| Author |
Message |
Watson A.Name - \"Watt Su
Guest
|
 Posted:
Wed Mar 02, 2005 1:11 pm Post subject:
Re: SPAMMERS (was Re: Digikey doth truly rule |
|
|
"mc" <mc_no_spam@uga.edu> wrote in message
news:422335f5@mustang.speedfactory.net...
| Quote: |
"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com
wrote
in message news:11258ufkc5v3661@corp.supernews.com...
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.
|
Only in their minds.
| Quote: | 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.
| Quote: | 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...
| Quote: | (And thus I bring the subject matter back to that of the newsgroups
we're
in! :) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Watson A.Name - \"Watt Su
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 02, 2005 1:33 pm Post subject:
Re: SPAMMERS (was Re: Digikey doth truly rule |
|
|
"Dave Platt" <dplatt@radagast.org> wrote in message
news:1126qbpg84t8g5c@corp.supernews.com...
| Quote: | In article <1125lu0kml9lge4@corp.supernews.com>,
Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\"
alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote:
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
|
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.
| Quote: | - 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.
| Quote: | --
Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org
AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page:
http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Andrews
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:20 pm Post subject:
Re: SPAMMERS (was Re: Digikey doth truly rule |
|
|
In <112aqp2qdba2a99@corp.supernews.com> (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), "Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\"" wrote:
| Quote: | 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.
--
Mike Andrews, W5EGO
mikea@mikea.ath.cx
Tired old sysadmin
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mc
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:51 pm Post subject:
Re: SPAMMERS (was Re: Digikey doth truly rule |
|
|
| Quote: | 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.
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Watson A.Name - \"Watt Su
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Mar 03, 2005 12:56 pm Post subject:
Re: SPAMMERS (was Re: Digikey doth truly rule |
|
|
"Mike Andrews" <mikea@mikea.ath.cx> wrote in message
news:d04lj8$rql$3@puck.litech.org...
| Quote: | In <112aqp2qdba2a99@corp.supernews.com> (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew),
"Watson A.Name - \"Watt Sun, the Dark Remover\"" wrote:
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.
--
Mike Andrews, W5EGO
mikea@mikea.ath.cx
Tired old sysadmin
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R. Steve Walz
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Mar 06, 2005 6:10 am Post subject:
Re: SPAMMERS (was Re: Digikey doth truly rule |
|
|
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote:
| Quote: |
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.
-------------------------------- |
There ain't no "life". There are people. When these shit-fucking
mother-pissing bastards hand you lemons you simply gang-up on them
and KILL them. THEN they'll fucking STOP! THAT'S what Democracy is!
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pig Bladder
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Mar 06, 2005 8:47 pm Post subject:
Re: SPAMMERS (was Re: Digikey doth truly rule |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 03:43:16 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:
| Quote: | Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote:
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.
--------------------------------
There ain't no "life". There are people. When these shit-fucking
mother-pissing bastards hand you lemons you simply gang-up on them
and KILL them. THEN they'll fucking STOP! THAT'S what Democracy is!
|
What goes around comes around.
--
Pig Bladder on a Stick |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Watson A.Name - \"Watt Su
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:10 am Post subject:
Re: SPAMMERS (was Re: Digikey doth truly rule |
|
|
"mc" <mc_no_spam@uga.edu> wrote in message
news:4225d9e9@mustang.speedfactory.net...
| Quote: | 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.
There was very little until the 1990s, and if the first spam was in
1978, |
You're exactly right: there was very little in the early '90s because
the Net was very little until the '90s. Obviously.
| Quote: | then we had about 7 years of good networking before there was any.
|
I'm curious as to what you mean by good networking. And what you mean
by 'there was any'. Like, any _what_? Those two idiots Canter & Siegel
were already spamming Usenet in 1994.
http://www.coin.org.uk/roadshow/presentation/canter.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mc
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:41 pm Post subject:
Re: SPAMMERS (was Re: Digikey doth truly rule |
|
|
| Quote: | There was very little until the 1990s, and if the first spam was in
1978,
You're exactly right: there was very little in the early '90s because
the Net was very little until the '90s. Obviously.
then we had about 7 years of good networking before there was any.
I'm curious as to what you mean by good networking. And what you mean
by 'there was any'. Like, any _what_? Those two idiots Canter & Siegel
were already spamming Usenet in 1994.
|
Yes, because in 1993, commercial public access began. There was very, very
little spam during the days when the Internet was confined to academia and
research labs. Back then, when people talked about "spam" they generally
meant announcements that were on-topic but were considered too commercial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Watson A.Name - \"Watt Su
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:48 pm Post subject:
Re: SPAMMERS (was Re: Digikey doth truly rule |
|
|
"mc" <mc_no_spam@uga.edu> wrote in message
news:422dc0e9@mustang.speedfactory.net...
| Quote: | There was very little until the 1990s, and if the first spam was in
1978,
You're exactly right: there was very little in the early '90s
because
the Net was very little until the '90s. Obviously.
then we had about 7 years of good networking before there was any.
I'm curious as to what you mean by good networking. And what you
mean
by 'there was any'. Like, any _what_? Those two idiots Canter &
Siegel
were already spamming Usenet in 1994.
Yes, because in 1993, commercial public access began. There was very,
very
little spam during the days when the Internet was confined to academia
and
research labs.
|
But, "there was very, very little Internet during the days when the
Internet was confined to academia and research labs." So the effect was
virtually nil.
Or more precisely, if you didn't have any spam because you didn't have
any Internet, then what's the point.
| Quote: | Back then, when people talked about "spam" they generally
meant announcements that were on-topic but were considered too
commercial. |
But, "back then, when people talked about "spam", there were no people
talking in the general public. In other words, back in "the good ol'
days", there were no good ol' days for the average person. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fred Abse
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Mar 12, 2005 12:28 am Post subject:
Re: SPAMMERS (was Re: Digikey doth truly rule |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 04:48:39 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark
Remover" wrote:
| Quote: | But, "there was very, very little Internet during the days when the
Internet was confined to academia and research labs." So the effect was
virtually nil.
|
Happy days...
--
Then there's duct tape ...
(Garrison Keillor) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in