You clearly didn't read the post I responded to. Yes, he used UCE, and no that's not new terminology. But he used UPE in a way I've never seen it (breaking established terminology), as well as making up a bunch of new stuff like U?E and S?E. He also claimed that he's "opted in to spam and then had to opt out again", which shows he doesn't understand what spam is.
I've been hearing in the news for over ten years that this is the year that killer bees will finally arrive in California.
You don't sound like you've paid much attention to the articles. There are already killer bees in California. I've paid a little attention to this because I'm allergic to bee stings, live in Texas, and go camping from time to time. They didn't come from Texas, they came from Brazil. Texas is just one area they've travelled to.
Calling them killer bees is a little misleading. It's not like they are taking orders from Osama and go out looking to kill people/animals. But the will aggressively protect their hive, and they have killed people. They will also reproduce with domestic honey bees (which are nomally fairly mellow little guys), and the aggressive gene's are dominate, so soon the entire hive goes from being regular bees to being a strain of AHB's - Africanized Honey Bees.
The link below will give some useful information, including the fact that they were reported in California 10 years ago. They aren't overrunning Texas, or anywhere else, to the point where people can't live there. But it does have an effect on normal beekeeping, on agriculture, and on people who just happen to stumble into the wrong place without realizing they are there.
In the current context: If the genetically modified bees hadn't escaped in Brazil roughly 50 years ago, then they wouldn't be a problem. But they did, and now they've spread quite far, with signs that the problem will continue to get worse. It's better to plan ahead than to simply assume "There isn't any problem with this." I don't have a strong opinion about the genetically modified grass - but I wouldn't write it off as a non-problem without more information and testing, either.
[Spammers] have come to court not because their freedom of speech is threatened but because their profits are; to dress up their complaints in First Amendment garb demeans the principles for which the First Amendment stands.
Chief Justice Berger, U.S. Supreme Court:
Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit. We categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even good ideas on an unwilling recipient. The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain.
I've opted in to some spam and had to opt back out again.
From that one line, it's clear that you don't understand what spam is. So I feel no need to learn all the new terminology (U?E and such) that you just made up.
Take WW2 Japan for example, we were taking their oil, so what did they do? Yep, they attacked us.
Bull shit. Prior to WWII, Japan was buying oil from the US. We didn't take their oil, we stopped selling them oil after they invaded China and joined with the Axis party.
If you want to say that we cut off their supply, then you would be correct. But when you claim that we "took their oil", you are either dishonest or ill-informed.
IMO, you had a good post there - too bad the mods haven't noticed.
To answer your question, "how does a chimp look
when it is deep in thought", see
this link.
A spammer could hold out a long time, by saying "Anyone that queries for messages fitting X description get MsgID-00001 as a reply". But it would also make it fairly easy to track them down, and they would soon be blacklisted.
If a user is running a mail client that allows HTML mail, then
they are an idiot who is essentially begging to be spammed, trojaned, virused, etc. I have no problem with HTML email - but it won't execute on my machine without my specific permission, and 99% of the time, that isn't going to happen.
If I don't know you, a short "This is why I want to talk to you" message in plain-text is much more effective way to reach me than HTML crap.
The problem is that the $499 mailing list is only one of the spam scams. Sure, it's a pyramid scam, but Herbalife and Amway are still in business and they are pretty damn near a pyramid scam.
Hebalife is probably the #1 company behind the various "street spam" signs that you see on the side of the road. (Nailed to telephone posts, stuck in stakes on the right of way just before lights, etc.) Those are illegal in most places in the US, and nothing more than trash left in a public place as far as I'm concerned, but herbalife has used them to lure in more suckers for a long time. They've also been caught sending email spam.
Until you explain why a MS sponsored, MS owned solution, which is based on everyone doing things the MS way (after they have stated that they want to handle micro-payments so that they get paid to make sure spam isn't a problem), then I don't consider that a useful solution. And I'm running MS software, not linux. If I don't like it, imagine how the linux geeks feel.
Instead of a solution such as they suggest, I'd rather go with SPF.
To read most blogs, you have to read everything. (And while many have "respond to" things, most are written by one person, which keeps the spam to a minimum.)
The moderation system/. uses doesn't stop anyone from spamming - anyone can post any kind of nonsense they want, and many do. (Browse at -1 for awhile and see for yourself.) But by reading at 1 or 2, you can get rid of pretty much all the crap, while missing few useful messages. By browsing at higher levels, you can get rid of a lot more junk, and still see the most useful posts.
I don't think/. compares to usenet, blogs, or email very well.
I have no reason to believe that spammers ever remove addresses from their lists. They *might* do that if the original connection is refused, so the mail is never delivered. But I'm sure they don't see bounces - they are forging other peoples addresses so the bounces go to some innocent party.
I receive ~500 spams a day, many to addresses no longer in use (due to the spam they receive.) Many of them get auto-deleted. Even the few that get though the filtering (not many) will never allow the spammer to know that I saw it, as I don't allow emails to show HTML unless I specifically request it for that specific message. So they can't use web-bug type of tracking to see that I received the email. However, despite the fact that they have no way to tell if I received the spam, they keep sending. It's just so cheap to send all the messages and not worry about it, and the spammers do not care about the bandwidth waste.
I agree with you that whitelisting is one of the best ways to make sure you get the mail you want - I use it quite a bit myself. But it's not a cure-all.
IANAL. 20 or so years ago, I did a lot of photography, including work for a couple of newspapers. I had lots of pictures published, and I don't recall having *ever* asking them to sign a release - or having the paper tell me that I should get one. I'm pretty sure that if it were a requirement, the newspaper would have asked me to have them sign a form.
I believe that legally, photo's are free speech. Not that they would be protected given this senario, of course.
Photographers do no have to have consent of people in pictures to distribute them. If you walk down the street, and your local newspaper (or TV station) takes your picture, they can publish it.
An example: a proposed law to outlawing spam would also make legitimate mailing lists illegal.
What "proposed law" is that? I keep up with spam related news fairly closely, and have not heard about any law which would outlaw opt in lists of any sort.
If you want a drivers license in Texas, you have to give them your fingerprints. I assume that happens in other states, also.
They are already fingerprinting essentially everyone in the US, and have been for years. Now, a bunch of foreigners who don't *have* to come here are whining because they'll be subject to the same treatment that every US citizen already has to deal with.
In Texas (and I assume in other states) you have to give your fingerprints in order to get a drivers license. That isn't a new "terrorism" thing, it's been going on for awhile.
If they are going to fingerprint everyone in the US who drives, then I have no qualms about people visiting also being fingerprinted. They, at least, have the option of saying "I don't want to visit the US". Those of us that live here are already putting up with it - like it or not.
Kids don't have a hard enough time these days, so why not make sure, as a parent, that life will be as hard as possible on them. Name them "FVCK YOU" or something. Yeah, great plan. Maybe this is an April Fools joke, but quite honestly, it just sounds like you're an idiot who shouldn't reproduce.
it has already been shown that such free speech is protected here
Technically, free speech is protected in the US - true enough. However, you can still be sued for telling the truth, and if sued, you have to defend yourself (a fairly expensive process) or you *will* lose the case. I've been doing some research in that area recently, after receiving a cease-and-desist letter from a lawyer. I have a webpage which describes how a company named MailWiper (supposedly selling anti-spam software) has been advertising via spam, with links to other sites showing that their sister company (supposedly anti-spyware) has been forcing spyware onto peoples computers and telling them "To get rid of this, you have to buy our anti-spyware software." The spammer apparently doesn't like the free publicity I've given him.
The page is at http://www.whitis.com/mailwiper.htm.
Despite the fact that everything I say is true, and many other sites also discuss the companies business practices, if the spammer does sue, I will have to defend. I would certainly expect to win the case - but I'll have to hire a lawyer to do it.
It seems to me Arizona and Austin are most attractive because of the low cost of living and lots of open space.
When discussing states, Austin doesn't seem to apply. It's a (small) city, (capitol of Texas,) not a state.
Jurisdiction gets complicated, and as I'm sure you know, the law doesn't have a very good grasp of the internet. Most of the time courts will allow them to file. You can go to court and argue that they don't have jurisdiction - but you have to argue it, which puts you back in the original position. If you just write a letter to the court saying "I don't think you have jurisdiction" and don't show up, they will almost certainly render a default judgement against you. A spammer sued Steve Sobol and several others not long ago in Florida, for completely frivoulous stuff, and ended up dropping the suit eventually. But the defendants still had to hire a lawyer.
Some states have anti SLAPP laws, but they don't seem to apply to my specific case, as neither Texas (where I live) or Georgia (where the guy threatens to sue me) have them.
Slashdot Mirror
You clearly didn't read the post I responded to. Yes, he used UCE, and no that's not new terminology. But he used UPE in a way I've never seen it (breaking established terminology), as well as making up a bunch of new stuff like U?E and S?E. He also claimed that he's "opted in to spam and then had to opt out again", which shows he doesn't understand what spam is.
You don't sound like you've paid much attention to the articles. There are already killer bees in California. I've paid a little attention to this because I'm allergic to bee stings, live in Texas, and go camping from time to time. They didn't come from Texas, they came from Brazil. Texas is just one area they've travelled to.
Calling them killer bees is a little misleading. It's not like they are taking orders from Osama and go out looking to kill people/animals. But the will aggressively protect their hive, and they have killed people. They will also reproduce with domestic honey bees (which are nomally fairly mellow little guys), and the aggressive gene's are dominate, so soon the entire hive goes from being regular bees to being a strain of AHB's - Africanized Honey Bees.
The link below will give some useful information, including the fact that they were reported in California 10 years ago. They aren't overrunning Texas, or anywhere else, to the point where people can't live there. But it does have an effect on normal beekeeping, on agriculture, and on people who just happen to stumble into the wrong place without realizing they are there.
In the current context: If the genetically modified bees hadn't escaped in Brazil roughly 50 years ago, then they wouldn't be a problem. But they did, and now they've spread quite far, with signs that the problem will continue to get worse. It's better to plan ahead than to simply assume "There isn't any problem with this." I don't have a strong opinion about the genetically modified grass - but I wouldn't write it off as a non-problem without more information and testing, either.
http://www.desertusa.com/mag98/sep/stories/kbees.h tml
Sorry, spammer, but that's not true.
Lets see what the courts say :
U.S. Federal Judge Stanley Sporkin:
[Spammers] have come to court not because their freedom of speech is threatened but because their profits are; to dress up their complaints in First Amendment garb demeans the principles for which the First Amendment stands.
Chief Justice Berger, U.S. Supreme Court:
Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit. We categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even good ideas on an unwilling recipient. The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain.
You are abusing innocent people, and are causing just as much trouble as the spammers. You're no better than a spammer, from where I sit.
From that one line, it's clear that you don't understand what spam is. So I feel no need to learn all the new terminology (U?E and such) that you just made up.
Bull shit. Prior to WWII, Japan was buying oil from the US. We didn't take their oil, we stopped selling them oil after they invaded China and joined with the Axis party.
If you want to say that we cut off their supply, then you would be correct. But when you claim that we "took their oil", you are either dishonest or ill-informed.
IMO, you had a good post there - too bad the mods haven't noticed. To answer your question, "how does a chimp look when it is deep in thought", see this link.
A spammer could hold out a long time, by saying "Anyone that queries for messages fitting X description get MsgID-00001 as a reply". But it would also make it fairly easy to track them down, and they would soon be blacklisted.
they are an idiot who is essentially begging to be spammed, trojaned, virused, etc. I have no problem with HTML email - but it won't execute on my machine without my specific permission, and 99% of the time, that isn't going to happen.
If I don't know you, a short "This is why I want to talk to you" message in plain-text is much more effective way to reach me than HTML crap.
Hebalife is probably the #1 company behind the various "street spam" signs that you see on the side of the road. (Nailed to telephone posts, stuck in stakes on the right of way just before lights, etc.) Those are illegal in most places in the US, and nothing more than trash left in a public place as far as I'm concerned, but herbalife has used them to lure in more suckers for a long time. They've also been caught sending email spam.
Info at www.cauce.org.
Instead of a solution such as they suggest, I'd rather go with SPF.
The moderation system /. uses doesn't stop anyone from spamming - anyone can post any kind of nonsense they want, and many do. (Browse at -1 for awhile and see for yourself.) But by reading at 1 or 2, you can get rid of pretty much all the crap, while missing few useful messages. By browsing at higher levels, you can get rid of a lot more junk, and still see the most useful posts.
I don't think /. compares to usenet, blogs, or email very well.
I receive ~500 spams a day, many to addresses no longer in use (due to the spam they receive.) Many of them get auto-deleted. Even the few that get though the filtering (not many) will never allow the spammer to know that I saw it, as I don't allow emails to show HTML unless I specifically request it for that specific message. So they can't use web-bug type of tracking to see that I received the email. However, despite the fact that they have no way to tell if I received the spam, they keep sending. It's just so cheap to send all the messages and not worry about it, and the spammers do not care about the bandwidth waste.
I agree with you that whitelisting is one of the best ways to make sure you get the mail you want - I use it quite a bit myself. But it's not a cure-all.
Photographers do no have to have consent of people in pictures to distribute them. If you walk down the street, and your local newspaper (or TV station) takes your picture, they can publish it.
If you've really put his info into your WhoIs, then he can easily take control of your domain.
What "proposed law" is that? I keep up with spam related news fairly closely, and have not heard about any law which would outlaw opt in lists of any sort.
Wrong.
They are already fingerprinting essentially everyone in the US, and have been for years. Now, a bunch of foreigners who don't *have* to come here are whining because they'll be subject to the same treatment that every US citizen already has to deal with.
If they are going to fingerprint everyone in the US who drives, then I have no qualms about people visiting also being fingerprinted. They, at least, have the option of saying "I don't want to visit the US". Those of us that live here are already putting up with it - like it or not.
I funny webpage about kids names: http://www.misanthropic-bitch.com/briandrye.html
Kids don't have a hard enough time these days, so why not make sure, as a parent, that life will be as hard as possible on them. Name them "FVCK YOU" or something. Yeah, great plan. Maybe this is an April Fools joke, but quite honestly, it just sounds like you're an idiot who shouldn't reproduce.
Technically, free speech is protected in the US - true enough. However, you can still be sued for telling the truth, and if sued, you have to defend yourself (a fairly expensive process) or you *will* lose the case. I've been doing some research in that area recently, after receiving a cease-and-desist letter from a lawyer. I have a webpage which describes how a company named MailWiper (supposedly selling anti-spam software) has been advertising via spam, with links to other sites showing that their sister company (supposedly anti-spyware) has been forcing spyware onto peoples computers and telling them "To get rid of this, you have to buy our anti-spyware software." The spammer apparently doesn't like the free publicity I've given him.
The page is at http://www.whitis.com/mailwiper.htm. Despite the fact that everything I say is true, and many other sites also discuss the companies business practices, if the spammer does sue, I will have to defend. I would certainly expect to win the case - but I'll have to hire a lawyer to do it.
It seems to me Arizona and Austin are most attractive because of the low cost of living and lots of open space. When discussing states, Austin doesn't seem to apply. It's a (small) city, (capitol of Texas,) not a state.
Some states have anti SLAPP laws, but they don't seem to apply to my specific case, as neither Texas (where I live) or Georgia (where the guy threatens to sue me) have them.