Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by yourbuddy

  1. Ah yes, very true indeed!!, but ... So far, they seem to have no "motivation" to stop!! DNSBL's don't seem to work (nice try by Spamhaus and SpamCop and others, noble ambition, but no real results). The "automated" JHD (just hit delete) systems seem like the only way to put the junk where it belongs. Once the spammers realize that "almost foolproof" JHD systems are being used by nearly everyone, only the really stupid will be reading spam. Which seems to be their "target audience" anyway
  2. Why not use Outlook 2003 and the "Junk E-mail" filter that is built in, then you can have a happy life without spam, and without SpamCop.
  3. Yes, but someone "goofed", by reporting you (that's not good) and your provider terminated you (their client) because of a SpamCop "snitch" (that's unreasonable). It seems you've got some problems.
  4. What do you think of using SpamCop compared to Spamhaus??
  5. That's good, because there are those "sensitive" souls
  6. Is anyone going to advise "Don" that his "tone" could be improved??
  7. Yes, could be that PC Mag is not involved, but I asked Zinio "support" and they said they were instructed to send it to me by PC Mag, and even gave a "subscription code" for a subscription at PC Mag that I don't have. Very interesting ...
  8. I recently received an unsolicited html email (advertisement) from Zinio, stating that my copy of PCMag was now available. Apparently, this is just a scam to get you to download the Zinio "reader" and get one "sample" copy of PC Mag. PC Mag has my email address from "utility download" services.
  9. Anyone Merlyn does not like is branded a "spammer" and a "troll". He must have taken a special course in how to abuse people. :angry:
  10. Another spanked spammer speaks more nonsense. They know so little and the know it so fluently. Must be a full moon coming, the trolls are getting restless. Trolls are very dirty creatures, they defecate where they feed so if you feed the troll you must clean up after it. Please do not feed this troll. Now how would a Donkey know anything about Trolls
  11. Certainly, I remeber having chock all over my pants! What's "chock"??
  12. 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
  13. ...and once again it has nothing to do with being fanatic! Look in a mirror lately
  14. Obviously they are using spammy ISPs! For once (maybe it's twice now) I agree with you That's not saying anything against any ISP in particular. Some really do seem to specialize in "being friendly to spammers", while others are just unfortunate enough to have been "reported" by a SpamCop fanatic because "it's email that I did not want". It seems nearly every ISP (including the "major providers") have been (or are) on a DNSbl. So, every ISP seems to be "spammy".
  15. I second that! Yes, you would But if those 3 false positives were for 3 billion dollars sales, then SpamCop has cost this company (and others) lots All of our public non-employee addresses remain unfiltered and unblocked, especially the RFC required ones. In other words, the box 'sales at ourdomain.com' gets lots of spam. I get lots of spam through postmaster, webmaster, etc. The employees do not get much spam. ...Ken Very good thinking ... All of which proves the point (made by SpamCop) that the SpamCop system is experimental and not to be used in a production environment where delivery of email is critical. Glad you understand the warning. There are "executives" and "sales" people that can't afford the possible "damage" that unreliable "experimental" systems cause, and a PC based spam filter (POPFile being best) is much more appropriate.
  16. 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).
  17. I though you said you were leaving this forum. Please do not feed the Troll. Hi Merlyn ... No, I said I was back - because too many of you (like yourself and dra007) were being too rude in the "Help Forum", and you continue to prove the need. As the "resident troll" it's my job. I understand why you want to ignore intelligent discussion.
  18. 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.
  19. Ok, fine - let's make it Thousand Dollar deals/sales The question, Miss Betsy, is who would use SpamCop - which is too proactive (based on "if I don't want it, it's spam" reporting by users). Using SpamCop is not suitable "in a production evironment". It's ironic (perhaps moronic), that SpamCop (and it's snitches) are trying to make email more productive/reliable (etc., etc.) and at the same time users (like yourself) are saying "don't rely on email".
  20. Two fanatics arguing their own cause - how interesting
  21. I second that! Yes, you would But if those 3 false positives were for 3 billion dollars sales, then SpamCop has cost this company (and others) lots
  22. No I don't Well of course you do It has special application to most of what you say Anyway, the male/female thing reminds me of a University Prof. who had a female student that complained about the use of "mankind", and the Prof. replied that: (in his classes) "man embraces woman".
  23. From a case file, and likely from Detroit or Texas
  24. Sure, so let’s get this straight. The execution that was previously proposed, has now been replaced by sitting innocently (you are not a criminal type) on the couch, watching TV and sipping a Coors - and some person breaks through you door with guns blazing, and you just happen to be wearing your gun or have it hidden under one of the couch cushions (common in Texas, presumably) and you (‘cause you’re not such a good shot) - aim for this person’s head and (just by dumb luck) drop'm right there. Sure, why not - you’ll likely “get off” with self-defense, but not if it was just an "unarmed" Scotty delivering spam. Your initial comparison/suggestion was very extreme, and YES I am glad that I am obviously not a Texan.
  25. The "politically correct" (as you put it) is not relevant at all. The "intent" of the Law - is THE LAW, it's not your personal choice. The result is "Jail Time - Big Time" in a Texas jail for you Ken. The time can be spent considering the advice given to you. ...Seems to me Ken has accepted that and is saying that his life and that of his family members is more important to him. Under the scenario he poses, I'd take exactly the same position that he does. There was an interesting legal case, where a man (whose house had been broken into several times) set a trap that included a trip wire and a shotgun. His daughter came home late at night and was killed by the shotgun blast. The man was charged with murder, and is serving "deserved" time.
  • Create New...