Imagine if every time your filters tagged a message as spam it could send an auto reply with a forged header (fake email address and stuff like that, assuming this doesn't get ruled illegal). Then the spammer would get a randomly generated email along the lines of:
The vast majority of spam uses a forged address in the header. You're "I am interested" reply isn't going to go back to the spammer, it's going to go to someone else. For the last month, I've received bounces almost every day because spammers are forging my domain in the From: field on the spam they send.
An auto-reply to everything that gets filtered as spam is going to have basically no effect on the spammers, while it will have a large impact on people the spammers are victimizing.
Part of my companies' income is from sales of various and sundry products sold via soley online "stores." Part of that traffic is via banner ads, text links, etc, and another portion is via bulk mail (spam), generated by affiliates and run from an outside-the-us operation (that is to say we are not technically pressing the "go" button to spam people).
So, you're a spammer, and the way we can hurt your business is to order the products you sell.
Spammers simply can't understand how fucking stupid they sound. Sadly, some people are stupid enough to believe the spammers lies.
I get my ass kicked by most chess players I go up against but I have still beaten every comp player I have gone up against.
If that is true, then either the chess players you are playing are very strong players, or you're playing the computer on it's lowest setting. The computer will win against most people, most of the time, and it's been that way for a long time.
Personal responsibility is an outdated, obsolete concept.
Right. Everyone should do whatever the hell they want, and to hell with the consequences.
Personal responsibility is OVER in any civilized society.
Sorry, but personal responsibility is the only thing that leads to civilized society. Without it, nothing is left but anarchy and a "Fuck 'em all, I'll do what I want" way of living.
As a teenager, I don't want people barging into my life.
As a teenager, you don't pay your own bills. You aren't the only person responsible for your life - you're parents have responsibilities, too. They are part of your life, and you wouldn't be there if it were not for them. Getting mad at them for trying to do a good job is stupid.
If my parents want to know what the fruck I am doing, they can shut up.
Their job is to take care of you, and hopefully to raise you so that you aren't an asshole. Sounds like they are failing, based entirely on this post where you claim you have a right to tell your folks to "shut up". Part of the job of taking care of you means paying your bills. Part of it means helping you learn about life. (No, you don't actually know everything, you just think you do. Anybody who tells you they know everything is wrong. Reasonable people learn that while they are growing up.)
If you were my kid and you told me "Shut up and mind your own business, I'll do what I want" then you wouldn't like the results.
It would seem logical to me to assume that at least a large number of (if not a vast majority of?) spammers are ignorant as to why it's a bad idea. They don't know much about the Internet, and some idiot with a spam-software outfit approaches them and tells them about this "Great Marketing Idea", sells them some software (that may or may not do various bad things like hiding headers/etc), and off they go!
This is one of the reasons I would like to see a federal law which says "You cannot send unsolicted bulk email". At that point, spammers can't claim "It's legal" and pointy haired idiots like your boss can be much more easily convinced that sending spam isn't to their advantage.
That won't stop the spammers who are just plain crooks. But it starts limiting their market, and its good evidence that anyone who is sending spam is a crook.
A friend of mine does a lot of wiring. He has a remote control tank that he sometimes uses. He ties a string to it, and tapes a flashlight to the top. He'll drive it as far as he can from the first opening, then moves to the second one and drives it to him. His boss was a bit peeved when he turned in the receipt for it, until he saw it in action once. Then he realized how much time it saved and realized it was a bargain.
I have a bit of trouble believing the ferret story.
I understand that it was three years ago, and that things are bound to have changed. That's why I made a point of posting when I tried Linux. Still, at that time, it was horrible. From what I read, I'm not sure things are a lot better. You say that comparing it in 2000 isn't fair - but compared to 95, in 2000 Linux wasn't competitive for normal use. Yes, it was vi. Whoever thought that "Oh, I need to design a text editor, so I'll just let them edit one line at a time" was an idiot. They apparently wrote Edlin. Whoever wrote vi wasn't smart enough to see how badly Edlin had failed. And vi still has a lot of support amoung linux folks, which is what makes me think that linux is still not ready for prime time.
I'm considering trying again. I've got a spare machine or two sitting around. Maybe (hopefully) I'll be impressed.
That would be the last fraction of the desktop market I'd even think about because it's the most pain in the ass and expensive to manage.
Planning to hire a bunch of people who know how to use Windows and then train them to use Linux doesn't look like it makes a lot of sense to me. Linux is a fine tool for geeks, and it's great as a server (assuming you or someone in the company knows enough about linux to get it all set up) but it's not ready for your average Joe User. And that means it isn't ready for most business desktops.
Linux also needs to be able to do the things that John_Average_User expects to do with his computer, without John spending a year figuring out how.
Last time I tried linux, I got through the install OK, and then found that in order to get anything done, I needed to edit a bunch of config files, using an editor that seemed to be trying to emulate Edlin. That convinced me that linux wasn't ready for prime time.
Maybe things have changed - I haven't tried since. But if a self taught geek like myself sees linux as being too much trouble to be worth using, it's not going to be popular as a desktop with either home users or businesses. Most people (not geeks - JQPublic) want to be able to do email, surf the net, write a letter, run a spreadsheet, and maybe play a few games. If being able to do those on a linux system means a large learning curve, they'll just say "Linux sucks" and go back to MS or Apple, where things have been designed to be easy.
I ended up blowing away linux because the linux computer wasn't worth messing with. I basically couldn't get anything done with it except to learn more about linux. In order to ask questions, I had to go online with my MS system, ask the questions, then go to the linux computer to try things out. That sucks. And the stupid line-editor was a horrible idea back when it was invented, much less in the year 2000.
I've got a spare machine sitting around. I'll try again if you guys convince me that the computer will actually handle the basics without a major headache. In 2000, linux couldn't do that.
Most of the servers under attack are probably not running a MS-OS. A DDoS attack can be done from any OS, and it can happen to any server. Blaming MS is just plain stupid.
If you really are serious, and don't want to come across as a troll, you should learn at least the basics of a DDoS attack.
Lets say your phone number is 232-232-2323. Lets say 10 people set up a computer to call your house, over and over. Your phone goes useless. It doesn't matter what kind of phone you have, and it doesn't matter what kind of computers they have dialing your phone - you still can't get any incoming calls because those 10 computers will keep the line busy 24/7.
That's a fairly low tech example of a DDoS attack. There are no easy solutions.
And yet you are bitching because pieces have been left out.
Sorry, but anyone who is such a "fan" of LOTR should read the books. I've enjoyed the movies, and I'm hoping they'll do The Hobbit eventually, but the movies are never going to be as good as the books. That's just the way it is.
Tolkein was an incredibly skilled writer. Some of that will translate into the movies, but lots of it will not. The books are also fairly long. The movies, even after cutting a fair amount of the story and rearanging things to keep it down to the minimum, end up being 3 hours long. There simply isn't a way to make a full blown, nothing left out version of the books and expect the theaters to show it. They don't want their theater tied up for six hours for one movie, and the people (like you) who want to watch a movie but who won't read the books aren't going to sit there that long.
I was sorry that Tom Bombadil was cut from the first one, bu I understood why, and I didn't bitch and whine about it like you are doing.
Of course, since you never read the books, you have no idea who Tom Bombadil was.
You have, however, ignored all of these, because you instead prefer to post notice that while human-readable, is not really sufficiently machine readable that a spammer seems likely to ever come near it.
I'm sorry that I'm not making it easy enough for the spammers to make you happy.
Munging the address as you suggested would not keep the spam from reaching me. Whether they munge it, or not, it would end up in my mailbox. That may not be true for everyone, but it is true for my email. nospam.someAddress@example.com would reach me, if you swapped the domain, whether they unmunged or not.
You claim the SMTP protocol could supply notice. I don't run the server, and I don't believe spammers would care about that any more than any other method. Not to mention, since there is no standard, you would claim "Well how would they know that you've choosen to tell them that way."
And you talk about a mythical Do Not Email list which doesn't exist.
You're supposed to either a) TELL them to stop, once, by putting up proper notice (which you seem to not want to do, being enamored with improper notice), or b) TELL them to stop once each, by informing them specifically.
Naturally, the option A you mention doesn't exist. You've already claimed that it's unreasonable of me to post "Don't spam me" on the web page where they harvest my address, and you've suggested no place at all where I could "put up proper notice". Since I haven't complied with your option A in a maner you find suitable (and note that you seem to have no place where you would consider it suitable) you claim I'm enamored with improper notice. Of course, you've claimed that I'm trying to kill email, that the junk fax law is unconstitutional, that there is no cost shifting in spam and all kinds of crap, so I'm not a bit surprised. You posted about a legal case, claiming that it talked about cost shifting when it says nothing about cost shifting at all. You've shown zero signs of honesty.
Do you really think that it's impossible for someone to honestly argue along the lines I've been going
Global opt-out that must be honored on pain of lawsuit is part of my 'platform' as it were.
You believe it's OK for them to harvest my email address from my website, but that posting "I don't want your spam" on that same website isn't sufficient notice. I'm supposed to beg them to stop, over and over. I've done that, too, but since there are still more spammers, I'm now supposed to do it 300+ times a day. Fuck your platform - it sucks.
Clearly you've never seen how much money public defenders make.
Clearly, you are ignoring the fact that most defense lawyers are not working for public defender pay. Not to mention the fact that in high profile cases, they make a ton of money. Wow, are you shocked? Once again, facts and your claims are opposites.
I'm tired of this. You'll have to troll someone else. Maybe the next guy will believe your bullshit.
You've explained quite clearly that you think the rest of us should have to put up with spam until we beg the spammers to stop. Each spammer, individually. That's the current situation, and it's what you want.
I'm not aware of a Do Not Fax _LIST_.
My mistake. Should have said "do not fax laws", and I'm sure you knew what I meant. You've claimed that the do not fax law has been found unconstitutional. Tell it to
fax.com and the California AG.
I don't love spam.
But you're damn sure opposed to getting rid of it. You deny that it shifts the costs. You believe spammers have a right to spam until we beg them to stop. You lie about legal issues while claiming to be months short of graduation with a legal degree.
Do you think that criminal defense attorneys love, or even like their clients?
No, I think they love money enough that as long as they get paid well, they'll do anything to get it. Including helping a murderer or rapist go free to do it again.
A sincere committment to free speech requires that one be willing to try to protect speech REGARDLESS of whether or not one like that particular speech.
True, as far as it goes. However, having the right to say something, and having the right to force a million people to listen to it, with them funding the bill, isn't related to free speech. I think you are a liar and an asshole. I can post that here. I can't spray paint it on the side of your house. The fact that I'm not allowed to do that doesn't infringe on my right to free speech, any more than telling spammers to STAY THE HELL OUT OF MY MAILBOX infringes on theirs.
Nor do I have a problem with constructive notice, such as the DNC List. If they _don't_ honor an opt out, which would include failing to honor an earlier one, go ahead and have a good cause of action against them.
How about a "I Hate Spam" page on your home page? Does that count as saying "I don't want it"? How about complaining about spammers for years? What the fuck does it take to say "Leave Me The Fuck Alone!". Apparently, that isn't enough for you, or for them. I've already told them thousands of times, and they keep getting worse, and you keep defending them.
I wrote, in response to your acusation "No, I'm trying to save email as a useful medium.".
You wrote, in response "Sadly, you're failing then.". When did we try my way? Once again, you twist the truth 180 degrees around. We haven't tried my way. Your way, where the marketers get to do whatever they want, is the only way that we've tried. And it has quite sadly failed. And you blame me? Get a fucking clue.
Once again, I notice you've skipped over legal facts. You've claimed that the Do Not Fax list is unconstitutional. Post a link. Site your source. Or admit that you are just lying. I'll keep pointing out your lies, either way. You could, of course, consider posting the truth. But it's hard for a spam lover to do that without looking like the asshole he is.
legitimate companies will obey opt outs and constructive notice more or less under Rowan
Opting out over and over and over and over again. Good plan, hoping each time that they'll honor the opt out. Good plan.
What you seek is the destruction of email, basically, or at least the destruction of convenient email, since no one dare ever send a message without getting permission through some other means of communication in the first place (which itself is likely just as if not more bothersome and also likely subject to similar regulation). Really I imagine you don't like anyone ever initiating communication, since you're striving to stamp it out.
No, I'm trying to save email as a useful medium. You're "Comanpies should be able to spam as much as they want until you beg them to quit" theory has already been tried. It's killing email.
Naturally, someone who cares as little about the truth as you do has twisted this into "Stephen wants to destroy email". I'm not surprised.
Thus, I'm only willing to go so far as to defend essentially the least offensive spammers
And that helps how? It doesn't matter if the spam is for an actual, otherwise legitmate company, it's still spam. It's still filling my inbox. It's still wasting bandwidth. It's still cost shifted advertising. It's still wasting my time. It already happens. I get spam advertising for mortgages, toy cars, Victoria's Secret, software, weight loss programs - all what you would call legitimate products. Even porno websites could easily argue that they are legitimate - they do have a website, and they do want to sell you what they offered. I don't care if it's for IBM or Coca-Cola or some other big company. I don't care if it's a guy in Miami selling "funny T-shirts". That doesn't matter - it's still unwanted.
The DMA wants exactly what you want. Get rid of the fraud, and tell "legitimate" businesses that they can spam the world until the world begs out. That theory has people fed up with telemarketing, and people don't want the spam either.
The argument you use leads to a question of allowing some spam while disallowing other spam. It doesn't solve the problem, it just brings up questions similar to those the DNC list has - some calls are allowed, others aren't. Get rid of all the crap, says I. Spam is about consent, not content.
I just don't believe that there is any substantial cost shifting occuring
Studies show that spam is costing businesses (not counting the costs to individuals) somewhere in the 10 Billion a year range, and you claim there is no cost shifting. That's why it's hard to have a reasonable discussion with you - facts have no bearing on what you believe.
Remember, to a certain extent, cost shifting is NOT sufficient grounds for regulation:
And to prove your point, you post a quote from Bolger v Youngs Drugs which has nothing to do with cost shifting. The term doesn't even come up in that case. That's a brilliant legal manuever, no doubt. Your professors must be proud.
Spam, I suspect, is no more burdensome than junk mail.
I rarely get more than 10 junk mails in a week. I get 300+ spams every day. Guess which one is more of a burden?
There haven't been many junk fax cases, and some have gone that way, and others have held the junk fax statute unconstitutional.
I've heard of rulings that the junk fax law was unconstitutional. I've also, in every case, heard that those rulings were overturned by higher courts. If that law had actually been found unconstitutional, as you claim, then junk faxes would not be illegal. And yet they are.
A recent story on the subject can be found on Wired magazine. Once again, your claims and reality have little in common.
Re:seen the price of VS.NET?
on
Kylix in Limbo
·
· Score: 1
the last few years their marketing and PR was filled with arrogant know-it-alls.
Yeah, they know it all. Like the time they change the company name from Borland to Inprise. Brilliant move, that. Take a well known brand, change the name to something meaningless, spend a lot of money on advertising, changing letterheads, new business cards, new graphics - and then change everything back again two years later.p.
I, OTOH, have never said that Central Hudson provided absolute protection. That would clearly be incompatable with the many posts I've been making over a long span of time indicating that I feel it is perfectly legal to, e.g. ban fraudulent or deceptive spam, or to ban spam sent despite actual or constructive notice by the recipient to not send spam. (as opposed to a blanket ban on spam that would violate Central Hudson)
But you continue to claim that spam can't be outlawed because Central Hudson protects it. You continue to ignore the cost shifting. Challenges to the unsolicited fax laws have shown that cost shifted advertising isn't protected.
You've continued to ignore the fact that Central Hudson clearly explains that the government *does* have a right to regulate advertising when there is a compelling public interest. Lots more. I hunted up a bunch of legal links about it once - you weren't interested, because looking at the whole picture doesn't fit your "How Dare You Try To Make Spam Illegal" picture.
As long as you continue to pretend that Central Hudson means that any business can say anything it wants and advertise in any way it wants, I'll continue to point out that you are wrong.
Central Hudson came about because of a *complete ban on any form of advertising, via any media, by electric companies*. Central Hudson also specifically states that commercial speech is entitled to less protection than other forms of speech.
It isn't a "We can do everything" talisman as you so often suggest.
Slashdot Mirror
The vast majority of spam uses a forged address in the header. You're "I am interested" reply isn't going to go back to the spammer, it's going to go to someone else. For the last month, I've received bounces almost every day because spammers are forging my domain in the From: field on the spam they send.
An auto-reply to everything that gets filtered as spam is going to have basically no effect on the spammers, while it will have a large impact on people the spammers are victimizing.
So, you're a spammer, and the way we can hurt your business is to order the products you sell.
Spammers simply can't understand how fucking stupid they sound. Sadly, some people are stupid enough to believe the spammers lies.
As to you, spamming scum, fuck off and die.
If that is true, then either the chess players you are playing are very strong players, or you're playing the computer on it's lowest setting. The computer will win against most people, most of the time, and it's been that way for a long time.
Right. Everyone should do whatever the hell they want, and to hell with the consequences.
Personal responsibility is OVER in any civilized society.
Sorry, but personal responsibility is the only thing that leads to civilized society. Without it, nothing is left but anarchy and a "Fuck 'em all, I'll do what I want" way of living.
As a teenager, you don't pay your own bills. You aren't the only person responsible for your life - you're parents have responsibilities, too. They are part of your life, and you wouldn't be there if it were not for them. Getting mad at them for trying to do a good job is stupid.
If my parents want to know what the fruck I am doing, they can shut up.
Their job is to take care of you, and hopefully to raise you so that you aren't an asshole. Sounds like they are failing, based entirely on this post where you claim you have a right to tell your folks to "shut up". Part of the job of taking care of you means paying your bills. Part of it means helping you learn about life. (No, you don't actually know everything, you just think you do. Anybody who tells you they know everything is wrong. Reasonable people learn that while they are growing up.)
If you were my kid and you told me "Shut up and mind your own business, I'll do what I want" then you wouldn't like the results.
This is one of the reasons I would like to see a federal law which says "You cannot send unsolicted bulk email". At that point, spammers can't claim "It's legal" and pointy haired idiots like your boss can be much more easily convinced that sending spam isn't to their advantage.
That won't stop the spammers who are just plain crooks. But it starts limiting their market, and its good evidence that anyone who is sending spam is a crook.
I have a bit of trouble believing the ferret story.
That should be "had" laws about sodomy. They've been ruled unconstitutional, which IMO is a good thing.
I'm considering trying again. I've got a spare machine or two sitting around. Maybe (hopefully) I'll be impressed.
Sure. :^)
Planning to hire a bunch of people who know how to use Windows and then train them to use Linux doesn't look like it makes a lot of sense to me. Linux is a fine tool for geeks, and it's great as a server (assuming you or someone in the company knows enough about linux to get it all set up) but it's not ready for your average Joe User. And that means it isn't ready for most business desktops.
Last time I tried linux, I got through the install OK, and then found that in order to get anything done, I needed to edit a bunch of config files, using an editor that seemed to be trying to emulate Edlin. That convinced me that linux wasn't ready for prime time.
Maybe things have changed - I haven't tried since. But if a self taught geek like myself sees linux as being too much trouble to be worth using, it's not going to be popular as a desktop with either home users or businesses. Most people (not geeks - JQPublic) want to be able to do email, surf the net, write a letter, run a spreadsheet, and maybe play a few games. If being able to do those on a linux system means a large learning curve, they'll just say "Linux sucks" and go back to MS or Apple, where things have been designed to be easy.
I ended up blowing away linux because the linux computer wasn't worth messing with. I basically couldn't get anything done with it except to learn more about linux. In order to ask questions, I had to go online with my MS system, ask the questions, then go to the linux computer to try things out. That sucks. And the stupid line-editor was a horrible idea back when it was invented, much less in the year 2000.
I've got a spare machine sitting around. I'll try again if you guys convince me that the computer will actually handle the basics without a major headache. In 2000, linux couldn't do that.
Most of the servers under attack are probably not running a MS-OS. A DDoS attack can be done from any OS, and it can happen to any server. Blaming MS is just plain stupid.
If you really are serious, and don't want to come across as a troll, you should learn at least the basics of a DDoS attack.
Lets say your phone number is 232-232-2323. Lets say 10 people set up a computer to call your house, over and over. Your phone goes useless. It doesn't matter what kind of phone you have, and it doesn't matter what kind of computers they have dialing your phone - you still can't get any incoming calls because those 10 computers will keep the line busy 24/7.
That's a fairly low tech example of a DDoS attack. There are no easy solutions.
Heroin dealers are selling illegal products, pay no taxes, and do not follow the law.
Trying to pretend they are the same thing makes no sense.
Sorry, but anyone who is such a "fan" of LOTR should read the books. I've enjoyed the movies, and I'm hoping they'll do The Hobbit eventually, but the movies are never going to be as good as the books. That's just the way it is.
Tolkein was an incredibly skilled writer. Some of that will translate into the movies, but lots of it will not. The books are also fairly long. The movies, even after cutting a fair amount of the story and rearanging things to keep it down to the minimum, end up being 3 hours long. There simply isn't a way to make a full blown, nothing left out version of the books and expect the theaters to show it. They don't want their theater tied up for six hours for one movie, and the people (like you) who want to watch a movie but who won't read the books aren't going to sit there that long.
I was sorry that Tom Bombadil was cut from the first one, bu I understood why, and I didn't bitch and whine about it like you are doing.
Of course, since you never read the books, you have no idea who Tom Bombadil was.
I'm sorry that I'm not making it easy enough for the spammers to make you happy.
Munging the address as you suggested would not keep the spam from reaching me. Whether they munge it, or not, it would end up in my mailbox. That may not be true for everyone, but it is true for my email. nospam.someAddress@example.com would reach me, if you swapped the domain, whether they unmunged or not.
You claim the SMTP protocol could supply notice. I don't run the server, and I don't believe spammers would care about that any more than any other method. Not to mention, since there is no standard, you would claim "Well how would they know that you've choosen to tell them that way."
And you talk about a mythical Do Not Email list which doesn't exist.
But it's my fault.
Naturally, the option A you mention doesn't exist. You've already claimed that it's unreasonable of me to post "Don't spam me" on the web page where they harvest my address, and you've suggested no place at all where I could "put up proper notice". Since I haven't complied with your option A in a maner you find suitable (and note that you seem to have no place where you would consider it suitable) you claim I'm enamored with improper notice. Of course, you've claimed that I'm trying to kill email, that the junk fax law is unconstitutional, that there is no cost shifting in spam and all kinds of crap, so I'm not a bit surprised. You posted about a legal case, claiming that it talked about cost shifting when it says nothing about cost shifting at all. You've shown zero signs of honesty.
Do you really think that it's impossible for someone to honestly argue along the lines I've been going
Yes.
I'm afraid I understand it very well.
Global opt-out that must be honored on pain of lawsuit is part of my 'platform' as it were.
You believe it's OK for them to harvest my email address from my website, but that posting "I don't want your spam" on that same website isn't sufficient notice. I'm supposed to beg them to stop, over and over. I've done that, too, but since there are still more spammers, I'm now supposed to do it 300+ times a day. Fuck your platform - it sucks.
Clearly you've never seen how much money public defenders make.
Clearly, you are ignoring the fact that most defense lawyers are not working for public defender pay. Not to mention the fact that in high profile cases, they make a ton of money. Wow, are you shocked? Once again, facts and your claims are opposites.
I'm tired of this. You'll have to troll someone else. Maybe the next guy will believe your bullshit.
You've explained quite clearly that you think the rest of us should have to put up with spam until we beg the spammers to stop. Each spammer, individually. That's the current situation, and it's what you want.
I'm not aware of a Do Not Fax _LIST_.
My mistake. Should have said "do not fax laws", and I'm sure you knew what I meant. You've claimed that the do not fax law has been found unconstitutional. Tell it to fax.com and the California AG.
I don't love spam.
But you're damn sure opposed to getting rid of it. You deny that it shifts the costs. You believe spammers have a right to spam until we beg them to stop. You lie about legal issues while claiming to be months short of graduation with a legal degree.
Do you think that criminal defense attorneys love, or even like their clients?
No, I think they love money enough that as long as they get paid well, they'll do anything to get it. Including helping a murderer or rapist go free to do it again.
A sincere committment to free speech requires that one be willing to try to protect speech REGARDLESS of whether or not one like that particular speech.
True, as far as it goes. However, having the right to say something, and having the right to force a million people to listen to it, with them funding the bill, isn't related to free speech. I think you are a liar and an asshole. I can post that here. I can't spray paint it on the side of your house. The fact that I'm not allowed to do that doesn't infringe on my right to free speech, any more than telling spammers to STAY THE HELL OUT OF MY MAILBOX infringes on theirs.
How about a "I Hate Spam" page on your home page? Does that count as saying "I don't want it"? How about complaining about spammers for years? What the fuck does it take to say "Leave Me The Fuck Alone!". Apparently, that isn't enough for you, or for them. I've already told them thousands of times, and they keep getting worse, and you keep defending them.
I wrote, in response to your acusation "No, I'm trying to save email as a useful medium.".
You wrote, in response "Sadly, you're failing then.". When did we try my way? Once again, you twist the truth 180 degrees around. We haven't tried my way. Your way, where the marketers get to do whatever they want, is the only way that we've tried. And it has quite sadly failed. And you blame me? Get a fucking clue.
Once again, I notice you've skipped over legal facts. You've claimed that the Do Not Fax list is unconstitutional. Post a link. Site your source. Or admit that you are just lying. I'll keep pointing out your lies, either way. You could, of course, consider posting the truth. But it's hard for a spam lover to do that without looking like the asshole he is.
Opting out over and over and over and over again. Good plan, hoping each time that they'll honor the opt out. Good plan.
What you seek is the destruction of email, basically, or at least the destruction of convenient email, since no one dare ever send a message without getting permission through some other means of communication in the first place (which itself is likely just as if not more bothersome and also likely subject to similar regulation). Really I imagine you don't like anyone ever initiating communication, since you're striving to stamp it out.
No, I'm trying to save email as a useful medium. You're "Comanpies should be able to spam as much as they want until you beg them to quit" theory has already been tried. It's killing email.
Naturally, someone who cares as little about the truth as you do has twisted this into "Stephen wants to destroy email". I'm not surprised.
And that helps how? It doesn't matter if the spam is for an actual, otherwise legitmate company, it's still spam. It's still filling my inbox. It's still wasting bandwidth. It's still cost shifted advertising. It's still wasting my time. It already happens. I get spam advertising for mortgages, toy cars, Victoria's Secret, software, weight loss programs - all what you would call legitimate products. Even porno websites could easily argue that they are legitimate - they do have a website, and they do want to sell you what they offered. I don't care if it's for IBM or Coca-Cola or some other big company. I don't care if it's a guy in Miami selling "funny T-shirts". That doesn't matter - it's still unwanted.
The DMA wants exactly what you want. Get rid of the fraud, and tell "legitimate" businesses that they can spam the world until the world begs out. That theory has people fed up with telemarketing, and people don't want the spam either.
The argument you use leads to a question of allowing some spam while disallowing other spam. It doesn't solve the problem, it just brings up questions similar to those the DNC list has - some calls are allowed, others aren't. Get rid of all the crap, says I. Spam is about consent, not content.
I just don't believe that there is any substantial cost shifting occuring
Studies show that spam is costing businesses (not counting the costs to individuals) somewhere in the 10 Billion a year range, and you claim there is no cost shifting. That's why it's hard to have a reasonable discussion with you - facts have no bearing on what you believe.
Remember, to a certain extent, cost shifting is NOT sufficient grounds for regulation:
And to prove your point, you post a quote from Bolger v Youngs Drugs which has nothing to do with cost shifting. The term doesn't even come up in that case. That's a brilliant legal manuever, no doubt. Your professors must be proud.
Spam, I suspect, is no more burdensome than junk mail.
I rarely get more than 10 junk mails in a week. I get 300+ spams every day. Guess which one is more of a burden?
There haven't been many junk fax cases, and some have gone that way, and others have held the junk fax statute unconstitutional.
I've heard of rulings that the junk fax law was unconstitutional. I've also, in every case, heard that those rulings were overturned by higher courts. If that law had actually been found unconstitutional, as you claim, then junk faxes would not be illegal. And yet they are.
A recent story on the subject can be found on Wired magazine. Once again, your claims and reality have little in common.
Yeah, they know it all. Like the time they change the company name from Borland to Inprise. Brilliant move, that. Take a well known brand, change the name to something meaningless, spend a lot of money on advertising, changing letterheads, new business cards, new graphics - and then change everything back again two years later.p.
But you continue to claim that spam can't be outlawed because Central Hudson protects it. You continue to ignore the cost shifting. Challenges to the unsolicited fax laws have shown that cost shifted advertising isn't protected. You've continued to ignore the fact that Central Hudson clearly explains that the government *does* have a right to regulate advertising when there is a compelling public interest. Lots more. I hunted up a bunch of legal links about it once - you weren't interested, because looking at the whole picture doesn't fit your "How Dare You Try To Make Spam Illegal" picture.
Central Hudson came about because of a *complete ban on any form of advertising, via any media, by electric companies*. Central Hudson also specifically states that commercial speech is entitled to less protection than other forms of speech.
It isn't a "We can do everything" talisman as you so often suggest.