Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ralsky's Fatal Tumor

Julian Haight to debate Scott Richter!

Recommended Posts

Wired News is reporting that Julian and Scott "The High Volume E-Mail Deployer" Richter are going to have a public debate next month.

Here's hoping that Julian's from a country in which the word "debate" actually means "pummel with a 2x4, then feed to rabid wolverines."

There's no more info there, but the story has been picked up at Slashdot, which always makes for some good reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd actually like to see a debate in this country where debate means "the exchange and critique of logically sound arguments supported by properly cited information".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd actually like to see a debate in this country where debate means "the exchange and critique of logically sound arguments supported by properly cited information".

Are you insane, man?! It's an election year!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd actually like to see a debate in this country where debate means "the exchange and critique of logically sound arguments supported by properly cited information".

...That only works when all parties involved in the debate recognize and take action on "the exchange and critique of logically sound arguments supported by properly cited information". At least one of the participants in the coming debate is widely believed by many of the participants of this forum to not do so! :D <g>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then maybe we should hand running of the debates back over to the League of Women Voters so they will let in more than two candidates to do the debating.

oh, wait ... you were talking about the spam debate, huh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd actually like to see a debate in this country where debate means "the exchange and critique of logically sound arguments supported by properly cited information".

Two fanatics arguing their own cause - how interesting :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fanatic: unreasonably enthusiastic; overly zealous

IMHO, neither participant in this debate can be dubbed fanatic, though both are enterprising entrepreneurs.

Both are businessmen who are using the internet. One to send unsolicited commercial emails in bulk; the other to protect recipients from paying for or being overwhelmed by such emails.

Because of the efforts and arguments of people like Julian, most legitimate bulk emailers use confirmed subscription, do not share addresses without permission, and make it obvious when the email address is entered what their policy is.

Because of the onslaught of email that most people don't want from the senders of UBE, people who want unsolicited email have had to alter the way they 'solicit' it online and people who might send that 'wanted' unsolicited email have to be careful about where they send it. When people say that 'email is dead, it is the legitimate use of unsolicited email that is almost unusuable. Users who are in a personal or business relationship already can share unpublished email addresses or be whitelisted.

As many have pointed out, unsolicited commercials are rampant offline so those who send UCE are no more fanatical than their offline counterparts. OTOH, those offline commercial messages that are as intrusive as UCE and those that actually cost the recipient have been severely restricted or banned. Therefore, those who seek to restrict, or ban, UCE are no more fanatical than those who have done so offline.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fanatic:  unreasonably enthusiastic; overly zealous

IMHO, neither participant in this debate can be dubbed fanatic, though both are enterprising entrepreneurs.

<snip>

Therefore, those who seek to restrict, or ban, UCE are no more fanatical than those who have done so offline.

Miss Betsy

Your "argument" goes around in an odd circle (there's a Latin saying for this) ;)

First you say that they are not fanatic, and then you say that one is no more

fanatic than the other. Anyone who believes the definition of spam "is anything

I didn't ask for and/or don't want" and has a system that allows snitches to

report on this basis - is fairly fanatical. Anyone who believes that they can

send (can I say "millions" or "billions") unsolicited commercial bulk email

and not have people complain is equally fanatical. So, two fanatics in a

"debate" - not much of a debate - just expressions of fanatic views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your "argument" goes around in an odd circle (there's a Latin saying for this)  ;)

There is a saying for you too! Troll!

Please do not feed the troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your "argument" goes around in an odd circle (there's a Latin saying for this)  ;)

There is a saying for you too! Troll!

Please do not feed the troll.

Merlyn ...

As the "resident troll" I'm trying to do a good "troll like" job of

pointing out the "other side of the issue". Your remarks are silly.

Please don't interfere with discussions that are over your capacity.

There's a saying for people like you too (it would be rude to say).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please don't interfere with discussions that are over your capacity.

Talking about the intelectual capacity of a troll is an oxymoron! :rolleyes:

PS. Can a moderator move the intrusions to yourbuddy collection please?

Edited by dra007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First you say that they are not fanatic, and then you say that one is no more

fanatic than the other. 

I did not say that one is no more fanatic than the other. I said that they are no more fanatic than those who do the same sort of things offline.

Anyone who believes the definition of spam "is anything

I didn't ask for and/or don't want" and has a system that allows snitches to

report on this basis - is fairly fanatical. Anyone who believes that they can

send (can I say "millions" or "billions") unsolicited commercial bulk email

and not have people complain is equally fanatical. So, two fanatics in a

"debate" - not much of a debate - just expressions of fanatic views.

I believe that spamcop rules say that the spam that can be reported is unsolicited and appears to be bulk.

And I believe that spammers say the solution is JHD (or use a content filter to automatically JHD). They don't believe that complaints are justified since offline people have to throw away or turn off or use an answering machine to avoid unwanted unsolicited communications.

Just because you don't agree with the definitions doesn't make the people who are using them fanatical.

The spammers may be 'overly enthusiastic' that people would be willing to deal with their communications, but I am not sure that is really fanatic. But spamcop is doing nothing that is not done offline by people who do not want unsolicted communications. In addition, they are reporting to the sender responsible. And they are using the equivalent of an answering machine (or if you pay for it offline, actually blocking) to filter incoming communications. Unlike offline communications blocking techniques, spamcop has the ability to return a message to the sender stating why the message wasn't delivered. Some people do return junk postal mail to the sender, but not very many since it costs them money. Online, it is actually cheaper to return the message as undeliverable than to accept it. In addition, there is a precedent offline that unsolicited communications that cost the receiver to receive are illegal.

There is nothing fanatical about blocklists. the premise of spamcop is to report to people who would want to know and to block incoming spam. The blocking should be only temporary since the people who receive the report should respond immediately and either stop the spam run or point out the misunderstanding. The fact that some ISP's are incompetent and irresponsible is not spamcop's fault.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that some ISP's are incompetent and irresponsible is not spamcop's fault.

...and once again it has nothing to do with being fanatic! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that some ISP's are incompetent and irresponsible is not spamcop's fault.

...and once again it has nothing to do with being fanatic! :P

Look in a mirror lately :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe that spamcop rules say that the spam that can be reported is unsolicited and appears to be bulk.

<snip>

Just because you don't agree with the definitions doesn't make the people who are using them fanatical.

You don't KNOW what the SpamCop "rules" are?? :rolleyes:

You only BELIEVE that you know?? :rolleyes:

Your ASSUMED definition is not one that's accepted by other "spamfighters"

or Federal Legislation currectly in effect. It's just your personal definition :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your ASSUMED definition is not one that's accepted by other "spamfighters" or Federal Legislation currectly in effect. It's just your personal definition :rolleyes:

Actully, the federal legislation has little to do with whether or not a mail admin will receive a particular mail. It can limit the form of what can be sent, but it can't specify what email must be received. That's the nice thing about the First Amendment. Someone can preach that murder is OK at the top of his lungs, but no one has to listen at all. Spammers can send out all they want, I-CAN-spam legal and everything, but no one can force us to receive it. In fact, the I-CAN-spam laws make it easier to filter.

Partly, its First Amendment and partly its Property Rights. I enforce both on my servers.

...Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't KNOW what the SpamCop "rules" are?? 

You only BELIEVE that you know?? 

Your ASSUMED definition is not one that's accepted by other "spamfighters"

or Federal Legislation currectly in effect. It's just your personal definition 

If anyone wants to go to the trouble of looking them up, there are spamcop rules of what is reportable as spam.

It doesn't matter what other people define as unacceptable. The person who is doing the blocking, or using the blocklist, either defines it or uses the definition of that blocklist.

The whole point of server administrators being able to block is based on private property rights - my server, my rules. If they sell email service, then whether they are successful or not depends on whether customers like their rules.

Now, if you are going to write legislation, then there would be a legal definition, but I don't think that the legislation now in existence addresses the issue of whether a server operator can be forced by law to accept certain kinds of email.

What makes me angry is that I use a white hat ISP. There is no reason anyone should not accept my email. Yet, often I cannot use published email addresses for legitimate business because my email address is not 'recognized.' I consider that downright insulting. We aren't talking shared servers or automatic virus notifications or anything else that cause blockage. They are REFUSING MY EMAIL ADDRESS which has never been associated with any kind of spam or unsolicited commercial email or bulk email. They are doing so because they got too much spam and chose to use whitelists. I know that. I can understand having my email refused for technical reasons that can be fixed. I might grumble as I do when I get stuck in a traffic jam because some idiot had an accident. but having my email address refused just because they have a spam problem is like having to show my ID to cash a check. I am resentful of the thieves who have caused it and I always feel insulted.

Miss Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×