Digikey doth truly rule

[Rich Grise]

I agree wholeheartedly. Most spam violates pre-existing fraud laws, not
just CAN-SPAM.

No, the problem is that it doesn't violate any fraud laws. They're not
defrauding anybody. The problem is that they're loading up everybody's
mailbox in the world with worthless spam email, the equivalent of
ordinary junk snail mail. But with junk snail mail, at least you could
use it for kindling. It doesn't matter that the content isn't deceptive -
it's there, and it's jamming the internet. The only thing you could do is
prohibit ISPs from allowing any spam to be sent through them, but as has
been noted else-thread, they know which side their bread is margarined on.

Of course, a solution occurs to me, which would, of course, be even worse,
and that would be to charge for bytes times # of recipients.

If you send an email with more than five recipients, it costs you a dime
apiece for each additional recipient.

And you're not allowed to send any more than one email per, say, ten
seconds.

But that will never be implemented. It makes entirely too much sense.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

I can see you're another sheeple that hasn't learned to think for
himself.

Think about it: How can you 'legalize' something that had no prior
restrictions? Does what you said make any sense?

I agree that it was unwise to override some state laws, especially since
Calif had just toughened the spam laws. But don't try to tell us that
the law legalizes spam. The law puts restriction on spamming where
there were none before (nationally).

See my other post else-thread about my opinion of these alleged
"restrictions."

They only make it illegal to defraud, not to send out a hundred million
totally honest advertising spams. They don't care that there are
"restrictions" on "content" - it's still there clogging my inbox!

In a way, it's equivalent to commercials on free TV (and even cable, these
days). I pay for the use of the phone co's and the ISP's equipment and
bandwidth, and spam is just something I'm going to have to deal with as
it presents itself.

Hence, the blacklist.

And, who cares if it's up to date? Some IP numbers are blocked. Big deal.
If you want to take over the IP number of a known spammer who's been sent
out of business, you should be required to submit an approval form.
Otherwise, those IP numbers are blacklisted forever. Fuckem.

And, just because I'm a rebel, here's mine:
http://www.neodruid.net/LATEST_BLACKLIST

Thanks,
Rich

(yes, I own the domains neodruid.com, neodruid.net, and neodruid.org,
although neodruid.org is on the computer that I boot to Doze at least
once a day to do video games and porno, so won't always be available.)

 

[Watson A.Name - \Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\]

See my other post else-thread about my opinion of these alleged
"restrictions."

They only make it illegal to defraud, not to send out a hundred million
totally honest advertising spams.

"They" in this case meaning the gov't. That's all that's possible to
restrict. If the restrictions were on honest spams, then the law would
be declared unconstitutional because it restricts free speech.

They don't care that there are
"restrictions" on "content" - it's still there clogging my inbox!

"They" in this case meaning spammers.

In a way, it's equivalent to commercials on free TV (and even cable,

these

No, it's not! Commercials in the media pay their fair share to the
media. Spammers, w/o permission, abuse services from the ISPs and our
inboxes without paying their fair share. Spammers are thieves.

[snip]

 

[Watson A.Name - \Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\]

This law?
http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877.html
Or maybe this one?
http://www.angelfire.com/blues2/blowschunks/index.html

You can't legalize something that had no prior restrictions because it
was _already_ legal.

 

[Watson A.Name - \Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\]

No, the problem is that it doesn't violate any fraud laws. They're not

The spam is fraudulent when it uses spoofing to hide its origin.
Virtually all spam does so.

defrauding anybody. The problem is that they're loading up everybody's
mailbox in the world with worthless spam email, the equivalent of
ordinary junk snail mail. But with junk snail mail, at least you could

No, it's not equivalent. Junk mail is paid for by the advertiser.
Spammers pay nothing! They're thieves.

use it for kindling. It doesn't matter that the content isn't deceptive -
it's there, and it's jamming the internet. The only thing you could do is
prohibit ISPs from allowing any spam to be sent through them, but as has
been noted else-thread, they know which side their bread is margarined on.

Of course, a solution occurs to me, which would, of course, be even worse,
and that would be to charge for bytes times # of recipients.

If you send an email with more than five recipients, it costs you a dime
apiece for each additional recipient.

And you're not allowed to send any more than one email per, say, ten
seconds.

But that will never be implemented. It makes entirely too much sense.

It already has been implemented by some ISPs. It's called teergrubing.
That's the German word for tarpit.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the
pernews.com>) about 'SPAMMERS (was Re: Digikey doth truly rule', on Mon,
28 Feb 2005:

You can't legalize something that had no prior restrictions because it
was _already_ legal.

It depends on how you define 'legalize'. If no law applies to some
activity, it could be taken as 'outside the scope of law', so when a law
is applied to it, it becomes within the scope of law, and the verb
'legalize' could well be applied to that action of 'bringing within the
scope of law'.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the
pernews.com>) about 'SPAMMERS (was Re: Digikey doth truly rule', on Mon,
28 Feb 2005:

It already has been implemented by some ISPs. It's called teergrubing.
That's the German word for tarpit.

Does that make the spammers guilty of moral tarpitude?

 

[mc]

But someday all the i's will get dotted and t's crossed and the spammers
will not have any way to hide. That may take IPV6, which seems like it
should have been implemented long ago, but still hasn't. Don't hold
your breath.

Yes. And people will whine about the loss of their precious "electronic
frontier" as the Internet ceases to be a fantasyland above and beyond the
law.

The Internet was designed for use within research establishments where
people were all, at some level, accountable and trustworthy. It has become
a playground for con artists and pests.

It may take another half century. I'm reminded of the chaos that afflicted
radio before WWI. People just chose their own frequencies and hoped nobody
would interfere with them, knowingly or unknowingly.

(And thus I bring the subject matter back to that of the newsgroups we're
in!

 

[Dave Platt]

You can't legalize something that had no prior restrictions because it
was _already_ legal.

There are those who feel that the CAN SPAM law both legitimizes and
legalizes spam, in two ways:

- It sets specific Federal boundaries on what sorts of spam are
illegal (and thus by implication states that spams which don't
cross those boundaries are legitimate), and

- It preempts most State laws which had stronger restrictions on
spamming, and therefore makes legal certain spams which were
previously forbidden by State law.

 

[JeffM]

a solution...charge for bytes times # of recipients.

If you send an email with more than five recipients,
it costs you a dime apiece for each additional recipient.
Rich Grise

You'd need a waiver for piclist.

 

[Richard the Dreaded Libertarian]

There are those who feel that the CAN SPAM law both legitimizes and
legalizes spam, in two ways:

- It sets specific Federal boundaries on what sorts of spam are
illegal (and thus by implication states that spams which don't
cross those boundaries are legitimate), and

- It preempts most State laws which had stronger restrictions on
spamming, and therefore makes legal certain spams which were
previously forbidden by State law.

And this is the part that really pisses me off, because it is in direct
violation of Article 10:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively,
or to the people."

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Libertarian]

You'd need a waiver for piclist.

Fine. Put in a mechanism where mailing lists can get a waiver, and if
an individual sends a spam to the list, you cut him off. And, of course,
configure the majordomo to drop it.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

these

No, it's not! Commercials in the media pay their fair share to the
media. Spammers, w/o permission, abuse services from the ISPs and our
inboxes without paying their fair share. Spammers are thieves.

Ok, good point.

So, do _you_ want to volunteer to track them down and arrest them so that
we can lynch them?

In the interim, here's a blacklist:
http://www.neodruid.net/LATEST_BLACKLIST

Just add them to your firewall's "DROP" list.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Watson A.Name - \Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\]

Ok, good point.

So, do _you_ want to volunteer to track them down and arrest them so that
we can lynch them?

I did my volunteering back in the mid- to late-'90s. I'm long past the
point of being burned out. I used to keep a blacklist of recipes for
the procmail filter that I ran on my unix shell acct. I used to get the
original King of Spam, Spamford Wallace's Cyberpromo spams. He's
recently been in the news for infecting PCs with a spyware in order to
sell them a spyware removal program. Dirty, stinking, filthy,
ex-spammer rat!

BTW, there are spam filters that will run under Procmail or Perl
scripts. Check them out, especially if they're Bayesian filters.

 

[Watson A.Name - \Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the
pernews.com>) about 'SPAMMERS (was Re: Digikey doth truly rule', on Mon,
28 Feb 2005:

Does that make the spammers guilty of moral tarpitude?

Dunno, but I'm not shedding a teer for the grubby little bastards!

 

[Watson A.Name - \Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\]

in message

Yes. And people will whine about the loss of their precious "electronic
frontier" as the Internet ceases to be a fantasyland above and beyond the
law.

Only in their minds.

The Internet was designed for use within research establishments where
people were all, at some level, accountable and trustworthy. It has become
a playground for con artists and pests.

All, at some level, accountable and trustworthy? Not really. The first
spam was in 1978, so there were problems from the beginning.

Basically what you have is the virtual world has become a microcosm of
the real world. Nothing more, nothing less.

It may take another half century. I'm reminded of the chaos that afflicted
radio before WWI. People just chose their own frequencies and hoped nobody
would interfere with them, knowingly or unknowingly.

Well, they say that 5 years in the virtual world is an eternity...

 

[Watson A.Name - \Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\]

Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\"

There are those who feel that the CAN SPAM law both legitimizes and
legalizes spam, in two ways:

- It sets specific Federal boundaries on what sorts of spam are
illegal (and thus by implication states that spams which don't
cross those boundaries are legitimate), and

In order to be constitutional the law has to meet certain criteria. One
is that it has to put limits on commercial speech without being
burdensome. The law has to be explicit enough to keep itr from being
defeated on appeal.

- It preempts most State laws which had stronger restrictions on
spamming, and therefore makes legal certain spams which were
previously forbidden by State law.

For five years, Calif had laws that were on the books but were
unenforced. They were challengd as unconstitutional. They and 35 other
state laws weren't consistent, making it a mess for the courts and
lawyers in every state. We had 36 different tools but they were largely
unused. Now there is a consistent set of national laws with much better
chance of being enforced. Someone has to light a fire under the feds to
get them to step up the enforcement. All this bitching, whining and
nmoaning about what used to be and how bad it is now is a huge waste of
time. Get over it and proceed on with the tools given to us, and hammer
the spammers.

 

[mc]

The Internet was designed for use within research establishments where

All, at some level, accountable and trustworthy? Not really. The first
spam was in 1978, so there were problems from the beginning.

There was very little until the 1990s, and if the first spam was in 1978,
then we had about 7 years of good networking before there was any.

 

[Mike Andrews]

For five years, Calif had laws that were on the books but were
unenforced. They were challengd as unconstitutional. They and 35 other
state laws weren't consistent, making it a mess for the courts and
lawyers in every state. We had 36 different tools but they were largely
unused. Now there is a consistent set of national laws with much better
chance of being enforced. Someone has to light a fire under the feds to
get them to step up the enforcement. All this bitching, whining and
nmoaning about what used to be and how bad it is now is a huge waste of
time. Get over it and proceed on with the tools given to us, and hammer
the spammers.

Horse exhaust.

You-Can-Spam, under the guise of improving the situation by applying
one uniform law everywhere, forced everything into one badly-fitting,
Procrustean bed, overriding and effectively nullifying existing state
laws, some of which (Washington, California) were *very* much better
written and more effective.

Yes, those laws got challenged as unconstitutional. A challenge by
itself means nothing; it's the *OUTCOME* of the challenge that means
something, and the Washington and California laws survived all the
challenges against them. It's because they survived those challenges,
thereby putting fear into the cryostats[1] of the folks who run the
advertising industry and of the Senators from Coca-Cola, Time-Warner,
and the other big owners of federal legislators, that You-Can-Spam
came to be.

Private right of action used to exist because of state laws, but that
right now has been removed by You-Can-Spam, and only providers and
Attorneys General have standing to sue.

You-Can-Spam is tailor-made for the advertising industry, which comes
as no surprise to me, because the folks who really wrote it certainly
appear to have been advertising industry lobbyists.

If you don't like all the bitching, whining, and moaning about what
used to be, then you have the right to move somewhere that prohibits
it. Choose carefully: places that prohibit it may not let you move out
again. Me, I'll stay here and bitch, whine, moan, and lean hard on my
congresscritters.

[1] We can be quite certain that they don't have hearts. A heart is
not capable of pumping liquid Helium.

Followups to news.admin.net-abuse.email, where this subthread belongs.

 

[Watson A.Name - \Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\]

In <[email protected]> (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew),

For five years, Calif had laws that were on the books but were
unenforced. They were challengd as unconstitutional. They and 35 other
state laws weren't consistent, making it a mess for the courts and
lawyers in every state. We had 36 different tools but they were largely
unused. Now there is a consistent set of national laws with much better
chance of being enforced. Someone has to light a fire under the feds to
get them to step up the enforcement. All this bitching, whining and
nmoaning about what used to be and how bad it is now is a huge waste of
time. Get over it and proceed on with the tools given to us, and hammer
the spammers.

Horse exhaust.

You-Can-Spam, under the guise of improving the situation by applying
one uniform law everywhere, forced everything into one badly-fitting,
Procrustean bed, overriding and effectively nullifying existing state
laws, some of which (Washington, California) were *very* much better
written and more effective.

Yes, those laws got challenged as unconstitutional. A challenge by
itself means nothing; it's the *OUTCOME* of the challenge that means
something, and the Washington and California laws survived all the
challenges against them. It's because they survived those challenges,
thereby putting fear into the cryostats[1] of the folks who run the
advertising industry and of the Senators from Coca-Cola, Time-Warner,
and the other big owners of federal legislators, that You-Can-Spam
came to be.

Private right of action used to exist because of state laws, but that
right now has been removed by You-Can-Spam, and only providers and
Attorneys General have standing to sue.

You-Can-Spam is tailor-made for the advertising industry, which comes
as no surprise to me, because the folks who really wrote it certainly
appear to have been advertising industry lobbyists.

If you don't like all the bitching, whining, and moaning about what
used to be, then you have the right to move somewhere that prohibits
it. Choose carefully: places that prohibit it may not let you move out
again. Me, I'll stay here and bitch, whine, moan, and lean hard on my
congresscritters.

[1] We can be quite certain that they don't have hearts. A heart is
not capable of pumping liquid Helium.

Followups to news.admin.net-abuse.email, where this subthread belongs.

You can belittle others for their opinions, and bitch and whine about
the situation at hand. But like they say, when life hands you a lemon,
make lemonade. Quitcherbitchin, and get on with life. You're
complaining to the wrong crowd - almost everyone really don't care what
you or i think.