Re: [OT] Re: [OT] Re: .br blacklisted ?
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Dmitri Pogosyan wrote: > Dan Hollis wrote: > > See Rowan v. United States Post Office. > Why necessarily should I care about United States Post Office > or United States in general ? I suspect canadian law has similar precedents. > > *Your* right to free speech stops at *my* property. > > Under no circumstances does your right to free speech trump the rights of > > the unwilling recipient. Full Stop. End of story. > Maybe in US, but still is it that clear ? Yep. If religious fuckwits show up on my doorstep pandering their salvation du jour and I point to the "no solicitation" sign, they can either leave voluntarily on their own, or involuntarily in police handcuffs. > What about TV commercials ? Can I request cable company not to transmit > them onto my property ? You can change the channel or turn off the TV. > If not, can your ISP require you to recieve spam/advertisement as > condition of service ? Perhaps, but I can always find another ISP. Of course, you could accept spam/advertisements as a condition of service (eg free ISPs like netzero). The key issue though is that you can always stop using the service and you won't receive any more spam from them. Spammers on the other hand continue sending pr0n/make-money-fast/fraud-schemes even when told to stop. And most relay-rape in order to send their spams. That's trespass. And you're condoning this? -Dan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [OT] Re: [OT] Re: .br blacklisted ?
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Matt Beland wrote: > On Sunday 07 January 2001 21:24, Dan Hollis wrote: > > *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro* > > On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > > > You are suggesting that it is acceptable to implement technological > > > barriers to a minority expressing speech that is unacceptable to the > > > majority. This is not acceptable. > > See Rowan v. United States Post Office. > > *Your* right to free speech stops at *my* property. > Does it now? How interesting. You can prohibit people from saying things you > don't like. No, I can prohibit people from forcing their drivel down my throat on my own property. Your right to spam doesn't give you the right to trespass. I'm sorry if that's too hard for you to comprehend. -Dan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [OT] Re: [OT] Re: .br blacklisted ?
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 08:24:16PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote: > > On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > > > You are suggesting that it is acceptable to implement technological > > > barriers to a minority expressing speech that is unacceptable to the > > > majority. This is not acceptable. > > See Rowan v. United States Post Office. > > *Your* right to free speech stops at *my* property. > > Under no circumstances does your right to free speech trump the rights of > > the unwilling recipient. Full Stop. End of story. > Your right to 'not listen' ends when it becomes attempt to manipulate > companies and government to immorally limit speech of mine which does not > affect you in any way. I have a "no solicitation" and "no trespassing" sign on my property. Tough noogies if you think it's immoral. Doesn't give you the right to trespass on my property to stuff my mailbox with your stupid drivel. -Dan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [OT] Re: [OT] Re: .br blacklisted ?
On Sunday 07 January 2001 21:24, Dan Hollis wrote: > *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro* > > On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > > You are suggesting that it is acceptable to implement technological > > barriers to a minority expressing speech that is unacceptable to the > > majority. This is not acceptable. > > See Rowan v. United States Post Office. > > *Your* right to free speech stops at *my* property. Does it now? How interesting. You can prohibit people from saying things you don't like. Hmmm. I suppose that could be useful. I don't like (just as an example) any speech from or about people named Dan. Please cease and desist immediately or I will blackhole you, your server, your domain, and everyone and everything associated with it until the people rise up and kill everyone named Dan, or as an acceptable compromise, remove their ability to speak and or type, or force them to change their names. That's my right, it's my property. Morally wrong? Bah. Your right to prattle on about morality stops at my property. Point 1: Laws mean jack squat in this case. The lawmakers know little about the internet, and until they learn, the laws they pass will continue to be irrelevant, confusing, or contradictory. Even when they aren't, no society has ever managed a foolproof "unjust law filter". The existence of a law does not make that law good, correct, or even legal; reference prohibition, slave ownership, women's sufferage or the lack thereof, and roughly 40% of the US Tax Code referencing income tax. Point 2: Either "information wants to be free", has no physical existence or worth, and cannot be controlled, or it has existense, worth, and can be controlled as property. You can't have it both ways; either Spam is an undesirable side effect of the free flow of information, or information is not free and can be controlled. Isn't it amazing how some of the people who are so quick to yell when Microsoft or Oracle or the government of infringes on their rights/privacy/information are the first to block the flow of information in the name of the same? > > Under no circumstances does your right to free speech trump the rights of > the unwilling recipient. Full Stop. End of story. > > -Dan > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [OT] Re: [OT] Re: .br blacklisted ?
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 08:24:16PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote: > On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > > You are suggesting that it is acceptable to implement technological > > barriers to a minority expressing speech that is unacceptable to the > > majority. This is not acceptable. > > See Rowan v. United States Post Office. > > *Your* right to free speech stops at *my* property. > > Under no circumstances does your right to free speech trump the rights of > the unwilling recipient. Full Stop. End of story. Your right to 'not listen' ends when it becomes attempt to manipulate companies and government to immorally limit speech of mine which does not affect you in any way. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [OT] Re: [OT] Re: .br blacklisted ?
Even not specifically disagreeing, but Dan Hollis wrote: > > See Rowan v. United States Post Office. Why necessarily should I care about United States Post Office or United States in general ? > > > *Your* right to free speech stops at *my* property. > > Under no circumstances does your right to free speech trump the rights of > the unwilling recipient. Full Stop. End of story. > Maybe in US, but still is it that clear ? What about TV commercials ? Can I request cable company not to transmit them onto my property ? If not, can your ISP require you to recieve spam/advertisement as condition of service ?-- CITA, University of Toronto [EMAIL PROTECTED] 60. St. George Street tel: 1-416-978-7616 (o) Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3H8 tel: 1-416-466-4028 (h) Canada fax: 1-416-978-3921 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [OT] Re: [OT] Re: .br blacklisted ?
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > You are suggesting that it is acceptable to implement technological > barriers to a minority expressing speech that is unacceptable to the > majority. This is not acceptable. See Rowan v. United States Post Office. *Your* right to free speech stops at *my* property. Under no circumstances does your right to free speech trump the rights of the unwilling recipient. Full Stop. End of story. -Dan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [OT] Re: [OT] Re: .br blacklisted ?
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 10:30:14PM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 08:22:28PM -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > I already run several sugarplum sites with teergrubes. I also use
> > various blackhole lists and take other action against spammers, including
> > blocking entire rogue domains. If that rogue domain happens to be a two
> > letter TLD, so be it. If it gets bad enough, maybe they'll fix it.
> You are suggesting that it is acceptable to implement technological
> barriers to a minority expressing speech that is unacceptable to the
> majority. This is not acceptable.
No... I'm say that their right to free speech does not trump
my right to not have to listen to it or download it and I determine
the criterion, they don't. I have, in my right to free speech, the
right to say screw off, I don't want to hear it.
> When you subscript your mailbox to list of 'spammers' to avoid associating
> with them, with the knowledge that you may lose some valuable mail, that is
> fine.
Excuse me??? Clue alert! I'm not subscribing anything to any
spam mailbox. I'm not doing jack shit to subscribe myself to anything
to do with them. I am leaving bait around for them to screw themselves,
but I certainly have the free speech right to do that, now don't I?
I don't go to them and say "subscribe all these addresses". I don't
say to them, send E-Mail here. They are trespassing on my systems,
clearly stepping over well delineated boundries.
I'm really lost by your reasoning on this one. "Subscribing my
mailbox to a list of 'spammers' to avoid associating with them, with the
knowledge that you loose some valuable mail" makes absolutely no sense
what so ever. The legitimate mail I may or may not loose has no bearing
on the sugarplum or teergrube systems (which is what I'm assuming that
you are elluding to).
> The situation is similar to not visiting a gay bar if you don't like
> homosexual people. However, that is not what you are doing blocking whole
> countries. That is like building concrete barriers around cites to punish
> them for not oppressing their own minority citizen ("I'm going to block your
> whole country until you outlaw this class of speech I find offensive").
Tough... I find the speech offensive, I don't have to listen
to it. If I find that the level of offensive speech from a particular
source exceeds all value, then I have the right to block it. They don't
like it, they have a right to change. Like I said... I don't take
active action against them. They have to come to me. They come to
my web site and step over my limits and contact my systems. I'm not
going to them.
> Spam is not good, but destroying freedom is worse. I suggest that every
> person who is eager to use oppressive technological measures to stop spammers
> please consider the potential wider consequences.
Destroying my freedom is just as bad. I have the freedom to
choose and I have the freedom not to be plagued by the vermin who have
harvested my addresses and are using them in a way that violates my
acceptable use on my addresses.
> Today the majority thinks spam is wrong, today you are a part of the
> majority. The Internet should always avoid the tyranny of the masses, even
> when it's operators are a part of the 'mass' today. Tomorrow the issue will
> not be spam, and you might not be in the majority.
Not a problem. Won't be the first time and won't be the last time.
I deal and so shall they.
Mike
--
Michael H. Warfield| (770) 985-6132 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(The Mad Wizard) | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471| possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[OT] Re: [OT] Re: .br blacklisted ?
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 08:22:28PM -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> I already run several sugarplum sites with teergrubes. I also use
> various blackhole lists and take other action against spammers, including
> blocking entire rogue domains. If that rogue domain happens to be a two
> letter TLD, so be it. If it gets bad enough, maybe they'll fix it.
You are suggesting that it is acceptable to implement technological
barriers to a minority expressing speech that is unacceptable to the
majority. This is not acceptable.
When you subscript your mailbox to list of 'spammers' to avoid associating
with them, with the knowledge that you may lose some valuable mail, that is
fine.
The situation is similar to not visiting a gay bar if you don't like
homosexual people. However, that is not what you are doing blocking whole
countries. That is like building concrete barriers around cites to punish
them for not oppressing their own minority citizen ("I'm going to block your
whole country until you outlaw this class of speech I find offensive").
Spam is not good, but destroying freedom is worse. I suggest that every
person who is eager to use oppressive technological measures to stop spammers
please consider the potential wider consequences.
Today the majority thinks spam is wrong, today you are a part of the
majority. The Internet should always avoid the tyranny of the masses, even
when it's operators are a part of the 'mass' today. Tomorrow the issue will
not be spam, and you might not be in the majority.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [OT] Re: .br blacklisted ?
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 06:31:11PM -0700, Matt Beland wrote: > Thereby killing how many hundreds of innocent people? China doesn't much > believe in fining minor offenders, remember. > You don't like Spam? Join the club. Blacklisting any domain - ANY domain - > for spamming, unless you can absolutely prove that no legitimate email has > ever been sent from that server, is completely unacceptable. You complain > about the wasted time and bandwidth caused by Spam messages - how much time > do you waste every year blocking legitimate messages? Not nearly as much time wasted as the time and bandwidth that gets wasted for doing nothing. The problem is bad enough. Letting them run wild will make the cesspool stink even worse. The sites that get blocked are misconfigured and need to be fixed. They're just getting a little more incentive. Most of the spam I reject gets rejected before the data transfered (blackhole tagged). That preserves my resources. Spot checking indicates that I'm loosing very little legitimate mail. Example... By using DULS RBL, I block the majority of directed mail from dialup sites. Spot checking reveals that my kill ratio is better than 100:1 on that (100 spam to less than 1 legit). Only site I have ever needed to code an exception for was Bruce Peren's Map site when he had to move it to a personal connection. (BTW... I spot check by running some sites configured to drop rejected mail in spam cans and occasionally do this on my main server. I also check logs for legit traffic being rejected.) Anyone who hits one of my teergrubes has absolutely no legitimate business what so ever! There is not a single legitimate address on those tarpits. Oh! The poor sucky spammer got stuck talking to a few thousand addresses on a machine that takes three minutes to tell him "OK". Sorry, no tears... They get exactly what they deserve. They got the addresses by violating the robots.txt rules and harvesting poisoned pages. That's the only way they will find those addresses. Tough. BTW... I'm seeing several spam address harvestors chewing on my sugarplums every week. It's getting close to seeing more spam address harvestors than seeing legitimate search engines through my web sites. Mind you... What I do is actually pretty minor. The potential for real damage really exists. Several anti-spam sites jokingly suggest that rejection codes should be "4xx" codes instead of "5xx" codes. Think about that for a second... They haven't transferred any data to you but you tell them to hold that data and try back later (4xx codes signify temporary errors that may be retried). So that data sits on their system until their final retries time out several days (5 days typical) later. Now... Take that and take advantage of the old "percent hack" that thousands of servers around the net still support (and are vulnerable open relays in and of their own right). Send a message to each of those servers pecent hacking a huge message at the chump you want to target with a final address of a system that blocks him with a 4xx code. With little effort you can totally shut down his mail spool and backup mail onto the percent hackable servers. Even if he manually cleans his spool, he's got another shit load or two waiting for him. Sites which permit open relaying are vulnerable to the 4xx code attacks. They have an open death trap DoS security vulnerability on them. The fact that we don't take advantage of it, means we're the nice guys. We only give them 5xx codes and tell them to go away... I have the right to decide, based on what ever criterion I chose, to accept or reject E-Mail. For the sites that I administer for a large E-Mail base, that needs to be in accordance with the established policies. In most cases, I have a hard time coming up with rules strict enough to adhere to those policies while still keeping the mail flowing. The owners of those sites have a right to dictate those policies. Not the senders. > Matt Mike -- Michael H. Warfield| (770) 985-6132 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Mad Wizard) | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471| possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it! - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [OT] Re: .br blacklisted ?
On Sunday 07 January 2001 18:22, Michael H. Warfield wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 07:27:45PM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 06:16:15PM -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote: > > > 99% of mine is from China (either *.cn or 163.com or some other > > > numbering .com or .net. The .org is frowned upon in China - the TLD of > > > protestors and disidents). Half of what's left comes from either .kr > > > or .br. I'm fully in favor of an Internet Death Penalty against those > > > TLD's and associated domains till they clean up their acts. > > > > Yea! > > Next we'll take care of those subversive linux bastards that clog up our > > big pipes with their communist kernel downloads! > > > > Unsolicited commercial email is a problem. However, many of the > > 'solutions' are worse. Search for teergrube for a less subvertible aid. > > I already run several sugarplum sites with teergrubes. I also use > various blackhole lists and take other action against spammers, including > blocking entire rogue domains. If that rogue domain happens to be a two > letter TLD, so be it. If it gets bad enough, maybe they'll fix it. Hang 'em all and let God and the Devil sort them out? How enlightened... > > > You can pile on technological 'fixes' as much as you want, but no > > technological measure that does not totally oppress free use of the > > Internet will be affective. Education is the only solution, spam will > > continue as long as it is profitable. > > Actually, the most fun with the Chinese is to take advantage > of their "four horsemen of the Infocalypse". Ours (in the US and many > other western countries) is "Drug Dealing", "Money Laundering", > "Pedophiles", and "Terrorists". In China it's "Taiwan", "Tibet", > "Dissidents", and "Pornography". > > In discussing the Spam problem with some Chinese officials in > Beijing back in June of last year, they were really ho hum about the > whole thing till I mentioned that a lot of the spam being relayed out > of the Phillipeans through Chinese sites was promoting pornography. > That got some people sitting up real tight. They didn't care that > their pipeline in and out of China was oversubscribed by an order > of magnitude and spammers were clogging it with trash, but they > damn well did care if that trash had anything to do with pornography. > > I've heard some people suggest that they mail message back to > spam sites in China thanking them for their mail and including some > propaganda on Taiwan or Tibet. Maybe some Falun Gong literature would > be nice... Thereby killing how many hundreds of innocent people? China doesn't much believe in fining minor offenders, remember. You don't like Spam? Join the club. Blacklisting any domain - ANY domain - for spamming, unless you can absolutely prove that no legitimate email has ever been sent from that server, is completely unacceptable. You complain about the wasted time and bandwidth caused by Spam messages - how much time do you waste every year blocking legitimate messages? Matt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [OT] Re: .br blacklisted ?
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 07:27:45PM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 06:16:15PM -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote: > > 99% of mine is from China (either *.cn or 163.com or some other > > numbering .com or .net. The .org is frowned upon in China - the TLD of > > protestors and disidents). Half of what's left comes from either .kr > > or .br. I'm fully in favor of an Internet Death Penalty against those > > TLD's and associated domains till they clean up their acts. > Yea! > Next we'll take care of those subversive linux bastards that clog up our big > pipes with their communist kernel downloads! > Unsolicited commercial email is a problem. However, many of the 'solutions' > are worse. Search for teergrube for a less subvertible aid. I already run several sugarplum sites with teergrubes. I also use various blackhole lists and take other action against spammers, including blocking entire rogue domains. If that rogue domain happens to be a two letter TLD, so be it. If it gets bad enough, maybe they'll fix it. > You can pile on technological 'fixes' as much as you want, but no > technological measure that does not totally oppress free use of the Internet > will be affective. Education is the only solution, spam will continue as > long as it is profitable. Actually, the most fun with the Chinese is to take advantage of their "four horsemen of the Infocalypse". Ours (in the US and many other western countries) is "Drug Dealing", "Money Laundering", "Pedophiles", and "Terrorists". In China it's "Taiwan", "Tibet", "Dissidents", and "Pornography". In discussing the Spam problem with some Chinese officials in Beijing back in June of last year, they were really ho hum about the whole thing till I mentioned that a lot of the spam being relayed out of the Phillipeans through Chinese sites was promoting pornography. That got some people sitting up real tight. They didn't care that their pipeline in and out of China was oversubscribed by an order of magnitude and spammers were clogging it with trash, but they damn well did care if that trash had anything to do with pornography. I've heard some people suggest that they mail message back to spam sites in China thanking them for their mail and including some propaganda on Taiwan or Tibet. Maybe some Falun Gong literature would be nice... Attack a social problem by turning another social problem loose... :-) Mike -- Michael H. Warfield| (770) 985-6132 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Mad Wizard) | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471| possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it! - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [OT] Re: .br blacklisted ?
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 06:16:15PM -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote: > 99% of mine is from China (either *.cn or 163.com or some other > numbering .com or .net. The .org is frowned upon in China - the TLD of > protestors and disidents). Half of what's left comes from either .kr > or .br. I'm fully in favor of an Internet Death Penalty against those > TLD's and associated domains till they clean up their acts. Yea! Next we'll take care of those subversive linux bastards that clog up our big pipes with their communist kernel downloads! Unsolicited commercial email is a problem. However, many of the 'solutions' are worse. Search for teergrube for a less subvertible aid. You can pile on technological 'fixes' as much as you want, but no technological measure that does not totally oppress free use of the Internet will be affective. Education is the only solution, spam will continue as long as it is profitable. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [OT] Re: .br blacklisted ?
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Michael H. Warfield wrote: > 99% of mine is from China (either *.cn or 163.com or some other > numbering .com or .net. The .org is frowned upon in China - the TLD of > protestors and disidents). Half of what's left comes from either .kr > or .br. I'm fully in favor of an Internet Death Penalty against those > TLD's and associated domains till they clean up their acts. Don't forget .tw and .hk, a favorite of spammers. They seem to have abandoned .jp and moved on. There's also the sudden hurricane of spam in the past few months from .ar for inexplicable reasons. So that gets blocked too. Anyone know why the sudden burst of .ar spam? Some country-wide government endorsed spamming program? -Dan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [OT] Re: .br blacklisted ?
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:03:19AM +0100, Pedro M. Rodrigues wrote: >Lucky b*st*rd! ;-) My spam is mostly from USA. Just deleted 78 > of those, and only 7 seemed to be from abroad. I wish i could block > .com ... ;-) 99% of mine is from China (either *.cn or 163.com or some other numbering .com or .net. The .org is frowned upon in China - the TLD of protestors and disidents). Half of what's left comes from either .kr or .br. I'm fully in favor of an Internet Death Penalty against those TLD's and associated domains till they clean up their acts. > Pedro > On 7 Jan 2001, at 17:53, John O'Donnell wrote: > > Only on my company's e-mail server. My company typically gets "zero" > > emails from outside the US. If I get a piece of spam (sorry they are > > typically from outside the US), I just block the entire .com.br > > domain. I get far less SPAM now! I cannot express how much I loathe > > SPAM! I have taken this one in particular out just for you :-) I > > am the only one at my company really active on the internet.. > > apologies Johnny O Mike -- Michael H. Warfield| (770) 985-6132 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Mad Wizard) | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471| possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it! - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[OT] Re: .br blacklisted ?
Lucky b*st*rd! ;-) My spam is mostly from USA. Just deleted 78 of those, and only 7 seemed to be from abroad. I wish i could block .com ... ;-) Pedro On 7 Jan 2001, at 17:53, John O'Donnell wrote: > Only on my company's e-mail server. My company typically gets "zero" > emails from outside the US. If I get a piece of spam (sorry they are > typically from outside the US), I just block the entire .com.br > domain. I get far less SPAM now! I cannot express how much I loathe > SPAM! I have taken this one in particular out just for you :-) I > am the only one at my company really active on the internet.. > apologies Johnny O > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
