Re: Any Mac Anti-spam software?

#339

Author: Rich Cook
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 00:00

83 lines
5385 bytes

(Rich Cook said)
> > > |>...We have to respect the
> > > |>spammer's right to free speech, even if it's repugnant or
uninvited.  The
> > > |>delete key is really not *that* hard to press, after all....  ;-)

Richard Johnson replied:
> > > Speech that invades my forum (in this case my email account) is not, and
> > > should not be, protected.

(Rich Cook:)
> > ...When you get an email address, you are by implication 
> > assenting to receive all messages sent their, regardless of who sends 
> > them.  Your email account, like your postal address, is a publicly 
> > addressible but only privately accessible portal to the world.  If 
> > someone sends you a message to your mailbox, it is protected by their 
> > rights to free speech, whether you like it or not.  Please forgive my 
> > bluntness.

>(Johnson:)
> Your bluntness is worthless.  

I mock your taunting verbal baubles!  Ha!  Ha!  :-)

> Your argument starts from a fallacious
> premise.  The existence of a mailbox is most specifically not an open
> invitation to receive mail on any and all subjects.
> My mailbox is not a public forum.  It is private property.  Whether it be
> rented or owned mailboxes, hosts, and network bandwidth, it is private.
> I allow people who follow the commonly accepted rules of netiquette to
> make use of it to contact me.  Conversely, I do not allow anyone to
> violate netiquette by engaging in advertising via my property without
> permission or sufficient compensation.
> Only when the spammer sends the advertising WITH SUFFICIENT POSTAGE (say,
> $5 US per message) can they have their advertising stored and displayed on
> my property.  Until spammers pay their own way, their abuse of my
> resources to store and display their advertising, wholly without
> permission, is nothing more than theft.
> They're certainly welcome to speak freely, but only on their own dime, not
> on my property.  Of course, if spammers had to pay their own way, spam
> simply wouldn't exist...

I think my reply to Cathy earlier is suitable (but please don't think I am
defending spam as some nice thing):
You are not paying to support their desire to speak.  The spammer pays for
the priviledge to be connected to the internet, which allows them to send
email wherever they like.  You pay to receive and send email.  You are not
charged any extra because of the spam which you receive, normally,
although I suppose in extreme cases this could happen.  
Please don't misunderstand me.  Spamming is a waste of Internet resources
from my viewpoint, but then again, so are discussions about celebrity
supermodels.  You pay for those silly supermodel discussions in the same
way you pay for spam, that is in that your money helps support the overall
Internet infrastructure.  This is as much of a financial burden you can
claim is imposed on you, I believe, although I'm sure you'll be anxious to
correct me.  :-)
The other burden is the perceived invasion of privacy.  I assert that your
mailbox is public. Just like your mail slot in your house, anyone who can
lick a stamp and spell your address can send you junk mail.  Spammers pay
for an account and buy Spam Blaster or whatever.  They buy your address
from sharks who swim Usenet.  They suck.  But their use of the Internet is
in fact as legitimate from a legal standpoint as anyone's, I guess.
The Internet poses such an interesting problem in this respect.  I agree
that commercial speech may be more restricted than other speech,
constitutionally.  I also am not suggesting that if a technical defense
against spam is employed, that it is violating the spammer's Free Speech
rights.  (For example, AOL is commendably holding the line against
well-known spammer sites.  Hurrah for them! I note that both Cathy and I
employ the old "dontspam" technique in our email addresses.)  However, to
make spamming *illegal* would in my opinion be Unconstitutional because
the State has no right to mess around in this issue.
I am primarily concerned that the arguments against spam sometimes lead to
discussions about how to limit network technology, and even may get
Congress involved, which will surely cause us all regret.  Spam is an
irritation, not an emergency as yet.

-- 

TO REPLY TO THIS POSTING, PLEASE DELETE THE "DONTSPAM" PART OF THE EMAIL ADDRESS.  I am very sorry for this, but it's self-defense, hope you understand.  

Thank you
-Rich Cook

Re: Any Mac Anti-spam software?

#317

Author: Oscar The Grouch
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 00:00

149 lines
9085 bytes

Rich Cook wrote:
> 
> (Rich Cook said)
> > > > |>...We have to respect the
> > > > |>spammer's right to free speech, even if it's repugnant or
> uninvited.  The
> > > > |>delete key is really not *that* hard to press, after all....  ;-)

Oscar the Grouch:
Advertising is not protected as free speech nor should it be.

> Richard Johnson replied:
> > > > Speech that invades my forum (in this case my email account) is not, and
> > > > should not be, protected.
> 
> (Rich Cook:)
> > > ...When you get an email address, you are by implication
> > > assenting to receive all messages sent their, regardless of who sends
> > > them.  Your email account, like your postal address, is a publicly
> > > addressible but only privately accessible portal to the world.  If
> > > someone sends you a message to your mailbox, it is protected by their
> > > rights to free speech, whether you like it or not.  Please forgive my
> > > bluntness.

Oscar the Grouch:
This act of getting an email address does not give or imply consent. 
Nope, the right to speak freely concerns government involvement and not
the private citizen.  This means that the government may not suppress
your right to say what you feel, think or believe, as you are doing
here.  I, however, do not have to listen to your speech.  This means
that only by consent (a permit) are you allowed to hold public rallies
to which I am not required to attend.  You sending me mail implies that
I am required to accept the literature you are handing out.  This
implication of requirement is false.  Therefore your statement "If
someone sends you a message to your mailbox, it is protected by their
rights to free speech, whether you like it or not", is also false.

> >(Johnson:)
> > Your bluntness is worthless.
> 
> I mock your taunting verbal baubles!  Ha!  Ha!  :-)
> 
> > Your argument starts from a fallacious
> > premise.  The existence of a mailbox is most specifically not an open
> > invitation to receive mail on any and all subjects.
> > My mailbox is not a public forum.  It is private property.  Whether it be
> > rented or owned mailboxes, hosts, and network bandwidth, it is private.
> > I allow people who follow the commonly accepted rules of netiquette to
> > make use of it to contact me.  Conversely, I do not allow anyone to
> > violate netiquette by engaging in advertising via my property without
> > permission or sufficient compensation.
> > Only when the spammer sends the advertising WITH SUFFICIENT POSTAGE (say,
> > $5 US per message) can they have their advertising stored and displayed on
> > my property.  Until spammers pay their own way, their abuse of my
> > resources to store and display their advertising, wholly without
> > permission, is nothing more than theft.
> > They're certainly welcome to speak freely, but only on their own dime, not
> > on my property.  Of course, if spammers had to pay their own way, spam
> > simply wouldn't exist...

Oscar the Grouch:
I would ad only this....  Most consider SPAM, UCE, UBE, ETC... theft and
I agree.  The reasing for this would simply be the amount of time spent
on downloading, reading, responding, etc... takes time and energy.  Like
most others out there in the real world, I do charge for both my time
and my energy.  This reasoning does not exclude the resource issue, that
too contributes to the theft arguement.  Time and energy have value and
should not be excluded from a monetary issue.

> I think my reply to Cathy earlier is suitable (but please don't think I am
> defending spam as some nice thing):
> You are not paying to support their desire to speak.  The spammer pays for
> the priviledge to be connected to the internet, which allows them to send
> email wherever they like.  You pay to receive and send email.  You are not
> charged any extra because of the spam which you receive, normally,
> although I suppose in extreme cases this could happen.
> Please don't misunderstand me.  Spamming is a waste of Internet resources
> from my viewpoint, but then again, so are discussions about celebrity
> supermodels.  You pay for those silly supermodel discussions in the same
> way you pay for spam, that is in that your money helps support the overall
> Internet infrastructure.  This is as much of a financial burden you can
> claim is imposed on you, I believe, although I'm sure you'll be anxious to
> correct me.  :-)
> The other burden is the perceived invasion of privacy.  I assert that your
> mailbox is public. Just like your mail slot in your house, anyone who can
> lick a stamp and spell your address can send you junk mail.  Spammers pay
> for an account and buy Spam Blaster or whatever.  They buy your address
> from sharks who swim Usenet.  They suck.  But their use of the Internet is
> in fact as legitimate from a legal standpoint as anyone's, I guess.
> The Internet poses such an interesting problem in this respect.  I agree
> that commercial speech may be more restricted than other speech,
> constitutionally.  I also am not suggesting that if a technical defense
> against spam is employed, that it is violating the spammer's Free Speech
> rights.  (For example, AOL is commendably holding the line against
> well-known spammer sites.  Hurrah for them! I note that both Cathy and I
> employ the old "dontspam" technique in our email addresses.)  However, to
> make spamming *illegal* would in my opinion be Unconstitutional because
> the State has no right to mess around in this issue.
> I am primarily concerned that the arguments against spam sometimes lead to
> discussions about how to limit network technology, and even may get
> Congress involved, which will surely cause us all regret.  Spam is an
> irritation, not an emergency as yet.
> 
> --
> 
> TO REPLY TO THIS POSTING, PLEASE DELETE THE "DONTSPAM" PART OF THE EMAIL ADDRESS.  I am very sorry for this, but it's self-defense, hope you understand.
> 
> Thank you
> -Rich Cook

Oscar the Grouch:
I am not going to do a point by point analysis of your claims as most of
your points are moot.  The sender of SPAM, UCE, UBE, ETC... does not pay
more than a small fee to abuse the property of another.  The cost
rtelated to keeping a server up and connected to a provider such as
UU.NET is not inexpensive.  A couple of T1's and mabey a T3 to maintain
a good data flow rate for say 6,000 customers is high.  Then somebody
signs up for a ISDN line and floods the internet with 20,000 (a low
estimate) unwanted, unsolicted, etc... mailings and/'or post.  Then the
host faces possible UDP and other sanctions by other providers for
failing to act in accordance with their TOS and/ or AUP.

This also happens when these advertisers highjack or steal the SMPT on a
server.  The reply information is almost always forged.  This is usually
done in an effort to deny responsibilty for the act of theft.

The premise that commercial speech and free speech are one and the same
is a false statement.  The founding fathers protected the right to speak
freely in an enviornment that did not allow you to speak openly.  This
concerned political issues and private issues.  This freedom came under
attack during the 1950s - 1980s and still is something we as a nation
and individuals must do everything to protect this freedom.  

However, I am unaware of any time in our nations history when the right
to speak out against a political party or concept was equated with the
right to sell a product and/or service.  The terms "commercial" "free",
refer two differring ideas making your premise false.

-- 
Mark
-----------
http://www.whew.com
http://www.whew.com/reviews/
--------------------------------
Unsolicited Commercial E-MAIL is not you practicing FREE SPEECH.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsolicited Commercial E-MAIL is an infringement into my solitude.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Any Mac Anti-spam software?

#318

Author: trebor
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 00:00

38 lines
2665 bytes

rcook@dontspambais.com (Rich Cook) wrote:

>Please don't misunderstand me.

I'm not misunderstanding you. You are pro-spam, but you're trying to
straddle the fence. You can't do that. You are either for or against, and
there is no middle ground.

>The other burden is the perceived invasion of privacy.  I assert that your
>mailbox is public. Just like your mail slot in your house, anyone who can
>lick a stamp and spell your address can send you junk mail.

Right... problem is spam comes without stamps.

>Spammers pay for an account and buy Spam Blaster or whatever.  They buy
>your address from sharks who swim Usenet.  They suck.  But their use of
>the Internet is in fact as legitimate from a legal standpoint as anyone's,
>I guess.

You guess wrong. One of the reasons why there never was an incentive to
implement charges per mail, besides the obvious accounting headache, is
that it was supposed to even out.

IOW, the average Netizen would receive as much mail as he or she would
generate. Thus, no point in charging fractions of a penny, when it all
washes out. Spammers upset this balance by generating millions of times
more email than they receive.

>Spam is an irritation, not an emergency as yet.

Tell that to GTE, whose server(s) crashed due to spam.
Tell that to Netcom, whose server(s) crashed due to spam.
Tell that to flowers.com, whose server(s) crashed due to spam.
Tell that to slipnet.com, whose server (only one) crashed due to spam.
Tell that to AOL, who estimates a third of their incoming email is spam.

Please arm yourself with some facts before posting to nanae. Thank you.

Re: Any Mac Anti-spam software?

#319

Author: Shmuel Metz
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 00:00

29 lines
2246 bytes

In <rcook-0501982257020001@ppp07.bais.com>, on 01/05/1998
   at 10:57 PM, rcook@dontspambais.com (Rich Cook) said:

>However, to
>make spamming *illegal* would in my opinion be Unconstitutional because
>the State has no right to mess around in this issue.

Nonsense! There used to be a law making it illegal to mail material that
was "pandering and erotically arousing, IN THE SOLE DISCRETION OF THE
RECIPIENT." The courts sustained it. The sponsor made it very clear during
the floor hearings that he intended it to be used against junk mail.

Then the Post Offal started lobbying and ruined everything :-(

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
     Atid/2
     Team OS/2
     Team PL/I

Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal action.  I
reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.

I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to domain
acm dot org user shmuel to contact me.  Do not reply to
spamtrap@library.lspace.org
-----------------------------------------------------------

Re: Any Mac Anti-spam software?

#342

Author: Doug Toombs
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 00:00

63 lines
3710 bytes

In article <rcook-0501982257020001@ppp07.bais.com>, 
rcook@dontspambais.com says...
> You are not paying to support their desire to speak.  The spammer pays for
> the priviledge to be connected to the internet, which allows them to send
> email wherever they like.  You pay to receive and send email.  You are not
> charged any extra because of the spam which you receive, normally,
> although I suppose in extreme cases this could happen.  

Extreme?  Hardly.

I travel frequently for work and have to download my email long-distance.  
I've got thousands of spams I've downloaded, many of which I did on the 
road at $.25 per minute.  Still think it doesn't cost me anything?  Last 
week I had to download 18 spams just to get 2 legitimate emails mixed in 
with them.

Dial-up access in foreign countries like the UK and other areas can still 
cost upwards of $.50 per minute.

> The other burden is the perceived invasion of privacy.  I assert that your
> mailbox is public. Just like your mail slot in your house, anyone who can
> lick a stamp and spell your address can send you junk mail.  

My company's fax number is public.  You can find it on our letterhead, 
business cards, etc.  Does that make us open to any advertisement someone 
wants to fax to me unsolicited?  No, it doesn't.  Because the recipient 
bears a financial cost -- even if it's a slight one -- to receive the 
advertisement.  Thats why junk faxing is illegal.

Hey, is your cellular phone number known publicly?  Tell you what, I'll 
call you up every day and pitch a new MLM/porno site/health vitamin every 
day for the next six months.  Hey, if you don't like it, you can just hit 
"END", right?

> However, to make spamming *illegal* would in my opinion be 
> Unconstitutional because the State has no right to mess around in this 
> issue.

I bet the people making $$$ junk faxing everyone were saying the same 
thing back before the TCPA passed.



Now, I have no idea how this whole thread started .... I just noticed it 
spilling over into news.admin.net-abuse.email.  So, whoever was looking 
for Mac Anti-spam software, if you're running Eudora you can read about 
my filter set (which catches about 90% of the SPAM I get) at 
http://www.erols.com/dtoombs/spam.htm

Hope it helps.



-- 

Douglas Toombs / a.k.a. dtoombs @ usa.net

--[ HAVE YOU CRACKED SOME ENCRYPTION TODAY?  No?
---[ Then join "Team Net.Abuse" in the distributed.net 
----[ project to break RC5 64-bit encryption.  Download
-----[ a client at http://rc5.distributed.net today then
------[ email me to join the team!!!

Re: Any Mac Anti-spam software?

#322

Author: Denis Wright
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 00:00

24 lines
2012 bytes

Rich Cook <rcook@dontspambais.com> wrote:

> You are not
> charged any extra because of the spam which you receive, normally,
> although I suppose in extreme cases this could happen.  

Wrong wrong wrong! Hundred of thousands, if not millions of people are
charged for downloading the spam we do not want. Your entire argument is
based solely on the premise that it doesn't cost the receiver anything.
That's wrong. You may as well say that it is OK to steal a packet of
chewing gum from the chainstore because no-one seems to suffer as a
result. The ethics are about the same, and you give some moral comfort
to spammers by suggesting that they are doing nothing wrong. 

Spammers are parasites preying on the ignorant, the desperate and the
greedy. I don't care about the last category, but the other two need
some protection from them. 

DW
-- 
| Dr D A Wright History Dept Uni of New England Armidale |
| NSW AUSTRALIA 2351  Ph +61 67 732479 Fax +61 67 733520 |
|____ http://www.une.edu.au/~arts/History/dwright.htm ___|

Re: Any Mac Anti-spam software?

#324

Author: David Cortright
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 00:00

6 lines
1403 bytes

There seems to be a lot of controversy on the spam issue, especially amony
those using the USPS junk mail analogy.  I'm not sure this is the best
model to use for comparisons to spam.  I prefer the telephone solicitation
metaphor personally.  In this case, veryone pays a monthly fee for a
phone.

Re: Any Mac Anti-spam software?

#326

Author: trebor
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 00:00

13 lines
1555 bytes

david_cortright@mail.claris.com (David Cortright) wrote:

>There seems to be a lot of controversy on the spam issue, especially amony
>those using the USPS junk mail analogy.  I'm not sure this is the best
>model to use for comparisons to spam.

Yea, it's actually the worst model.

>I prefer the telephone solicitation metaphor personally.  In this case,
>veryone pays a monthly fee for a phone.

That, or the junk fax metaphor.

Re: Any Mac Anti-spam software?

#327

Author: trebor
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 00:00

22 lines
2010 bytes

axelh@inet.uni-c.dk (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Jan 1998 19:32:41 -0800, trebor@sirius.com wrote:
>> I'm not misunderstanding you. You are pro-spam, but you're trying to
>> straddle the fence. You can't do that. You are either for or against, and
>> there is no middle ground.
>
>He can't do that? Then nor can you! If someone gave a choice between
>accepting spam or censurship, I will reject the latter.

You are falling for an either/or fallacy, not to mention that the opposite
of spam is NOT censorship. Remember, it's YOUR mailbox, and determining
that you don't want this or that in it is not censorship.

>since you demand one and only one stand of others.

No, I do not demand an anti-spam stand from others. I *do* demand an
unequivocal stand, whether it's for or against.

In other words, don't bullshit me with philosophical musings. You are
either pro-spam or anti-spam. Period.

Re: Any Mac Anti-spam software?

#328

Author: Axel Hammerschmidt
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 00:00

18 lines
1537 bytes

On Tue, 06 Jan 1998 19:32:41 -0800, trebor@sirius.com wrote:

> rcook@dontspambais.com (Rich Cook) wrote:

> >Please don't misunderstand me.

> I'm not misunderstanding you. You are pro-spam, but you're trying to
> straddle the fence. You can't do that. You are either for or against, and
> there is no middle ground.

He can't do that? Then nor can you! If someone gave a choice between
accepting spam or censurship, I will reject the latter. What's your
stand? --since you demand one and only one stand of others.

Cheers.

Axel.

Re: Any Mac Anti-spam software?

#332

Author: Bill Jackson
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 00:00

37 lines
2494 bytes

In article <6918m3$ert$1@news.uni-c.dk>, axelh@inet.uni-c.dk (Axel
Hammerschmidt) wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Jan 1998 19:32:41 -0800, trebor@sirius.com wrote:
> 
> > rcook@dontspambais.com (Rich Cook) wrote:
> 
> > >Please don't misunderstand me.
> 
> > I'm not misunderstanding you. You are pro-spam, but you're trying to
> > straddle the fence. You can't do that. You are either for or against, and
> > there is no middle ground.
> 
> He can't do that? Then nor can you! If someone gave a choice between
> accepting spam or censurship, I will reject the latter. What's your
> stand? --since you demand one and only one stand of others.
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> Axel.

Axel,
I realize that you did not post the original message but am posting this
with hopes that the person who posted the original message will read it. I
suggest that you set up your newsreader pref. panel (personal information)
to show your e-mail address with the word NoSPAM somewhere in the middle
of the e-mail address. Add a note saying, "delete the word NoSPAM if you
wish to send me e-mail". For example, bobjohnson@net.com becomes
bobjohnson@NoSPAMnet.com
I could explain why this solution works but I won't bore you with the
details. It has to do with automatic readers only reading the top portion
of the posts but not the bottom portion of the posts. 
Don't try to send me e-mail
-- 
If you wish to send me e-mail, delete 
the word NoSPAM from my e-mail address.

Re: Any Mac Anti-spam software?

#299

Author: Michael P. Ladd
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 00:00

12 lines
1727 bytes

Actually, a better analogy would be Fax machines. It is illegal to send
unsolicited faxes to someone. You pay a flat monthly rate for your phone line,
but not every schmuck in the US can send you messages on it.

David Cortright wrote:
> 
> There seems to be a lot of controversy on the spam issue, especially amony
> those using the USPS junk mail analogy.  I'm not sure this is the best
> model to use for comparisons to spam.  I prefer the telephone solicitation
> metaphor personally.  In this case, veryone pays a monthly fee for a
> phone.

Re: Any Mac Anti-spam software?

#307

Author: trebor
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 00:00

25 lines
1923 bytes

axelh@inet.uni-c.dk (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Jan 1998 19:55:17 -0800, trebor@sirius.com wrote:
>> You are falling for an either/or fallacy, not to mention that the opposite
>> of spam is NOT censorship. Remember, it's YOUR mailbox, and determining
>> that you don't want this or that in it is not censorship.
>
>It's my mailbox, and I don't like people, like you, telling me what I
>want to receive there. Period.

Post where I said or implied that. Failing that, FOAD.

>> In other words, don't bullshit me with philosophical musings. You are
>> either pro-spam or anti-spam. Period.
>
>Well, in that case, here's my stand: I'm pro free speech.

That's a non-answer.

Q: Are you pro-rape or anti-rape?

A: I'm pro-love.

Pretty stupid, huh?

Re: Any Mac Anti-spam software?

#309

Author: Axel Hammerschmidt
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 00:00

27 lines
1873 bytes

On Wed, 07 Jan 1998 19:55:17 -0800, trebor@sirius.com wrote:

> axelh@inet.uni-c.dk (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:

>
> [...]
>

> You are falling for an either/or fallacy, not to mention that the opposite
> of spam is NOT censorship. Remember, it's YOUR mailbox, and determining
> that you don't want this or that in it is not censorship.

It's my mailbox, and I don't like people, like you, telling me what I
want to receive there. Period.

> >since you demand one and only one stand of others.

> No, I do not demand an anti-spam stand from others. I *do* demand an
> unequivocal stand, whether it's for or against.

> In other words, don't bullshit me with philosophical musings. You are
> either pro-spam or anti-spam. Period.

Well, in that case, here's my stand: I'm pro free speech.

Axel.

Re: Any Mac Anti-spam software?

#313

Author: Wayne Strang
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 00:00

54 lines
3183 bytes

Axel Hammerschmidt wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 07 Jan 1998 19:55:17 -0800, trebor@sirius.com wrote:
> 
> > axelh@inet.uni-c.dk (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:
> 
> >
> > [...]
> >
> 
> > You are falling for an either/or fallacy, not to mention that the opposite
> > of spam is NOT censorship. Remember, it's YOUR mailbox, and determining
> > that you don't want this or that in it is not censorship.
> 
> It's my mailbox, and I don't like people, like you, telling me what I
> want to receive there. Period.
> 
> > >since you demand one and only one stand of others.
> 
> > No, I do not demand an anti-spam stand from others. I *do* demand an
> > unequivocal stand, whether it's for or against.
> 
> > In other words, don't bullshit me with philosophical musings. You are
> > either pro-spam or anti-spam. Period.
> 
> Well, in that case, here's my stand: I'm pro free speech.
> 
> Axel.

Great!  Here's your free speech!

"Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any
unwanted communication, whatever its merit. The ancient concept that 'a
man's home is his castle' into which 'not even the king may enter' has
lost none of its vitality. We therefore categorically reject the
argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise
to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition
operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no
one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient.
That we are often 'captives' outside the sanctuary of the home and
subject to objectionable speech and other sound does not mean we must be
captives everywhere. The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at
the outer boundary of every person's domain."

Chief Justice Berger
U.S. Supreme Court
ROWAN v. U. S. POST OFFICE DEPT., 397 U.S. 728
May 4, 1970.

I like that part about, "...stops at the outer boundary of every
person's domain.".  Nice touch don't you think?

				Moi

Re: Any Mac Anti-spam software?

#288

Author: Denis Wright
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 00:00

30 lines
2523 bytes

Bill Jackson <billjackson@NoSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:

> I
> suggest that you set up your newsreader pref. panel (personal information)
> to show your e-mail address with the word NoSPAM somewhere in the middle
> of the e-mail address. Add a note saying, "delete the word NoSPAM if you
> wish to send me e-mail". For example, bobjohnson@net.com becomes
> bobjohnson@NoSPAMnet.com
> I could explain why this solution works but I won't bore you with the
> details.

Bill, that sounds fine in theory, but as I said in another posting, the
spammers have quickly discovered that *after* you harvest the names, all
you have to do is to get your program to search addresses for NOSPAM and
extra spaces or whatever, and the email addresses all come up shiny new
and ready for use. You are going to have to get a little more
sophisticated in your mungeing than that.

Spammers have no regard whatsoever for the loathing of people who have
no choice but to receive their junk daily, but they are not generally
stupid. The only way to deal with them is to support those who have the
time, money and skills to hound them into the ground by making sure
their ISPs develop systems that will guarantee a retrospective penalty
of some kind. 

-- 
| Dr D A Wright History Dept Uni of New England Armidale |
| NSW AUSTRALIA 2351  Ph +61 67 732479 Fax +61 67 733520 |
|____ http://www.une.edu.au/~arts/History/dwright.htm ___|

Re: Any Mac Anti-spam software?

#295

Author: trebor
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 00:00

16 lines
1696 bytes

axelh@inet.uni-c.dk (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Jan 1998 23:54:45 -0800, trebor@rahul.net wrote:
>> Post where I said or implied that. Failing that, FOAD.
>
>Hmm! I can see you're no longer sirius...

I have more than one account.

>> >> In other words, don't bullshit me with philosophical musings. You are
>> >> either pro-spam or anti-spam. Period.
>> >
>> >Well, in that case, here's my stand: I'm pro free speech.

You're still ducking the real issue.

Re: Any Mac Anti-spam software?

#296

Author: trebor
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 00:00

11 lines
1580 bytes

axelh@inet.uni-c.dk (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote:

>dave.dull.who.is.really.Captain.Blade@SPAMBUSTERS.dyn.ml.org
>> Then you have nothing to say in this forum.  This newsgroup 
>> (news.admin.net-abuse.email) is for discussing and hopefully ending net-abuse 
>> invloving email.
>            ^^^^^
>This is Usenet!

Buh-bye, moron. It's more fun talking to The Shadow.

Re: Any Mac Anti-spam software?

#298

Author: Taki Kogoma
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 00:00

24 lines
2010 bytes

axelh@inet.uni-c.dk (Axel Hammerschmidt) is alleged to have submitted
message <69ef2a$rg$1@news.uni-c.dk> to news.admin.net-abuse.email:
>On Sun, 11 Jan 98 07:46:41 GMT,
>dave.dull.who.is.really.Captain.Blade@SPAMBUSTERS.dyn.ml.org
>(IceSnake) wrote:
>> Then you have nothing to say in this forum.  This newsgroup 
>> (news.admin.net-abuse.email) is for discussing and hopefully ending net-abuse 
>> invloving email.
>            ^^^^^
>This is Usenet!

Time for reading comprehension excercises.

Please, let me know what problem you had understanding:

"This newsgroup (news.admin.net-abuse.email) is for discussing and hopefully
ending net-abuse invloving email."

-- 
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk -- quirk @ swcp.com | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma)         |   demonstrates that it would be
Retired 'Secret Master of              |   superior to what I have now."
             rec.arts.startrek'        |       -- Gym Quirk