On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 12:28:59PM -0700, Jeremy Oddo is rumored to have said:
> Illustre Orman said:
> > On Sat, 2003-05-24 at 14:09, Robert J. Accettura wrote:
> >> http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/05/24/spam.bill.reut/index.html
> >>
> >> Yea! How sweet it looks!
> >>
> I quote from a related article:
> "The Federal Trade Commission has seen a huge increase in complaints from
> consumers. In 2001, the FTC received 10,000 junk e-mails each day
> forwarded by angry consumers. The agency now receives 130,000 messages
> daily."
> ...
> Now, I'm sure 1&2 would get is into big trouble, but seeing as how the FTC
> "now receives 130,000 messages daily", can we not e-mail then and gripe
> about SPAM? The answer must be "yes". So my next question is "how OFTEN
> can you e-mail them to gripe about SPAM"? Once a week, once a day, once
> an hour, once per SPAM e-mail? Or maybe we could do a "bulk forward"
> where we attach the days SPAM to ONE e-mail and send that off?
They're asking for these messages. They want you to forward your spam to [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
> OK, perhaps we should play fair and only send an e-mail a day complaining
> about SPAM. What if EVERYONE that uses SA creates a CRON job to e-mail
> said governor and FTC?
I'm all for flooding Davis's mailbox, but not because I want any laws passed. I
support the recall effort going on to get him out of office.
> We do a lot of work to stop SPAM at the server level, but we really SHOULD
> make our voices heard to the people that are passing laws, no?
No! We don't need any unenforcable regulation of the Internet! Who gets to decide
what's solicited and what isn't or what's commercial and what isn't? So we pass a
bunch of laws. Big deal. Do you honestly think that it'll matter one bit? It won't!
The best case scenario is that the spammers will move their entire operations
offshore. They're already relaying through proxies and open relays in China, Korea,
etc. while making a ton of money. If we force them offshore, they'll only be making
more money as the cost of living in most other countries is a lot lower and they won't
have to change their rates - in fact, they could very well RAISE their rates due to
the "added cost of working around the new laws".
I'm all for going the political route when it comes to most things, but what we need
to combat spam is a technical solution, not a legal one. There's no (none, zip, nada)
legal solution that will even make a dent in the volume of spam flowing around the
'net. The only thing that a bunch of useless laws will accomplish is generating some
good PR for the politicians while wasting taxpayer dollars. Frankly, I'd rather see
that money being spent on homeland security.
--
Steve Thomas
----------------------------------------------------------
"...subatomic matter in a particle accelerator that exists
for only a few microseconds seems to exhibit more uptime
than the RIAA's website."
-- Andrew Orlowski
TheRegister.co.uk
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: ObjectStore.
If flattening out C++ or Java code to make your application fit in a
relational database is painful, don't do it! Check out ObjectStore.
Now part of Progress Software. http://www.objectstore.net/sourceforge
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
