YuanTi Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Hmmmm... been reading some of the mindless wanderings on this board.... It appears to me that simply deleting the spam I receive would take a LOT less time then coming here and attempting to learn ways to stop or control it. From the latest reports to the FTC... spam is increasing, as well as lawsuits against the major ISP's that have over stepped their rights and slammed law abiding site owners. With the cost of Attorney FEE$, the major ISP'$ would serve their members better by simply suggesting everyone delete and/or Not Reply to spam. But then, if there was no Micro$oft and no $PAM... this site would cease to be and all of the mindless that wander here would be cast out looking for some other cause to make them feel of value to the world? In the words of my Uncle Ray Ray... "You ain't gonna stop spam until you can rid the internet of all the people Dumb enough to fall for it" "They are the ones that make the Spammers enough money to make it worth their time." and... he slowly adds "But then, Dumb people tend to multiply faster than the smart ones" Finally he concludes with his well known Out House logic.... "I guess the real problem here is not the Spammers but that we have way too many Dumb people using the Internet" Really hard to argue with Uncle Ray Ray, his 8th grade education and his bottom line outlook on things. No Shallow Thinking from Uncle Ray Ray... He takes the logic to the bottom line. Just my opinion...I could be wrong? Moderator Edit: I don't see where this has anything to do with the Topic you posted into .. therefore, this post is being split out from that discussion into its own Topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dra007 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Just my opinion...I could be wrong? Moderator Edit: I don't see where this has anything to do with the Topic you posted into .. therefore, this post is being split out from that discussion into its own Topic 39731[/snapback] ...yes, deffinitely wrong, besides posting in an unrelated thread...In your uncle's logic, ponds get poluted sometimes..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Originally posted into http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=5842 .. no correlation seen .... now standing on its own two feet .... Yes, there was that thought many years ago ... one day there would be no SpamCop.net as there would be no spam .... yet, here we all are .... The question at this point still remains though .. just how bad would spam be if it weren't for things like SpamCop.net being in the mix? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 It is ideas like that which makes the spam problem worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Reiteration of P.T. Barnum's dictum* never did any harm. Not that "we" particularly need the reminder in this context. It's those who (attempt to) make a living out of it that are the spam problem. Uncle Ray Ray was right about the snapshot "here and now". What we're trying to do "here" is throttle back the proliferation into the future. How can making no attempt be better? Uncle Ray Ray's errant nephew/niece should spend some more time at the old guy's feet. (*attributed, apparently he never actually said "There's a sucker born every minute.") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YuanTi Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 Again, I must emphasize the real point of the original writing.... More effort should be given attempting to educate people against responding to the spam. If we are able to remove the profit...we will see the problem of hard core spamming wither and die. By-the-Way, I ran a search on AOL, Google, MSN, Yahoo titled "email list rental"... this is what I found: On the very first page of the results, they all show 2 of the top 10 worst Hard Core spam Organizations in the World ( www.spamhaus.org ) as a place to obtain email lists!!! Why would they tell you how well you are protected using their services and then promote the very organizations they are protecting you from??????? There must be profit in promoting Spammers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Also, those of us who are not suckers manage to 'protect' ourselves in the offline world. I don't have to 'delete' infomercials on TV (the half hour programs) before I watch something that is not aimed at suckers. (and now I can pay for commercial free entertainment - the opposite of email where I pay to receive commercials whether I want them or not). I am on the 'no call' list for telemarketers and before they had such things, I screened my calls. Somewhat the way I do online by ignoring spam. And people who want to speak to me cannot use 'private' for caller id. And, I don't why it is, but no one has ever approached me to help them out by one of those bank schemes where they trick you into giving them real money for a suitcase full of newspaper or other scams. I know it happens because I read it in the newspapers. And absolutely no one ever shows me anything that is remotely related to porn - particularly strangers. There is a way to avoid those experiences online also. The use of blocklists. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YuanTi Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 I agree with the no call lists systems in place throughout the US and the block commercials on TV... Of course, the TV does cost $$ to have this feature. I have been a business owner for 20 years... oddly, business owners are NOT allowed to add their phone # to the Do-Not-Call list and we find it almost impossible to get off mailing lists! Just for fun last year, I kept all of the Credit Card offers that included the little plastic cards... ended the year with 55 cards! This does not count the solicitations I recvd without cards! I also recvd 13 AOL CDs, hundreds of fax transmittals offering vacations, low mortgage rates, stock tips, etc..... and if that was not enough, I recvd 1,000's of junk mail letters throughout the year offering everything! Whew, makes me tired just thinking about it. I guess being a small business owner suggests that I have an abundant amount of time to wade through all the garbage. Point of this is... that I find the spam problem to be very minor compared to all the other Junk I am subjected to.... yet huge amounts of time are wasted attempting to control spam and all the other time wasting Junk is ignored..... AOL junk CDs, American Express credit cards, Capital One credit cards, First Data Services, Stock tips from Merrill Lynch, well you get the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dra007 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 well you get the point. 39752[/snapback] No, for the most part, regular mail scams are rare nowdays and prosecuted quickly......... Internet spam is criminal in more ways than one and the law has not caught up with that... That criminal activity relies on a way of communication which makes concealment of identity way too easy... Reporting them to a block list not only helps keep our mailboxes clean, but builds the data base to go after this pond scum!! While I could indeed spend less time reporting spam, knowing that I add to an antispam data base is actually rewarding to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Telarin Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Well, you could do what I do with junk mail. I save it all up, and whenever I get a credit card offer or something with an "postage paid" envelope, I put as much in it as I can and send it on its way... Maybe they want it, because I sure don't. It also increases their cost of using mail as an advertising medium. In the same way, using the SCBL at the work increases the cost to spammers. They must send many more messages in order to get a handful delivered to clueless users. They are also having to resort to more desperate means to send these messages (open relays, trojanned PCs, etc) whereas just a few years ago, most just sent using their own computers. We are definitely helping to make their lives more difficult, and their chosen proffession (if you can call it that) less profitable. Plus you get little tidbits like this that always make you feel good. Without evidence collected and reported, these kinds of judgments would be nearly impossible to impose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Betsy Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 <snip> hundreds of fax transmittals offering vacations, low mortgage rates, stock tips, etc..... <snip> Point of this is... that I find the spam problem to be very minor compared to all the other Junk I am subjected to.... yet huge amounts of time are wasted attempting to control spam and all the other time wasting Junk is ignored..... AOL junk CDs, American Express credit cards, Capital One credit cards, First Data Services, Stock tips from Merrill Lynch, well you get the point. 39752[/snapback] actually each unsolicited fax transmittal is worth $500. You can sue them. To the people who are paying for the spam (the internet service providers and server owners), it is not a minor problem. And it is a problem that the receiver can reject. If you are like another poster and don't mind telling your correspondents that you won't communicate by email unless they are spam free (only he was against blocklists which is backwards), then you have almost no problem at all. Miss Betsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btech Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Again, I must emphasize the real point of the original writing.... More effort should be given attempting to educate people against responding to the spam. If we are able to remove the profit...we will see the problem of hard core spamming wither and die.39742[/snapback] spam has very little to do with people reading the mail and more to do with people's computers being infected. Since one isn't infected by every-day spam, it's pointless, to me, to worry about educating the end user about spam. What DOES need to happen is more active care for the user, like how Comcast now gives free McAfee firewall and virus scan software to it's users. It won't educate the users, but it will at least not leave their boxes open for scans and virii. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btech Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 actually each unsolicited fax transmittal is worth $500. You can sue them. To the people who are paying for the spam (the internet service providers and server owners), it is not a minor problem. 39765[/snapback] Yea, but most of the spam faxes I receive don't have a 'from' phone number on the fax (which is against FCC law too..) and I don't have access to the phone reports until the next month, so stopping these faxes or persuing them my job is difficult. They're no doubt sent out via e-fax and with stolen CC information... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Banned due to harrassment of other Forum users via PM and e-mails Member No: 5090 YuanTi (71.115.24.24) mose1951[at]verizon.net Banned (7 Posts) Joined: 10-January 06 uses moseleyh[at]hotmail.com in the message traffic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.