Re: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] RE: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Contacts
-
From: peter h <>
-
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:03:47 +0100
On Monday 10 January 2005 18.22, you wrote:
> Re: Chris Jones. The only thing choatic about the internet is Jones
> himself. Fraudulent spam is of course, unwanted. however, no-one would ever
> hear about legitimate companies without using the internet to advertise
> their wares. The internet isd a thriving community with more and more
> products being bought and sold at competitive prices - largely due to less
> cost of internet shopping.
There is no such thing as "legitimate companies that advertise their wares" -
spam is theaft in every case. Theft from receiver ( receiver pays the cost
of goods he/she never wanted), theft from ISP ( cost of abuse-desk burdens
ISP, who of course will forward the cost to everyone BUT the spammer), theft
of disk-space everywhere the spam resides, theft of resources better used
for fighting real abuse.
There is no excuse for spam. Neither is there any excuse for the lameness
our politicans has shown on this subject.
>
> if Jones is as competant as he would suggest, then he would know that not
> only is the internet big enough to host everyones web pages, emails etc..
> there is still plenty of capacity. Indeed, some 5Gb sela-healing rings are
> closed at the moment due to lack of use.
And you suggest we fill them up with spam ??? Ok with me, just keep
them isolated from Internet and make shure spammers pay.
>
> Come on, Chris, stick to making furniture and stop wasting your time
> complaining.
Personal attacks won't make your arguments better. Spam is one of the
most importent problems to solve for teh Internet community.
>
> For those of really worried by being spammed, then don't do what Chris
> Jones does. He advertises ALL his contact details on the internet. He
> hasn't bothered to cloak the email addresses so any spider can find them.
> Check out his website at: www.stow-jones.co.uk and tell me if this guy
> really knows what he is talking about.
Being able to expose an e-mail address is a freedom and something we
should be able to do. The spam-plaque makes this difficult and
causes a lot of extra work just to find someones a-mail.
And you cannot have it both ways, pro-spam and at the same time advocate
for methods to avoid spam.
Spam is a plaque, spammers steal.
>
> I personally use email software that has a junk mailbox facility. All mail
> that hasn't been authorised by me goes in the box.
> I still haqve to check the box every day as mixed in with the pretty spam
> are legitimate orders from new customers. well, i couldn't autorise someone
> I've never heard about, could I?
>
Your protection is lousy. e-mail is *perfect* to take a first contact. Spam
destroys this since most people tends to ignore mail from "unknown"(just as
you describe)
> Yours, against SPAM, but bemused by so-called IT experts.
>
Again, personal attacks won't strengthen your case. As for even taking
the word "IT experts" in their mouth disqualifies any real
knowledge about computing. Maybe it's an acronym for "ComputerMagazine Reader"
> Andrew Barrow
> Contact Information
> Telephone
> +44 1244 851893
> Mobiles
> Chris: +44 7980 292024
> Pat: +44 7773 582905
> Postal Address
> Strawberry Cottage
> Strawberry Lane
> Mollington
> Cheshire
> CH1 6LL
> Electronic Mail
> General Information: info only
> Webmaster: webmaster
> Postmaster: postmaster
> Chris: chris' email address
> Pat: pat's email address
> Close Window
--
Peter H�kanson
There's never money to do it right, but always money to do it
again ... and again ... and again ... and again.
( Det �r billigare att g�ra r�tt. Det �r dyrt att laga fel. )
