 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:28
|
|
i get spam. i usually ignore it in my aitch oh tee em ay eye ell account, because my spam filter usually eliminates it; on my why ay aitch oh oh account, the spam filter is less effective, because that's an older account; the spam filter works fairly well, but i still don't enjoy getting emails from myself advertising some teenager getting reamed by huge clocks, you know?
my yoo see aitch eye see ay gee oh account gets no spam--which is good. then again, i don't really use that for anything except friends, so that's why i don't get anything for it.
before i got these spam filters, i got sick and tired of having to wade through myriads of ads just to get one email from a friend. great equalizer, sure. but most of those people ought to have the decency to shut up. i'm big enough, thank you. and i don't need my busts increased, since i don't think my gf would appreciate that. and sure i'll give you my account number. you're entitled to all $15 i have left in there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by faded glory
SPAM is a message or advertisement sent through email. |
Lie. Only ads are spam. Afterall, spam is just another name for UCE (unsolicited commerical e-mail).
quote:
Originally posted by faded glory
It is unsolicited. It makes a lot of nerds who haven't figured out how to use the "delete" key really mad. Why are these nerds mad? They've been told that they're 'sposed to be. |
Lie. People are mad because spammers use your money to advertise to you. If junk fax is illegal, spam should be too.
quote:
Originally posted by faded glory
What these places tell them is that SPAM is wasting "bandwidth." |
This is a fact and a serious problem to boot.
quote:
Originally posted by faded glory
They've been brainwashed into believing that SPAM is using all of the World Wide Web's resources. |
Lie. I have not seen any anti-spamming campaign said that.
quote:
Originally posted by faded glory
Why are all these magazines, television shows, Internet Service Providers, the Government, software companies and numerous other places telling these people that SPAM is bad? Because they want to be the only ones able to advertise. The word "equalizer" terrifies them. |
What so "equalising" about spam? Most people now automatically delete that crap. Who's this jackarse trying to fool?
quote:
Originally posted by faded glory
Could I advertise "The Juicy Cerebellum" on t.v.? Nope. How 'bout the newspaper? Nope. Buy a "Juicy" billboard? Nope. I could never afford it. |
That just you're trying to paddle snake oil that nobody serious wants to back.
quote:
Originally posted by faded glory
Therefore they say my "SPAMMING" is "slowing down the Internet," and "will bring it to a halt." They even say it's murdering the Internet. |
What they say is true? What's this guy's problem? He is the liar, not the otherside.
quote:
Originally posted by faded glory
They're making you all red with rage when you get an email from me that takes seconds to arrive, and another second to delete, while at the same time you're waiting five minutes to read an article at "Mr. Showbiz," because the banner for "Chevy Trucks" has to finish downloading. Ooh, smart-guy, hack-boy, do the math. |
 A lie repeated a thousand times does not become a truth.
quote:
Originally posted by faded glory
THE CORPORATIONS ARE THE ONES SLOWING YOU DOWN. |
Neither does putting something in caps. It represents YELLING on the Internet - extremely annoying.
quote:
Originally posted by faded glory
SPAM is not the enemy. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
optimus2861
|
|
Halifax, NS
Nov 2000
time: 01:28
|
|
Well, that was ... a load of bullshit. Conveniently ignored that the spamload on email alone has exploded over the past few years; I believe the figure stands at about 40% nowadays? Imagine if 4 of every 10 phone calls you received were from telemarketers -- who called collect and gave you no option to refuse the charges. That's what spam is. It shifts the cost of the advertisement from the sender on to the receiver, in the forms of:
* The bandwidth of middlemen ISPs that relay the spam from the originating ISP to the receiving (my) ISP.
* My ISP's bandwidth to receive the spam.
* My ISP's servers to store the spam.
* My ISP's bandwidth to retransmit the spam to me.
* My computer to (temporarily) store the spam.
* My time to process the spam.
And obviously, the more spam is sent, the more is received, which puts more load on the receivers' resources, possibly leading to expensive equipment upgrades (on the part of ISPs) in order to handle the deluge.
The spammer pays for none of this; the cost of sending 1 spam or 10,000 spams are essentially the same. Even junk faxes weren't this efficient, and they were banned for exactly the same reason (the sender did not have to pay the receiver's costs for lost phone time and equipment usage that resulted from the unwanted faxes), plus the same potential to completely hijack the usefulness of fax machines for the sake of marketers hawking useless wares.
Unsolicited bulk email is indefensible, and the sooner that every single spammer (and that includes you, faded glory, you rotten scumbucket  ) is put out of business (or behind bars, I'm flexible), the better the internet will be.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by faded glory
Suck it. I never said I deluged you or anybody elses mail-box with junk. I go through the internal messenger service. And the whole thing is automated. I think this war against Spam is nothing but crap and a vieled attempt at advertising censorship on the net. |
Your angle as well as the one pushed by the article in the OP is nothing new. It has been around for nearly a decade.
quote:
Wolff played the martyr in his Jan. 2 response. "Because Net Chat is available for sale in bookstores -- and is therefore a commercial product -- the Cancelmoose(TM) deemed our messages to be a `spam' and cancelled them all," he wrote. "In addition, given the opinionated nature of the posts, it is not unlikely that the Cancelmoose(TM) found some of our views about particular groups not to his liking and exercised his singular prerogative for even more subjective reasons."
Cancelmoose(TM) responded directly. "They were deemed spam because it was the same thing posted 150 times. I don't care if your message was newsgroup opinions or religious sermons or the recipe for chocolate chip cookies. The nature of the opinions expressed are irrelevant to spam determination."
And Wolff knows that or is a fool, Cancelmoose(TM) told eye.
Paul Phillips (paulp@primus.com) questioned whether Wolff's original ads really were a spam, but Wolff's reply convinced him Cancelmoose(TM) was right.
"You, sir, are intellectually dishonest," Phillips replied to Wolff, calling Wolff's story total PR bullshit. "It's the story you're taking to print media because it allows you to capitalize on the nonexistent `poor advertisers vs. Internet fanatics' paradigm promulgated by reporters. Do you really think you can fool us so easily?" |
[Emphasis my own]
The above was taken from an account of an early spam attack on the USEnet.
Last edited by Urban Ranger on 08-06-2003 at 13:49
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-06-2003 07:30
I just spammed there known, static IP addresses the whole time. About 1000 computers on the staticIPusers.de list that came with the program. Since they all had non changing IP's, they couldnt stop them. 
|