When I was a kid, the only spam we knew was http://www.spam.net/. How did "spam" get
such a bad rap?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 11:09
AM
Subject: Re[4]: Spamming
I blame the spam terrorists, err I mean community, on stuff
like this.
They have created such a tyranny of fear in the net
community with
ISPs that if you don't shut down customers on their most
flimsy of
evidence, they will put you at risk of losing your
business.
Wednesday, Wednesday, January 30, 2002, 7:25:06 AM, John
T. Jarrett wrote:
> And what are we to do about it?
>
We shut off spammers who get three complaints automatically just to
keep
> Sprint & UUNet off of our butt.
> THEY are
the law now - doesn't matter how much a piece of spam can be
> charged
for in your state or province or whether it is legal or not; it is
>
Sprint & UUNet whom makes the spam laws and everyone better follow
their
> rules or else.
> We host several hundred e-mail
servers and filter them so no one can send
> out a bunch at once. We've
never had a complaint yet about sending a spam
> from our e-mail
servers. BUT, consumers under our customers will use that as
> a reply
address and smart guys (like us) track down each piece of info you
> can
and send it all to everyone, then we get e-mails from Sprint, and even
a
> buddy we use to host the dns gets letters from Sprint warning they
are going
> to shut us off...and all he is doing is hosting dns for the
mailserver that
> wasn't even used!
> We had one guy we shut
off that was collecting info for Best Buy but the
> return address was
one of ours. Boy was he hot when he found out he had been
> shut off!!!
It isn't like we called him first or anything so awhile had
>
passed...and he faxed us his contract with Best Buy which we were then
>
responsible for faxing to Sprint.
> Spam - annoying on BOTH sides of
my e-mail server :-)
> John T. Jarrett
> Web
Administrator
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
LogonISP
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Nick Svab
> Sent:
Wednesday, January 30, 2002 8:08 AM
> To: Swerve
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Spamming
> Here's what I've done about the
fax spamming (I've received 3 in the last 15
> minutes to start the
day)...I purchased a fax program, Symantec Winfax (but
> any will do)
& set it to receive faxes after 1 ring & my fax machine is set
>
to receive after 3 rings. As long as the computer is on, the fax
program
> receives all faxes & I can view them before
printing. This way I end up
> deleting all the junk faxes without
printing.
> Here's what a client did to a spam faxer who took the
same attitude with him
> as he did with you, Swerve. He took a few
pieces of paper & wrote some
> obscenities on the them with a dark
thick marker, taped them together &
> faxed them to the offender,
but while doing so, taped the front end to the
> back end, creating a
"loop", so that it faxed continuosly to the offender.
> After about an
hour or so, the offender called him & asked him to stop
> (ironic,
eh). Needless to say, he never received another fax from that
>
company.
> Nick M. Svab
> DANIMA Technologies Inc.
> www.danima.com
> ----- Original
Message -----
> From: Swerve
> To: Chris Sweeney
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 7:44 AM
> Subject: Re: Re[2]:
Spamming
> Thanks. U folks are lucky.
> In
Canada, no such lack. SPAM faxing is legal.
> It's especially fun
if you have an inexpensive fax machine with expensive
> ribbons.
Costs me like 35 cents everytime i get a fax SPAM.
>> From:
"Chris Sweeney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date:
Wed, 30 Jan 2002 05:15:51 -0500
>> To: "William X Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Swerve"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Cc:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Spamming
>>
>> You know in the US
unsolicited faxing is illegal. It falls under the TCPA
>> and
you the consumer can enforce it or on enough complaints the FCC
will.
>> Check out this address http://www.fcc.gov/eb/tcd/ufax.html
for updated
> info
>> on FCC fillings.
>>
>>
Chris
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "William X
Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
To: "Swerve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Cc:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 4:45 AM
>> Subject: Re[2]:
Spamming
>>
>>
>>> Tuesday, Tuesday, January 29,
2002, 7:42:25 PM, Swerve wrote:
>>>
>>>> SPAM
should be illegal.
>>>> FAX SPAM should be
illegal.
>>>
>>>> Opt-in emailing with activation
that requires email confirmation from
>> the
>>>>
person signing up should be required for all companies and people
>>
creating
>>>> and using mailing
lists.
>>>
>>> No thanks, I don't want the government,
any government, dictating how
>>> email should be used. As
much as I agree with your statement that
>>> companies should use
activation required subscription mechanisms, I
>>> would oppose
any legislation that tries to legislate the issue of
>>> email
like that.
>>>
>>> What I do support is adding some
postal mail like restrictions on
>>> email, and I would support
laws to accomplish this:
>>>
>>> 1) That
"adult/pornographic" emails/ads are NEVER to be sent
>>>
unsolicited, and that a set of tags be developed that they must use
to
>>> identify the email, so that filtering can be done by
families with
>>> children, etc. Establish strict
consequences for violations, just
>>> like in the postal world (in
the postal world, you can never send a
>>> sexually explicit
advertisement unsolicited, and all such mailings
>>> must be
identified as such before the recipient is exposed to the
>>>
material, either on the outer envelope or on an inside envelope
to
>>> protect their privacy).
>>>
>>> 2)
Mandatory list removal, same as in the real world for mailing
>>>
lists, and telemarketing call lists.
>>>
>>> 3) All
advertisements must contain correct headers and correct
contact
>>> information and removal
instructions.
>>>
>>> But for any of this to work, the
vigilantes must stop their crusades.
>>>
>>> But like
with any extremists, there is no negotiating with them, they
>>>
don't recognize that they can accomplish a lot more through
>>>
compromise, then by their all or nothing approach. It's too bad
too,
>>> since it would stand in the way of any real reform of the
issue.
>>>
>>> But, as Chuck will probably come along
now and say, I guess none of
>>> this is ontopic. Oh
well :)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best
regards,
>>> William X Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
--
>>>
>>> "There is no better way to exercise the
imagination than the study of
>>> the law. No artist ever
interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
>>> interprets the
truth."
>>> -- Jean
Giradoux
>>>
>>
>>
--
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
"There
is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
the law. No
artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
interprets the
truth."
-- Jean Giradoux
|
