On Monday 16 June 2003 18:02, Arik Baratz wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mix Sella [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [snip] > > > I beg to differ. Spammers know EXACTLY what they are doing. > > Spammers are > > perfectly aware that what they're doing is not legit. > > Spammers do have > > conferences and training, spammers employ more or less sophisticated > > techniques and psychologic tricks, spammers constantly > > research anti-spam > > technology and counter emerging spam filtering measures. > > Yes. Because they think what they are doing is legit, and the rest of the > world (i.e. you and me) is wrong. >
No. Because they KNOW what they are doing is not legit and trying to make everyone believe they don't. > > When people started filtering by From: header, spammers > > started writing bogus > > addresses. > > When people started complaining, spammers started forging headers. > > When people figured it out, spammers started using proxies. > > When proxies got nailed, spammers started using free email, > > insecure relays > > and throwaway accounts. > > When free email implemented human checks, insecure relays got > > blacklisted, > > ISPs started suing and antispammer movement deployed the > > forces, spammers > > moved offshore, started to fake identities, and pay crooked > > ISP personnel. > > This does not say they know thay are illegit. They are still fighting their > against the anti-spam movement and not against the 'legitimacy' of their > actions. They claim that if it's legal and it makes them money, than it's > okay. It does. Spamming is fraud, theft and trespassing (NANAE rule #0: Spam is theft). That it's not outlawed doesn't make it any less fraud, theft and trespassing. Spammers know people don't want them to do it and they do it anyway until they piss off someone and get caught (NANAE rule #3: Spammers are stupid). While doing so they try to distract everyone by pleading innocent (NANAE rule #1: Spammers lie). It's too bad you buy their lies (NANAE rule #2: If a spammers seems to be telling the truth, see rule #1). > > > When everyone figured out who exactly the spammers are, when > > honeypots popped > > up everywhere and started blackisting them even before they > > could actually do > > any damage spammers started hijacking netblocks, joe-jobbing, and > > SLAPP-suing. Even worse, they started listwashing and > > pretending being legit. > > You might not be aware that there's a war going on, but I > > have news for you. > > Oh, I know, I fight it every day. I'm on the good side :-) > I'm a NANAE lurker. DIXI. > > Spammers are worse than robbers. Robbers are scum; but > > spammers are *parasite > > scum*. Even worse, spammers are STUPID parasite scum. I might > > While I agree they are the scum of the earth, there's a difference between > that and being illegit or illegal. There is? Please show me one non-retarded, experienced user that's not affiliated with spammers or spammer business who would say that spam is legitimate and has rights to live. No wait, let's be fair and speak real numbers. Show me 50000 people who think that way. > > Take for example the gray-market debt collectors. They will come to you and > hint at what will happen if you don't pay. They will apply pressure on you > They will hint that your family will not like it. They will send you > (anonymously) pictures of your children at school. They will tread on the > fine line between harassment and a legitimate requirement for extrication > of the debt. Threat constitutes assault and is a felony punishable by criminal law. And, when you say 'debt collectors', you imply that I owe someone something. To spammers, I don't owe jack shit. > > They are scum. They are low-lifes. They are legit, in their opinion. They > are legal (well, at least they weren't caught). > I see the analogy, but the analogy is not good enough. By not being violent criminals and having their ass covered with the anonimousity of All Internet, spammers commit acts of abuse of similar extent while holding by a much more decaying moral ground. > > consider giving > > a fair trial to someone who robbed a pawnshop. But to a > > spammer? No. Spammers > > should be put to death. > > And you know what? Do a little googling. Sometimes, they *do* > > shoot spammers. > > I think no one should get the death penalty. It is just too light - a few > days of fear, you shit in your pants, you die (I don't believe in an > afterlife). I suggest everlasting torture - like reading spam at them day > and night, in jail (...and you only have to send 5 bucks! It's the most > amazing offer...). Heh heh. -- Mix Sella (well, not really but hey) This mail was checked for viruses by Romat email server ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
