Rude Participant

[yourbuddy]

He has never posted any real explanation of the spamcop's error.

I have noticed that, his attitude also suggest something fishy about his desire to discredit spamcop... If he was really upset about spam he oughtta re-direct his displeasures... Makes one wonder why he is really here!

And here I thought you might be getting smarter ...

I am against supporting what causes harm to innocent bystanders

when (and only when) it actually causes harm to innocent bystanders.

That includes SpamCop, CIA, FBI, George "Dubya" Bush, the IDF,

the US millitary, multi-national corporations (the list could go on ... ).

As silentlarry indicates, I am not against manufacturing rope - but

I am against a vigilante crowd that uses it to hang an individual.

SpamCop may be producing good strong rope (most of the time)

and junk twine some of the time - but it's the use it's put to.

Simple enough yet for you ...

[dra007]

I am against supporting what causes harm to innocent bystanders

when (and only when) it actually causes harm to innocent bystanders.

That's odd, you don't seem to be listening to other's points of view and come with a logical or rational counter-argument, or one that people may take seriously..You just want to impose your own philosophy on others...

If that's not fanaticism or dogmatism, you may have to re-define those words! You are smart, go ahead, do it!

[silentlarry]

As silentlarry indicates, I am not against manufacturing rope - but I am against a vigilante crowd that uses it to hang an individual.

Again, we seem to be in agreement on the subject of "don't blame the tool, blame the improper use of" concept.

SpamCop may be producing good strong rope (most of the time) and junk twine some of the time - but it's the use it's put to.

Since we agree the miss use is happening on the ISP/sys admin side of things, I don't get what is it that keeps you engaging the people here? Are a lot of them administering mail systems of any significant size? I understand that some of them like to see the SCBL being widely applied, but they are not (probably not very many of them) the individuals wielding the rope. I would have thought that your beef lies elsewhere. The "unknown ISP somewhere" is probably not reading this board.

Essentially repeating my initial question, so I'll drop this inquiry if you don't care to address it.

Thanks

SL

PS

Miss Betsy thank you for the time you took to comment on my aside. I hate to admit it was sort of a rhetorical observation, we are already in sync on those points.

[yourbuddy]

Hi again silentlarry ...

The reason why I engage people here is 1. that it is SpamCop that

often manufactures the "inferior rope" that others then rely on without

question, and 2. that the manufacturer of "inferior rope" should have

some "product liability" for their inferior product and the "employees"

(moles, blackholes, reporters) that work on the "production line" and

3. the "myopic" and "dyslectic" view of some of the people that try

helping those ending up here because of aggressive use of "rope".

dra007 ...

I have answered your rather obnoxious remarks several times.

If you can read (do it) - better yet, if you can comprehend (do that).

If you have read any of the posts here by Miss Betsy, then you will

understand what an intelligent/balanced/considered opinion is.

[zachariah]

...This forum application needs something analgous to a kill file .... :angry:

strange -- most forums I visit do have an "ignore" option

[yourbuddy]

...This forum application needs something analgous to a kill file ....   :angry:

strange -- most forums I visit do have an "ignore" option

Yes, if you want to limit discussion - lots do.

I like all the "advertising" in your "signature"

Would that be a form of spam

[zachariah]

...This forum application needs something analgous to a kill file .... :angry:

strange -- most forums I visit do have an "ignore" option

Yes, if you want to limit discussion - lots do.

I like all the "advertising" in your "signature"

Would that be a form of spam

I suppose, but I was meaning it to be some helpful software to avoid spam.

hmmm ... I see revision in my future.

Edit:

Yes, I have now trimmed it a bit and now it only includes software to avoid ads, avoid security holes, and avoid spam.

[dra007]

If that's not fanaticism or dogmatism, you may have to re-define those words! You are smart, go ahead, do it!

Typical, never answers the questions, just goes on attacks!

[turetzsr]

If that's not fanaticism or dogmatism, you may have to re-define those words! You are smart, go ahead, do it!

Typical, never answers the questions, just goes on attacks!

...Actually, that's not true. yourbuddy has made a great contribution to helping SpamCop.net users. He also doesn't seem to like the SpamCop BL or many of us SpamCop.net users but at least a lot of what he does post in these fora has value.

[dra007]

He also doesn't seem to like the SpamCop BL or many of us SpamCop.net users

I will grant you that, I just don't have tolerance for people who attack for the simple reason that you might disagree with what they say...it denotes both insecurity and a distorted view of the world...

[yourbuddy]

He also doesn't seem to like the SpamCop BL or many of us SpamCop.net users

I will grant you that, I just don't have tolerance for people who attack for the simple reason that you might disagree with what they say...it denotes both insecurity and a distorted view of the world...

So now you are a Psychologist?

I have a Degree in Business with a minor in Psychology (with Honors, BTW).

There is no attacking going on, it was after you poked me several times with

a sharp stick, that there was just the smallest of growls as a response.

So, to use your analysis, it may very well apply to yourself.

Psychologically, people often do this with their own inadequacies.

[Miss Betsy]

Would that be a form of spam  

I suppose, but I was meaning it to be some helpful software to avoid spam.

hmmm ... I see revision in my future.

I don't think that signatures - even ones with the obvious business of the poster - are considered advertising. Of course, sometimes it does lead to a new customer who happens to need what you are providing, but it is one of the accepted ways of "unsolicited" advertising - to frequent newsgroups and forums, never mentioning your product/service, but contributing to the discussion. I don't think that it is even considered rude if you volunteer something when it is relevant to the discussion - just as in normal conversations. Usually people preface a mention with a disclaimer such as "since you asked about..."

In this case, though it was looking a little like an ad board It was obviously just an enthusiast or someone who wants to 'educate' people about the good things on the internet. Petzl always includes a admonition to people to use a virus scanner and IIRC, he names his favorite.

spam does not equal advertising and advertising does not equal spam.

Miss Betsy

[yourbuddy]

Does unsolicited advertising equal spam?

Is it spam only if it's sent in email, but not if listed in your signature?

If spam is "unsolicited" and "bulk" does that apply only to email, or does

it also apply to pop-up ads and website traps and cookies that track you.

What about the ISP who auto-replyed to virus rejects with advertising

"how to solve your problem" with a link to anti-virus sites - is that spam?

What about all the people here (including Miss Betsy) who say that if it is

"unsolicited" it is spam? Can we include links to our corporate websites?

Just rhetorical questions perhaps, but I think zacharia did a great job of

limiting it to mostly open source and/or free sources of helpful software.

[Miss Betsy]

To be spam it has to be unsolicited and unwanted. For instance, in another topic, a resume sent to sales[at] was tagged as spam, but the same resume sent to jobs[at] was not.

On the internet it is all a matter of consideration for others or netiquette. In the offline world, if people were more considerate, there would not be as many laws. But laws don't work online and those who are rude can be effectively ignored. so those who want to communicate need to be considerate of others.

In the exchange about the signature - yourbuddy saw the signature and saw 'ads' though when I looked at it, I saw that someone had a lot of favorites. However, zachariah changed it to open source - now that's polite. He could have argued about it or let yourbuddy intimidate him into removing everything. Instead he looked at it from yourbuddy's viewpoint and reduced the number using a reasonable criterion.

If spam is "unsolicited" and "bulk" does that apply only to email, or does

it also apply to pop-up ads and website traps and cookies that track you.

They are all rude because they are intrusive or are exploitative without your knowledge. However, unlike spam, they are easily ignored. There are blockers for popups and cookies that track you and AFAIK the advertisers don't try to get around them the way spammers try to get around filters. I am not sure about website traps which sound truly criminal.

It is the 'bulk' that creates a nuisance - even offline. It was when too many billboards cluttered the landscape, that highway advertising was banned or limited.

Advertising is not a 'bad' thing. IMHO, a corporate link in one's signature is not rude. It identifies the person and provides a way to contact hir directly if you want to. Neither one is impolite. But it should be inobtrusive so that if you are not interested, you are not compelled to notice it. That was what was 'bad' about all the links in the signature that was the subject that started this discussion - even though they were not 'advertising' the sites. Commercial advertising is not the only thing that is rude.

Miss Betsy

[zachariah]

... I think zacharia did a great job of

limiting it to mostly open source and/or free sources of helpful software.

It's only a coincidence that most are opensource/free. The scope for my list is supposed to be the programs which in my 10+ years of tech support have given me the least headaches.

I do use GAIM on Linux and it's nice that AVG is free, but Trillian is just a little better (IMO) on Windows, and NAV is still AV king in my book. Additionally, it should be noted that I donate regularly to the opensource projects from which I use software, so none of those are free for me anyway.

I did go crazy with my sig after thinking to put in a link to Firefox in my sig. I ended up putting in a bunch of my favorite software. In the time it took me to review how it looked, yourbuddy managed to comment on it (before my final draft) -- which was actually helpful. Now I have un-bolded the software names, and limited the list to software which will likely help SpamCop users have less spam, see fewer ads, avoid viruses, and avoid spy-ware. All of which should theoretically lead to less spam and less calls for help on this board. I think I have pushed the sig beyond the boundaries of what can be called spam -- not that all will agree, however.

...just more details to add to the debate...

[yourbuddy]

To be spam it has to be unsolicited and unwanted.

Now this is truly interesting, and the "issue" that causes many problems.

The "unsolicited" is controlled by the "sender", but the "unwanted" is the

judgement/idiosyncracy of the "recipient" (their opinions may not be the same).

The "sender" (not bulk email) could think it was of great benefit to the person,

but the recipient could judge that it was not - so well intended communication

becomes "spam". In this example (for the sender to be safe) all "unsolicited"

email could become spam - yet this is not the (usual) definition of spam.

So, "spam" is really in the "eye of the beholder" - now that's a problem.

[StevenUnderwood]

So, "spam" is really in the "eye of the beholder" - now that's a problem.

Of course it is and it is not a problem if the sender does not sent unsolicited messages in the first place.

As stated here many times, spam is all about CONSENT to sent the message, not the CONTENT of the message itself.

[yourbuddy]

So, "spam" is really in the "eye of the beholder" - now that's a problem.

Of course it is and it is not a problem if the sender does not sent unsolicited messages in the first place.

As stated here many times, spam is all about CONSENT to sent the message, not the CONTENT of the message itself.

But the "accepted" definition of spam is not just "unsolicited".

It needs to be both "unsolicited" and "bulk", and there is (already

accepted on the Internet) a "semi-official" extended definition of

spam (that I can post, if you want) and it's not just "unsolicited".

There is no way to write Law if "spam" hasn't been defined.

[Farelf]

There is no way to write Law if "spam" hasn't been defined.

Some time ago I posted one legislative attempt - Aussie spam Act which includes a link to the entire Act. The overview of the provisions is at Simplified Outline of the Act and the first lines of *that* are

* This Act sets up a scheme for regulating commercial e-mail and other types of commercial electronic messages.

* Unsolicited commercial electronic messages must not be sent.

There seem to be no "bulk" considerations at all and the definition of "commercial electronic messages" encompasses just about every form of advertising and offer of goods and services, real or purported. Might be a touch too inclusive for some, going by previous comments. Personally, I am prepared to forgo the occasional commercial email I might deem informative/useful (and someone else might not) *if it would get rid of the other 99.9%*. And at least it would *not* prevent high-school/college reunion round-ups!!

Just a thought ... and yourbuddy you'll love it that we're an awful' long way from Kansas and we denizens call the place "the land of Oz" ;-)

[Miss Betsy]

Of course, there has to be a definition. Unsolicited and unwanted is the basic definition based on consideration of others. There are times, however, when intrusion is not unwelcome: a long lost cousin, a friend of a neighbor who has heard that you want a particular kind of lawn mower that he has for sale. In the business world, inquiries, job applications, even offers of services are not always unwelcome if they are sent to the proper address.

The problem is not with individual emails that are unsolicited (as most of the examples of the above either are, or could be if that was the accepted standard). IMHO, they will never be a problem technologically and also, IMHO, they each can be dealt with individually without the introduction of a third party (blocklist, ISP) according to individual preference.

The problem is with unsolicited bulk email. There are few people who want it (apparently some businesses and the tiny percentage that buy from the spammers).

Bulk email sent indiscriminately is costly to the recipients and can cause technological problems. Therefore, that is what should be controlled. Blocklists, like spamcop, should limit reporting to UBE that is not a result of prior relationships (to the best of the reporters knowledge and belief). ISP's TOS and AUP should state clearly that bulk email MUST follow best practices.

My solution is that bulk email should be clearly marked in the headers (an existing RFC). People could then request blocking of all bulk email except that which they whitelist (again an existing technology). They would whitelist the mailing lists, etc. as part of the confirmation process. People who do not choose blocking of bulk email could be charged more for email service because of the amount of email they would receive would be greater in general than someone who used the bulk email blocking.

Any email received as an 'individual' email that looked to be unsolicited bulk email would be reported (kind of like the nanae sightings). A certain number of reports would trigger that IP address being put on a blocklist. The 'criterion' would not be spam, but the lack of a bulk email header which would have sent it to the blocklist/whitelist of the recipient. Therefore ISP's who had IP addresses listed would not be guilty of supporting spammers, but of incompetence and irresponsibility in not ensuring that their bulk emailers were RFC compliant or that the computers on their network were secure.

It would mean a lot of 'collateral damage' in the beginning as ISP's found out how to control their bulk emailers (although a lot of responsible ISP's already have policies in place to do that). That's why I think it would be better for an ISP association to create and use the bl.

In the end, however, everyone would be happy. Ordinary individuals who use email for communication with friends and families would never get their emails blocked unless they were using an irresponsible ISP. If they couldn't get internet access any other way, they could use a web email service. Businesses would not have to filter individual emails or if they did, could filter according to the list where most of the real emails would be filtered out with certainty and only the ones on the blocklist would have to be sifted. They could filter bulk email, however they chose (before or after DATA acceptance). Legitimate bulk emailers would be happy because their mailings would never be blocked or reported (since recipients would just add or delete from their whitelist - deleting would result in a bounced message which could be used for removal). And spammers and their customers could send and buy as much as they wanted to.

Even if that is a pipe dream, the reality is that UBE is what needs to be controlled. Laws are ineffective, but if the consensus was that unsolicited bulk email was what would be reported and acted on, that would be workable and save a lot of heartburning.

Miss Betsy

[StevenUnderwood]

But the "accepted" definition of spam is not just "unsolicited".

You did not ask about the "accepted" definition of spam but I would argue your point.

I sent out a question for my users (~300) when we were setting up our spam filtering and included several different definitions of spam. Almost half responded that the definitions were too complicated and that basically spam was "Anything I don't want" or "Anything I did not ask for". So it all depends on who is "accepting" the definition.

It needs to be both "unsolicited" and "bulk", and there is (already

accepted on the Internet) a "semi-official" extended definition of

spam (that I can post, if you want) and it's not just "unsolicited".

If (big IF) there is a law enacted that says that is what spam is, I will disagree with the definition but not report anything that does not fit the definition stated by the law.

There is no way to write Law if "spam" hasn't been defined.

It does not need to be defined by you or me for a law to be written unless we are the ones writing it. There will never be an international law banning spam anyway, so this whole argument is useless. I like the Aussie spam Law definition posted by Farelf: "Unsolicited commercial electronic messages must not be sent".

[Miss Betsy]

Unsolicited commercial emails interferes with the normal kind of business dealings on an 'individual' level since buying and selling requires seeking out unknown people both to buy and to sell. Once you get into defining what are acceptable 'commercial' emails, you have created a definition where the spammer is bound to find a loophole.

OTOH, since it is the BULK email that is causing the problem and there are plenty of organizations who would like to get a message out that is not selling a product, the definition that needs to be used is UBE for reporting, controlling (TOS,AUP), and blocking.

In addition, the definition for action needs to be narrowed to omit prior relationships, viruses, and bounces (though bounces would not be bulk anyway). That does not mean that viruses and bounces could not be reported separately from other UBE or that there couldn't be something like BBB for irresponsible email managers who don't unsubscribe promptly, etc.

BTW, your customers' definition fits the basic definition - unsolicited and unwanted.

Miss Betsy

[yourbuddy]

Please refer to the following, provided by zachariah:

from: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/ed...ial/5778539.htm

"... last week, U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D., Calif.) introduced a bill that, if properly

implemented by the Federal Trade Commission, would actually work [to eliminate

most spam]. I am so confident she is right that I've offered to resign my job if her

proposal does not significantly reduce the burden of spam." -- Lawrence Lessig

[StevenUnderwood]

BTW, your customers' definition fits the basic definition - unsolicited and unwanted.

Miss Betsy:

My users (this is a company setting) did not include the and, I did during the discussion. The half that answered other in the survey commented either unsolicited or unwanted.

Unsolicited commercial emails interferes with the normal kind of business dealings on an 'individual' level since buying and selling requires seeking out unknown people both to buy and to sell.

My feeling is that there are other ways to advertise that cost the advertiser more money that it costs the advertisee. I am also in a business where the general public has no need for our services so widespread advertising would have no effect.

[StevenUnderwood]

Please refer to the following, provided by zachariah:

from: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/ed...ial/5778539.htm

"... last week, U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D., Calif.) introduced a bill that, if properly

implemented by the Federal Trade Commission, would actually work [to eliminate

most spam]. I am so confident she is right that I've offered to resign my job if her

proposal does not significantly reduce the burden of spam." -- Lawrence Lessig

question: How is this going to affect all of the open proxies, relays, and comprimised machines where the spam is actually being sent through. These people will say I am not the source of the message, my system was misconfigured.

The true source is not able to be tracked down in many instances. I have very few spam coming directly from the sending server to my machine. Whether those are good forgeries or the true source behind the connecting server, I don't know.

question: When did the spammers right to free speech trump my right to close the door on them? Last I knew, I could accept whatever message I want and dispose of whatever message I want for any reason.

I am exercising that right with the use of the spamcop bl on my personal messages. Less than 1 false positive per week is not stepping on anyones Free Speech rights.

For the company messages, we filter with postini to exercise the same right. My users can look at the hed messages if they want or ignore them completely. If they miss an important business communication because of it, it is their responsibility (and perhaps their job).

The author could make the claim of a resignation because he knows it will never be implemented to test it. Corporate america will know that their messages will be discarded while the sleezy spammers will still get their message through because they are hiding behind machines that are programmed to protect them. I believe it would cause very little difference becuase of comprimised machines and ISP's in countries such as China and Brazil who do nothing about the problem.

If this law held the ISP's responsible while paying a bounty to those reporting the direct source who relayed the message, and it could be implemented worldwide, it would work.