16 Jun
2001
16 Jun
'01
9:13 p.m.
We will put your product or service instantly into the hands of millions of prospects!
===============================================================
"Many business people are finding out that they can now advertise in ways that they
never could have afforded in the past. The cost of sending mass e-mail is extremely low,
and the response rate is high and quick." - USA TODAY
===============================================================
Since 1996, Bulk Email Network has provided bulk email marketing to thousands of
well-satisfied customers. We offer the most competitive prices in the industry, made
possible by our high percentage of repeat business. We have the most advanced direct
email technology employed by only a knowledgeable few in the world.
We have over 160 million active email addresses, increasing our list at the rate of half a
million to one million a month. You will have instant guaranteed results, something no
other form of marketing can claim. Our turn around time is a remarkable 24 hours.
Our email addresses are sorted by country, state, city and target. Your marketing
campaign will speed with pinpoint accuracy to your desired audience!
Call us for a free consultation at 323 876 6148 [U.S.A.].
We guarantee the lowest prices or your service is free!
Best of ALL, Bulk Email Network can be used as a 100% TAX WRITE OFF for your
Business!
1) Let's say you... Sell a $24.95 PRODUCT or SERVICE.
2) Let's say you... Mass Email to 1,000,000 PEOPLE DAILY.
3) Let's say you... Receive JUST 1 ORDER for EVERY 2,500 EMAILS.
CALCULATION OF YOUR EARNINGS BASED ON THE ABOVE STATISTICS:
[Day 1]: $9,980 [Week 1]: $69,860 [Month 1]: $279,440
Now you know why you receive so many email advertisements...
Best Regards,
Sam Al
Bulk Email Network
C.E.O
Under Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th U.S. Congress this letter is not
considered "spam" as long as we include: 1) contact information and, 2) the way
to be
removed from future mailings (see below). To Remove Yourself From This List: Please
email to jk72jk72(a)yahoo.com with the email address that you would like removed and
the word REMOVE in the subject heading.
18 Jun
18 Jun
9:23 a.m.
What is this crap? A robot fishing for active email addresses?
Edwin
At 01:13 AM 6/17/2001 PM, you wrote:
We will put your product or service instantly into the hands of millions
of
prospects!
Under Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th U.S. Congress this letter
is not
considered "spam" as long as we include: 1)
contact information and, 2)
the way to be
removed from future mailings (see below). To Remove
Yourself From This
List: Please
email to jk72jk72(a)yahoo.com with the email address that
you would like
removed and
the word REMOVE in the subject heading.
6:03 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Edwin P. Groot" <epgroot(a)ucdavis.edu>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 3:53 AM
Subject: Re: Wave of the Future
What is this crap? A robot fishing for active
email addresses?
Right at first guess. Just crap. Spam.
The quotation regards a bill that never made it into law, but lots of
spammers keep quoting it anyway.
Until the US cleans up it's act and makes it unlawful (with sufficiently
scary penalties) to stop them advertising their crap to the entire
universe you will see this garbage, relayed by various devious means, to
whatever email addresses they can find and make into lists that are then
sold to would be entrepreneurs. What pisses me off is that they are too
stupid (and doubtless don't give a shit anyway) to remove non US
addresses, we have to filter a host of irrelevant crap here at our mail
server.
Oh, and the 'remove' list either:-
1) doesn't exist
2) did exist but has been either flooded and closed or just closed by
yahoo once someone tipped them off it was there.
3) is an address confirmation site, msging it confirms a 'live' email
address and you get another flood of fresh spam.
4) both 2) and 3) above.
The expressions "Ugly American" and "Yankee Trader" spring to
mind....
Geoff in Oz
19 Jun
19 Jun
5:23 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
This is a high bandwidth list so I'm not following all threads or am
following
some at 20% and blah. But anyway:
There is an organization called the DMA here in the US where you can submit
your snailmail address and this will clear you from the 50%++ of law abiding
snailSpammers and i suspect they do eSpam too.
The "Opt out" at the bottom of eSpam is strongly encouraged if not law and
is
also abided by a good many.
Also there is a thing called a RBL IIRC or RealTimeBlackHoleLIst where reeel
bad eSpammers can be whammied with denial of mail relay and LOTS of other
Internet services.
P.S. It happened to my prior employer (the whammie) so I know it exists.
Why did I ever work there? More women then in straight Engineering
(IE more than zero).
Any abuse can result in Law -- that's why the abusers Want to self-regulate.
Conscientious objector to Spamming.
John A.
DMA http://www.the-dma.org/cgi/offmailinglistdave
RBL http://mail-abuse.org/rbl/
MPS http://www.e-mps.org/en/ind_static.html
??? http://www.madaboutspam.org/
5:58 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, John Allain wrote:
There is an organization called the DMA here in the US
where you can
submit your snailmail address and this will clear you from the 50%++
of law abiding snailSpammers and i suspect they do eSpam too.
Yeah, great. You have to pay $5 to register one address online.
Otherwise you can mail it in, however "registering by mail may delay
inclusion in the 'delete file' up to 30 days". What a crock of shit.
Self-regulation my ass.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
7:31 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
There is an
organization called the DMA here in the US where you can
submit your snailmail address and this will clear you from the 50%++
of law abiding snailSpammers and i suspect they do eSpam too.
DMA http://www.the-dma.org/cgi/offmailinglistdave
Yeah, great. You have to pay $5 to register one address online.
Otherwise you can mail it in, however "registering by mail may delay
inclusion in the 'delete file' up to 30 days".
7:35 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
Self-regulation my ass.
In the case of Marketing, it may Seem like a moronic
thing is being used as a cover-up for a predatory
practice... all I can say is SOMEtimes with Mktg what
you really got there are morons*
In this case charging for the online access is truly a moaner.
They just need the 30 days for processing.
John A.
*and I've seen it. My poor eyes.
10:16 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, John Allain wrote:
In the case of Marketing, it may Seem like a moronic
thing is being used as a cover-up for a predatory
practice... all I can say is SOMEtimes with Mktg what
you really got there are morons*
In this case charging for the online access is truly a moaner.
They just need the 30 days for processing.
The silly-assed thing is that they have to go through more work if you
mail it in. It would be great if they got deluged with mail-in requests.
At any rate, I think charging to be added to the block lists violates the
spirit of the law they are trying to "uphold". Some Senator who isn't
busy promoting his/her own self interests needs to be made aware of this.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
3:25 p.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
I'm not sure why this continues to be the problem that it is. I agree that SPAM
is terribly annoying, but can't comprehend why it can't be dealt with from the
INSIDE, i.e. simply rewrite the SMTP/POP protocol rules such that mail only
allows a single addressee, and that any server that sees more than one destinee,
either in the "to" field or the CC field, it simply pitches it in the bit
bucket. Spammers love the current situation, because their own bandwidth isn't
even consumed by the wide distribution of some bit of nonsense advertising.
If I ever want to send several people the same email, which I've not yet done,
after about 10 years of internetting, I'd simply write a script to do that.
The fact that the internet community or its governing bodies haven't figured
this out is a symptom of the fact that they WANT people to be able to SPAM
anonymously. At the risk of offending the purists, I'd say it's up to us to get
off the silly notion that we're going to be able to preserve anonymity on the
internet in favor of preventing the waste of gazillions of gigabits per second
of bandwidth for unpaid advertising. Even the snail-mail SPAM is paid-for.
It should be a requirement for an email message to get through even ONE server
beyond its point of origin, that the message have the real point of origin in it
and that the point of origin be listed in the text of the message as well as in
the header. Any message in which the originator is not named and traceable via
FINGER, with a validated account, can simply be dropped. It is easy enough to
reject unwanted mail, provided you have a list of acceptable sources.
THERE HAS GOT TO BE ACCOUNTABILITY on the internet. If your name, and home
address were in every message you send, you would probably not send unsolicited
email. If someone found you spoofing addresses in order to support spamming
with, 2^n messages, they should be awarded 2^n bucks, which you should pay, with
your 20 hour-per-day labor at $0.50/hour for however long it takes.
Additionally, you should be fined 2^n bucks per bit, for wasting the bandwidth.
If you don't want to surrender your anonymity, we'll simply all have to put up
with the SPAM. Now, I get a bit of SPAM from time to time, maybe as much as 20%
of my mail, but it's pretty easy to recognize and delete. What annoys me is
that it takes more bandwidth to reject the stuff than simply to delete it.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sellam Ismail" <foo(a)siconic.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: Wave of the Future (Spam)
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, John Allain wrote:
In the case of Marketing, it may Seem like a
moronic
thing is being used as a cover-up for a predatory
practice... all I can say is SOMEtimes with Mktg what
you really got there are morons*
In this case charging for the online access is truly a moaner.
They just need the 30 days for processing.
The silly-assed thing is that they have to go through more work if you
mail it in. It would be great if they got deluged with mail-in requests.
At any rate, I think charging to be added to the block lists violates the
spirit of the law they are trying to "uphold". Some Senator who isn't
busy promoting his/her own self interests needs to be made aware of this.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
3:48 p.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
INSIDE, i.e. simply rewrite the SMTP/POP protocol
rules such that mail
only allows a single addressee, and that any server that sees more
than one destinee, either in the "to" field or the CC field, it simply
pitches it in the bit bucket.
Um.. I'm sorry, but that has to be just about the stupidest thing I've
ever heard.
If I ever want to send several people the same email,
which I've not yet done,
after about 10 years of internetting, I'd simply write a script to do that.
Don't you think that the spammers could do this very same thing, in about
five minutes?
the originator is not named and traceable via FINGER,
with a validated
It's too bad FINGER is a huge security hole.
What annoys me is that it takes more bandwidth to
reject the stuff
than simply to delete it.
What annoys me are people who look at a system which mostly works with a
few problems, and decide that the best way to fix the problems are to
break the system entirely.
You have some pretty bizarre notions of what 'superiour' means.
ok
r.
20 Jun
20 Jun
4:40 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
At 06:25 PM 6/19/01 -0600, Richard Erlacher wrote:
I'm not sure why this continues to be the problem
that it is. I agree that SPAM
is terribly annoying, but can't comprehend why it can't be dealt with from the
INSIDE, i.e. simply rewrite the SMTP/POP protocol rules such that mail only
allows a single addressee, and that any server that sees more than one destinee,
either in the "to" field or the CC field, it simply pitches it in the bit
bucket.
If I ever want to send several people the same email, which I've not yet done,
after about 10 years of internetting, I'd simply write a script to do that.
And what about the 99.99% of Internet (read: Windows) users who
liked that "send to two people" feature of Outlook? You expect
them to write scripts? What about all the BCC: mail that gets
sent that doesn't have N addresses in the headers? Gee, if we
limited the size and number of e-mails you could send, that would
help reduce bandwidth, too. Slower computers would be a great
deterrent, too.
THERE HAS GOT TO BE ACCOUNTABILITY on the internet. If
your name, and home
address were in every message you send, you would probably not send unsolicited
email.
If such a rule were in place, I'm sure there are millions of companies
who'd gladly send spam that conformed. In the paper world, it's called
"junk mail" and it seems to be quite popular. In the e-mail world, at
least half the junk I get does have reasonable attribution to the source.
The "problem" with spam is that it apparently works for some scams,
and that there's plenty of people willing to try it.
- John
8:02 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
At 06:25 PM 6/19/01 -0600, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>I'm not sure why this continues to be the problem that it is. I agree that SPAM
>is terribly annoying, but can't comprehend why it can't be dealt with from
the
>INSIDE, i.e. simply rewrite the SMTP/POP protocol rules such that mail only
>allows a single addressee, and that any server that sees more than one destinee,
>either in the "to" field or the CC field, it simply pitches it in the bit
>bucket.
>If I ever want to send several people the same email, which I've not yet done,
>after about 10 years of internetting, I'd simply write a script to do that.
Any software that would block sending SPAM would also prevent the
operation of list-servers, SUCH AS THIS ONE. Conversely, when any
system is implemented, what would prevent a spammer from using a copy of
majordomo and involuntarily subscribing everyone to his spam mailing list?
BTW, MOST of the SPAM that I receive does NOT show more than one address
in the header by the time that it gets here. Perhaps some of the SPAM is
being done with a script just like the one that Richard would write?
I think that we can assume that Richard has not been writing scripts for
them.
While I do not claim to know what is CURRENTLY being done, it would
certainly be trivial for a program to generate millions of messages, where
each one enters the mail system as a seperate message.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
8:37 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
BTW, MOST of the SPAM that I receive does NOT show
more than one address
in the header by the time that it gets here.
Most are implemented with the Bcc: header, which sendmail throws away in the
actual message but uses for constructing the destination list. (Bcc =
Blind Carbon Copy)
--
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University * ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- Please dispose of this message in the usual manner. -- Mission: Impossible -
21 Jun
21 Jun
6:22 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
plz see embedded remarks below.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)" <cisin(a)xenosoft.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: Wave of the Future (Spam)
That might work once. However, I find that most of the SPAM I see has spoofed
IP addresses, either from a server that serves as a shield for spammers or from
the sender. Oddly enough, the big email servers, e.g. Yahoo, MSN, Hotmail, etc,
don't even filter out mail that's spoofed from THEIR domain. Moreover, I find
that I get SPAM from what appears to be a single source, yet it has several
different source addresses, none of which can be verified.
> At 06:25 PM 6/19/01 -0600, Richard Erlacher
wrote:
> >I'm not sure why this continues to be the problem that it is. I agree that
SPAM
> >is terribly annoying, but can't
comprehend why it can't be dealt with from
the
> >INSIDE, i.e. simply rewrite the SMTP/POP
protocol rules such that mail only
> >allows a single addressee, and that any server that sees more than one
destinee,
> >either in the "to" field or the CC
field, it simply pitches it in the bit
> >bucket.
> >If I ever want to send several people the same email, which I've not yet
done,
>after
about 10 years of internetting, I'd simply write a script to do that.
Any software that would block sending SPAM would also prevent the
operation of list-servers, SUCH AS THIS ONE. Conversely, when any
system is implemented, what would prevent a spammer from using a copy of
majordomo and involuntarily subscribing everyone to his spam mailing list?
BTW, MOST of the SPAM that I receive does NOT show more than one address
in the header by the time that it gets here. Perhaps some of the SPAM is
being done with a script just like the one that Richard would write?
I think that we can assume that Richard has not been writing scripts for
them.
I'm not assuming that SPAM is a terrible thing. I just think it should be
paid
for by the originator in proportion to the ultimate bandwidth consumed by its
transmission, and that it should be traceable to its source. Now, junk
snail-mail isn't easily traceable to its sender, though its originator is
generally discernable. Maybe the anonymous sorts of mail should be charged for,
say, at $1 per k-bit, if someone really needs to have 'em. I just don't want to
pay for the cost of someone else's wastefulness.
While I do not claim to know what is CURRENTLY being done, it would
certainly be trivial for a program to generate millions of messages, where
each one enters the mail system as a seperate message.
I get junk mail with just my email address on it, too. Much of the SPAM I get,
however, has dozens of addressees, however. I'm not an expert in internet
technology, sadly, so I can't address, with authority, how one might practically
solve the SPAM problem. Many industry leaders don't seem to view it as a
problem. Perhaps it's already in a category that they can charge for, so it's
just another revenue source for them. I process some 100+ emails, not counting
mailing list traffic, every day. Spam is a nuissance, but only because it's
inconvenient to delete it. I suppose, the mail could be filtered such that only
the items for whic the sender is traceable, say, with FINGER, or some other
tool, but I haven't done that ...YET.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
5:59 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
John Foust wrote:
At 06:25 PM 6/19/01 -0600, Richard Erlacher wrote:
[...]
Yeah, I remember the good ole days when a person would send out SPAM
and more that a dozen people would chastise them for it. The guilty party
would then sheepishly apologize and that would be that. Then all the sudden
one day (mid 90s) more than one spammer hit all over and no one could
keep up. More started coming and then more and here we are today. I delete
it even if the item seems interesting. If really interested I find the competitor
and then buy their product. :)
Eric
THERE HAS GOT TO BE ACCOUNTABILITY on the
internet. If your name, and home
address were in every message you send, you would probably not send unsolicited
email.
If such a rule were in place, I'm sure there are millions of companies
who'd gladly send spam that conformed. In the paper world, it's called
"junk mail" and it seems to be quite popular. In the e-mail world, at
least half the junk I get does have reasonable attribution to the source.
The "problem" with spam is that it apparently works for some scams,
and that there's plenty of people willing to try it.
- John
8:10 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
At 10:59 AM 6/21/01 -0400, Eric wrote:
Yeah, I remember the good ole days when a person would
send out SPAM
and more that a dozen people would chastise them for it. The guilty party
would then sheepishly apologize and that would be that. Then all the sudden
one day (mid 90s) more than one spammer hit all over and no one could
keep up.
Actually, prior to 1990 when ARPANet, nee NSFNet, was carrying the traffic
and it was still under the auspices of the NSF, it was against policy for
the net to be used for "commercial" purposes. People who tried had their
network connections severed.
Then the backbone was transferred to commercial enterprises (UUNet, MCI,
Sprint, etc) and they had no such policy in place. And as we've seen they
have even _agreed_ to allow spammers to send their mail and advertisements
(do a search on 'pink sheet' and 'spam' on google some time) It was all
over at that point.
--Chuck
8:40 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
Approaches such as limiting the number of addressees would kill mailing
lists with little or no effect on spammers.
Approaches such as billing for number of outgoing items won't work without
cooperation from spammers (yeah, right.)
How many spammers need to turn up dead to serve as a deterrent to those
conteplating doing it?
How many spammers need to turn up dead to reduce their population to a
managable level?
9:03 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
Responses Inline:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
Approaches such as limiting the number of addressees
would kill mailing
lists with little or no effect on spammers.
There are ways around this problem.
Approaches such as billing for number of outgoing
items won't work without
cooperation from spammers (yeah, right.)
Agreed.
How many spammers need to turn up dead to serve as a
deterrent to those
conteplating doing it?
Lots. The one constant in the universe is idiocy.
How many spammers need to turn up dead to reduce their
population to a
managable level?
Lots. There are THAT many spammers.
Peace... Sridhar
9:59 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
How many
spammers need to turn up dead to reduce their population to a
managable level?
Lots. There are THAT many spammers.
9:35 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Mike Ford wrote:
One of my friends is a spammer, and what he does is setup a whole new
"persona" for each email blitz. Cost of doing business as far as he is
concerned.
Can I have your friend's home address?
:)
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
How many spammers need to turn up dead to reduce their
population to a
managable level?
Lots. There are THAT many spammers.
10:09 p.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
One of my
friends is a spammer, and what he does is setup a whole new
"persona" for each email blitz. Cost of doing business as far as he is
concerned.
Can I have your friend's home address? 
22 Jun
22 Jun
5:19 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
One of my friends is a spammer, and what he does is
setup a whole new
"persona" for each email blitz. Cost of doing business as far as he is
concerned.
Can I have your friend's home address?
5:56 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
As I've suggested before, the SPAMming isn't the evil involved here. It's
our
own complacency in tolerating the theft of bandwidth that SPAMming represents.
It doesn't matter today, but it will, absolutely, matter soon.
Bulk mail, whether in the snail-mail, or in email, is an effort to communicate.
It sends information to people who didn't ask for it, often because they weren't
even aware of the subject's existence. It's no different with SPAM. Sometimes
... rarely, for sure, but sometimes ... there's actually something of use in the
SPAM. Perhaps I wouldn't miss it, but once in a long while I do learn about
something that I find of use.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Buckle" <geneb(a)deltasoft.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: Wave of the Future (Spam)
He is a 6'8" 260 lb merchant marine, do you REALLY want to knock on his
door and explain what a naughty spammer he is?
Naw. I'd prefer a confrontation at 800yds with a Barrett M2.
g.
One of my
friends is a spammer, and what he does is setup a whole new
"persona" for each email blitz. Cost of doing business as far as he is
concerned.
Can I have your friend's home address?
5:42 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Mike Ford wrote:
He is a 6'8" 260 lb merchant marine, do you REALLY want to knock on his
door and explain what a naughty spammer he is?
One good kick to the nuts is all it takes.
Sure, send the address on over :)
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
One of my friends is a spammer, and what he does is
setup a whole new
"persona" for each email blitz. Cost of doing business as far as he is
concerned.
Can I have your friend's home address? 
7:02 a.m.
New subject: MetaSpam... was Re: Wave of the Future (Spam)
I've received more messages complaning about spam from this list than I have
actual spam this last month...
;)
- Mike: dogas(a)bellsouth.net
8:07 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
SPAM, aside from its unfortunate status as completely unpaid advertising, is not
a terrible thing. What's terrible about it is that when the time comes that
internet traffic has to be paid for on a bit-by-bit basis so that the badwidth
is paid-for, it is likely that the recipients will have to pay, rather than the
senders. For that reason, we should all be making a lot of noise to ensure that
it's the senders and not the recipients that have to pay for mail. Mail is the
vehicle that SPAM uses, newsgroups excepted, and since newsgroup managers can
afford (only because of the costs to them for bandwidth) to trace the SPAM back
to its source and reject it before forwarding it, it won't be as big a problem
there. Mail should, therefore, be traceable back to its originator, and all
methods of spoofing the sender's IP address should be defeated in some way.
This means MAJOR work on the protocol layers from the IP/ICMP layer upward, and
that may not happen for a while. It's MUCH easier to charge the recipient for
mail delivery, and while that's BACKWARD from the logic, the organizations that
cooked up most of the internet procedural arsenal have always chosen
easy/adequate over difficult in any form, even when .0001% of additional
effort/complexity would have added 10000x more functionality/reliability. This
is what happens when a committee does things, and that's what runs the internet.
This thing won't be fixed unless some lone individual, incredibly bright,
imaginative, and altruistic, but otherwise underutilized, does it.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sellam Ismail" <foo(a)siconic.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: Wave of the Future (Spam)
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Mike Ford wrote:
He is a 6'8" 260 lb merchant marine, do you REALLY want to knock on his
door and explain what a naughty spammer he is?
One good kick to the nuts is all it takes.
Sure, send the address on over :)
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
One of my friends is a spammer, and what he does is
setup a whole new
"persona" for each email blitz. Cost of doing business as far as he is
concerned.
Can I have your friend's home address? 
21 Jun
21 Jun
10:22 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
Rumor has it that Mike Ford may have mentioned these words:
[snip]
One of my friends is a spammer,
[snip]
And he's still your friend?
*sigh*
"Merch"
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger --- sysadmin, Iceberg Computers
Recycling is good, right??? Ok, so I'll recycle an old .sig.
If at first you don't succeed, nuclear warhead
disarmament should *not* be your first career choice.
9:53 p.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
One of my
friends is a spammer,
[snip]
And he's still your friend?
*sigh*
22 Jun
22 Jun
6:04 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
Mike Ford wrote:
Sainthood isn't one of my requirements for friendship. IMHO spamming isn't
much more than a minor lapse of business ethics, really more of a case of
poor judgement. Its not like he is a democrat or something.
Ouch! And you're a troll! Nixon was a Republican. I rest my case.
Eric
One of my friends is a spammer,
[snip]
And he's still your friend?
*sigh* 
7:12 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Eric Chomko wrote:
Ouch! And you're a troll! Nixon was a Republican.
I rest my case.
Your point is? Remember, the Clintons are Democrats. Democrats and
Reublicans are both alike in that they all revere one thing: political
power at any cost, and enjoy it all the more when it's at the expense
of their serfs^H^H^H^H^Htaxpayers.
--
Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)perqlogic.com 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.perqlogic.com beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
7:37 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
> Ouch! And you're a troll! Nixon was a
Republican. I rest my case.
Your point is? Remember, the Clintons are Democrats.
Democrats and
Reublicans are both alike in that they all revere one thing: political
power at any cost, and enjoy it all the more when it's at the expense
of their serfs^H^H^H^H^Htaxpayers.
Okay, then, all libertarians are nuts. Who wants to top this troll? ;-)
--
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University * ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- If G. B. Shaw were a surrealist, he'd be writing plays about ghoti. --------
8:19 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
I've (until recently) always held onto the Republican banner. The current
administration, and the pres' daddy embarrass me so much that I'm in the same
species, let alone political party, with them, that I've dropped my name from
the Republican roles. In the last election, I voted for the (yechhh!)
Democratic opponent, in spite of the fact he invented the internet.
I worked on some promotional material for the Libertarian party and did that
only long enough to learn that, while the aggregate of their collective opinions
seem to be quite rational and sane, no one leader or individual I ever met seems
to hold those beliefs, preferring, apparently, to belong to the "lunatic
fringe"
which seems to find a welcoming home in that and a few other parties. What
typifies their beliefs, at least among those I met here in Colorado, is the
belief that private enterprise should build bridges over and dams on rivers and
charge for their use. Think about that!
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cameron Kaiser" <spectre(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: Wave of the Future (Spam)
http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
> Ouch! And
you're a troll! Nixon was a Republican. I rest my case.
Your point is? Remember, the Clintons are
Democrats. Democrats and
Reublicans are both alike in that they all revere one thing: political
power at any cost, and enjoy it all the more when it's at the expense
of their serfs^H^H^H^H^Htaxpayers.
Okay, then, all libertarians are nuts. Who wants to top this troll? ;-)
--
----------------------------- personal page: Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University *
ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- If G. B. Shaw were a surrealist, he'd be writing plays about
ghoti.
--------
10:11 p.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
I worked on some promotional material for the
Libertarian party and did that
only long enough to learn that, while the aggregate of their collective
opinions
All it took for the Green party to SERIOUSLY clean up their act was to get
elected in more than token amounts. The libertarian party hasn't gotten to
that stage, and may never.
9:49 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
At 09:37 AM 6/22/01 -0700, you wrote:
Okay, then, all libertarians are nuts. Who wants to top
this troll? ;-)
Cameron Kaiser
Oh, that's easy, on this list the best troll is:
"Don't be suckered by the diskette maker conspiracy, every
single disk is the same. Save your money and just by SSSD
disks and notch'em for DSDD use..."
--Chuck
11:20 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
'ey ... wazzamadda-you??? ainna you got enuffa bruises???
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck McManis" <cmcmanis(a)mcmanis.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: Wave of the Future (Spam)
At 09:37 AM 6/22/01 -0700, you wrote:
Okay, then, all libertarians are nuts. Who wants
to top this troll? ;-)
Cameron Kaiser
Oh, that's easy, on this list the best troll is:
"Don't be suckered by the diskette maker conspiracy, every
single disk is the same. Save your money and just by SSSD
disks and notch'em for DSDD use..."
--Chuck
2:55 p.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
Sorry, I didn't mean to leave any political parties out of the
critique; most politicians from all parties are, well, as you say
"nuts." There, that's much fairer; equal offense to all. :-) By the
way, it was no troll. How can anyone, honestly, have any respect for
most of our elected loonies? The president included, they should be
no more respected or important than anyone else; in fact, they should
be thought of as less important than the taxpayers whom they're
supposed to be serving. As Thomas Jefferson would, no doubt, have
agreed, the taxpayers just aren't doing a good enough job of keeping
the politicians afraid of the taxpayers and on their good behavior.
Instead of applauding the overpaid political idiots at parades on the
4th of July, why aren't we celebrating the 4th properly by booing them
and burning effigies of them as they pass by on the parade routes? To
do otherwise, and celebrate that day, is just plain hypocrisy.
--
Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)perqlogic.com 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.perqlogic.com beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
Your point is?
Remember, the Clintons are Democrats. Democrats and
Reublicans are both alike in that they all revere one thing: political
power at any cost, and enjoy it all the more when it's at the expense
of their serfs^H^H^H^H^Htaxpayers.
Okay, then, all libertarians are nuts. Who wants to top this troll? ;-) 
1:11 p.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
Eric Chomko skrev:
[snip]
Ouch! And you're a troll! Nixon was a Republican. I
rest my case.
What else would you expect of a president? Can you imagine a republic without
a president?
As for me, I'm a royalist...
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
I installed 7.6.1 on my Color Classic too. It has 6mb ram now, and no FPU
yet. Things really slowed down when I installed the Appearance extention and
control panel. But now the GUI is OS8ish! ;) That little creep is so cute,
I'll probably leave instructions to have it made my urn. It'll hold my ashes,
and still continue to function as a computer ;)
iVan
12:49 p.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
Ouch! And
you're a troll! Nixon was a Republican. I rest my case.
What else would you expect of a president? Can you imagine a republic without
a president?
As for me, I'm a royalist...
21 Jun
21 Jun
11:03 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
One of my friends is a spammer, and what he does is
setup a whole new
"persona" for each email blitz. Cost of doing business as far as he is
concerned.
If someone feels the need to hide their identity when trying
to get me to buy a product or whatever, then obviously they nor the
company/product they represent are legitimate and they will never see
me as a customer.
Jeff
--
Collector of Classic Microcomputers and Video Game Systems:
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
11:56 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
Money is the motivating force behind SPAM, which is just
"direct-mail-marketing"
on the internet. Unfortunately, the folks who use that medium pay for it, but
aren't the perpetrators of the real sin. If it were done ethically, and I think
it's arguable that mass mailings via email are a legitimate use of bandwidth,
just as junk mail is a legitimate use of the mails and of paper, ink, etc, then
one not wishing to receive unsolicited emails could put up a service that
filtered out advertising. I've seen some fine offers for things like inkjet
refill supplies, photo-quality printer paper, etc, that were decent enough, but
I don't want to have to sift through the junk mail when it arrives.
What's needed is a way to avoid having to look at every email, including every
title just to filter out the junk mail. That's why the anonymity of the
internet may have to fall sacrifice to sensibility.
regards,
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Hellige" <jhellige(a)earthlink.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: Wave of the Future (Spam)
One of my
friends is a spammer, and what he does is setup a whole new
"persona" for each email blitz. Cost of doing business as far as he is
concerned.
If someone feels the need to hide their identity when trying
to get me to buy a product or whatever, then obviously they nor the
company/product they represent are legitimate and they will never see
me as a customer.
Jeff
--
Collector of Classic Microcomputers and Video Game Systems:
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
11:11 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Mike Ford wrote:
One of my friends is a spammer, and what he does is
setup a whole new
"persona" for each email blitz. Cost of doing business as far as he is
concerned.
How about posting his home address and telephone number so that we can
have a little educational talk with him? Your doing so would be a
kindness that many of us would greatly appreciate.
--
Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)perqlogic.com 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.perqlogic.com beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
11:37 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 132 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20010621/16ed3125/at…
22 Jun
22 Jun
5:11 p.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
One of my friends is a spammer, and what he does is
setup a whole new
"persona" for each email blitz. Cost of doing business as far as he is
concerned.
Can I have your friend's home address?
21 Jun
21 Jun
10:33 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
How many spammers need to turn up dead to serve as a
deterrent to those
conteplating doing it?
How many spammers need to turn up dead to reduce their population to a
managable level?
Isn't that being slightly too severe, and, worst or all, a waste of
energy, as other spammers may never realize that it even happened?
Here's an alternate suggestion: would it not be more effective if some
e-mail spammers turn on the doorstep of other e-mail spammers, bound
and covered in tar and feathers, with a very large note attached that
reads: "Warning: I was once a spammer too until the UUCP Cabal found
me."
I suspect that it was spammers, not Internet technology, that really
destroyed the UUCP community. When I looked through the number of
totally off-topic messages in the newsgroup hierarchy directories on
my system, that I didn't even subscribe to, as a result of spam being
sent to multiple newsgroups, it was amazing. I didn't have a huge
spool partition, and it kept filling up... I only subscribed to a
couple of, what should have been, low-volume newsgroups. What was
just as annoying was the logic used by those IQ-deficient bizdroid
spammers: we're not harming you, all you have to do is delete the
messages. I couldn't make them understand that UUCP was a store and
forward network, and I was paying extra long-distance charges from
UUNET, as I was being forced to receive e-mail and Usenet spam.
--
Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)perqlogic.com 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.perqlogic.com beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
6:05 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
plz see embedded comments below
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Foust" <jfoust(a)threedee.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: Wave of the Future (Spam)
I'm not convinced any more than 1 part in 10E23 of the user of OUTLOOK/OUTLOOK
EXPRESS even know about that feature. However, if we're going to preseve the
bandwidth so we can have "free" internet for any more than a few more years,
we're going to have to give up something. Disposing of the mechanism that
allows SPAMmers to send a single email to a downstream server with the full
expectation that the server, outside his own domain, will distribute the mail at
no cost to him, will quickly quell the vast increase of unsolicited email.
I'm curious why you're taking a position favoring SPAMmers? I have nothing
against them. They're just using a facility that's avaiable to them. I view
their unpaid consumption of bandwidth as a theft of bandwidth from the users who
pay for what they waste with their SPAM, however, though they make their money
that way, so they don't see it as waste. Things that provide benefit to some
should be paid for by the ones who reap the benefit, and proportionally (but
perhaps not in linear proportion) to how much they use. Likewise, I think it's
unfair that users of passenger vehicles that don't wear the roadways much at all
pay more tax per pound of gross-vehicle-weight than the owners of the huge
semi-tractor-trailer rigs that permanently alter the roadway in only one pass
over it.
Likewise, as the folks in California will probably consider, the usage of MORE
electrical power should not be discounted. If you use what a small household
uses, you should get the minimal rate. If you use, 5x what the typical small
household uses, you should pay 5x what that household uses, i.e. 5x the amount
per kWH, and if you use 1000x kWH's, then you should pay 1000x the amount, per
kWH that the small household has to pay. It all gets passed to the end user of
the products and services that would be increased in cost. Maybe that would get
some folks to turn off the TV and air-conditioning once in a while.
Junk mail is an annoyance we've all come to put up with in the snail mail.
It's
not necessarily a bad thing, though nobody loves to get mail that doesn't do
anything for them. Of course, we do put up with bills, and we surely don't want
them. Addidionally, it's well to consider that while internet SPAM is unpaid
junk mail, the stuff in the snail mail is paid-for, though at a deeply
discounted rate. Ol' Ben Franklin made would have approved, though, as it does
promote commerce, and because he was a printer. What annoys me is that wasted
bandwidth, whether it's for sending cartoons to all your friends or sending
billions of ads for improved widgets, consumes bandwidth that will ultimately
result in the rest of us, who don't benefit from the advertising, having to pay
for mail by the bit. The choice of who should get the money that the
advertisers should pay is easy, though. It should go to the folks who receive,
and, ultimately, will have to pay for, the SPAM. Bulk mail should be tarriffed
at a rate on the order of $1 per item. If you send a SPAM to a billion
destinations, you should have to pay the billion bucks up front, just like the
junk-mail senders pay to the Post Office. You can bet the P.O. doesn't wait to
see whether the business survives before exacting its fee. Yup, it should be
the senders that pay for email, and since they consume bandwidth that,
ultimately, is paid for by the recipients, it should be paid to the recipients,
who, after all, support the system by paying for their access facility.
At 06:25 PM 6/19/01 -0600, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>I'm not sure why this continues to be the problem that it is. I agree that
SPAM
>is terribly annoying, but can't comprehend why
it can't be dealt with from
the
>INSIDE, i.e. simply rewrite the SMTP/POP protocol
rules such that mail only
>allows a single addressee, and that any server that sees more than one
destinee,
>either in the "to" field or the CC
field, it simply pitches it in the bit
>bucket.
>If I ever want to send several people the same email, which I've not yet
done,
after about 10
years of internetting, I'd simply write a script to do that.
And what about the 99.99% of Internet (read: Windows) users who
liked that "send to two people" feature of Outlook? You expect
them to write scripts? What about all the BCC: mail that gets
sent that doesn't have N addresses in the headers? Gee, if we
limited the size and number of e-mails you could send, that would
help reduce bandwidth, too. Slower computers would be a great
deterrent, too.
>THERE HAS GOT TO BE ACCOUNTABILITY on the internet. If your name, and home
>address were in every message you send, you would probably not send
unsolicited
email.
If such a rule were in place, I'm sure there are millions of companies
who'd gladly send spam that conformed. In the paper world, it's called
"junk mail" and it seems to be quite popular. In the e-mail world, at
least half the junk I get does have reasonable attribution to the source.
The "problem" with spam is that it apparently works for some scams,
and that there's plenty of people willing to try it.
- John
8:55 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
I'm not convinced any more than 1 part in 10E23 of
the user of
OUTLOOK/OUTLOOK EXPRESS even know about that feature. However, if
we're going to preseve the bandwidth so we can have "free" internet
for any more than a few more years, we're going to have to give up
something.
Well, I guess that all depends on whether the curve of Moore's Law can out
pace the spammers. I don't see major issues with the net being over
congested with spam. It's an annoyance getting spam in your mailbox, but
I'd imagine there are other things aside from spam more significantly
impacting network performance.
Disposing of the mechanism that allows SPAMmers to
send a
single email to a downstream server with the full expectation that the
server, outside his own domain, will distribute the mail at no cost to
him, will quickly quell the vast increase of unsolicited email.
I do think that outlawing the "Cc" or "Bcc" mechanism's in e-mail
is a bit
of an extreme / kind of "out there" suggestion. I really just don't ever
see that happening.
And as someone else already pointed out, there's nothing to prevent
spammers from generating lists of e-mail addresses and then just writing a
script to spam each user individually. Which actually just makes things a
lot worse. Sendmail, and I imagine other mail servers, try to be smart
about routing e-mail. If there's a "Cc" line with multiple users at the
same site, then sendmail only send's a single copy of the message to that
site. That site's MTA then breaks the message into individual copies for
the individual users. By allowing for only one user to be a recipient,
and forcing spammers to send individual messages, you're undermining
sendmail's ability to intelligently route traffic--and probably amplying
the overall mail traffic going across the internet by a significant
factor.
And even if the spammer isn't clueful enough to write a script, there's
nothing to prevent spam marketing companies to provide this mechanism for
them, or for that matter, they could just set up a mailing list for their
spammer customers to use.
I'm curious why you're taking a position
favoring SPAMmers? I have
nothing against them. They're just using a facility that's avaiable
to them. I view their unpaid consumption of bandwidth as a theft of
bandwidth from the users who pay for what they waste with their SPAM,
however, though they make their money that way, so they don't see it
as waste.
[...]
I think my main point would be that your suggested fix doesn't actually
eliminate the problem, and that it would likely actually make the amount
of wasted bandwidth increase while also inconveniencing legitimate users
who're accustomed to Cc'ing multiple people.
Things that provide benefit to some should be paid for
by the ones who
reap the benefit, and proportionally (but perhaps not in linear
proportion) to how much they use. Likewise, I think it's unfair that
users of passenger vehicles that don't wear the roadways much at all
pay more tax per pound of gross-vehicle-weight than the owners of the
huge semi-tractor-trailer rigs that permanently alter the roadway in
only one pass over it.
Don't toll roads work like this? Bigger trucks have to go through
different toll booths than passenger vehicles.
Likewise, as the folks in California will probably
consider, the usage
of MORE electrical power should not be discounted. If you use what a
small household uses, you should get the minimal rate. If you use, 5x
what the typical small household uses, you should pay 5x what that
household uses, i.e. 5x the amount per kWH, and if you use 1000x
kWH's, then you should pay 1000x the amount, per kWH that the small
household has to pay. It all gets passed to the end user of the
products and services that would be increased in cost. Maybe that
would get some folks to turn off the TV and air-conditioning once in a
while.
[...]
Well, even at a flat rate per kWH, the people using the most do actually
pay the most. 10 kWH at $1/hr is $10, 50 kWH at $1/hr is $50. This is
probably the most fair arrangement. From what I rememeber living in
California from 1996-2000, the electric utilities there charged you a
certain rate per kWH used under some fixed limit for a household. If you
went beyond that limit, they did increase the rate (not discount it),
penalizing heavy/wasteful electricity users.
-brian.
9:54 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
I'm not sure about Moore's law ... it looks more like Gresham's law, i.e. the
SPAM is forcing junk snail-mail off the market, since it's free, and that's
what's forcing postage rates upward.
I really don't believe it's advisable or necessary to eliminate SPAM. I think
it's necessary, however, to find a way to get it paid for by the foks who
originate it, else we'll all end up subsidizing the SPAM we hate.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Chase" <bdc(a)world.std.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: Wave of the Future (Spam)
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
I'm not convinced any more than 1 part in
10E23 of the user of
OUTLOOK/OUTLOOK EXPRESS even know about that feature. However, if
we're going to preseve the bandwidth so we can have "free" internet
for any more than a few more years, we're going to have to give up
something.
Well, I guess that all depends on whether the curve of Moore's Law can out
pace the spammers. I don't see major issues with the net being over
congested with spam. It's an annoyance getting spam in your mailbox, but
I'd imagine there are other things aside from spam more significantly
impacting network performance.
Disposing of the mechanism that allows SPAMmers
to send a
single email to a downstream server with the full expectation that the
server, outside his own domain, will distribute the mail at no cost to
him, will quickly quell the vast increase of unsolicited email.
I do think that outlawing the "Cc" or "Bcc" mechanism's in e-mail
is a bit
of an extreme / kind of "out there" suggestion. I really just don't ever
see that happening.
And as someone else already pointed out, there's nothing to prevent
spammers from generating lists of e-mail addresses and then just writing a
script to spam each user individually. Which actually just makes things a
lot worse. Sendmail, and I imagine other mail servers, try to be smart
about routing e-mail. If there's a "Cc" line with multiple users at the
same site, then sendmail only send's a single copy of the message to that
site. That site's MTA then breaks the message into individual copies for
the individual users. By allowing for only one user to be a recipient,
and forcing spammers to send individual messages, you're undermining
sendmail's ability to intelligently route traffic--and probably amplying
the overall mail traffic going across the internet by a significant
factor.
And even if the spammer isn't clueful enough to write a script, there's
nothing to prevent spam marketing companies to provide this mechanism for
them, or for that matter, they could just set up a mailing list for their
spammer customers to use.
I'm curious why you're taking a position
favoring SPAMmers? I have
nothing against them. They're just using a facility that's avaiable
to them. I view their unpaid consumption of bandwidth as a theft of
bandwidth from the users who pay for what they waste with their SPAM,
however, though they make their money that way, so they don't see it
as waste.
[...]
I think my main point would be that your suggested fix doesn't actually
eliminate the problem, and that it would likely actually make the amount
of wasted bandwidth increase while also inconveniencing legitimate users
who're accustomed to Cc'ing multiple people.
Things that provide benefit to some should be
paid for by the ones who
reap the benefit, and proportionally (but perhaps not in linear
proportion) to how much they use. Likewise, I think it's unfair that
users of passenger vehicles that don't wear the roadways much at all
pay more tax per pound of gross-vehicle-weight than the owners of the
huge semi-tractor-trailer rigs that permanently alter the roadway in
only one pass over it.
Don't toll roads work like this? Bigger trucks have to go through
different toll booths than passenger vehicles.
Likewise, as the folks in California will
probably consider, the usage
of MORE electrical power should not be discounted. If you use what a
small household uses, you should get the minimal rate. If you use, 5x
what the typical small household uses, you should pay 5x what that
household uses, i.e. 5x the amount per kWH, and if you use 1000x
kWH's, then you should pay 1000x the amount, per kWH that the small
household has to pay. It all gets passed to the end user of the
products and services that would be increased in cost. Maybe that
would get some folks to turn off the TV and air-conditioning once in a
while.
[...]
Well, even at a flat rate per kWH, the people using the most do actually
pay the most. 10 kWH at $1/hr is $10, 50 kWH at $1/hr is $50. This is
probably the most fair arrangement. From what I rememeber living in
California from 1996-2000, the electric utilities there charged you a
certain rate per kWH used under some fixed limit for a household. If you
went beyond that limit, they did increase the rate (not discount it),
penalizing heavy/wasteful electricity users.
-brian.
11:07 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
it's necessary, however, to find a way to get it
paid for by the foks who
originate it, else we'll all end up subsidizing the SPAM we hate.
Surely most of us believe in making the spammers pay; the problem is finding
the most effective way of making them pay. If we choose the right methods,
they just may decide that they don't want to spew spam any more...
The problem is that harming spammers is illegal; I've heard of people
getting into big trouble for harassing spammers over the telephone, or
using spammers' "1-800" numbers to call them and demand that the spam
be stopped. If anyone else smells some rats being involved in this,
as usual, the rats are our individual taxpayer despising politicians,
as we fail to worship these worthy humble public servants enough by
giving them free lunches, massage parlor services and under-the-table
gold bullion like many businesses and special-interest groups tend to
do.
--
Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)perqlogic.com 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.perqlogic.com beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
20 Jun
20 Jun
9:34 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 2841 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20010620/21a079f2/at…
21 Jun
21 Jun
7:06 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
I agree with Tony here, in that there has to be a valid application for the
features of email that so many SPAMmers have exploited. However, if you want to
do away with bulk email, something's got to be done. This means somebody,
somewhere, will lose. Perhaps, if unsolicited bulk mailings were just easier to
recognize ...
One of the underlying facts in the way things have developed is that much of
this technology was developed in the U.S. where things simply aren't done much
if they're not simple and economical. Unfortunately, while simple methods are
easier to make and prove reliable they're not always the "right" way to do
things.
I'd expect that application of some eastern European methodology, based on the
notion that if one guy spends enough man-decades working on something
tremendously complicated, but consistent and clean because there have been few
committees or meetings required to get the job done, will yield a
difficult-to-defeat mail tracing scheme.
Unfortunately, it's like curing some diseases ... the money's in the treatment
of the ailment, not in the cure/prevention. Who's to pay for this? The guys
who might pay, presently, benefit from it as is. I don't find the SPAM so
offensive that it interferes with productivity by much, and even I have found a
good source once or twice by reading SPAM.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Duell" <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: Wave of the Future (Spam)
get
>
> I'm not sure why this continues to be the problem that it is. I agree that
SPAM
> is terribly annoying, but can't comprehend
why it can't be dealt with from
the
> INSIDE, i.e. simply rewrite the SMTP/POP protocol
rules such that mail only
> allows a single addressee, and that any server that sees more than one
destinee,
> either in the "to" field or the CC
field, it simply pitches it in the bit
> bucket. Spammers love the current situation, because their own bandwidth
isn't
> even consumed by the wide distribution of some
bit of nonsense advertising.
>
> If I ever want to send several people the same email, which I've not yet
done,
after about 10
years of internetting, I'd simply write a script to do that.
I think this is a pretty daft idea...
I often _do_ want to send the same e-mail to several people. Not as SPAM
(of course), but people who share a mutual interest in something (perhaps
we're arranging a time for a meeting, perhaps we're discussing some
repair methods for a classic computer, etc). It's not worth setting up a
proper mailing list for this of course.
So I send out the message with multiple addresses in the To: field.
People reply using the Group Reply feature of their mailers (heck, even
my anceint version of elm has that...) so we all know what is going on,
and so a discussion can be maintained.
Now, it's certainly not beyond me to write a script to send the same
message <n> times to the <n> people (but of course that increases the
amount of outgoing data from my machine to the mail machine at my isp).
But then I'd have to start each message with a line of the form
'Please send all replys to me, and <foo> and <bar> and <baz>
and...' You
can bet some people wouldn't manage to do that.
Sorry, I'd rather stick with the current system. Yes, I get spam, but
that seems better than being unable to use e-mail in a useful way.
FWIW, I have never sent an anonymous message, or posted anywhere (usenet,
web discussion forums (fora?), etc) with a mangled e-mail address (at
least not deliberately -- I might have mistyped it sometimes, I guess). I
don't get _that_ much spam....
>
> The fact that the internet community or its governing bodies haven't figured
> this out is a symptom of the fact that they WANT people to be able to SPAM
> anonymously. At the risk of offending the purists, I'd say it's up to us to
A lot of the internet (and for that matter unix) is based on the idea
that we don't prevent people doing silly things (like spamming) because
that would also prevent them doing useful things (like setting up trivial
'mailing lists'). Of course I am also fully in favour of punishing those
who act in a stupid way (I would like to suggest that the penalty for
spamming should be being lowered into a pot of molten solder, feet first!).
-tony
4:44 p.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
Richard Erlacher skrev:
If I ever want to send several people the same email,
which I've not yet
done, after about 10 years of internetting, I'd simply write a script to do
that.
I do that each and every day. Friend A and Friend B are both usergroup
members and our interests overlap quite well, so bouncing messages between the
three of us comes natural.
It should be a requirement for an email message to get
through even ONE
server beyond its point of origin, that the message have the real point of
origin in it and that the point of origin be listed in the text of the
message as well as in the header. Any message in which the originator is not
named and traceable via FINGER, with a validated account, can simply be
dropped. It is easy enough to reject unwanted mail, provided you have a list
of acceptable sources.
My provider dropped finger a while ago due to security holes in their d?mon,
unfortunately. Most "modern" providers wouldn't even know what finger was.
If you don't want to surrender your anonymity,
we'll simply all have to put
up with the SPAM. Now, I get a bit of SPAM from time to time, maybe as much
as 20% of my mail, but it's pretty easy to recognize and delete. What annoys
me is that it takes more bandwidth to reject the stuff than simply to delete
it.
What annoys me is that we didn't have this a few years ago. This is evil
grass-roots capitalism at its worst.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
optimus@dec:foo$ make love
make: don't know how to make love. Stop
22 Jun
22 Jun
5:29 a.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
It's not grassroots capitalism, but it is human nature. If you could get
someone else to pay your electric bill, wouldn't you use it, at least so long as
it was legal?
Capitalism is not evil. Letting others take a free ride at your (and others')
expense because it's easier to allow it than to prevent it is what's evil.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Iggy Drougge" <optimus(a)canit.se>
To: "Richard Erlacher" <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: Wave of the Future (Spam)
Richard Erlacher skrev:
If I ever want to send several people the same
email, which I've not yet
done, after about 10 years of internetting, I'd simply write a script to do
that.
I do that each and every day. Friend A and Friend B are both usergroup
members and our interests overlap quite well, so bouncing messages between the
three of us comes natural.
It should be a requirement for an email message to
get through even ONE
server beyond its point of origin, that the message have the real point of
origin in it and that the point of origin be listed in the text of the
message as well as in the header. Any message in which the originator is not
named and traceable via FINGER, with a validated account, can simply be
dropped. It is easy enough to reject unwanted mail, provided you have a list
of acceptable sources.
My provider dropped finger a while ago due to security holes in their d?mon,
unfortunately. Most "modern" providers wouldn't even know what finger was.
If you don't want to surrender your anonymity,
we'll simply all have to put
up with the SPAM. Now, I get a bit of SPAM from time to time, maybe as much
as 20% of my mail, but it's pretty easy to recognize and delete. What annoys
me is that it takes more bandwidth to reject the stuff than simply to delete
it.
What annoys me is that we didn't have this a few years ago. This is evil
grass-roots capitalism at its worst.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
optimus@dec:foo$ make love
make: don't know how to make love. Stop
2:45 p.m.
New subject: Wave of the Future (Spam)
Richard Erlacher skrev:
It's not grassroots capitalism, but it is human
nature. If you could get
someone else to pay your electric bill, wouldn't you use it, at least so long
as it was legal?
Not necessarily, no.
Capitalism is not evil. Letting others take a free
ride at your (and
others') expense because it's easier to allow it than to prevent it is what's
evil.
Capitalism is evil. Evil as a noun. It is a very unsociable habit.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
Es gibt zweierlei M?dchen: die einen, die Pullover stricken, und die anderen,
die sie ausf?llen.
--- Daliah Lavi
8431
days inactive
8437
days old
53 comments
23 participants
participants (23)
-
allain＠panix.com -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bdc＠world.std.com -
chomko＠greenbelt.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
cmcmanis＠mcmanis.com -
dogas＠bellsouth.net -
edick＠idcomm.com -
epgroot＠ucdavis.edu -
foo＠siconic.com -
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
geoffrob＠stmarks.pp.catholic.edu.au -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
jhellige＠earthlink.net -
mbg＠world.std.com -
mikeford＠socal.rr.com -
optimus＠canit.se -
rdd＠smart.net -
red＠bears.org -
spectre＠stockholm.ptloma.edu -
uoou＠nycmail.com -
vance＠ikickass.org -
zmerch＠30below.com