More stuff on Spam 2

[petermeachem]

I am a little confused. In the recent threads about spam there has been plenty of info by people living in the US about First Amendment rights and how banning spam is against free speech.
I do not therefore understand how Microsoft can take the spammers to court and expect to win.
Explanation please!

As an aside, there was a programme the other evening on UK television that what partly about spam which included an interview with a guy from Spamhaus. I was astounded with amount of money that the spammers make.

Can we just have some info please and not a huge fight. I would actually like to read the thread before it gets deleted.

http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk

http://www.ourhouseinportugal.co.uk/

 

[CajunCenturion]

They are two separate bills petermeachem - one is running through the Senate, and the other through the House. Eventually, the two bills will be merged together, with the commensurate compromises resulting in one consolidated bill that will be sent to the President to sign into law.

With respect to Mr. Cameron Sturdevant opinions that it won't work, maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, he is certainly entitied to his opinion. What I'm wondering, if he is no knowledgeable and in touch with the issue, why doesn't he do more than sit on the sidelines and criticize the efforts of others? Why doesn't be become part of the solution?

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[petermeachem]

Thanks to all of you I am now much better informed. Hopefully the spam situation will improve in the near future.

And thanks to everyone for not getting over excited (me too).

http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk

http://www.ourhouseinportugal.co.uk/

 

[strongm]

>Yes, I'd agree that freedom of speech has been taken too far in some circumstances

No? Really?

 

[CajunCenturion]

A little sarcasm never hurt anyone, and besides, I'm free to make that comment :-D

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[CajunCenturion]

FYI:

http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-1022552.html?tag=cd_mh

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[strongm]

Dammit, CC, your American. You're not supposed to be able to spot sarcasm; I've read sweeping generalisations about this sort of thing...

 

[CajunCenturion]

Me? American? Surely you jest!

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Grenage]

Naturally, It's a well known fact that if you're not from England you're from the US of A.

 

[strongm]

oh oh...now look what I've started...

 

[palbano]

But... I don't want blind people sending me email

http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-1022814.html?tag=fd_lede2_hed

-pete

 

[CajunCenturion]

Absolutely palbano, we do not to have another situation of the blind leading the blind.

Just Kidding of course.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[palbano]

CajunCenturion
hahahahaha Boy did i walk into that one!

Thanks for a great laugh... i needed it today

-pete

 

[skiflyer]

Just to be nit-picky on that link about the blind and accessibility...

There's nothing about the concept that turns Turing's thesis and the "Turing Test" on its head... I hate when people paraphase important concepts for public consumption but then get it wrong! And in such strong terms, not like it's some little oversight or omission.

-Rob

 

[clarkin]

in reference to stopping spam (in particular repeat offenders sending the same thing every day):

what if email as a protocol was 'fixed' so that you could not spoof the from header. that would certainly make it easier for me to filter out the main spam-offenders who bombard me..

ignoring the difficulty in actually doing this (but hey, they keep redefining HTML et al).. would it actually help solve the unwanted spam problem?

in reference to freedom of speech points:
the RECIPIENT pays for received emails (dialup time or bandwidth costs) - Imagine if spammers sent you 100MB files.. there'd be quite a ruckus - so I think their right to 'freedom of speech' applies.. but i'm sure they have no right to make me pay for listening to them express this freedom.

just my 2c

 

[lionelhill]

You are all so right, it is obviously against free speech to stop spam. I mean, if I got my way, I'd make sure it was illegal to nail your letterbox shut, too. Then sue all those antisocial people who think they can get away without having a telephone.
I mean, that denies me my right to ring them up in the middle of meals to sell them double glazing!
And as for people who think it is morally acceptable in this day and age to go without a mobile. I mean, how am I expected to survive if I can't text them?

(having just turned MSN instant messenger off, I'm now waiting to be sued by "Chloe", who's looking for a boy now, for denying "her" "her" freedom to send me messages suggesting I visit her website...)

 

[sleipnir214]

lionellhill:
<sarcasm>
Actually, since the design of a mailbox must be approved by the Postmaster General, nailing your mailbox shut may be a violation of U.S. Postal Service Standard 7A.
</sarcasm>

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!!