporting spammers. When they do, the listing will go away. (Eventually. The longer they support spammers, the longer it will take to go away.) If the only way they can stay in business is to support spammers, I'd just as soon they went out of business.
Steve has to listen to people whine all the time about "We shouldn't be listed because...." You're complaining that the info is wrong, while at the same time admitting that the ISP is supporting a known spammer. How that differs from the whining of the other spammers that want to be delisted seems to be beyond my ken.
Some time ago there was the question raised concerning ownership and transfer of patents, etc. of the spreadsheet
Visicalc came out in 1979. At that time, software patents were rarely granted. (Our legal system has corrupted patents since that time.) Dan Bricklin has some information about Visicalc and panents on his website.
I used to see spam that put similar restrictions in their email. Their claim, as I recall, was that their spam is copyrighted, and so it would be illegal to resend the email, post it to a website, etc. Essentially, they didn't want people to be able to report the spam.
Of course, nobody that reports spam is likely to worry about it. What's gonna happen - is the spammer going to quit hiding long enough to sue you for reporting their spam?
if McAffe can get a patent for anti-spam techniques then I should be able to get one as well for spam techniques.
You may be too late. AT&T has already received a patent for "A system and method for circumventing schemes that use duplication detection to detect and block unsolicited e-mail (spam.)"
Slashdot Mirror
61440 messages? Am I right? That is a whole bunch! I'm getting an averag of 400-500 spams a day. That means I'm getting over 61440 spams in five months - and five months from now, unless something changes, that number is likely to rise.
I'll bet if you run that same test with an address that ends in .com, you'll find that you get a lot more spam.
When the NYTimes sends their daily headlines emails, I'm sure they are emailing thousands/millions of people with the exact same email. Reuters, Google, Slashdot also email me and thousands of others every day, all with the same information, all legitimate opt in mail.
Just because someone is sending thousands or millions of mail does *not* mean that that mail is spam.
I've received spam from Sony, so I suspect that convincing them to do anything to stop spam is going to be difficult. I had just bought a Sony TV when they sent me the spam - I'll never buy from Sony again.
Worse, the basis of RSA encryption is the difficulty of solving a math problem (factoring) that mathmeticians have studied for years. The inventors certainly had an advantage, in that lots of study on how to factor had already been done. Yet, when they do similar work, they expect that no one else will be allowed to use the knowledge they developed. Seems a bit hypocritical, to me.
European free software advocates, Green Party activists, Socialists, economists, small business owners, and other radicals are working to keep the European Union from instituting U.S.-style software patents. But don't give up hope.
Radicals? Yes, those radical "economists", the horrible "small business owners", and Oh-My-God, the dreaded "free software advocates"! Horrors! No better than terrorists, most of them...
Forging SMTP headers is trivial, as is using open relays. You feel spammers are "smart" because some of them can make money by spamming everyone else. I would point out that many criminals can make money - but that doesn't make them smart, or make what they do ethical.
I don't care about morality or honesty.
Yes, that's obvious. You seem, in fact, to be pround that your are both imoral and honest, while holding spammers in high esteem.
The spammers are as smart as any other American conman businessman.
Stealing credit card accounts to pay for their throw away accounts, hiding who they are, ripping people off. I see this as no different from a catburgler or bank robber. They are trying to make money by stealing from everyone else, and if they are given the chance, they will ruin email as a useful communications tool - and then they'll move to mugging little old ladies and you'll once again be impressed at their brilliance.
Oh, bullshit. I get spam in languages I can't recognize. How fucking clever is that? I couldn't possibly buy from them if I wanted to.
How clever is it to send the same person 100 "Make Penis Fast" emails in a day? Every day?
They aren't clever, but the system was designed for honest people, and they aren't honest. They system will change. In the meantime, despite the hundreds of spams I receive daily, it takes my computer a couple of minutes to filter the junk from the real mail, and I don't have to pay attention during those few minutes. (I usually start the process, then go get a Dr. Pepper.)
Their genes are worth keeping because they are better than yours.
Your genes aren't worth a damn, because you believe that anyone who is dishonest enough to lie about who they are should be able to turn a profit on it. Fuck you.
You call it "being smart". I call it "Hiding".
I can see where hiding your address could be good for some people. But it also makes it harder for legitimate people to contact you. If you register a domain (business/personal doesn't matter) then you have to give out an email address, and it will get spammed. If you have a domain, spam to misc addresses at that domain will show up, regardless of whether those addresses have ever been used.
If you want people to be able to contact you because you help with a local hobby organization, a non-profit, an open sorce project, or a business, then you can either hide your email address from everyone, or you can post it - and it will get spammed.
I don't blame people who choose to hide their address, but I get tired of having people who hide tell me that I'm stupid because I don't hide like they do.
I get 400-600 spams a day. They take a very small amount of time, thanks primarily to MailWasher and a DSL line. I'm just not willing to hide and pretend there isn't a problem the way you are.
Lets go look at the next one - maybe something will turn up there. (I have my doubts, based on what I've seen so far. I think if you had evidence, it would have shown up by now.)
Hmmm. Lots of messages - how to begin. Here's a quote I found in some of those.
Sorry, that doesn't look so bad. As I continue, I find that Digital Impact doesn't seem to be perfect - but there are some pretty good arguments that they aren't intentionally spamming anyone, too.
I don't think you and I will ever agree on this. You believe that any mass mail is spam, and I don't. Neither of us is likely to change. Since you don't trust Ironport, you don't trust Spamcop - and you are unwilling to use one very useful tool in the fight against spam. That's up to you. I'll pass.
You claim they aid known spammers. I'm asking which ones. The article you pointed to doesn't say that, and the posts that are highly modded in that discussion never show any evidence of them spamming. Some, like you, *call* them spammers - but they, like you, have no evidence.
Sorry, but it is impossible to send millions of spams and leave no evidence of having done so. Spamcop has done more than you, I, or anyone else posting on Slashdot, so far as I know. And you're now claiming that they are assisting spammers, while refusing to offer evidence. Sorry, but I call bull shit.
Free clue - if people request it, regardless of the content, it is not spam. They key is consent, not content.
On that, we agree. So, is there any evidence that they send unsolicited email? So far as I know, there is not. And if they are *not* attempting to send unsolicited email, I can't see why they are being lumped in with the spammers? If they are sending it, then I agree completely - but I haven't seen any evidence that makes me think they are doing it. If I'm wrong, show me.
I use Spamcop, indirectly. Mailwasher will use an IP based blacklist if you want it to. I don't have mail auto-deleted just because it's from a Spamcop listed site, but if mail doesn't get through any of the whitelisting (certain keywords in the subject, certain addresses that don't get spam, friends addresses which are whitelisted, etc) then mail from sites listed in Spamcops blacklist may get a quick glance - or maybe not.
I know some people feel that since Spamcop got bought out by a company with enough money to handle the bandwidth, legal situations, etc, that SpamCop must now be "evil", but I don't get it. Ironport doesn't have a history of sending spam, yet people keep acting like any company that does bulk email is inherently a spammer. You're still using Slashdot, too, but I guarantee they send a lot of email every day.
That's fine if you run your own server, but most of us don't have static IP's and must rely on a server we don't control. My ISP does not blocking/filtering at all on my mail, at my request. I do it all on the client end. Yes, it eats some of my bandwidth, but it allows me to use the tools I want to use, the way I want to use them. I get 400-500 spams a day, but the filters make them relatively painless to get rid of.
Usenet would be easier, IMO.
I don't think that's true under the circumstances. The Register has a good article on this.
InfoCom Corporation, current holder of the .IQ TLD, has gotten into big trouble for aiding terrorists. Note that this isn't the same Infocom that made Zork and all of the other adventure games. They no longer exist, but there are several Infocom fan sites available.
http://www.4law.co.il/L1.htm for more information about the arrests of Infocom owners for aiding terrorists.
Second, while you claim you don't like *anyone* to do mass email, you are posting on Slashdot, and you have a registered account here. I'd bet you that Slashdot would qualify under the "mass email" category. They use email when people register accounts, they email people to give them the current headlines, results of their moderations, to let people know someone either replied to or moderated a comment - that's lots of email every day. But none of it is abuse - it's entirely opt in, and anyone that doesn't want those emails can turn them off. (Or, simply not register in the first place.)
Third, if your "all mass mailers are bad" theory were enforced, then there are lots of mailing lists, newsletters, news report services, etc that we could no longer take advantage of. Google News helps keep me informed of news stories on areas I'm interested in - should Google be shut down? The NYTimes and Reuters both send me messages with news headlines. Does that make them evil?
I don't think you understand what spam is. You seem to think "All email except email from close friends is spam", but that simply isn't true.
At the very minimum, you should learn the difference between solicited email and unsolicited email. Without much effort, you could also learn the difference between spammers and Spamhaus, which you imply are the same thing. Learning that Spamhaus and Spamcop are unrelated might also help you get a clue. And you are in desperate need of one.
Summary : A small, startup ISP isn't bright enough to get rid of their spammer, so they get listed as supporting spam.
And you have the gall to bitch about being listed! So my point is that some ISPs may look like their hat is black but if you look closely you'll see that it's actually a doofus-hat awarded for cluelessness.
From the point of view of Spamhaus, what's the difference? Either way, the spammer is still doing business there, Spamhaus knows it, and Spamhaus's job is to tell people "This IP is associated with spam".
The ISP in question needs to quit supporting spammers. When they do, the listing will go away. (Eventually. The longer they support spammers, the longer it will take to go away.) If the only way they can stay in business is to support spammers, I'd just as soon they went out of business.
Steve has to listen to people whine all the time about "We shouldn't be listed because...." You're complaining that the info is wrong, while at the same time admitting that the ISP is supporting a known spammer. How that differs from the whining of the other spammers that want to be delisted seems to be beyond my ken.
Visicalc came out in 1979. At that time, software patents were rarely granted. (Our legal system has corrupted patents since that time.) Dan Bricklin has some information about Visicalc and panents on his website.
http://www.bricklin.com/patenting.htm
Perhaps one a day gets through the AOL spam blocking/filtering. If they turn all of that off, do you think you'll still get one per day?
Of course, nobody that reports spam is likely to worry about it. What's gonna happen - is the spammer going to quit hiding long enough to sue you for reporting their spam?
You may be too late. AT&T has already received a patent for "A system and method for circumventing schemes that use duplication detection to detect and block unsolicited e-mail (spam.)"
http://weblog.siliconvalley.com/column/dangillmor/ archives/001506.shtml#001506
It was discussed on Slashdot.