On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:11:13 -0800
"jdow" <j...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> From: "Rob McEwen" <r...@invaluement.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 2009/December/15 13:13
>
>
> > jdow wrote:
> >>> jdow wrote:
> >>>> his response personal spam to this account has increased sharply
> >>> Uuh, what does that mean, exactly?
> >> A possible cause and effect exists. I can neither prove nor
> >> disprove it. the fact exists.
> >
> > Still doesn't answer my question. Perhaps I'm "dense". But to spell
> > out my question more explicitly:
> >
> > what do you mean by "personal response spam"? Is that just Richard's
> > on-list responses we've all seen? Or something else? (did I miss
> > that part of the conversation?). And what do you mean by "to this
> > account"? To this list? To your own inbox? Are you referring to
> > messages that are obviously from Richard (including alter-ego
> > ones)? Or some kind of UBE campaign that you think he is behind?
> > (if so, please describe)
>
> Thank you for spelling it out. I am speaking of spam directed to this
> account. That email must be to this address or one of three others
> (which showed no increase) in order to get through to our machines.
> I use fetchmail for my email and for Loren's several accounts. I can't
> say if his spam increased dramatically in the last two days (0000 to
> 2359:59 PST) or not.
You are now claiming Richard is powerful enough to produce a worldwide
increase in spam that only effects you?
>
> I am speaking of generic spam. I've not noticed a specific type that
> has increased. I'm to lazy to look. I have received an unusual number
> of "You've won" emails today and yesterday. I've not looked for a
> specific style so I left the observation at "increase in spam
> received." That in no way accuses anybody of personally sending me
> spam. I simply looked at the bulk numbers which took a maybe 20% jump
> beyond the normal Monday bounce. This correlation is not nearly as
> strong as with the earlier episode.
>
> Given what data and facts I have I am taking anything Richard and his
> sock puppets, alter-egos, or fellow conspiracy theorists might suggest
> and pretty much tossing it into the intellectual black hole in which
> it belongs. And I'm stating that's what I've observed. Now I've stated
> what I intend to do about it.
Habeas + Emailreg are *not* spam BLOCKING tools. They are tools that
facilitate the delivery of UCE/UBE/SPAM. To point that out is *not*
scuffling any attempt to block spam. To the contrary. Are we clear on
that or are you ignoring that?
All that is required is for Spamassassin to default install with
NEUTRAL (0 point) rules for Habeas {or any other p2s whitelist it
chooses to include}.
The views about Return Path, Habeas, Barracuda, Emailreg.org will fall
by the wayside and give the 'product' more credibility if this simple
change is made and, in effect, rain on Richard's parade of black
helicopters and corruption. There is no *logical* reason not to make
this change. There may be a business one (Barracuda have donated to
Apache - what about Return Path/Habeas?).
Again if you have any *facts* or proof that Richard has been behind a
personal worldwide increase in spam to your inbox, please share it.
Otherwise you look like you are trolling with your imagination running
away with the fairies.
--
This e-mail and any attachments may form pure opinion and may not have
any factual foundation. Please check any details provided to satisfy
yourself as to suitability or accuracy of any information provided.
Data Protection: Unless otherwise requested we may pass the information
you have provided to other partner organisations.
