In article <[email protected]>,
stickdoctorq <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> "Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:<[email protected]>...
>>> Some good news.... from CNNmoney
>>>
>>> http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/22/technology/house_spam.reut/index.htm
>>>
>>> It's a step in the right direction.
>>>
>>
>> No. The bill regulates spam, rather than prohibiting it. It preemtps
>> state laws (like CA) that do prohibit spam--thyus legalizing spam
>> throughout the US.
>>
>> This was NOT necessary to protect legitimate email marketers because
>> legitimate email marketers do not send unsolicited bulk email. It is
>> an attempt to legitimize Unsolicited Bulk Email.
>>
>> It would have been a step in the right direction 5 years ago but today
>> it is a step back.
>>
>
>there are legitimage bulk email marketers?
No.
But there are legitimate bulk email _senders_.
And there _are_ people who do legitimate marketing via e-mail -- not in "bulk".
A shop I work for does bulk emailing. But they're _not_ spamming.
Everybody who gets those emails *pays*money* to be on the mailing list.
They get complaints if recipients _don't_ get the messages. <grin>
Bob S writes:
>
>Some good news.... from CNNmoney
>
>http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/22/technology/house_spam.reut/index.htm
>
>It's a step in the right direction.
I hope. Given the possibility of simply moving operations out of the US, I'm
inclined to wonder. As it is, my most consistent SPAMmer is the Nigerian scam.
I get at least 5 of these a week, and am reaching the stage where I'm giving
careful consideration to setting up a robot "F... you, scum sucker" reply.
Though with my luck, it would go out to a couple of my best editors instead.
But, seriously, an awful lot of this crap is already offshore and out of the
jurisdiction of US entities.
Charlie Self
"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would
promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken
Tue, Nov 25, 2003, 2:04am (EST+5) [email protected]
(Charlie=A0Self) says:
I hope. Given the possibility of simply moving operations out of the US,
I'm inclined to wonder.
Although, it is quite annoying. I believe I could accept the
spammers more easily than the nasty, cross-posting, trolls. Easy enough
to discard the spam.
As it is, my most consistent SPAMmer is the Nigerian scam. I get at
least 5 of these a week, <snip>
Ah ha. I found the secret for that one. I haven't gotten any in
weeks. Every time they send one, reply to them, telling them if they
send you $25,000 US, in cash, and non-refundable, you will see if you
can do anything for them. Don't make any promises or anything. Then
when they send next time, ask them where the Hell is your $25,000 they
were supposed to send you. I don't think I send more than half a dozen
of those e-mail back to them, and the stopped coming. They did send me
a telephone number I could call, on their dime, once. LOL I didn't
bother, just asked them where the Hell was my money, and reminded them
it was non-refundable. LMAO Try that. At the worst, they still spam
you. At the best, they send you money. If they do, I will gaciously
accept a 10% commission.
JOAT
Of course I don't think you're a complete idiot. Some parts are
missing.
Life just ain't life without good music. - JOAT
Web Page Update 23 Nov 2003.
Some tunes I like.
http://community-2.webtv.net/Jakofalltrades/SOMETUNESILIKE/
[email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) writes:
>I no longer will subscribe to lists because spam has made it
>impossible to find theh emails to which I subscribed. That
nice thing here at CMU is the "[email protected]" notation.
anything between the "+" and the "@" is considered a comment.
My above email (flip+spiced...) is actually a valid address, and would
deliver to me... except that i filter it out... since i've
instructions to remove it in my sig.
Two days after switching i started getting virus hits on the address.
sigh...
when i sign up for a list, i add the domain to it:
[email protected]
you might want to nag your provider to see if they can provide that
functionality.
--
be safe.
flip
Verso l'esterno! Verso l'esterno! Deamons di ignoranza.
Remove origin of the word spam from address to reply (leave "+")
In article <[email protected]>,
Trent© <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:24:42 +0000, [email protected]
>(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>
>>There _were_ laws on the books in about 30 states. I happen to live in a
>>state which had one, albeit a moderately weak one. That law will be 'invalid'
>>as of the first of the year. along with the one in WA that let a recipient
>>sue for $500 for -each- unsolicited email. And the one that was just enacted
>>in Calif, that let a provider sue for something like $100 for each unsolicited
>>message received on their server, to something like $250,000/day/sender.
>>
>>I'd have had -no- objections to the Fed. legislation *IF* it had left the
>>state-level laws _alone_. But it didn't.
>
>I don't remember everything from my law classes...but don't the states
>have jurisdiction in intrastate transactions?
The proverbial "It depends" applies.
If the Feds can find an excuse to invoke the Commerce Clause of the
Constitution -- and they _have_ stretched it to include covering strictly
'in-state' transactions that "might affect" interstate commerce, "because
there are similar inter-state transactions" -- the primacy of Federal
law can be asserted.
Whether or not that is a 'justified' exercise of Federal jurisdiction *is*
hotly debated in some circles. In the 'real world', it doesn't matter how
that debate comes out, because the courts _have_, *repeatedly*, upheld
that rationale for Federal 'meddling'.
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 12:02:40 -0500, GeorgeInMaine <[email protected]>
wrote:
>The real key to ending spam is PROFIT. Put a federal tax on all
>email, even stuff that originates outside the US. Exempt a reasonable
>amout of messages per month, say 50 or even 1000. Make the sender pay
>it. For overseas stuff block all email from countries that refuse to
>pay up. SPAM is almost free to send, but it puts a large strain on
>resources, so make the spammers pay.
Great ideas!
Now...how would you administer any of this? lol
Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
Trent
Actually, it will take a combination of laws and technological advances ...
after all, you gotta give the spammers "due process" before you can publicly
execute them.
I've never had much faith in filters, but this guy does wonders with them:
http://www.paulgraham.com/spam.html
Couple these ideas in AI, with advances in tcp/ip technology (ipvX), and we
will eventually make it tough to continue the practice by taking the profit
out of it.
BTW, the older I get, the more staying alive _is_ a problem. ;>)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/21/03
"Bob S." wrote in message
> You may be right but they haven't worked so far. Just like the filters
> you're using now. Something more needs to be done, whether its a
combination
> of law and technology or whatever - so long as it works better than what
we
> have. And to those that say this overrides the state laws, I have to ask,
> just how effective were they in reality?
>
> And to address you're analogy...you're not dead yet, so it's not the
> problem!
>
> > Swingman said so bluntly....
>
> > Death is a problem ... so being alive is part of the problem?
> >
> > ... thank gawd!
> >
> > Despite all attempts to the contrary, the final solution to the SPAM
> problem
> > will be a TECHNOLOGICAL solution, NOT a legislative solution.
> >
> > I said it ... you read it here.
Vent On
Guess we have a bunch of defeatist here....nothing will ever make a
difference or ever get started to them but they sure can bitch and complain
cause the gov't didn't do something for them.
Damn right it won't make a difference unless you help make it happen. Since
when is it totally up to the gov't to do everything? Remember that little
motto, "We the people...". Not to put to fine point on it but if you're not
part of the solution then you must be part of the problem.
Vent Off,
Bob S.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Despite the vigilante tactics of SPEW, and the rbl's, spam continues to
> increase. The acid test of any anti-spam measure is how much less UCE ends
> up in your inbox ... my bet is that this bill won't make one whit of
> difference.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 9/21/03
>
>
> "Bob S." wrote in message
> > All your points are moot.....if you live in a state that has no laws
> against
> > spam. So while you may not think its any good, it's better than what we
> > had - which was zip. We must start someplace and after 6 years of
froggin
> > around, it is a step in the right direction. I didn't say it was good,
> > better or best but at least now we have something to throw darts at.
>
>
Bob S. responds:
>Guess we have a bunch of defeatist here....nothing will ever make a
>difference or ever get started to them but they sure can bitch and complain
>cause the gov't didn't do something for them.
>
>Damn right it won't make a difference unless you help make it happen. Since
>when is it totally up to the gov't to do everything? Remember that little
>motto, "We the people...". Not to put to fine point on it but if you're not
>part of the solution then you must be part of the problem.
And what is the solution, Bob? If I knew, I might be able to be part of it, but
to date, I've yet to hear of a thing in which I can, or would, participate.
Charlie Self
"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would
promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken
[email protected] (Charlie Self) writes:
>And what is the solution, Bob? If I knew, I might be able to be part of it, but
>to date, I've yet to hear of a thing in which I can, or would, participate.
Couple things.
1: never send a "click here to remove" button. it just verifies your
address to them and they can resell it as a "verified" address.
2: never click on any links in the message. some of those will also
verify your email.
3: run your email in a restricted zone and have it not parse html.
If i include an image called: "charliediy.gif" in html and i see
that that image was accessed in the web logs, i know your email
address is valid.
3a: use a Filter on your mail. if you do, you worry less about 1-3.
4: never buy anything from them. people spam because it gets results.
even a small responce is worth it, because for the most part, spam
is free to send so the ROI can happen with few responces.
5: if the new bill has reporting procedures, use them. (to report the
spammer to the authority)
6: If the spammer is advertising a third party product, inform that
third party about it and pressure them to do something about it.
(cut off the supply of goods to the spammer, etc)
7: track the spammer down by looking at the "Received" headers of the
message. http://www.arin.net/abuse.htmlcan help here.
Report them to their ISP. (although you'll find huge amounts come
from overseas.)
ok... so that's more than a couple. hope it helps.
--
be safe.
flip
Verso l'esterno! Verso l'esterno! Deamons di ignoranza.
Remove origin of the word spam from address to reply (leave "+")
Philip Lewis writes:
>ok... so that's more than a couple. hope it helps.
>
I've been doing all those for some time, except tracking spammers:
unfortunately, I have to spend some time having a life. It helps, a graet deal
more than I expect the government intervention to help, but all of it only
reduces a problem that seems to be increasing almost daily.
Charlie Self
"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would
promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken
Charlie,
I emailed our local legislators to press them for enacting some legislation
against spam, especially the porn. The bill as it stands, is weak, no doubt
about it but as I stated, it's a start and it will cause some spammers to
pause and take notice of what can happen. New York and a lot of other
states have done little to curb spam, so something is better than nothing in
this case.
To answer your question though, you can email your local government
officials and tell them that you support anti-spam legislation. Just like
you and I, if they don't get feedback or the peoples support for something -
nothing gets done (typically). Here are a few sites that can do a better
job of informing you than I can. The bill is posted on the CAUCE site as a
pdf file if you want to read it and they give a fair response to what they
think is wrong with it. They make a comparison to the "Do Not Call" lists,
which has worked for us.
So be it good or bad in your opinion, use it to tell and show others what
needs to be fixed in it. To that end it serves a very useful purpose - and
is a step in the right direction. I guess that's my major complaint, doing
nothing is what some others are best at and will defend their position
loudly rather than doing something to help correct the problem.
http://www.cauce.org/
http://spam.abuse.net/
http://mail-abuse.org/
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/spam/
Bob S.
> And what is the solution, Bob? If I knew, I might be able to be part of
it, but
> to date, I've yet to hear of a thing in which I can, or would,
participate.
>
> Charlie Self
On 26 Nov 2003 15:25:15 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>Bob S. responds:
>
>>Guess we have a bunch of defeatist here....nothing will ever make a
>>difference or ever get started to them but they sure can bitch and complain
>>cause the gov't didn't do something for them.
>>
>>Damn right it won't make a difference unless you help make it happen. Since
>>when is it totally up to the gov't to do everything? Remember that little
>>motto, "We the people...". Not to put to fine point on it but if you're not
>>part of the solution then you must be part of the problem.
>
>And what is the solution, Bob? If I knew, I might be able to be part of it, but
>to date, I've yet to hear of a thing in which I can, or would, participate.
Filters, Charlie.
Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
Trent
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
> "Bob S." wrote in message > > Some good news.... from CNNmoney
> >
> > http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/22/technology/house_spam.reut/index.htm
> >
> > It's a step in the right direction.
> >
>
> No. The bill regulates spam, rather than prohibiting it. It preemtps
> state laws (like CA) that do prohibit spam--thyus legalizing spam
> throughout the US.
>
> This was NOT necessary to protect legitimate email marketers because
> legitimate email marketers do not send unsolicited bulk email. It is
> an attempt to legitimize Unsolicited Bulk Email.
>
> It would have been a step in the right direction 5 years ago but today
> it is a step back.
It epitomizes the old cliche "Useless as tits on a boar hog", except to
delude the congress critters into believing they have actually accomplished
something.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/21/03
Swingman responds:
>> No. The bill regulates spam, rather than prohibiting it. It preemtps
>> state laws (like CA) that do prohibit spam--thyus legalizing spam
>> throughout the US.
>>
>> This was NOT necessary to protect legitimate email marketers because
>> legitimate email marketers do not send unsolicited bulk email. It is
>> an attempt to legitimize Unsolicited Bulk Email.
>>
>> It would have been a step in the right direction 5 years ago but today
>> it is a step back.
>
>It epitomizes the old cliche "Useless as tits on a boar hog", except to
>delude the congress critters into believing they have actually accomplished
>something.
This one is useless as tits on a broom...and I have to wonder if the
congress-critters are delued, or if they think WE are.
Charlie Self
"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would
promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken
LOL. Even better ...!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/21/03
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
> Swingman responds:
> >It epitomizes the old cliche "Useless as tits on a boar hog", except to
> >delude the congress critters into believing they have actually
accomplished
> >something.
>
> This one is useless as tits on a broom...and I have to wonder if the
> congress-critters are delued, or if they think WE are.
Despite the vigilante tactics of SPEW, and the rbl's, spam continues to
increase. The acid test of any anti-spam measure is how much less UCE ends
up in your inbox ... my bet is that this bill won't make one whit of
difference.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/21/03
"Bob S." wrote in message
> All your points are moot.....if you live in a state that has no laws
against
> spam. So while you may not think its any good, it's better than what we
> had - which was zip. We must start someplace and after 6 years of froggin
> around, it is a step in the right direction. I didn't say it was good,
> better or best but at least now we have something to throw darts at.
"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<a%[email protected]>...
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > I get at least 5 of these a week, and am reaching the stage where I'm
> giving
> > careful consideration to setting up a robot "F... you, scum sucker" reply.
> >
>
> Don't do it Charlie. In fact, never respond to spam for any reason. When
> you do, your email address goes from the list that it is being sold on to
> the "proven active" email address lists that are sold. That means you will
> get massive more amounts of email.
>
> Frank
This is what an account at www.spamgourmet.com is for. You can
generate limited life e-mail addresses for this kind of stuff on the
fly. It's absolutely wonderful! For instance,
[email protected] will let exactly 3 messages come
through and then it evaporates. Great stuff!
Chris
All your points are moot.....if you live in a state that has no laws against
spam. So while you may not think its any good, it's better than what we
had - which was zip. We must start someplace and after 6 years of froggin
around, it is a step in the right direction. I didn't say it was good,
better or best but at least now we have something to throw darts at.
Bob S.
"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bob S. <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Some good news.... from CNNmoney
> >
> >http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/22/technology/house_spam.reut/index.htm
> >
> >It's a step in the right direction.
>
> *DEBATABLE*, for a number of reasons.
>
> just for starters:
>
> 1) It pre-empts all _stronger_ state-level legislation
>
> 2) There is *no* 'right of private action'. i.e. *you* CANNOT go after
> the b*stard that's flooding your inbox. the State ATTY GENERAL has
> to prosecute. Wanna bet on the odds of -that- happening?
>
> 3) "by definition" under this statute, it's only spam *after* you tell
> them to stop mailing you.
"Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote in news:dHywb.96616$1N3.66804
@twister.nyroc.rr.com:
> Some good news.... from CNNmoney
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/22/technology/house_spam.reut/index.htm
>
> It's a step in the right direction.
>
> Bob S.
>
>
Actually, nope. It's a step backwards since the penalties it provides for
and it's definitions of spam are WEAKER than provided in many of the laws
introduced by states....and it OVERRIDES state law.
There is some suspicion that it was actually bankrolled and pushed by
spammers......
[email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> "Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> Some good news.... from CNNmoney
>>
>> http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/22/technology/house_spam.reut/index.htm
>>
>> It's a step in the right direction.
>>
>
> No. The bill regulates spam, rather than prohibiting it. It preemtps
> state laws (like CA) that do prohibit spam--thyus legalizing spam
> throughout the US.
>
> This was NOT necessary to protect legitimate email marketers because
> legitimate email marketers do not send unsolicited bulk email. It is
> an attempt to legitimize Unsolicited Bulk Email.
>
> It would have been a step in the right direction 5 years ago but today
> it is a step back.
>
there are legitimage bulk email marketers?
I can agree to that but its been far to many years since I've written any
"killer assembly code", so maybe aggravating the local / national
legislators will be my only contribution (other than bitching here of
course...)
Interesting site - worth a read.
Thanks,
Bob S.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Actually, it will take a combination of laws and technological advances
...
> after all, you gotta give the spammers "due process" before you can
publicly
> execute them.
>
> I've never had much faith in filters, but this guy does wonders with them:
>
> http://www.paulgraham.com/spam.html
>
> Couple these ideas in AI, with advances in tcp/ip technology (ipvX), and
we
> will eventually make it tough to continue the practice by taking the
profit
> out of it.
>
> BTW, the older I get, the more staying alive _is_ a problem. ;>)
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 9/21/03
>
>
> "Bob S." wrote in message
> > You may be right but they haven't worked so far. Just like the filters
> > you're using now. Something more needs to be done, whether its a
> combination
> > of law and technology or whatever - so long as it works better than what
> we
> > have. And to those that say this overrides the state laws, I have to
ask,
> > just how effective were they in reality?
> >
> > And to address you're analogy...you're not dead yet, so it's not the
> > problem!
> >
> > > Swingman said so bluntly....
> >
> > > Death is a problem ... so being alive is part of the problem?
> > >
> > > ... thank gawd!
> > >
> > > Despite all attempts to the contrary, the final solution to the SPAM
> > problem
> > > will be a TECHNOLOGICAL solution, NOT a legislative solution.
> > >
> > > I said it ... you read it here.
>
>
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I get at least 5 of these a week, and am reaching the stage where I'm
giving
> careful consideration to setting up a robot "F... you, scum sucker" reply.
>
Don't do it Charlie. In fact, never respond to spam for any reason. When
you do, your email address goes from the list that it is being sold on to
the "proven active" email address lists that are sold. That means you will
get massive more amounts of email.
Frank
Frank Ketchum writes:
>
>Don't do it Charlie. In fact, never respond to spam for any reason. When
>you do, your email address goes from the list that it is being sold on to
>the "proven active" email address lists that are sold. That means you will
>get massive more amounts of email.
AOL allows 7 e-mail addresses. I guess I could fire back from one of those,
then dump the name. But it really isn't worth the effort. Just erase and go.
AOL's vaunted spam fight is mostly BS: it took me just a couple months to fill
the filters.
Charlie Self
"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would
promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken
[email protected] wrote:
>
> your thinking along the right lines here charlie. RR gives me several
> email boxes. all the spam goes to the primary address.
I also have Road Runner.
I never use the primary address on the web. Not only is it my actual
name but it's the 'administrator' account.
I have my web site and it's mail accounts I use for allot of online
activity. It has a true killfile and a spam killer. And I get very
little garbage.
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)
On 25 Nov 2003 10:46:55 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>Frank Ketchum writes:
>
>>
>>Don't do it Charlie. In fact, never respond to spam for any reason. When
>>you do, your email address goes from the list that it is being sold on to
>>the "proven active" email address lists that are sold. That means you will
>>get massive more amounts of email.
>
>AOL allows 7 e-mail addresses. I guess I could fire back from one of those,
>then dump the name. But it really isn't worth the effort. Just erase and go.
>AOL's vaunted spam fight is mostly BS: it took me just a couple months to fill
>the filters.
>
>Charlie Self
>
>"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would
>promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken
>
>
>
>
your thinking along the right lines here charlie. RR gives me several
email boxes. all the spam goes to the primary address. i use a
secondary box for myself and yet another secondary for SWMBO. We never
ever check the primary box. i only get maybe 3-5 pieces of spam a
week. i also NEVER use my real name or email on usenet.if i need to
post an address here i use a hot mail address with spam filter on
it.been doing this for over a year now and it seems to be working
good. before i would use all the correct info i was getting 100 + junk
mails a day. when your primary box fills up the spam gets kicked back
and eventually you are removed from the list and termed to be
INACTIVE. works fer me. skeez
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
In article <[email protected]>,
Bob S. <[email protected]> wrote:
>Some good news.... from CNNmoney
>
>http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/22/technology/house_spam.reut/index.htm
>
>It's a step in the right direction.
*DEBATABLE*, for a number of reasons.
just for starters:
1) It pre-empts all _stronger_ state-level legislation
2) There is *no* 'right of private action'. i.e. *you* CANNOT go after
the b*stard that's flooding your inbox. the State ATTY GENERAL has
to prosecute. Wanna bet on the odds of -that- happening?
3) "by definition" under this statute, it's only spam *after* you tell
them to stop mailing you.
In article <[email protected]>,
Bob S. <[email protected]> wrote:
>All your points are moot.....if you live in a state that has no laws against
>spam. So while you may not think its any good, it's better than what we
>had - which was zip. We must start someplace and after 6 years of froggin
>around, it is a step in the right direction. I didn't say it was good,
>better or best but at least now we have something to throw darts at.
There _were_ laws on the books in about 30 states. I happen to live in a
state which had one, albeit a moderately weak one. That law will be 'invalid'
as of the first of the year. along with the one in WA that let a recipient
sue for $500 for -each- unsolicited email. And the one that was just enacted
in Calif, that let a provider sue for something like $100 for each unsolicited
message received on their server, to something like $250,000/day/sender.
I'd have had -no- objections to the Fed. legislation *IF* it had left the
state-level laws _alone_. But it didn't.
And, we're going to be "stuck" with this POS legislation for _years_. After
all, the Congresscritters _have_ "addressed" the problem. It's "solved".
It won't be "deserving" of Congressional attention "again", for _years_.
(It usually takes Congress 7-10 years to 'revisit' something. The 'fastest'
instance I know of -- excluding 'funding' legislation, that is -- where
Congress reversed itself on legislation was 4 years.)
Watch and see.
>
>Bob S.
>
>
>"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Bob S. <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Some good news.... from CNNmoney
>> >
>> >http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/22/technology/house_spam.reut/index.htm
>> >
>> >It's a step in the right direction.
>>
>> *DEBATABLE*, for a number of reasons.
>>
>> just for starters:
>>
>> 1) It pre-empts all _stronger_ state-level legislation
>>
>> 2) There is *no* 'right of private action'. i.e. *you* CANNOT go after
>> the b*stard that's flooding your inbox. the State ATTY GENERAL has
>> to prosecute. Wanna bet on the odds of -that- happening?
>>
>> 3) "by definition" under this statute, it's only spam *after* you tell
>> them to stop mailing you.
>
>
In article <[email protected]>,
Bob S. <[email protected]> wrote:
>All your points are moot.....if you live in a state that has no laws against
>spam.
*ALL* states have legal codes that -can- be used. Threre are civil torts for
things like 'theft of services', and "trespass to chattel". These _have_ been
*successfully* used to sue spammers.
> So while you may not think its any good, it's better than what we
>had - which was zip.
"Maybe it's 'better for some'. It is *definitely* _worse_ for many others.
Which was _un-necessary_. Pass the federal legislation *without* pre-empting
state laws, and you have the 'best of both worlds'.
Care to guess *why* Congress _didn't_ do that? Hint: the -main- motivation
was to disembowel the aggressive state-level laws being enacted.
> We must start someplace and after 6 years of froggin
>around, it is a step in the right direction. I didn't say it was good,
>better or best but at least now we have something to throw darts at.
>
>Bob S.
>
>
>"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Bob S. <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Some good news.... from CNNmoney
>> >
>> >http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/22/technology/house_spam.reut/index.htm
>> >
>> >It's a step in the right direction.
>>
>> *DEBATABLE*, for a number of reasons.
>>
>> just for starters:
>>
>> 1) It pre-empts all _stronger_ state-level legislation
>>
>> 2) There is *no* 'right of private action'. i.e. *you* CANNOT go after
>> the b*stard that's flooding your inbox. the State ATTY GENERAL has
>> to prosecute. Wanna bet on the odds of -that- happening?
>>
>> 3) "by definition" under this statute, it's only spam *after* you tell
>> them to stop mailing you.
>
>
"Bob S." wrote in message
> Vent On
>
> Guess we have a bunch of defeatist here....nothing will ever make a
> difference or ever get started to them but they sure can bitch and
complain
> cause the gov't didn't do something for them.
>
> Damn right it won't make a difference unless you help make it happen.
Since
> when is it totally up to the gov't to do everything? Remember that little
> motto, "We the people...". Not to put to fine point on it but if you're
not
> part of the solution then you must be part of the problem.
Death is a problem ... so being alive is part of the problem?
... thank gawd!
Despite all attempts to the contrary, the final solution to the SPAM problem
will be a TECHNOLOGICAL solution, NOT a legislative solution.
I said it ... you read it here.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/21/03
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> But, seriously, an awful lot of this crap is already offshore and out of the
> jurisdiction of US entities.
>
Yep. I'd say at least 90% of what I get (or got before my ISP got their
filters working right) is from an overseas ISP and references an overseas
website.
The bill is just another political grandstanding exersize.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> I guess I don't understand everybody's fuss over spam, Bob.
>
> I don't see any spam email...just like I don't see any spam in this
> group.
>
> Its all in the filters.
>
Now think about all the bandwidth and disk space every ISP has to have
that could be halved if spam went away.
Just because you (and I) seldom see it doesn't mean it isn't a problem.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
"Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Some good news.... from CNNmoney
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/22/technology/house_spam.reut/index.htm
>
> It's a step in the right direction.
>
No. The bill regulates spam, rather than prohibiting it. It preemtps
state laws (like CA) that do prohibit spam--thyus legalizing spam
throughout the US.
This was NOT necessary to protect legitimate email marketers because
legitimate email marketers do not send unsolicited bulk email. It is
an attempt to legitimize Unsolicited Bulk Email.
It would have been a step in the right direction 5 years ago but today
it is a step back.
--
FF
stickdoctorq <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > "Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >> Some good news.... from CNNmoney
> >>
> >> http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/22/technology/house_spam.reut/index.htm
> >>
> >> It's a step in the right direction.
> >>
> >
> > No. The bill regulates spam, rather than prohibiting it. It preemtps
> > state laws (like CA) that do prohibit spam--thyus legalizing spam
> > throughout the US.
> >
> > This was NOT necessary to protect legitimate email marketers because
> > legitimate email marketers do not send unsolicited bulk email. It is
> > an attempt to legitimize Unsolicited Bulk Email.
> >
> > It would have been a step in the right direction 5 years ago but today
> > it is a step back.
> >
>
> there are legitimage bulk email marketers?
Yes. They only send bulk email to people who subscribe to
their lists. I was on one such list, E-Tools or some such.
I had placed an order with them, and they asked if I wanted
to get a monthly email with their monthly specials. I told
them yes, they sent it once a month. Everything was fine.
Now that you mention it, I haven't seen their mailing recently
I wonder what happened.
I no longer will subscribe to lists because spam has made it
impossible to find theh emails to which I subscribed. That
may be what happened to the E-Tools list, they may be getting
filtered.
Spam is an incredible impediment to the advancement of e-business.
--
FF
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:58:42 -0800, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> I guess I don't understand everybody's fuss over spam, Bob.
>>
>> I don't see any spam email...just like I don't see any spam in this
>> group.
>>
>> Its all in the filters.
>>
>Now think about all the bandwidth and disk space every ISP has to have
>that could be halved if spam went away.
>
>Just because you (and I) seldom see it doesn't mean it isn't a problem.
There's a LOT of problems in the world, Larry. I can't solve them
all...nor am I concerned with them all.
And, obviously...disk space and bandwidth is not a major problem for
them, either.
And...DEFINE spam! That's one of the big problems. Spam
SELLS!...that's why its still out there. Its been out there for
YEARS. Do you think it'd still be out there if it wasn't profitable?
I've purchased several things...that I was made aware of because of
'spam'.
Do you want to stop unsolicited snail mail, too?
Deal with the problem...on your end. Let the ISP's take care of their
own problems.
Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
Trent
Trent© wrote:
> I don't remember everything from my law classes...but don't the states
> have jurisdiction in intrastate transactions?
Not since President Linconln they don't.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
The real key to ending spam is PROFIT. Put a federal tax on all
email, even stuff that originates outside the US. Exempt a reasonable
amout of messages per month, say 50 or even 1000. Make the sender pay
it. For overseas stuff block all email from countries that refuse to
pay up. SPAM is almost free to send, but it puts a large strain on
resources, so make the spammers pay.
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:31:31 +0000, [email protected]
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Bob S. <[email protected]> wrote:
>>All your points are moot.....if you live in a state that has no laws against
>>spam.
>
>*ALL* states have legal codes that -can- be used. Threre are civil torts for
>things like 'theft of services', and "trespass to chattel". These _have_ been
>*successfully* used to sue spammers.
>
>> So while you may not think its any good, it's better than what we
>>had - which was zip.
>
>"Maybe it's 'better for some'. It is *definitely* _worse_ for many others.
>Which was _un-necessary_. Pass the federal legislation *without* pre-empting
>state laws, and you have the 'best of both worlds'.
>
>Care to guess *why* Congress _didn't_ do that? Hint: the -main- motivation
>was to disembowel the aggressive state-level laws being enacted.
>
>> We must start someplace and after 6 years of froggin
>>around, it is a step in the right direction. I didn't say it was good,
>>better or best but at least now we have something to throw darts at.
>>
>>Bob S.
>>
>>
>>"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Bob S. <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >Some good news.... from CNNmoney
>>> >
>>> >http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/22/technology/house_spam.reut/index.htm
>>> >
>>> >It's a step in the right direction.
>>>
>>> *DEBATABLE*, for a number of reasons.
>>>
>>> just for starters:
>>>
>>> 1) It pre-empts all _stronger_ state-level legislation
>>>
>>> 2) There is *no* 'right of private action'. i.e. *you* CANNOT go after
>>> the b*stard that's flooding your inbox. the State ATTY GENERAL has
>>> to prosecute. Wanna bet on the odds of -that- happening?
>>>
>>> 3) "by definition" under this statute, it's only spam *after* you tell
>>> them to stop mailing you.
>>
>>
>
George in Maine
[email protected]
George in Maine states:
>The real key to ending spam is PROFIT. Put a federal tax on all
>email, even stuff that originates outside the US. Exempt a reasonable
>amout of messages per month, say 50 or even 1000. Make the sender pay
>it. For overseas stuff block all email from countries that refuse to
>pay up. SPAM is almost free to send, but it puts a large strain on
>resources, so make the spammers pay.
How long do you think it would take spammers to beat the limits? 30 seconds?
45?
Charlie Self
"Say what you will about the ten commandments, you must always come back to the
pleasant fact that there are only ten of them." H. L. Mencken
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:24:42 +0000, [email protected]
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>There _were_ laws on the books in about 30 states. I happen to live in a
>state which had one, albeit a moderately weak one. That law will be 'invalid'
>as of the first of the year. along with the one in WA that let a recipient
>sue for $500 for -each- unsolicited email. And the one that was just enacted
>in Calif, that let a provider sue for something like $100 for each unsolicited
>message received on their server, to something like $250,000/day/sender.
>
>I'd have had -no- objections to the Fed. legislation *IF* it had left the
>state-level laws _alone_. But it didn't.
I don't remember everything from my law classes...but don't the states
have jurisdiction in intrastate transactions?
Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
Trent
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
This gets my vote for Wreck Tip of the Month.
Art
"Chris Dubea" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> This is what an account at www.spamgourmet.com is for.
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:17:36 GMT, "Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>Vent On
>
>Guess we have a bunch of defeatist here....nothing will ever make a
>difference or ever get started to them but they sure can bitch and complain
>cause the gov't didn't do something for them.
>
>Damn right it won't make a difference unless you help make it happen. Since
>when is it totally up to the gov't to do everything? Remember that little
>motto, "We the people...". Not to put to fine point on it but if you're not
>part of the solution then you must be part of the problem.
>
>Vent Off,
>
>Bob S.
I guess I don't understand everybody's fuss over spam, Bob.
I don't see any spam email...just like I don't see any spam in this
group.
Its all in the filters.
Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
Trent
Swingman wrote:
> "Useless as tits on a boar hog",
My God, I thought I was the only one still using that phrase. Got it
from my Dad.
> delude the congress critters into believing they have actually accomplished
> something.
>
Their trying to give the unwashed masses the impression their doing
something.
--
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)
"Bob S." <[email protected]> wrote:
>Some good news.... from CNNmoney
>
>http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/22/technology/house_spam.reut/index.htm
>
>It's a step in the right direction.
Nah. No teeth in it at all.
From the article:
>The bill would not allow individuals to sue spammers.
Simply allowing individuals to go after spammers like they can junk
faxers would put an end to the problem. $500 per spam, and it would
go away in less than a day.
You may be right but they haven't worked so far. Just like the filters
you're using now. Something more needs to be done, whether its a combination
of law and technology or whatever - so long as it works better than what we
have. And to those that say this overrides the state laws, I have to ask,
just how effective were they in reality?
And to address you're analogy...you're not dead yet, so it's not the
problem!
> Swingman said so bluntly....
> Death is a problem ... so being alive is part of the problem?
>
> ... thank gawd!
>
> Despite all attempts to the contrary, the final solution to the SPAM
problem
> will be a TECHNOLOGICAL solution, NOT a legislative solution.
>
> I said it ... you read it here.
>