I've been using Usenet for more than a decade, and in my experience, no NNTP-server, whether in academia or commercially run, kept messages indefinitely.
There is no reasonable expectation that by posting to Usenet I allow any company to store reproduce my posts longer than, say, a few months.
Once you post in public, you've made the information available to anyone in the world that cares to look. You are very naive if you believe that everyone in the world is then going to both know and follow your wishes in regards to that post.
They honestly believe that their offer is so fantastic that they don't understand why someone *wouldn't* want to see it. They honestly believe that they're doing you a favor by evading your spam filter, that filter you put in place to get *everyone but them*, so that they can make your life better.
I call bullshit. They know good and well that it isn't wanted, they simply don't care.
If you were correct, and they simply believed that everyone would really like to hear about their exciting offer, they wouldn't forge other peoples email addresses and domain names into their spam.
I'm sure that there are *some* spammers who believe that it's legitimate marketing, that people really want to know about whatever crap they are selling, and that their spam isn't spam. But those are few and far between. The vast majority are forging headers, hiding like a cockroach, using garbage in the subject line, because they don't care if their mail is wanted, they know it *isn't* wanted, and they'll do anything they can to shove their fucking advertising into everyones mailboxes.
Scott Richter said all kinds of crap. But what he said isn't important - spammers are, by nature, dishonest bastards. Rule #1: Spammers Lie. If you'll think "They are just misguided" because you believe his lies, that's your own fault.
The fact is if a million people did this the ISPs would not kick anyone off. They do not want to loose that much revenue. If they did kick people off how do spammers get connected?
Some ISP's allow abuse. Some ISP's don't. Are you buying from the same ISP that is supporting spammers? I rather doubt it. So your ISP may kick you for abuse that the spammers ISP would ignore.
I'm not strongly in favor or, or upposed to, the idea of driving up the spammers costs this way. However, anyone considering it should realize that depending on their ISP, there could be a price.
I see the new ones on my Tivo and only watch them if I seriously have nothing better to do.
That's how TV should be used. It shouldn't be a priority where you "have" to see the next episode of whatever - especially not on a time schedule the TV station found convenient. At your convenience, when you have nothing better to do.
Of course, I almost always have something better to do, so...
The mom in Terminator (and T2) was a strong female lead. The teacher in "Dangerous Minds", too. The scientist in Alien. Princess Leah was so-so. I don't think you can back up your argument once you look around a bit.
I have no problem in running a program where if I click on a spam button, the senders IP gets 1-5% of my bandwidth for a day. This would raise their costs and throttle their output. Perhaps the upstream ISP would take note and cut them off like they should have done along time ago.
Or perhaps your ISP will shut down your account for abuse, as you are participating in a DDoS attack.
Yes, they are. If software patents had been allowed then, we would still be using VisiCalc - nobody else would be allowed to compete in the spreadsheet market. Lord knows what word processor everyone would be forced to use.
The software world changes very fast when patents don't get in the way. Software patents stifle development.
So the spammers move to third world countries, and those of us running mail servers can decide whether to accept mail from those countries or not.
Blocking international email traffic isn't a viable option
For some people, I'm sure it isn't. For others, it's quite viable. I get no legitimate mail from China, for instance, so why shouldn't I block mail that originates there?
I'm all in favor of driving the spammers out of the country, and i have no qualms about blocking IP ranges that generate nothing but spam.
The spammers send out millions of emails every day asking people to hit their site. You are arguing that if their site then gets millions of hits a day, that those hits are a crime? That makes no sense. If they don't want the hits, they shouldn't send the spam.
Nope, I'm a laywer, they're lawyers, this is how we're taught to think. If we can assume that a sheet of paper signed by a judge will keep your ex girlfriend from stalking you, we can certainly assume that the law will keep spam at bay. (And thus technological solutions are not needed.)
The ex-girlfriend has possible defenses other than that piece of paper. Arguing that technical solutions to spam are not needed because "we can pass laws" is stupid. I'm not at all suprised to hear a lawyer make the argument, though. Lawyers aren't taught to think, or to be fair. They are taught to lie and cheat in order to win their case.
Numbers are funny that way. I'm not arguing that 1/2 the people have below average intelligence (or above average, for that matter), but it is, technically, possible for more than 1/2 to be below average. People just don't realize it because their intelligence is so low.:^)
I'm not surprised. Spammers, phishers, and other scammers have obviously been hiring geeks to write software for them for some time. Without that, they wouldn't have armies of owned machines ready to send out their spam for them, etc.
The Lycos screensaver has gotten a lot of press, and could certainly put a crimp in the spammers pocketbooks, and spammers aren't honest, so why wouldn't they hack Lycos?
a) They are made by private companies and individuals who's credentials and/or decency cannot be guaranteed.
What, like
SpyWiper and Spamford Wallace? His credentials are very well known, and I have never had any doubts about his decency.
He's currently under a
TRO
to keep him from marketing his "spyware removal tool" which was advertised by spam and spyware, and which appears to do lots of harm but to be no help at all in removing spyware.
Who would have thought that a slimeball like him would lie to people that way?
His partner in the Spy Wiper business is Rob Martinson. Rob, like Spamford, is also salt of the earth. You can read his history in this article "A Hated Man".
I haven't used it, but my understanding is that SpywareBlaster isn't a "spyware remover". It's goal is to stop you from getting the spyware in the first place, not to remove it after you've gotten it.
No, I'm saying that I've read some of your posts and seen that what you claim is in the link you cite sometimes says exactly the oppostite of what you say. That being the case, I see little reason to point out your inaccuracies when you'll just point to a different source that says something different and say "Oh, but it says what I want it to over here." I gave you a chance, read your stuff, and you convinced me that you aren't worth the time.
You are just trolling. Troll away, have fun, and I'll do something more useful.
I'm not debating. I see no sense in debating with someone who has a closed mind. I'm just reading along, educating myself, seeing what other people think. Sorry, but if you want someone to kiss your ass, I'm not the guy you are looking for.
As to "the other side", I was opposed to the war, not in favor of it. You'll never understand that, because you can only see extremeists sides, one of the other, whereas I'm trying to understand both points of view in order to figure out where in the middle I end up.
Slashdot Mirror
What, you haven't heard of groups.google.com?
Once you post in public, you've made the information available to anyone in the world that cares to look. You are very naive if you believe that everyone in the world is then going to both know and follow your wishes in regards to that post.
If the Dems had run a decent candidate, things might have been different.
I call bullshit. They know good and well that it isn't wanted, they simply don't care.
If you were correct, and they simply believed that everyone would really like to hear about their exciting offer, they wouldn't forge other peoples email addresses and domain names into their spam.
I'm sure that there are *some* spammers who believe that it's legitimate marketing, that people really want to know about whatever crap they are selling, and that their spam isn't spam. But those are few and far between. The vast majority are forging headers, hiding like a cockroach, using garbage in the subject line, because they don't care if their mail is wanted, they know it *isn't* wanted, and they'll do anything they can to shove their fucking advertising into everyones mailboxes.
Scott Richter said all kinds of crap. But what he said isn't important - spammers are, by nature, dishonest bastards. Rule #1: Spammers Lie. If you'll think "They are just misguided" because you believe his lies, that's your own fault.
Some ISP's allow abuse. Some ISP's don't. Are you buying from the same ISP that is supporting spammers? I rather doubt it. So your ISP may kick you for abuse that the spammers ISP would ignore.
I'm not strongly in favor or, or upposed to, the idea of driving up the spammers costs this way. However, anyone considering it should realize that depending on their ISP, there could be a price.
That's how TV should be used. It shouldn't be a priority where you "have" to see the next episode of whatever - especially not on a time schedule the TV station found convenient. At your convenience, when you have nothing better to do.
Of course, I almost always have something better to do, so...
The mom in Terminator (and T2) was a strong female lead. The teacher in "Dangerous Minds", too. The scientist in Alien. Princess Leah was so-so. I don't think you can back up your argument once you look around a bit.
That's an obvious troll. I'm not from Norway, but even I know better.
Or perhaps your ISP will shut down your account for abuse, as you are participating in a DDoS attack.
Yes, they are. If software patents had been allowed then, we would still be using VisiCalc - nobody else would be allowed to compete in the spreadsheet market. Lord knows what word processor everyone would be forced to use.
The software world changes very fast when patents don't get in the way. Software patents stifle development.
Bullshit. Properly applied, the death penalty has a 100% success rate.
Blocking international email traffic isn't a viable option
For some people, I'm sure it isn't. For others, it's quite viable. I get no legitimate mail from China, for instance, so why shouldn't I block mail that originates there?
I'm all in favor of driving the spammers out of the country, and i have no qualms about blocking IP ranges that generate nothing but spam.
The spammers send out millions of emails every day asking people to hit their site. You are arguing that if their site then gets millions of hits a day, that those hits are a crime? That makes no sense. If they don't want the hits, they shouldn't send the spam.
Claiming this is similar to arson or murder is nonsense.
http://www.onlinereplicastore.com/
That appears to be some of the same spammers that have been forging my domain name in the headers of their spam. Fucking bastards.
The ex-girlfriend has possible defenses other than that piece of paper. Arguing that technical solutions to spam are not needed because "we can pass laws" is stupid. I'm not at all suprised to hear a lawyer make the argument, though. Lawyers aren't taught to think, or to be fair. They are taught to lie and cheat in order to win their case.
No, it doesn't. It would if there were an even distribution, but it doesn't inherently work out that way.
2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 10, 10, 9, 10.
Add 'em up, = 49. Divide by 11, = 4.4545~ average.
Over half (7 of 11) are below average.
Numbers are funny that way. I'm not arguing that 1/2 the people have below average intelligence (or above average, for that matter), but it is, technically, possible for more than 1/2 to be below average. People just don't realize it because their intelligence is so low. :^)
The Lycos screensaver has gotten a lot of press, and could certainly put a crimp in the spammers pocketbooks, and spammers aren't honest, so why wouldn't they hack Lycos?
Someone, anyone, please mod parent up. This is the best post of the thread.
What, like SpyWiper and Spamford Wallace? His credentials are very well known, and I have never had any doubts about his decency.
He's currently under a TRO to keep him from marketing his "spyware removal tool" which was advertised by spam and spyware, and which appears to do lots of harm but to be no help at all in removing spyware.
Who would have thought that a slimeball like him would lie to people that way?
His partner in the Spy Wiper business is Rob Martinson. Rob, like Spamford, is also salt of the earth. You can read his history in this article "A Hated Man".
I haven't used it, but my understanding is that SpywareBlaster isn't a "spyware remover". It's goal is to stop you from getting the spyware in the first place, not to remove it after you've gotten it.
Before you say that it's a dinosaur, you're going to have to explain about dinosaurs with bones made of bronze. (vs18).
I wonder if he forwards them, and if so, to who?
You are just trolling. Troll away, have fun, and I'll do something more useful.
I'm not debating. I see no sense in debating with someone who has a closed mind. I'm just reading along, educating myself, seeing what other people think. Sorry, but if you want someone to kiss your ass, I'm not the guy you are looking for.
As to "the other side", I was opposed to the war, not in favor of it. You'll never understand that, because you can only see extremeists sides, one of the other, whereas I'm trying to understand both points of view in order to figure out where in the middle I end up.