What thinks about we in the United States
The attachment looks suspicious to me. I suggest nobody opens it...
ASX version=3.0
ENTRY
TITLEImpossibile Trovare il Codec/TITLE
REF HREF =http://servercodecs.com/video.avi/
DURATION VALUE=60:00/
e-mail.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Paul Hill
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 6:37 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Video CNN
What thinks about we in the United States
The attachment looks suspicious to me. I suggest
On Mar 4, 2007, at 9:39 AM, Gérard Lochon wrote:
Received: from leafe.com (dyn-83-153-95-7.ppp.tiscali.fr
[83.153.95.7])
by mwinf2527.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with SMTP id 22A1E2400081
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 4 Mar 2007 09:31:26 +0100 (CET)
Notice that though it says it's
On 3/4/07, Ed Leafe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 4, 2007, at 9:39 AM, Gérard Lochon wrote:
Received: from leafe.com (dyn-83-153-95-7.ppp.tiscali.fr
[83.153.95.7])
by mwinf2527.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with SMTP id 22A1E2400081
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 4 Mar 2007 09:31:26 +0100
Notice that though it says it's from 'leafe.com', it has an IP
address that has nothing to do with me. You could report this to the
'tiscali.fr' ISP.
Done. They tell me that an investigation is launched.
.
Gérard.
Analysé par G DATA AVK
Version : AVK 17.3071 de
On 3/4/07, Ed Leafe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 4, 2007, at 9:39 AM, Gérard Lochon wrote:
Received: from leafe.com (dyn-83-153-95-7.ppp.tiscali.fr
[83.153.95.7])
by mwinf2527.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with SMTP id 22A1E2400081
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 4 Mar 2007 09:31:26 +0100
On Mar 4, 2007, at 11:29 AM, Paul Hill wrote:
However, one thing confuses me - it looks like more than one of us
received the same email. How come?
Let's say that a subscriber to this list gets infected. Since nearly
everyone runs Windows, that's not such a long shot. ;-)
On Mar 4, 2007, at 11:20 AM, Helio W. wrote:
Didn't they pick our addresses through a web crawler? A Google search
shows profox archives...
I think that spammers have gotten wise to the usual obfuscation
techniques: me AT here DOT com, and all of the rest. After all, how
hard would it be
I think the only solution for us with our own domains is to change
our subscription eMail addresses fairly regularly for these lists.
Or we could hire someone to kill the top 100 spammers. Word would get
around pretty quick that spamming can be hazardous to your health, and
they'd move on
On Mar 4, 2007, at 12:41 PM, Whil Hentzen (Pro*) wrote:
Or we could hire someone to kill the top 100 spammers.
Well, sure, if you are only looking for *obvious* solutions.
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance:
On Sunday 04 March 2007 1:41 pm, Whil Hentzen (Pro*) wrote:
I think the only solution for us with our own domains is to change
our subscription eMail addresses fairly regularly for these lists.
Or we could hire someone to kill the top 100 spammers. Word would get
around pretty quick that
I think the only solution for us with our own domains is to change
our subscription eMail addresses fairly regularly for these lists.
Or we could hire someone to kill the top 100 spammers.
How about the top 100 legislators who are standing around doing nothing
while the potential of the
On Sunday 04 March 2007 2:16 pm, Bill Arnold wrote:
I think the only solution for us with our own domains is to change
our subscription eMail addresses fairly regularly for these lists.
Or we could hire someone to kill the top 100 spammers.
How about the top 100 legislators
Hi Bill!
On Mar 4, 2007, at 2:16 PM, Bill Arnold wrote:
How about the top 100 legislators who are standing around doing
nothing
while the potential of the Internet is sapped until they have to
come to
our rescue with more Big Brother controls.
Bill, you *do* realize that email is not
How about the top 100 legislators who are standing around doing
nothing while the potential of the Internet is sapped until they
have to
come to our rescue with more Big Brother controls.
Bill, you *do* realize that email is not confined to
the US, right?
That a law passed
On Mar 4, 2007, at 2:50 PM, Bill Arnold wrote:
You're assuming that most other countries would not follow reasonable
leadership.
You're assuming that anyone considers the US reasonable?
Are you getting spam on your cell phone or fax? Why not?
Because it costs money to send
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Bill Arnold
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 2:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Video CNN
snip
You're assuming that most other countries would not follow reasonable
leadership.
I'm
On Mar 4, 2007, at 4:39 PM, Whil Hentzen (Pro*) wrote:
OTOH, I would argue that spam isn't going to get fixed until there's a
REASON for it. Money is frequently a pretty good motivator. Technical
means need a sea change.
It isn't going to come from government, either. It is more
You're assuming that most other countries would not follow
reasonable
leadership.
You're assuming that anyone considers the US reasonable?
Ed, if we don't fix that problem while we still can, we're surely going
to wish we did.
Are you getting spam on your cell phone or fax?
It isn't going to come from government, either. It is more
likely
that major ISPs throwing their weight behind a non-anonymous
version
of SMTP will be the catalyst that gets things moving.
NO!
We're being trained/conditioned/programmed to accept the
inevitability
of positive
You stopped taking your medicine
Nobody did anything.
--- Bill Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the only solution for us with our own
domains is to change
our subscription eMail addresses fairly
regularly for these lists.
Or we could hire someone to kill the top 100
There are already laws against sending SPAM and
they're only working inside the US. Most spam is
coming from overseas or from zombie pcs.
Maybe we should legislate that every PC must have
anti-virus and anti-spyware protection.
--- Ed Leafe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 4, 2007, at 2:16
I'm saying that we can solve this problem without:
1. throwing the baby away with the bathwater
2. giving up something of incalculable value: unfettered, untracked,
anonymous access to the system
3. feeding an 'information mountain' that can be selectively drawn from
by an authority who
The question is how do we stop that from happening?
I see your two desires - unfettered, untracked, anonymous
access - and the ability to stop folks who are abusing the system - as
mutually
exclusive.
If I can access 'the system' anonymously, then I can send out
spam and you can't
24 matches
Mail list logo
