 |  | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL | Re: ashcroft doing something useful?? He did not lose the governor's race to a dead man. Check your facts. | |
| | | | | | | cevans59
Premium
join:2003-08-14
Smithton, IL
| Re: ashcroft doing something useful?? said by morbo  :
that's correct. however, he still lost to a dead man.
Right he lost to Mel Carnahan in the race for the senate even though Carnahan died in a plane crash weeks before the election.
Which shows that people in his home state preferred a corpse to Ashcroft. (Ok not really) | |
| | | | | | | 
Gwailo
join:2000-07-16
Richardson, TX
clubs:
| Re: ashcroft doing something useful?? Does this forum always have to turn most anything involving our government into a political flap?
What about the news event that happened?
It would probably be good for all concerned who have political comments to go over to Swift Boat Vets or Move On Org and post them there instead of here.
--
"Now, with a modem, anyone can follow the world and report on the world — no middle man, no big brother." - Matt Drudge, National Press Club, June 2, 1998 | |
| | | | | 
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | Re: ashcroft doing something useful?? my point: ashcroft is doing something useful with the spam fighting. unusual! | |
| | | | | | | | | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| I've always found the dead man thing to be a rather cheap shot at Ashcroft. True, the guy whose name was on the ballet was dead, but it was made clear his widow would be appointed if he won the race, so everyone who voted was really voting for his widow, not for the dead guy.
Don't get me wrong, I don't care for Ashcroft, but there are so many substantive ways to attack him that the whole "dead man" thing seems petty. | |
| | | | | 
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
| Re: ashcroft doing something useful?? Well it was obviously a sympathy vote as Jeane Carnahan only served 2 years and was voted out the next election cycle. Plus Ashcroft pretty much had to suspend campaigning for decorum. This criticism is totally invalid.
While we're on the subject of Ashcroft, I am struck by the irony of many a anti-PATRIOT act thread juxtaposed with many anti-spammer threads where it seems the majority are all for Eeevil Ashcroft going after "free speech."
--
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." —Ronald Reagan | |
| | | 
starstuff
Fly By Wire
Premium
join:2001-12-05
Mcallen, TX
| said by joebear29 :
He did not lose the governor's race to a dead man. Check your facts.
LOL.
This comment raises the term spinmeister to a new level...
»www.thefreedictionary.com/spinmeister | |
| | | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
1 edit | Re: ashcroft doing something useful?? said by starstuff :
said by joebear29 :
He did not lose the governor's race to a dead man. Check your facts.
LOL.
This comment raises the term spinmeister to a new level...
»www.thefreedictionary.com/spinmeister
How so? Where did I attempt to show a favorable interpretation of the facts to represent Ashcoft (who I dislike anyways) in a positive light?
You can call it nickpicking, but I was not spinning anything. | |
| | | 
newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
| Bought and paid for quote:
Since the DMA is fundamentally co-authors of the ineffective Can Spam Act, they've been under the gun to prove they aren't just part of the problem.
I'll believe it when I see it.
What we haven't seen yet are the full ramifications of the You-Can-Spam Act, when mainsleaze companies begin filling your already overflowing inbox with "legitimate" offers; all because it's legal, bought and paid for by the DMA.
--
The Rules of Spam | Maryland's Newest Anti-Spam Law
Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket? | |
| | JPCass
join:2001-01-23
Denver, CO
| Re: Bought and paid for said by newview :
quote:
What we haven't seen yet are the full ramifications of the You-Can-Spam Act
I'm not holding my breath, either, but I think I could live with a relatively smaller number of "legitimate" offers. If it's effectiveness is something like DNC, which still leaves me with a few political campaigns and opinion polls calling, I could live with that; I ignore those people anyway, and they seem to get the hint and drop me off their lists. Also, if it's CAN-SPAM compliant, you should be able to fairly readily unsubscribe. | |
| | |
newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
| Re: Bought and paid for said by JPCass :
I'm not holding my breath, either, but I think I could live with a relatively smaller number of "legitimate" offers.
There are currently hundreds of thousands of legitimate businesses currently online. An inbox that is inundated daily with "legitimate" Can Spam compliant UCE from just a fraction of these hundreds of thousands of businesses is rendered JUST as useless as an inbox full of make-money-fast/enlargement/viagra/porn spam.
said by JPCass :
Also, if it's CAN-SPAM compliant, you should be able to fairly readily unsubscribe.
Are you ready to spend hours a day unsubscribing? Remember how legitimate telemarketing, perfectly legal, got entirely out of hand over the years - and THAT actually costs the tele-spammer MONEY. Relatively low/no-cost bulk email "spamvertizing", now legal thanks to the lobbying efforts of the DMA and clueless congress-critters, would have swamped your inbox by NOW, if the criminal spammers hadn't already "poisoned the well" with their scams, and made the more-cluefull companies think twice about alienating their customer base.
Criminal spammers are going to continue to spam, legal or not, until they get caught. With spam already at 60% of email traffic daily, are we really ready to accept the added burden of legitimate, fully Can Spam compliant traffic? Email would become useless.
If I didn't ask for it, it's spam.
--
The Rules of Spam | Maryland's Newest Anti-Spam Law
Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket? | |
| | | | JPCass
join:2001-01-23
Denver, CO
| Re: Bought and paid for said by newview :
There are currently hundreds of thousands of legitimate businesses currently online. An inbox that is inundated daily with "legitimate" Can Spam compliant UCE from just a fraction of these hundreds of thousands of businesses is rendered JUST as useless as an inbox full of make-money-fast/enlargement/viagra/porn spam.
I don't understand what seems to be the implication that legitimate bulk mailing is going to be just as bad illegal spam. Right now the proportion is about 99.5%/.5%. I'd like to see a big dent made in the 99.5%, and then see what looks like a logical next step. It was hypothetical arguments that delayed even trying a first step like CAN-SPAM for years and years. If a combination of laws and technical measures reduce the volume of garbage in our inboxes substantially, then we can see what people want as a next step.
The DMA already runs an opt-out list for snail mail, and if there is enough public outcry it seems to me that they will likely do something similar for e-mail, which the legitimate bulk mailers should comply with. And at least compliant bulk e-mail provides some hope of recourse; I'd expect someone will come up with products where you can click-and-drag mail you don't want and the unsubscribe will be done automatically. | |
| | | | |
newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
| Re: Bought and paid for said by JPCass :
I don't understand what seems to be the implication that legitimate bulk mailing is going to be just as bad illegal spam. Right now the proportion is about 99.5%/.5%. I'd like to see a big dent made in the 99.5%, and then see what looks like a logical next step.
The next logical step would be a .5%/99.5% split where most of the spam comes from "legitimate" businesses. Either way it works, with most spam coming from the criminal spammers or the mainsleazers, the recipient ends up with a crippled inbox. The DMA is concentrating on the content of spam as the measure of the whether it's spam or not. Spam has NEVER been about content, it's about consent. Their agenda is to eliminate the competition. The DMA has done everything in its power to prevent progress toward stopping the flood of spam that is inundanting our inboxes, and everything in its power, including flooding Congress with contributions, to make unsolicited bulk email legal. The DMA filed last minute law suits to try and prevent Federal do-not-call lists that would stop telemarketers from continuing their rampant abuse of our telephones and privacy. Why should things be any different for email?
»www.wired.com/news/politics/0,12···ophead_7
said by JPCass :
It was hypothetical arguments that delayed even trying a first step like CAN-SPAM for years and years. If a combination of laws and technical measures reduce the volume of garbage in our inboxes substantially, then we can see what people want as a next step.
Has the You-Can-Spam Act reduced UCE in any way? Even cursory research on it's effects reveal it as a dismal failure. Written FOR spammers by the DMA, and rubber-stamped by our congress-critters, it's sole purpose was to knock the teeth out of stronger State Laws, under the guise of actually doing something about spam. The ONLY technological measure that has successfully eliminated spam is blacklists, and spammers are sueing the operators into oblivion, PRECISELY because they work.
said by JPCass :
The DMA already runs an opt-out list for snail mail, and if there is enough public outcry it seems to me that they will likely do something similar for e-mail, which the legitimate bulk mailers should comply with.
And if you want to "opt-out" of snail mail from their website, it costs you $5.00 and you have to give them a credit card number. Uhh, NO thanks. I would NEVER give my email address to the DMA, much less my hard earned cash. And, it takes three months to see a reduction . . . and they cannot guarantee that the snail mail spam will stop. The DMA ALREADY runs an "opt-out" email list called e-MPS. Do you trust the DMA? Go ahead and register.
said by JPCass :
And at least compliant bulk e-mail provides some hope of recourse; I'd expect someone will come up with products where you can click-and-drag mail you don't want and the unsubscribe will be done automatically.
Whatever "opt-out" approach spammers come up with still involves giving them your email address, no matter how wrapped up in invisible layers thay make it. I will never knowingly give my email addresses to spammers. They are criminals and cannot be trusted.
--
The Rules of Spam | Maryland's Newest Anti-Spam Law
Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket? | |
| | |
Gwailo
join:2000-07-16
Richardson, TX
clubs:
| Re: Politics... Don't get me wrong, I am very much anti "big brother" but if the government had not broken up AT&T in the early 1980's, we'd probably be lucky to be running 28.8 kbs and paying a fortune for it to boot.
The thing that ticks me off is everything something is mentioned about the "government" doing something, all of the anti-Bush or anti-Kerry folks want to turn it into a political bash instead of a technical debate.
If we don't agree with something that has been done by a branch of the government, then bash the technical merits and not personal (and especially political) attacks. | |
| | | Bananas
Premium
join:2004-08-18
Santa Barbara, CA | Re: Politics... Sorry, but Ashcroft deserves special recognition for his failing to address issues that are relevant to the day, and his lack of compassion buries him deep in his own muck. | |
| JPCass
join:2001-01-23
Denver, CO
| Is this the other shoe dropping? I've figured since the beginning that it would take a while to see prosecutions start to develop out of the CAN-SPAM act, so that we could really judge how effective it is - or isn't. It sounds like some things are being done right, like thorough investigations using "honeypots" and other technical means, and prosecutors trying to "flip" the first of those caught to turn in others.
The involvement of the DMA shows to me that they have an interest in seeing that the volume of bulk mail in users' mailboxes is not so large that it all gets ignored, which I think means they have a real interest in reducing the volume dramatically rather than just replacing it with their own. If 99.5% of bulk e-mail is not DMA-compliant, I am guessing that probably means that only about 1% is from legitimate marketers like DMA members, and I could easily live with double the legitimate traffic if most of the garbage spam was weeded out. Plus, the legitimate traffic is supposed to have real unsubscribe links, which should allow us to get rid of the advertising we don't want.
I'm interested to see what comes of this. It seems that there is a chance that enforcement really will start to make a dent in spam, or that players like the DMA will realize that CAN-SPAM is so weak that better measures are in everyone's interest. | |
| |
newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
| Re: Is this the other shoe dropping? said by JPCass :
The involvement of the DMA shows to me that they have an interest in seeing that the volume of bulk mail in users' mailboxes is not so large that it all gets ignored, which I think means they have a real interest in reducing the volume dramatically rather than just replacing it with their own.
If the DMA truly wished to reduce the volumn of spam, they would have backed confirmed opt-in at the outset of the spam problem back in the late 80's, but instead have been touting opt-out forever. Their only interest is self-interest and filling their pockets with DMA Member money. They are a shill for the corporations who don't want the public to know that they are ready, willing and eager to crap in your inbox.
Who actually wrote the Can Spam Act? You guessed it, the DMA - and it was passed with almost no revisions. Comments from the anti-spam community were not allowed.
--
The Rules of Spam | Maryland's Newest Anti-Spam Law
Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket? | |
| | | JPCass
join:2001-01-23
Denver, CO
| Re: Is this the other shoe dropping? said by newview :
If the DMA truly wished to reduce the volumn of spam, they would have backed confirmed opt-in at the outset of the spam problem back in the late 80's, but instead have been touting opt-out forever. Their only interest is self-interest and filling their pockets with DMA Member money. They are a shill for the corporations who don't want the public to know that they are ready, willing and eager to crap in your inbox.
I hardly find it surprising that the DMA pushed for the weakest initial legislation, that's their nature. It's even possible, for instance, that the staff at the DMA knew that CAN-SPAM wouldn't cut it, but caved in to pressure from their membership for a weakened first try. Amongst other things, I think the advertising industry is seeing clearly that the volume of illegal spam still coming through under CAN-SPAM is so high as to damage their own interests. It's in their own interest to see that the volume of advertising in the public's in-boxes isn't overwhelming or even too annoying, and so I expect that on their own they will eventually do more, and will do even more and do it quickly if they get enough pressure from sources who recognize at least a partial shared interest. | |
| 
Wildcards2000
@washdctt.d | Block port 25 The government should pass law to block port 25. That will stop spam. LOL | |
| | Freezone
join:2000-09-29
Southfield, MI | Re: Block port 25 Yes it would for like 5 seconds. | |
| | 
GTaylor
Premium
join:2002-12-14
Frisco, TX
clubs:
| Hope some of the big guys are on that list Because while it's nice to know that 100 spammers are going to a "Pound me in the ass" prison, I still believe this won't throw a scare in the spamming community unless some big names are on that list, Richter, Marin, etc.
I've noticed everytime a big name gets sued/arrested spam drops dramatically for a period of time as spammers get nervous. Hopefully this will be one of those times | |
| 
antiphishing
Phishing Scam Terminator
Premium
join:2004-06-09
Wilkes Barre, PA
1 edit | unveil dozens of arrests
Spammers meet your future |
Dslreports.com Forum No-Spin zone starts here.
»www.antihotmail.com
spammers_are_scumbags@antihotmail.com | |
|
HANGEMHIGH
|  HANG them M/F*CKERS BY THEIR BALLS !!!
These SCUMBAG B*STARDS have cost business and consumers hundreds of millions of dollars. Hang these B*STARDS by their balls so they get to feel the pain everyone online is and will continue to suffer for a long, long time. | |
| | robewhitener
join:2001-06-22
Asheville, NC
 ·AT&T Southeast
| Re: HANG them M/F*CKERS BY THEIR BALLS !!! I hope the aholes get busted that keep sending spam to my 14 year old daughter's e-mail address trying to talk her into something to make her penis bigger....
Personally, I'd like to see them make spamming a capitol crime punishible by hard labor.
--
Robert | |
| cbale2000
join:2004-08-29
Saginaw, MI
|  Need help with Robot
| |
| | | |
|
|
'Operation Slam Spam'
ashcroft doing something useful??
·
·
Over 100 Arrested in U.S. Spam Crackdown