| reply to Steve
Re: Mischaracterization of SPEWS Your point is correct, but you're really asking for honest discourse between the parties involved when one of them hide behind anonynimity and are only available for communication via one-way newsgroup postings? |
|
 SteveI know your IP addressConsultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5 | said by Karl Bode:Your point is correct, but you're really asking for honest discourse between the parties involved when one of them hide behind anonynimity and are only available for communication via one-way newsgroup postings? You mean the spammers?
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site |
|
2 edits | Hadn't you heard? There are no spammers anymore, since collateral damage is so effective. I'd be more impressed with them if they actually were: a. effective and b. accountable for error. |
|
 sweintzPremium
join:2002-03-01
Chester, CT | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:Your point is correct, but you're really asking for honest discourse between the parties involved when one of them hide behind anonynimity and are only available for communication via one-way newsgroup postings? Um, what discourse is needed exactly? The terms of these services are clearly listed on their website (what causes listings, what it akes to make them go away, etc) |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
what discourse is needed exactly?
Error accountability. But I've had that debate, and it bores the shit out of me.
My point was that demanding honest representation of SPEWS strikes me as disingenuous. I think you've got to expect some misrepresentation when you hide anonymously in digital caves and only speak via proxy servants.... |
|
