 Deacon
Clever Saying Goes Here
Premium,MVM
join:2001-12-13
DFW | Anti-Spam I would want to know if he was really anti-spam, or if a campaign strategist told him he should be. Show me a pol that is tecno-savy, and he will get my attention | |
|
 | jethrogump
Premium
join:2001-03-02
Mesquite, TX
| Re: Anti-Spam All Politicians are like a purple dinosaur on strings they only do what their political consultant tells them to do or the political action committee that lines their pork butts does and nothing else. Most cannot answer questions in a debate if you well walk off with their little black books with the correct answers to issues in it. They all have them in Texas. | |
|
| 
ShinyTop8
S T I
Premium
join:2001-05-08
Pensacola, FL
| Could not let this issue be the deciding issue in an election, but any politician willing to give me back control of my phone and computer lines will have a plus next to their name.
--
If what I said can be taken two ways and you were offended, I meant the other way. | |
|
| | 
silverfawx
Maybe Later
join:2001-10-05
Mesa, AZ
clubs:
| Re: Anti-Spam i would be more inclined to vote for them but there is a whole lot more to politics than just spam. i certainly would have to check their stance on other issues as well...but like shinytop said that would give them a plus next to their name in my book. | |
|
| | 
abc123098zyx
| one why or the other i have no idea what you ment | |
|
| 
Killer_B
Speedy
join:2002-02-11
Evanston, IL
| said by siebeldude:
I would want to know if he was really anti-spam, or if a campaign strategist told him he should be. Show me a pol that is tecno-savy, and he will get my attention
Techno-savvy, and Techno-moderate when it comes to issues related to the internet; One who is strongly against spam, but liberal about protecting freedom of speech, for example. | |
|
| KEVLIT$
join:2001-12-10
Covington, GA | I dont want the gubberment putting regulations on the internet.....
Period | |
|
| | jp245
join:2002-02-15
Brenham, TX | Re: Anti-Spam I'm against all goverment intervention on the internet. | |
|
| | | 
caesarv
join:1999-08-02
Santa Rosa, CA
| Re: Anti-Spam Left unchecked, spam will overwhelm the internet as more and more people/companies discover they can send millions of email at near zero cost to them. We are the ones paying for this. How would you like it if you got a bill for each piece of regular junk mail?
I don't like government regulations much either. However, I would at least like to see the spammers pay their fair share. If that can be done without regulations...great...but I have my doubts on this. I'm afraid we will need SOMETHING. | |
|
| | | |
abc123098zyx
| Re: Anti-Spam CA the land of no spaklers on july 4th because they have been banned or do you brake laws. no guns your arresting olympic athletes for owning them in your state. i think we have enough bad laws. | |
|
| | |
hehe
@pacbell.n | What? You mean like its creation? Get a little knowledge of history before you make general and absurd statements. | |
|
| | 
bearboy
join:2001-07-03
Vernon Rockville, CT | said by KEVLIT:
I dont want the gubberment putting regulations on the internet.....
Period
What's a "gubberment", guber? | |
|
| | | 
Booma
What Funny Box Do?
join:2002-02-28
Lonoke, AR |  Re: Anti-Spam
:-D | |
|
| Deacon
Clever Saying Goes Here
Premium,MVM
join:2001-12-13
DFW | I would be impressed just to hear back from the US rep from my district. I sent an email, and am anxiously awaiting a reply...maybe if I do, I'll ask him to define SPAM... | |
|
|
UNhormel
@lucent.com
| Agreed. The question is irrelevant or misstated. One cannot legislate principles, i.e. talking to strangers.. The techno-savvy w/character among us must lead the way in the innovations required to reduce UCE/UBE to tolerable levels. Let's enforce the laws we have in our country insofar as "Theft of Services", "Vandalism", & "Fraud", before causing the gov't to just "regulate" more. | |
|
| edr1073
Premium
join:2000-09-29
Stafford, VA
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·EarthLink
| Politicians need to concetrate on more pressing issues. Once the government gets involved it can only be another step before they want to regulate and restrick my freedoms. I know about freedom I spent 20 years in the USMC. So if a ploiticial asks for something like this ask him (or her) if they know what spamming is.
--
Ed | |
|
| brojack0
join:2000-10-25
Gowanda, NY | I don't want ANY MORE government interference and regulation AT ALL!!!!!!!!
Leave me the heck ALONE!
Get back into you "by the people for the people" cage!!!! | |
|
| 
richk_1957
If ..Then..Else
Premium
join:2001-04-11
Minas Tirith | A politician who understands technology and is will to really list to people in the technology/science field? He would have my support. Unfortunately, the nearest they come to that is plotical science. | |
|
| duncanmills
join:2000-12-31
Pueblo, CO | I would also be very suspicious of legislation that leaves loopholes for a particular lobby, which would increase spam not reduce it. | |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY |  Why would anyone vote 'much less inclined'
| |
|
| 
Copzilla$
Mmm... Donuts
join:2000-10-10
Friendswood, TX
| Re: Why would anyone vote 'much less inclined' I suspect there is a grand total of one person on this whole site, and he has multiple accounts.
It's just a spammer's style... Slimy.
--
"Free your mind and your behind will follow" - The iBrotha | |
|
| |
abc123098zyx
| Re: Why would anyone vote 'much less inclined' why a you flam__ng at use because you don't understand how it works read the anti-anti-spam posts we don't want spam we don't want big brother either we fight tech with tech and fight flam__ng with flam__ng | |
|
| | holymage
join:2002-03-19
York, ON | Get real.
Your opinion about spam may be valid but this statement about 'much less inclined' voters is full of crap. | |
|
| 
okitismine
join:2000-08-06
Brisbane, CA
| That is easy, the more you let the government in the more they can look. A politician can not stop spam nor can a law. What will is persons securing servers and ISP stopping mass mailings. Maybe this means that the ISP is more involved in your network than you may like. But this would be better than the government in your network. Think V chip | |
|
| |
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| Re: Why would anyone vote 'much less inclined' Who says the government has to be "in your network" ?? its very hard to get convictions against spammers without legislation that uses the correct terminology and understands the Internet.. this is what needs to be improved.. *as well* as improvements in software.
The fact is that the lack of legislation and prosecution options means that there is probably MORE monitoring going on now by ISPs trying to stop spam...
Your agument against political action (which brings legislative change) is similar to saying there should be no moves against distributing child pornography -- because it is up to the users and the service providers to refuse to host it or use it .. | |
|
| | |
abc123098zyx
| Re: Why would anyone vote 'much less inclined' laws will be bent and broken at our expence if you want to fight back use tech my e-mail address is run by one of my friend mail.cnlohr.net and i get NO spam EVER if any domain mass mails his server it's rebounded AND i never loss a single e-mail goverment can even fix a budget how can they fix spam | |
|
| cyberchick
Premium
join:2002-02-07
Houston, TX
| said by justin:
are there that many spammers and people making money from spam to amount to 10% being anti an 'anti-spam' policy?
I would ask that same question about the 45% being more inclined to vote for a politician with an anti-spam policy. I personally could count the amount of spam I receive within any given week on one hand. Plus, spam is a subjective term. I'm sure most of us are familiar with the phrase "one person's trash is another person's treasure", or "junk bonds" (those who call them "junk" are the ones who lost money). I really don't think it's a good idea to have one central governing body defining what constitutes "spam". My response? Just hit "DELETE", and get over it already! Sheesh! Much ado about nothing, IMNSHO. | |
|
| |
|
chunderhead
@antelecom.net
| Think about it. The government has been trying to get their fingers into the Internet pie for years, but hasn’t had any legitimate way to justify it. If they’re given an opportunity to “provide a service” for Internet users, they’ll have the incentive and foothold they need to start imposing taxes. It’ll start with taxes to fund the agency instituted to catch and act on spam, and it’ll snowball from there.
Now I hate spam as much as the next guy, but I’d sooner stick to adding email addresses to my ignore list than end up paying out the nose for internet service because my ISP is getting the poop taxed out of it. | |
|
| 
jlv
Cantankerous - Can't take errors
join:2001-11-02
Southborough, MA
| I voted "much less inclined". Anytime a politician has a plan to solve some problem, I know that I'm about to either lose some money, freedom, or both. Really.
I hate spam. I fight spam. But, I don't think a congressional plan to "fix" it is going to help. | |
|
| | 
mags2
Agent Provocateur
join:2001-07-19
SoCal
| Re: Why would anyone vote 'much less inclined' said by j o h n:
I voted "much less inclined". Anytime a politician has a plan to solve some problem, I know that I'm about to either lose some money, freedom, or both. Really.
I hate spam. I fight spam. But, I don't think a congressional plan to "fix" it is going to help.
Right on the money on this count. ANY time the feds try to "fix" something, they end up using a chainsaw to swat a fly and then we all #1) Have to pay more taxes to finance it and/or #2) Lose a right guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. See also the USA/Patriot Act
»www.ccr-ny.org/whatsnew/usa_patr···otes.asp
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -B.F. | |
|
| 
Aladrin
Code Junkie
join:2001-01-25
Clermont, FL | Unfortunately, they make enough money to counter the hassle they get from being spammers. | |
|
| 
garpt
join:2001-12-12
Stamford, CT | The Biggest Liberal Socialist Lie......(and the most DANGEROUS)
"We're from the Government. We are here to help you!" | |
|
| |
hehe
@pacbell.n | Re: Why would anyone vote 'much less inclined' interesting post. mccarthyism. cool.
Anyway, what are governments for then? Can we exist without some form of government? Where do you draw the line and lay bare your hypocrisy? | |
|
| 
RSHands$
join:2000-09-05
Wheaton, IL
| The reason I voted MUCH LESS INCLINED is the government has their head so far up their ass they do not even know what they are talking about. I hate spam but I hate government regulations a whole lot more. The government should stop regulating everything and start protecting our country and improve our infrastructure.
--
The frequency is too frequent. | |
|
| 
ronvan
Lovin' Life
join:2001-03-09
Citrus Heights, CA
clubs:
| Any such "plan" would be censorship. As a citizen I have rights and responsibilities. Don't curtail my rights except in pursuit of the common good... require I live up to my responsibilities and let me suffer the consequences of my own inabilities. Treat me as an adult and not a ward of the state. Government should defend our borders and take action to ensure our personal freedoms... they certainly have no role in e-mail spam whatsoever. A politician talking about anti-spam legislation thinks he/she can get elected on popular issues and is willing to sacrifice my freedom in order to get elected; he/she will not get my vote, ever.
"Those who are governed least are governed best." | |
|
| |
hehe
@pacbell.n
| Re: Why would anyone vote 'much less inclined' Ronvan, you obviously have little understanding of the spam issue.
Spam as it's defined is basically an UNSOLICITED mass-mailed email that takes up the ADDRESSEE's bandwidth, hard drive space, and time (whether that includes clicking the delete button or maintaining filters or what have you), ALL of which are paid for by the victim one way or another, and all of which add up rapidly as more and more spam gets mailed.
You see, spam isn't free speech. It's an attack with very concrete, quantitatively negative effects on the receiver. Realize that the effects are much more obvious on a large corporation controlling thousands of email addresses than on joe shmoe with a little pacbell home address.
As they say, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of nose. (Forgive me if i butchered the quote) | |
|
Spanky4628$
join:2002-01-09
Birmingham, AL
| hmmm...politicians can think? I didn't know that any of our politicians could actually think of that idea. Especially when all the companies that use telemarketing/spamming to get customers have blinded them(the said politician) with the payoffs they give out. If we could be lucky enough to actually get a politician that can think for himself...whoops that'll never happen. I guess we'll never know if we could get an anti-spamming policy going or not.
You are the weakest link....GOODBYE!!! | |
|
georgermct
Sony H D T V
join:2000-05-12
Bridgeport, CT | Then what...Tax the Internet? Spam is a part of life, anyone saying they will end spam has an agenda problem and something's very fishy.
--
OOL Member Since - 10/18/00 | |
|
| smiley4me
join:2002-02-25
North York, ON
| Re: Then what...Tax the Internet? The Canadian Gov. is planning to put a tax on the Internet ... not for SPAM but for the massive Ilegal coping that is happening in this country. Take a look at some of the P2P stats, Canada ranks up at the top  | |
|
Kindguy98
Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate
join:2000-12-01
Brooklyn, NY |  Not too Excited...
--
I think, therefore I am. | |
|
Mospaw
D O N E
Hawaiian Jellyfish
join:2001-01-08
The Pacific
 ·Cox HSI
Host:
Road Warriors, Not..
All Things Macintosh
Automotive
| If I thought they actually had a clue... Most politicians tell us what we want to hear. "Spam is bad, I'm against it."
And then they write the law.
If I truly thought a particular politician had a clue as to what spam was, and the technical requirements on how to stop it, then I would give them more attention than other politicians with similar agendas. Current anti-spam laws are do about as much to prevent spam as me shouting out my livingroom window for the spammers to stop. They're merely feel-good legislation with a false facade of having teeth intended to show action on he part of our politicians, but not necessarily get the intended or stated results.
Unfortunately, our politicians have proven time and time again they know the buzzwords (spam, security, etc.) but not what's behind them. Spam is the current "flavor du jour" so all the advisors are telling politicians (many of which probably couldn't mouse their way out of a File/Open dialog, much less do anything of consequence) that they need to be "anti-spam" today. Tomorrow they'll be making lots of dust and noise fighting another battle.
My vote is "makes no difference".
--
"You can't truly understand something until you can take it out of context."
-- | |
|
| 
MrMaster
What If
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Austin, TX
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: If I thought they actually had a clue... Agreed. My vote is "makes no difference"
Spam sucks. Especially when the last time I checked I have never owned a house in my life even though I have 35 emails that say otherwise.
Something technologically needs to be done to alleviate this problem not politicians. I went from 125 a day in hotmail down to 45 a day. After 3 weeks I was right back to 125. Oooh, I opt out just so they can buy that same damn list again. Plus hotmail doesn't offer enough room to block all the email addresses.
And this is just my one email address! | |
|
| | 
morph
join:2001-08-19
Canada | Re: If I thought they actually had a clue... just use there block feature and take out whole domains - i am lucky to pull 1 or 2 spams a day | |
|
| | vlovich
join:2001-12-08
| There is absolutely no way that someone could enforce an anti-spam policy. One possible way would be to block all e-mail not coming from ceratin authorized accounts. But then what about those people you forget to authorize, or someone whose e-mail you don't know, but are expecting a message from. Trying to block ceratin adresses are useless, since the spammers usually get a new account every day. And everyone is right when they say that politicians don't have a clue, but that's because their spokespeople and that's their job (trying to sell something, ie idea). A lot of the time the people behind them do know what they are talking about (hopefully). However, they still won't solve the problem. Because once "organized spam" is stopped, you're friends will turn on you. And what do you think Hotmail system messages, and other ISP messages are. They are unwanted mail (the definition of spam). The fact is, SPAM is here to stay and we are going to have to live with it  . And as for the people that say they are mad with spam that doesn't live up to promised contracts (below), no offence, but you have to be pretty dumb to sign up for stuff like that. If you are gullible enough to believe in spam, then you are to naiive and should not be allowed to use the internet. Furthermore, if your signing up for spam offers, you are contributing to the problem. The links you follow tell the company that you have read their mail and are interested in their services. If no one read spam, it would take a huge hit on the companies statistical finances, forcing them to rethink their stratagy.
[text was edited by author 2002-02-16 21:58:36] | |
|
| 
Paralytic
Everything Hurts.
join:2001-11-12
Seattle, WA
clubs:
| Hey, here's a novel idea:
Let's find someone who's FOR something rather than AGAINST everything. And I don't mean the "I'm for good stuff" platitudes, I mean let's get someone who's interested in positive solutions and doesn't care if it will make enemies of the rut-runners and special intere$t groups.
Ok, that was a nice dream. We now return you to our regularly scheduled bullshit.
--
If you can't laugh at yourself, I'll laugh at you. | |
|
|
| |
jh07
join:2000-05-17
New Bern, NC | Threre's always more to it | |
|
stuntpope
join:2001-08-17
Toronto, ON
| Legislation != government regulation AntiSpam legislation does not bound on government regulation of the internet, nor does it mean that a politician doesn't have anything better to do.
What it does do is give citizens and businesses a legal footing in combatting spam. One of the reasons its so bad is because there is little recourse in many instances. If there was legislation on the books to allow a private citizen (me) to sue a spammer for sending me crap I don't want or a business owner (me again) to sue spamhauses who consume my network resources sending gigabytes of spam to my customers across my network, then it empowers us to take action ourselves instead of thinking there's nothing to be done about it. | |
|
| 
Krushpuppy
Premium
join:2002-02-08
Wenatchee, WA
clubs:
| Re: Legislation != government regulation I voted less inclined and i only have one account. As much as i dislike spam i dislike more government intervention and regulation even more. I can delete the spam with out reading it. But if hes so ready to start tossing regulations at the internet hes not the one i want there. | |
|
| | rchdjellis
join:2001-01-14
Narberth, PA
| Re: Legislation != government regulation Those of us who have "POP type" e-mail accounts don't usually run into problems. But the poor user who has a web-based account, has some saved mail of importance, gets SPAM which fills his space and then gets sent an important message is out of luck! I do however agree that every time the government (local, state, or federal) tries to get involved with regulating things there is trouble ahead. I live in Pennsylvania and there have been numerous attempts to reduce auto insurance rates (no-fault, limits, ...). Every time the rates have increased (for some good reason...).
I think that spam should be restricted by imposing a fee for anyone mailing more than 200 people the same message and the fees collected should be used to fund an anti-spam awareness campaign (newspapers, radio, (e-mail??? - more spam)). | |
|
|
abc123098zyx
| you need to be careful throwing != arounf thaats a program symbol for not equal and since where talking about computer topics it at first glance has the wrong meaning
oh and your wrong tracking spamers isn't easy it VERY expensive and mostly impossable if you understood how open mail servers worked you would know this i'm not sure what kind of network you run but most bussiness mass ban spam and porn related domains | |
|
ballszzee
join:2001-07-26
Las Vegas, NV
| Good email clients return/block 99% spam!
[text was edited by author 2002-02-15 05:02:14] | |
|
Mordy
Comfortably Numb
Premium,MVM,ExMod 2004-07
join:2001-12-02
Denver, CO
·Comcast Formerly ..
|  You can't legislate evil - at least not Spam
1. Make it illegal to sell or trade email lists to others.
2. Make it illegal to spoof headers and IP addresses in emails
3. Make it illegal to use open relays
4. Make it illegal to have an open relay on your own email server
5. Make it illegal to send email from another country to the US
6. Make it illegal to create software and operating systems that are conducive to creating and distributing Spam
I'm sure there are a few more, but you get the idea.
Now that you've made all the little tricks that spammers use to do their dirty work illegal, now let's talk enforcement.
Hmmm. Maybe we can adopt a "war on spam" sorta like the "war on drugs" - throw billions at enforcement, have a Spam Enforcement Czar, get armed gunships making midnight raids on rogue ISPs, etc.
Frankly, any politician who spouts about doing something about spam is just throwing lip service to the problem. And even if they were serious, I would have to question the enormous cost to chase down and prosecute spammers, especially in other countries.
--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Aldous Huxley | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
2101 /
46%
And please act VERY VERY NICE TO PEOPLE:)I still love you;)
Anti-Spam
