<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Missed the point in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r8587414</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:56:34 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:56:34 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: Missed the point</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8599004</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/300218"><b>TheMadSwede</b></A> :  <BLOCKQUOTE><SMALL>said by  shuubz <A HREF="/useremail/u/312817"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>:</SMALL><HR>My point was that, in addition to the spam we always had, we will now have legitimate spam, potentially averaging almost a thousand messages per day.<br><br>This spam will be entirely legal, and will make email completely useless as a medium of communication.  Just receiving it all, even before the filters go to work, will be a de-facto DDoS attack.<br><br>If you're going to argue, PERHAPS YOU SHOULD READ THE MESSAGE IN ITS ENTIRETY.<br> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><br><br>It's really annoying when you SHOUT back at people and REVEAL that you have a BAD temper about STUPID THINGS.<br><br>I did read your message in its entirety (twice now) and I'm still missing your "point" - either because I'm an idiot (quite possible) or because you didn't make it very well (let me guess, you think you made it just fine...).<br><br>Your second message was a lot better.  You should have just left out all the stuff about "the government being firmly in the coporate pocket" and just written your second post in the first place.<br><SMALL>--<br>Hey - there's this thing called spell check...</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8599004</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2003 00:00:08 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Missed the point</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8587414</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/312817"><b>shuubz</b></A> : My point was that, in addition to the spam we always had, we will now have legitimate spam, potentially averaging almost a thousand messages per day.<br><br>This spam will be entirely legal, and will make email completely useless as a medium of communication.  Just receiving it all, even before the filters go to work, will be a de-facto DDoS attack.<br><br>If you're going to argue, PERHAPS YOU SHOULD READ THE MESSAGE IN ITS ENTIRETY.<br><SMALL>--<br><B>What is left for the meek is not worth having...I don't need a shepherd, I need a Muse...The only thing I can call my own is who I am; insecurity is pointless.</B></SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8587414</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:13:16 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Made in USA</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8587337</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/300218"><b>TheMadSwede</b></A> :  <BLOCKQUOTE><SMALL>said by  shuubz <A HREF="/useremail/u/312817"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>:</SMALL><HR>Most spam (90%+) originates in the US.  <br><br>Unfortunately, our government is firmly in the corporate pocket, so the new anti-spam bill merely sets up guidelines that require opt-out info in spam messages.<br><br>It's sad.  There was a British parliamentary delegation that came over before this bill passed, and tried to talk Congress into making it "opt-in", not "opt-out".  They were told it would never fly.<br> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><br><br>Reality check -- do you really think that if the legislation was tough enough that it would actually stop the spam?<br><br>The spammers are already pulling all sorts of unethical (but legal) tactics to get around filtering.  Why would they suddenly get a conscience?<br><br>Your opinions about the government selling out, though almost certainly true, are irrelevant to stopping spam.<br><SMALL>--<br>Hey - there's this thing called spell check...</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8587337</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:05:03 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Made in USA</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8582312</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/312817"><b>shuubz</b></A> : Most spam (90%+) originates in the US.  <br><br>Unfortunately, our government is firmly in the corporate pocket, so the new anti-spam bill merely sets up guidelines that require opt-out info in spam messages.<br><br>It's sad.  There was a British parliamentary delegation that came over before this bill passed, and tried to talk Congress into making it "opt-in", not "opt-out".  They were told it would never fly.<br><br><B>GRIM STAT OF THE DAY:<br>If every legitimate business in the US sent users just one legit marketing email per year, it would average out to 867 messages per day for every email user.</B><br><SMALL>--<br><B>What is left for the meek is not worth having...I don't need a shepherd, I need a Muse...The only thing I can call my own is who I am; insecurity is pointless.</B></SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8582312</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2003 10:09:28 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
