🚀 go-pugleaf

Andrew Nellis wrote:

>  At least with spam, it can be cleanly "nuked" or filtered. (no tree's
> required)
>
> Paper junk mail is paid for by the SENDER.  Junk e-mail is paid for by the
> RECIPIENT.  It cannot be "cleanly nuked or filtered."  If it could, do you
> think Usenet would be 80% junk?  Do you think mail servers all over the
> planet would be crashing regularly under the sheer weight of all the junk
> e-mail passing through them?
>

I didn't know that servers all over the planet are crashing regularlydue to
spam. I thought someone said spam represented almost 30%
of an average ISP's content, not 80%. I had no idea the numbers were
so staggering. This is good to know

> > Unless you run a mail server or your an ISP, then the resources
> > aren't yours to lose. You rent them. If they fall to an unexceptable
> > level, then you change ISP's. Hey, it may force your ISP to upgrade
> > his servers.
>
> It's okay then that spammers run honest, legitimate businesspeople out of
> business -- and it happens, just ask joes.com (oh wait, you can't, they
> don't EXIST any more) -- so they can turn a quick buck because, hey, there
> are lots of other ISPs out there, right?
>
>

I don't know how spam could just put someone "out of business", maybe youcould
explain further. I don't get very much.

> Who do you think PAYS for these upgraded servers and increased bandwidth
> and extra storage space needed to deal with all that junk?  YOU do.  The
> spammers could conduct business honestly like the majority of businesses
> on the Internet; they have chosen to steal other people's money instead.
> Have you heard of something called the tragedy of the commons?  Evidently
> not.
>

Actually, I haven't. Sounds like something from Shakespeare. I know you have
heard of ecology, and that's the concern I have.

> And how about systems like universities and freenets and community groups
> that can't just raise their prices when spammers steal resources meant for
> their users?  You think the 20,000 members of the National Capital FreeNet
> should be forced to go without Internet access because some twit with a
> $20 Netcruiser account wants to send an illegal pyramid scam to ten
> million of his closest friends?
>

An illegal pyramid scam should be reported to the police. Is theresome
difficulty with reporting internet abuse? I thought there were
agencies for this kind of problem.

> > I feel that censorship is by far the greatest threat to the
> > internet, not my ability (or lack of) to deal with spam. Everyone should
> > be able to connect and share their idea's, products, services.
> > This is a free country, even for spammers.
>
> Fine.  Please give me your address.  I will be over at your house tomorrow
> with a can of spraypaint.  I want to paint advertisements on the side of
> your house and the windshield of your car.  It's a "free country," buddy,
> and I want to express myself freely all over your property.  What, you
> have an objection to that?  Then why the hell are you telling me I have to
> allow criminals to use MY bandwidth and MY mail server and MY storage
> space and MY mailbox so THEY can advertise?
>
>

You sound a little tensed out my friend. Private property and it's sole
owner, are hardly comparable to the internet. My address is 1316 Carling
Ave in Ottawa. If you want, com'on over. I'm in the yellow pages.
My point being, if you come here and break the law, you will be arrested.
If these spammers are breaking the law then they should be arrested.
From what I understand they can be traced fairly easily, is this not true?

> > I get a lot more upset at seeing my little mailbox stuffed with
> > advertisements and brochures that I have no interest in. Especially
> > when I throw them into a large bin in our mailroom, only to see
> > a huge stack of them that others in the high-rise had throw away
> > as well. I would say that 95% of them were in the trash. This
> > happens everyday. That is "real" wasted resource that will
> > hurt us more in the long run. Even if they do the recycle thing,
> > Its not as environmentally clean as spam in cyberspace.
> > What's an 18Gb HD going to be worth compared to a tree
> > for your great grandchildren to climb?
>
> This is what's known as a false dichotomy.  You're telling me that
> allowing spammers to crash our mail server is going to keep a tree from
> being cut down?  Hardly.
>

Where did I mention allowing spammers to crash anything? Cannot youdistinguish
the comparison I made, to condoning spam"?????
I stated that "I get a lot more upset", not "everyone get's more upset"
The waste and pollution caused by paper products is huge, or do you
dispute this fact?  This is the only fact I stated. In my world, there is
more of a problem with wasted paper then spam. You fight spam
as a profession (or whatever) How about cutting some slack for a
person that may not have YOUR insight, were not all pro's ya know!


> "You have to permit me to rob your house, or ten million people will die a
> horrible agonizing death.  What, are you a murderer?  You *have* to let me
> steal from you!"  That makes about as much sense as what you're saying.
>
>

Your really going overboard here. Sheeesh! Perhaps we should just hangem from
the tallest tree? Sometimes if you overstate an opinion, you can
hurt it's cause.

> > I do not defend spam,
>
> Could have fooled me.
>
>

  "Could of fooled me"???? OK Andrew, I'm going to point this out again.
I never defended "spam" but defend the right for a censor-free internet.
In my opinion, paper waste and pollution combined with the strip foresting
that goes on, is an issue, more important to ME than spam. Is that OK by you?
This is a forum for discussion, not the prosecution stand. I am now better
informed
of spam then I was before this thread, but it is difficult to absorb when I have
to
dodge shots. I would like to help in any way I can, now that I know it's such a
large problem. What can the average guy do to help?

Buzz
Ottawa
http://home.on.rogers.wave.ca/purphaze/index.htm