What if I charge some $12.99 a month to be able to send email to her grandkids, and you block her from doing that, because you have a problem with a completely unrelated business relationship of mine ?
Please show me in any contract where it states specifcially that ISP A must deliver/carry/connect with ISP B.
Please show me in your TOS of your ISP that says that they guaranteed 100% connectivity/100% email delivery of your messages to ISP YOU-name-here.
Can't find such a clause can you?
However, what I do and can find in many ISP's TOS is that they guarantee your connection, but not at 100%; nor do they guarantee that your messages will be delivered for varous unctonrollable reasons. They can't control the happenings of what a sysadmin does on a private network. As with your ISP, they can't guarantee that they will allow all messages through. Have you bothered to read your own TOS?
Aren't you kind of holding the innocent customers hostage ? I don't like Microsoft, but I still think it would be a crime to write a virus to destroy people's data just because they did chose to use Windows.
Two different animals. CIHOST knows they host spammers as evidenced through the archives on google. They've been told they have spammers; they've been told they will be blocked if they continue to host spammers; yet they DO NOTHING to stop the spam that comes from their servers. So why should the REST of the net put up with their negligence.
CI HOST has 200,000 users? What about the 5 milllion other NET users that has to deal with their crap? 200,000 users is nothing to the inconvenience they turn a blind eye to. Grandma want to contact her newphews/nieces/aunts/sisters. USe the damn phone.
Why can't you just block the spam ?
Been there doen that. Hear of Maps? Look what happened to them. Spamemrs sued them till they couldn't afford to run anymore. Want spamemrs to sue you cause you called them spamemrs even when its true?
Huh? I never had that kind of response from AOL. Did you show them your logs? tosreports@aol.com and keep on replying until you get a perons with a clue. Or do what I do and just call them. Helps to be an AOL subscriber sometimes.
So, CIHOST's CEO is allowed to sue people because they've proven to be unscrupulous, but they won't allow people to block mail from this unscrupulous netspace?
Hey, you lie down with dogs, don't be mad if you get fleas.
If a company refuses to act on the abuse coming from their systems, there are no "legitimate" anythings coming out of that netspace.
THERE is a neat little invention called the telephone; invented by some bloke called Bell. Did wonders you know.
Uh no, you dont pay to get ALL your email. You pay for their service to provide you with connection to accessing their network to then be able to access PRIVATELY owned networks. NO where in AOL's aup/tos do they guarantee anything that in away is already fallable. They dont guaranteed you 100% uptime nor do they guarantee that all email is to be delivered to you. They dont even guarantee that EMAIL you send will reach its intended desitnation.
And it might not be aol dropping your emails that "you should" be getting. Due to network outages, and such, an email message being sent from POINT A could be dropped on its way to POINT B, of which AOL is not at fault.
You need to know what censoring means; which is based on CONTENT of the message trying to be comunicated.
Email filtering has no censorship involved because filters work on a basis of rules usually, the first thing that tags it is the origin of the email. If the Origin is on a known "this is a spammer" list, the email wont get through at all. This is the basis of all DNSBL/RBL's/Blocklist.
Censorship involves knowing the content prior to blocking it; filter doesn't involve any of that.
Then you're pretty much out of touch with the big picture.
In order for you to receive that spam it still hast to go through AOL's servers and SIT there until you decide to log-in to your account to read/delete/foward/answer or leave it there. The whole point of filtering is so that YOU and that extra $3 you pay a month goes to helping AOL maintain its servers for the 1 billion pieces of crap it gets EVERY single day.
You do realize that $3 out of your monthly payment goes to pay for the filtering of spam on Aol's server. Wouldn't you be happier if that $3 / mo or $36 per year went to something more needy? Like saving up for that vacation you always wanted? or taking that much more off your Mortgage? No, you pay that extra $3/mo to hanlde the spam problem. To have AOL buy bigger servers to handle the deluge of spam; and agian, filtering it on the enduser is doesn't preven the spam from entering their servers and taking up space.
Its their servers and if you still kept the person on your server ( as a customer ) after the the first day of the abuse ( says you took 1 week to notice; that's far too long to notice an abuse ). Did you not read your Abuse@ when the first spam message was reported? Why'd it take you so long to act?
A spam run doesn't just happen for a week long without going unnoticed. Your server logs would have shown the unusual amt of traffic being sent from your space.
Just playing devi's advocate. Again, AOL can run their servers as they like. Dont like it? Set up a smart-host so you can send attachment from that ip unti lits resolved.
Oh and is that customer still with you? The one that spammed? Why not collect damage fees from them?
It was already tried with CompuServe vs Cyberpromotions where the judge ruled that a server/admin has the right to block any traffic or spam/email/connections from accessing theirs.
CI HOST is a notorious spamhaven and I would love to show that CI HOST is indeed tolerant of their spamming customers and do jack about booting or disconnecting them. They have/dev/null who works at abuse@ . No morals whatsoever.
IF they dont' want to play nice on the net, then they will be delgated to the corner until they do. Or suffer the interne equivalent of a death sentence; be happy in your intranet CI Host. You haven't been allowed on my networks for the last 2 years; think this lawsuit is gonna help ya much?
Trailers! Doesn't take a freaking genius to tell that a movie is gonna suck just by their trailers!
And with movie tickets prices rising every 5 months, the less we are likely to go and spend $30 to go and see it. Especially if we only need to wait 3-4 months to get / rent it on DVD.
Why not just post your answer.
There was nothing to flame in that, but if you found one, you obviously are trying to place your anger in the wrong direction.
I've read over your ignorant post about how you were hurt; Spammers hurt us more. The ones that dont do business ; or run a website, or do anything.
They hurt the average consumer by cloggin our email inboxes with crap we would never buy ( yea im gonna buy viagra from a company hosted in costa rica ) and THEY are the ones who drive up the cost you are so mad about .
If your ISP doesn't want to place nice with the rest of the kiddies, they go into the corner with the other bullies.
You obviously are not a sysadmin, and it shows in your ignorant post that you have absolutely no clue why blocklists do exist.
Go back to 1976 please, your thinking is doutdated by almost a generation.
"(1) There is probable cause. Federal statutes prohibit the possession of "Pirate Devices" (see 47 U.S.C. section 521 et. seq. and 18 U.S.C. section 2510 et seq.). There is no question that the items in question are pirate devices. The fact that a small percentage of buyers did use them some people use them for legit purposes does not change the fact that virtually all of the purchasers were stealing signals."
Then the federal government should be prosecuting sony, jvc, panasonic, hitachi, pioneer, etc for making:
Dvd recorders
VHS recorder
CD Writers
Smart Cards
Writable discs
Floppy disc drives
floppy discs
HELL EVEN the Xerox/Copy machine, since all of the above, as defined by the "pirate devices" are "pirate devices".
It was also this same Federal Govt that ruled on the side of VCR manufacturers that even if the item is use 99% for piracy and only 1% for its legit "real" use, then it couldn't be considered a "pirate device".
A little wrong on that part.
The amendment actually states that CONGRESS shall make no law...
Free Speech ends when you impeded on my right to tell you to STFU.
Slashdot Mirror
What if I charge some $12.99 a month to be able to send email to her grandkids, and you block her from doing that, because you have a problem with a completely unrelated business relationship of mine ?
Please show me in any contract where it states specifcially that ISP A must deliver/carry/connect with ISP B.
Please show me in your TOS of your ISP that says that they guaranteed 100% connectivity/100% email delivery of your messages to ISP YOU-name-here.
Can't find such a clause can you?
However, what I do and can find in many ISP's TOS is that they guarantee your connection, but not at 100%; nor do they guarantee that your messages will be delivered for varous unctonrollable reasons. They can't control the happenings of what a sysadmin does on a private network. As with your ISP, they can't guarantee that they will allow all messages through. Have you bothered to read your own TOS?
Aren't you kind of holding the innocent customers hostage ? I don't like Microsoft, but I still think it would be a crime to write a virus to destroy people's data just because they did chose to use Windows.
Two different animals. CIHOST knows they host spammers as evidenced through the archives on google. They've been told they have spammers; they've been told they will be blocked if they continue to host spammers; yet they DO NOTHING to stop the spam that comes from their servers. So why should the REST of the net put up with their negligence.
CI HOST has 200,000 users? What about the 5 milllion other NET users that has to deal with their crap? 200,000 users is nothing to the inconvenience they turn a blind eye to. Grandma want to contact her newphews/nieces/aunts/sisters. USe the damn phone.
Why can't you just block the spam ?
Been there doen that. Hear of Maps? Look what happened to them. Spamemrs sued them till they couldn't afford to run anymore. Want spamemrs to sue you cause you called them spamemrs even when its true?
And where did this come from? I saw nothing referring to that. Delusional?
Huh? I never had that kind of response from AOL. Did you show them your logs? tosreports@aol.com and keep on replying until you get a perons with a clue. Or do what I do and just call them. Helps to be an AOL subscriber sometimes.
So, CIHOST's CEO is allowed to sue people because they've proven to be unscrupulous, but they won't allow people to block mail from this unscrupulous netspace?
Hey, you lie down with dogs, don't be mad if you get fleas.
If a company refuses to act on the abuse coming from their systems, there are no "legitimate" anythings coming out of that netspace.
THERE is a neat little invention called the telephone; invented by some bloke called Bell. Did wonders you know.
7,900 references of abuse alone from Rackspace.com archived at Googles Groups ( news.admin.net-abuse.* )
8 SBL listings at Spamhaus.org
Remember you get what you pay for. IF the deal sounds to be good to be true...insert next cliche.
Uh no, you dont pay to get ALL your email. You pay for their service to provide you with connection to accessing their network to then be able to access PRIVATELY owned networks. NO where in AOL's aup/tos do they guarantee anything that in away is already fallable. They dont guaranteed you 100% uptime nor do they guarantee that all email is to be delivered to you. They dont even guarantee that EMAIL you send will reach its intended desitnation.
And it might not be aol dropping your emails that "you should" be getting. Due to network outages, and such, an email message being sent from POINT A could be dropped on its way to POINT B, of which AOL is not at fault.
So you jump from one raging fire into another? Does anyone know the meaning of RESEARCHING your hosts prior to signing a contract with them?
Spamhaus.org - Rackspace.com listings
Google archived
You need to know what censoring means; which is based on CONTENT of the message trying to be comunicated.
Email filtering has no censorship involved because filters work on a basis of rules usually, the first thing that tags it is the origin of the email. If the Origin is on a known "this is a spammer" list, the email wont get through at all. This is the basis of all DNSBL/RBL's/Blocklist.
Censorship involves knowing the content prior to blocking it; filter doesn't involve any of that.
Then you're pretty much out of touch with the big picture.
In order for you to receive that spam it still hast to go through AOL's servers and SIT there until you decide to log-in to your account to read/delete/foward/answer or leave it there. The whole point of filtering is so that YOU and that extra $3 you pay a month goes to helping AOL maintain its servers for the 1 billion pieces of crap it gets EVERY single day.
You do realize that $3 out of your monthly payment goes to pay for the filtering of spam on Aol's server. Wouldn't you be happier if that $3 / mo or $36 per year went to something more needy? Like saving up for that vacation you always wanted? or taking that much more off your Mortgage? No, you pay that extra $3/mo to hanlde the spam problem. To have AOL buy bigger servers to handle the deluge of spam; and agian, filtering it on the enduser is doesn't preven the spam from entering their servers and taking up space.
Hey, just dont search on CIHOST, there are tons more under CI Host:
CI Host
Its their servers and if you still kept the person on your server ( as a customer ) after the the first day of the abuse ( says you took 1 week to notice; that's far too long to notice an abuse ). Did you not read your Abuse@ when the first spam message was reported? Why'd it take you so long to act?
A spam run doesn't just happen for a week long without going unnoticed. Your server logs would have shown the unusual amt of traffic being sent from your space.
Just playing devi's advocate. Again, AOL can run their servers as they like. Dont like it? Set up a smart-host so you can send attachment from that ip unti lits resolved.
Oh and is that customer still with you? The one that spammed? Why not collect damage fees from them?
It was already tried with CompuServe vs Cyberpromotions where the judge ruled that a server/admin has the right to block any traffic or spam/email/connections from accessing theirs.
/dev/null who works at abuse@ . No morals whatsoever.
CI HOST is a notorious spamhaven and I would love to show that CI HOST is indeed tolerant of their spamming customers and do jack about booting or disconnecting them. They have
IF they dont' want to play nice on the net, then they will be delgated to the corner until they do. Or suffer the interne equivalent of a death sentence; be happy in your intranet CI Host. You haven't been allowed on my networks for the last 2 years; think this lawsuit is gonna help ya much?
Trailers!
Doesn't take a freaking genius to tell that a movie is gonna suck just by their trailers!
And with movie tickets prices rising every 5 months, the less we are likely to go and spend $30 to go and see it. Especially if we only need to wait 3-4 months to get / rent it on DVD.
Why not just post your answer. There was nothing to flame in that, but if you found one, you obviously are trying to place your anger in the wrong direction. I've read over your ignorant post about how you were hurt; Spammers hurt us more. The ones that dont do business ; or run a website, or do anything. They hurt the average consumer by cloggin our email inboxes with crap we would never buy ( yea im gonna buy viagra from a company hosted in costa rica ) and THEY are the ones who drive up the cost you are so mad about . If your ISP doesn't want to place nice with the rest of the kiddies, they go into the corner with the other bullies. You obviously are not a sysadmin, and it shows in your ignorant post that you have absolutely no clue why blocklists do exist. Go back to 1976 please, your thinking is doutdated by almost a generation.
"(1) There is probable cause. Federal statutes prohibit the possession of "Pirate Devices" (see 47 U.S.C. section 521 et. seq. and 18 U.S.C. section 2510 et seq.). There is no question that the items in question are pirate devices. The fact that a small percentage of buyers did use them some people use them for legit purposes does not change the fact that virtually all of the purchasers were stealing signals." Then the federal government should be prosecuting sony, jvc, panasonic, hitachi, pioneer, etc for making: Dvd recorders VHS recorder CD Writers Smart Cards Writable discs Floppy disc drives floppy discs HELL EVEN the Xerox/Copy machine, since all of the above, as defined by the "pirate devices" are "pirate devices". It was also this same Federal Govt that ruled on the side of VCR manufacturers that even if the item is use 99% for piracy and only 1% for its legit "real" use, then it couldn't be considered a "pirate device".
A little wrong on that part. The amendment actually states that CONGRESS shall make no law... Free Speech ends when you impeded on my right to tell you to STFU.
Uh-duh. German dolt. Spamhaus = Spamhouse
Take a look at the "registration" data from Emarketers whois.
8 FD E18C%40etherboy.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
r m% 241%40baldur.whoi.edu&oe=UTF-8&output=gpla in
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3EA8586F.3
mefels@aol.com
Hosted an Instakiss AOL password phish site within his own acct. (now taken down by AOL or him after it was discovered).
Another site that was associated with the instakiss crime:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b8sf1k%24n
So Felstein is a crook as well as a delusional lawyer.