RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-22 Thread Alan Munday
; [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Keith Dowell > Sent: 21 January 2004 19:44 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam. > > When I say have more educated users, this is what I'm really > talking about. > I'm no expecti

Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread Fred
Keith Dowell wrote: > I made this point on a mimedefang list. Some people didn't really > like it. I like your point but I have some minor points of interest. > > Computers are too complicated for people to be responsible some said. > > So I tried equating it to maintaining your car in that, if

Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread Keith Dowell
ple at work. That's the education I'm talking about. Know when to change the oil and tires (and how). And know that when it's making a funny noise it's time to visit the mechanic. Both go back to - user responsibility. - Original Message - From: "Matthew Hunter&quo

RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread Bill
> The most appropriate response would be to demand Microsoft fix > their software. That is about as effective as trying to catch your breath in a vacuum. :) --- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Too

Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread Matthew Hunter
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 12:13:26PM -0500, Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know tons of people with broadband connections that might be on only a few > times a week. Some don't even notice their cpu is slower. I also know some > pretty intelligent people that despite what they try, sti

Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread Rubin Bennett
On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 11:43, Keith Dowell wrote: > I made this point on a mimedefang list. Some people didn't really like it. > And I made almost the exact same point here recently... > Computers are too complicated for people to be responsible some said. > IMHO, if it's too complicated, you sho

Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread Keith Dowell
7;t win. - Original Message - From: "Chris Santerre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Keith Dowell'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 11:13 AM Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam. > I agree an

RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread Larry Gilson
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:spamassassin-talk- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Santerre > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 11:27 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state

RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread Chris Santerre
o install them myself :) --Chris > -Original Message- > From: Keith Dowell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 11:43 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam. > > > I made this point on a mim

RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread James
o: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam. Importance: High Yeah, we have had this same conversation on another list a week ago. We are saying by DEFAULT and ISP should block the ports, BUT it should be removed if asked, and FREE of charge. I&

Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread Keith Dowell
ewing crap out on the net, because your computers infected, because it got hacked, because you had no protection, etc etc, yadda, yadda - then it's your OWN fault. Think logically here folks. - Original Message ----- From: "Pedro Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[E

RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread Chris Santerre
ED] > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 10:58 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam. > > > Not to flame anyone, but I sure do hope my isp never blocks ports. I > don't pay for obstructed internet access. I do run a small > m

RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread James
, January 21, 2004 10:08 AM To: 'Fred'; AltGrendel; Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail) Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam. ... I'm trying to find some stats on spam origins. Particularly by ISP. I see very little spam coming from cox.net cable modems vs. a buttload from Com

RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread Pierre Thomson
-Original Message- From: Chris Santerre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 10:08 AM To: 'Fred'; AltGrendel; Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail) Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam. > -Original Message- > From: Fred [mailto:

RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread Pierre Thomson
27;; AltGrendel; Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail) Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam. ... I'm trying to find some stats on spam origins. Particularly by ISP. I see very little spam coming from cox.net cable modems vs. a buttload from Comcast. Would be nice to know the biggest ones and start

RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread Chris Santerre
> -Original Message- > From: Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 9:39 AM > To: AltGrendel; Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail) > Subject: Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam. > > > AltGrendel wrote: > > On Tue, 2004-01-20 at

Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread Fred
AltGrendel wrote: > On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 18:28, Fred wrote: >> >> I can not imagine what it would be like to work for an abuse dept. at >> an internet company and receive hundreds or thousands of complaints >> about customers computers being hijacked or turned into spam zombies. >> > Non-original

Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread AltGrendel
On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 18:28, Fred wrote: > > I can not imagine what it would be like to work for an abuse dept. at > an internet company and receive hundreds or thousands of complaints > about customers computers being hijacked or turned into spam zombies. > Non-original joke: I think that jo

Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-20 Thread Bob Apthorpe
Hi, On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:44:35 -0500 Pedro Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I take an opposite view point. ISP's should disable a user's account, > if that account is found to be launching any malicious attacks, > regardless of whether that account was intentionally malicious or was > simply h

Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-20 Thread Pedro Sam
I take an opposite view point. ISP's should disable a user's account, if that account is found to be launching any malicious attacks, regardless of whether that account was intentionally malicious or was simply hacked. It's time people own up to the responsibility of a presence on the internet.

Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-20 Thread Robert Menschel
Hello Fred, Tuesday, January 20, 2004, 3:28:24 PM, you wrote: F> F> Today starts day 1 of a massive joe-job against my domain. F> Today also starts day 1 of my crusade to do something to help the F> problem. F> I feel that large providers of high speed internet services (Cable F> / DSL) need

Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-20 Thread Richard Ozer
Based on the record, to date, it would be the easiest job in the world Kind of like being the safety officer on the Titanic.   RO   >I can not imagine what it would be like to work for an abuse dept. at an internet company and receive hundreds or thousands of complaints about customers >c

[SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-20 Thread Fred
  Today starts day 1 of a massive joe-job against my domain.   Today also starts day 1 of my crusade to do something to help the problem.   I feel that large providers of high speed internet services (Cable / DSL) need to do more to protect their customers.   If the Cable / DSL providers wer