🚀 go-pugleaf

Over at IGS we have now implemented a new NEWS feed software called DIABLO,
which is much faster than INND (we are now keeping up with all our feeds)
plus has built in SPAM capabilities.  There will be no more SPAM (multy
group postings) coming from IGS.  Plus we are currently working on Sendmail
9 which has built in email from source checking (www.sendmail.com) for more
info.

Frank

Richard K Bethell wrote in message <6f4jtk$jss@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>
>Arthur D. Mira (admiral@ilos.net) writes:
>> In can.infohighway, bs904@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andrew Nellis) wrote:
>>
>> =>I run the spam desk at the National Capital FreeNet.  Last year we
>> =>got so much junk at one point that legitimate mail could not get
>> =>through.  It was taking hours to connect to the SMTP server, and
>> =>e-mail was being lost as it sat in queues for days waiting to be
>> =>delivered.  AT&T says that UBE, Unsolicited Bulk E-mail, accounts
>> =>for as much as 20% of their incoming e-mail.  AOL puts that figure
>> =>closer to 30%.  Our own statistics showed that it was 40%, and when
>> =>we started rejecting mail from spamming domains, more than 500,000
>> =>pieces of junk e-mail were turned away every day for about 20,000
>> =>members.
>>
>> Spam is excessive multiposting (EMP) of an article to many newsgroups,
>> one at a time. E-mail and usenet are separate and distinct functions
>> within usenet. Somewhere along the line during the past couple of
>> years the term seems to have taken on a meaning that seems to
>> encompass damn near everything that people find objectionable
>> about some aspects of internet use.
>>
>
>Uh, no. Spam on usenet is material EMPed, or ECPed past the Breidbart
>Index threshold. There is no mystery here. Unsolicited Bulk Email is
>pretty easily to spot as well - someone trolls newsgroups and web pages
>for e-mail addresses, and then mass mails these people with whom there is
>no previous business relationship. The US Smith bill, transposing the
>already illegal junk faxing to electronic email, serves as the general
>yardstick for UBE.
>
>But let's get real. If you get a BCC of "MAXIMUM PROFIT$ WITH GOLFBALLS"
>pretending to be "12345@hotmail.com" and relayed through Hong Kong, I
>think it is a relatively simple argument that spamming has taken place --
>like DUH!
>
>> Over the years I've been amazed at the number of people whose sole
>> interest and investment in the internet consists of nothing more than
>> participation using freeware and shareware software (for which there
>> has been no contribution) who seem to feel that that participation
>> carries with it some 'rights' of internet, and in particular usenet,
>> administration.
>>
>
>Whatever this has to do with anything.
>
>> What is even more objectionable however is the number of people
>> are actually involved in the administration of the internet who allow,
>> condone, and encourage this attitude to further their own agenda.
>>
>
>Heaven forbid that anyone might want to do something about the fact that
>AOL's mail is now about 30% unsolicted junk. My god, the audacity that
>anyone might want to fix that. The absolute nerve.
>
>
>> If you don't like junk e-mail, or what shows up in usenet, then use
>> software that allows you to detect and filter it...even if it means
>> that you have to actually spend a few dollars.
>>
>
>This is hardly the point, and an irrelevent venture into red herringdom.
>There are programs that can filter now, and for free. The problem is not
>that it is there (even if it is an admitted annoyance.) IT is *how* it gets
>there - at the expense of the stolen mail servers that had the misfortune
>of allowing relay, at the expense of the ISPs receiving and storing them.
>
>
>> Freedom of expression and freedom of speech is a double edged
>> sword, not a double standard. Before you start firing off too many
>> missives to civil rights organizations, and encouraging others to do
>> the same, take some time to think about whose agenda it is that
>> you're promoting.
>>
>
>Say what? I don't think encouraging Civil Liberties organizations to take
>a practical view on a matter that has more in common with theft than any
>kind of protected speech is promoting anyone's sinister agenda. Spam is
>about volume -- not content. Someone sending 15 million copies of "SPEW
>BLASTER CLOAKER PRO 2000 NOW AVAILABLE!!!!!" is taking more than his fair
>share of resources to do it.
>
>Picture the real world analogy - someone sends real estate flyers to
>everyone with the postal code K1R -- postage due. I, uhm, don't think
>we're looking at free speech here.
>
>> Promoting censorship doesn't serve anyone purpose, and it just
>> might come back to haunt you one day.
>>
>
>Censorship? What are you talking about?
>
>Spam is *not* about content. It is about shifting the cost of advertising
>from the sender (where it belongs) onto the recipient. Think about this --
>if it weren't for the hard line most ISPs took on spam, what would
>prevent every huckster in the galaxy from filling your mailbox with
>sludge you had no interest in?
>
>Thank your lucky stars that folks like Andrew and Chris Lewis fight spam
>everyday. This Internet you are so worried about people using freeware on
>would already be useless but for them.
>
>--
>  Richard K Bethell (cj434@freenet.carleton.ca)
>* NCF Net Abuse Response Team member | CAUCE Member
>* NCF Help Desk Coordinator *  Helping users use FreeNet
>* visit my PostScript page at http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~cj434 *