On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 11:27:10AM +1000, Terence Giufre-Sweetser wrote:
> Now there's a good idea, and it works, I have several sites running a
> "port 25" trap to stop smtp abuse.
>
> To stop port 25 abuse at some schools, the firewall grabs all outgoing
> port 25 connections from !"the mail s
On Fri, 10 May 2002, David Charlap wrote:
>
> Jim Hickstein wrote:
> >
> > My customers who reach me (a mail service) from Earthlink dialups
> > are affected by this. Apparently it's still happening. I run a
> > listener on another host and port, known only to this (so far)
> > small subset
Jim Hickstein wrote:
>
> One clarification: Can these users relay through that host, using
> SMTP AUTH, from anywhere, or only from within your network? I
> observe, for instance, that the instructions for Outlook 2000
> (Windows) does not have them check "my [outgoing SMTP] server
> requires a
Jim Hickstein wrote:
>
> My customers who reach me (a mail service) from Earthlink dialups
> are affected by this. Apparently it's still happening. I run a
> listener on another host and port, known only to this (so far)
> small subset of people, to be able to serve them. In general, we
> adv
--On Thursday, May 9, 2002 8:37 PM -0700 "Rowland, Alan D"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For more on EarthLink's Port 25 policy see:
>
> http://help.earthlink.net/port25/
That's very helpful! Thank you!
One clarification: Can these users relay through that host, using SMTP
AUTH, from anywhe
For more on EarthLink's Port 25 policy see:
http://help.earthlink.net/port25/
Best regards,
Al Rowland
-Original Message-
From: Joel Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 7:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: anybody else been spammed by "no-i
--On Thursday, May 9, 2002 8:26 PM -0600 Joel Baker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Earthlink was doing this for basically all of their consumer-grade
> (dialup, most of the ADSL, etc) customers in 1999 (well, almost certainly
> earlier than that, but I can only personally speak to it being in pla
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 11:27:10AM +1000, Terence Giufre-Sweetser wrote:
>
> Now there's a good idea, and it works, I have several sites running a
> "port 25" trap to stop smtp abuse.
>
> To stop port 25 abuse at some schools, the firewall grabs all outgoing
> port 25 connections from !"the mai
> > We're trying to discourage bulk emailers, not individuals.
>
> Then the way to do this is to make the cost of sending mass mail more
> expensive than sending only a few here and there. In short, we need a
> way to prevent the use of the $19.95 throw-away account that is used
> to send the
> 2002-04-05 | 116
> 2002-04-04 | 125
> 2002-04-03 |91
> 2002-04-02 |88
> 2002-04-01 |97
> (33 rows)
>
> go ahead and "Just Hit Delete" if you want.
if this idiot idea ("the `you can delete it' one) continues on, there's
going to be a market for ultra long life, MILSPEC, D
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 01:13:34AM -0400, Mike Joseph wrote:
> The major problem I see with this is the need to verify that the
> spamvertised site actually requested or paid for the spam. After all,
> what's to prevent me from spamming in the name of xyz.com just so I can
> see them shutdown?
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Scott Francis wrote:
> On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 06:01:49PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> [snip]
> > Passing laws and putting on filters don't work. Depending on each mail
> > server admin to do the right thing doesn't work. We need to find
> > something else that will.
>
On Mon, 06 May 2002 19:31:47 EDT, Ralph Doncaster said:
> 99+% of SPAM. i.e. the first email from a particular remote server that
> is received, requires the sender to take some action (respond with a
And the mailing list you just subscribed to clicks on the URL *how*?
Across the hall we got a
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
> Actually, my analysis of spam seems to indicate authentication of remote
> SMTP servers through a process similar to joining this list would remove
> 99+% of SPAM. i.e. the first email from a particular remote server that
> is received, requires the
: anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Scott Francis wrote:
> On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 06:01:49PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> [snip]
> > Passing laws and putting on filters don't work. Depending on each mail
> > server admin to do
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 07:31:47PM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
> Actually, my analysis of spam seems to indicate authentication of remote
> SMTP servers through a process similar to joining this list would remove
> 99+% of SPAM. i.e. the first email from a particular remote server that
> is re
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Scott Francis wrote:
> On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 06:01:49PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> [snip]
> > Passing laws and putting on filters don't work. Depending on each mail
> > server admin to do the right thing doesn't work. We need to find
> > something else that will.
>
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 06:01:49PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[snip]
> Passing laws and putting on filters don't work. Depending on each mail
> server admin to do the right thing doesn't work. We need to find
> something else that will.
I'm beginning to think that fighting the spam itself i
I have to say I think you're doing something wrong somewhere.. excluding
official role addresses I receive a handful (15ish?) spam mails per day
and I've been using some of my email addresses for years. A couple are
used on websites so they are published.
Perhaps to an extent I'm lucky, but I wa
In the immortal words of [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Sun, 05 May 2002 18:15:15 EDT, "Nathan J. Mehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > people that this had happened to? I'd file a class-action liability
> > suit against Microsoft for selling a defective product that lost my
> > clie
On Sun, 05 May 2002 18:15:15 EDT, "Nathan J. Mehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> people that this had happened to? I'd file a class-action liability
> suit against Microsoft for selling a defective product that lost my
> clients thousands of dollars.
>
> I suspect I'd have a good chance of winni
> We can grit our teeth and make that statement now, when spam is
> (handwave, guess, maybe) 30% of our incoming mail load.
>
> It's going to become a lot harder to make as that percentage
> approaches 99. Which it will, and probably sooner than any of us want
> to think
In the immortal words of [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >
> > So we have a choice: pay for the (very nice but expensive) commercial
> > product, or add forty percent to our mail spool disk farm and extra
> > cpus and ram in the mail server farm to deal with the additional
> > influx.
In the immortal words of John R. Levine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> * It swaps the current set of problems for an all-new and quite
> possibly worse set of problems, as bad guys come up with ways to
> scam the per-message payment system. Just think, get infected with
> e-payment klez via you
In a message written on Sat, May 04, 2002 at 04:36:40PM -0400, Scott A Crosby wrote:
> So far, other than Jared Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'s calculation where
> he neither confirmed nor disputed $.02/email, I've yet to see *one*
> quantified per-message price bandied about..
It doesn't matter.
I
> "There will be a day when folks will need to pay to transit email"
> (Paul Vixie, 1998).
>
> Still working on that better mouse trap?
well, other than that i wish i could charge _you_ for the spam i get
that's due to the several MAILTO:[EMAIL PROTECTED]'s on your www.dotcomeon.com
site, no.
ROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?
>
>
> On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
>
> > We're trying to discourage bulk emailers, not individuals.
>
&g
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
> Anyone who thinks that government can pass a law and this will go away is
> hopelessly naieve. The spammers will go overseas. Besides, if you look
The spammers already use non-US machines in various ways to disguise their
(still predominately
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> Faxes are a little bit easier to trace than email.
Sometimes. If the faxer is identifying s/h/itself properly.
--
Steve Sobol, CTO (Server Guru, Network Janitor and Head Geek)
JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH 888.480.4NET http://
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Eric A. Hall wrote:
> > Anyone who thinks that government can pass a law and this will go away
> > is hopelessly naieve.
>
> Uh, thanks. The government has all kinds of property protection laws. My
> mail spool is my property. Do the math.
Indeed, the courts have already
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Scott Granados wrote:
>
> Well the costs you mentioned with aol seem high
Not when you consider how much time and money AOL has sunk into the
development of their mail system. They are the only company that has to
scale their operations to the size to which they scale, an
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Gregory Hicks wrote:
> > money. Today with flat rate access and many people not paying on a per
> > packet basis it seems to me that the responsibility lies with the end
> > user to filter properly and or dress that delete key. I always shut
> [...snip...]
>
> The proble
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
> On Sat, 4 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > How about something along the lines of dial accounts having their outgoing
> > SMTP connections rate limited to, oh, let's say 100 per day, and limiting the
> > maximum number of recipients on a
ben hubbard wrote:
> why not instead lobby for a federal law, and enforcement of that
> law, along with a centralized and well admin'd blacklist (who's
> operations would be funded in part by proceeds from enforcement of
> antispam laws).
Actually, a well-written law wouldn't need funding. MAP
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 07:22:35PM -0500, Eric A. Hall wrote:
>
> > Ask people in those states which have anti-spam laws how many fewer
> > spam messages they receive than before.
>
> Although responding to this message puts me back to -$.04, I will point
> out that the junk fax law worked pret
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
> Passing laws and putting on filters don't work. Depending on each mail
> server admin to do the right thing doesn't work. We need to find
> something else that will.
Define "doesn't work"?
Yes there is still spam - but the laws are in all cas
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
>
> On Sat, 4 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > How about something along the lines of dial accounts having their outgoing
> > SMTP connections rate limited to, oh, let's say 100 per day, and limiting the
> > maximum number of recipients on a
"Forrest W. Christian" wrote:
> Ask people in those states which have anti-spam laws how many fewer
> spam messages they receive than before.
Although responding to this message puts me back to -$.04, I will point
out that the junk fax law worked pretty well. It didn't take long for
people to
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 06:01:49PM -0600, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
> On Sat, 4 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The bottom line is that in my opinion people need to give up *something*
> for the privlege of sending mail. I suggested a couple of cents per
> message. Others reject this as "
>> sounds a bit like www.vanqish.com . But other than that, how
>> would it work for mailing lists like this one?
>
>My solution to this would be for people to be able to select certain
>senders as not being charged.
... which leads to the same problems every e-postage scheme does:
* It swaps t
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Eric A. Hall wrote:
> > Grandma would get 2c for each mail she received. Grandma would pay 2c
> > for each email she sent. Where does that cause the problems you are
> > talking about?
>
> I send a lot more mail than grandma does.
Yes, but even if you send one a day and she
On Sat, 4 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How about something along the lines of dial accounts having their outgoing
> SMTP connections rate limited to, oh, let's say 100 per day, and limiting the
> maximum number of recipients on any given email to some low number, say 5?
>
> A customer rea
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Johannes B. Ullrich wrote:
> sounds a bit like www.vanqish.com . But other than that, how
> would it work for mailing lists like this one?
My solution to this would be for people to be able to select certain
senders as not being charged.
- Forrest W. Christian ([EMAIL PROTE
> > > Theft/Taxes nearly the same . ;-) JimL
> > Really? What's the difference?
> I was giving the thief the benefit of doubt ;-) . JimL
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm
See the part on "public goods" problem and Pareto optimality :)
--vadim
Hey! Where's my reply? I'm in the hole $.04 on this thread now!
Right! No more mail to you until you send me two messages!
Then we all move to some other medium that doesn't cost money -- and then
the spammers follow us there too.
"Eric A. Hall" wrote:
>
> "Forrest W. Christian" wrote:
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
> We're trying to discourage bulk emailers, not individuals.
Then the way to do this is to make the cost of sending mass mail more
expensive than sending only a few here and there. In short, we need a way to
prevent the use of the $19.95 throw-a
> First, nobody wants to pay $.02 to email grandma. They will pick up the
> phone instead. Second, nobody will send any emails that they don't have
> to, period. This will just drive Internet users away because of the cost
> rather than being driven away because of spam.
sounds a bit like www.v
I want to clarify this a bit, before I get flamed (not that I'm not going
to anyways).
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
>
> The people in the middle would get *nothing* beyond what they are getting
> today.
>
> Grandma would get 2c for each mail she received. Grandma would pay 2c
"Forrest W. Christian" wrote:
> Grandma would get 2c for each mail she received. Grandma would pay 2c
> for each email she sent. Where does that cause the problems you are
> talking about?
I send a lot more mail than grandma does.
--
Eric A. Hallhttp:
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Eric A. Hall wrote:
> Uh, thanks. The government has all kinds of property protection laws. My
> mail spool is my property. Do the math.
Your car is your private property as well, but if you park it in a public
place, with the engine running, and offer every passerby the op
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Eric A. Hall wrote:
> "Forrest W. Christian" wrote:
> > Anyone who thinks that government can pass a law and this will go away
> > is hopelessly naieve.
> Uh, thanks. The government has all kinds of property protection laws. My
> mail spool is my prop
"Forrest W. Christian" wrote:
> Anyone who thinks that government can pass a law and this will go away
> is hopelessly naieve.
Uh, thanks. The government has all kinds of property protection laws. My
mail spool is my property. Do the math.
> The spammers will go overseas.
Are they marketin
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 04:36:40PM -0400, Scott A Crosby wrote:
>
> *blink*
>
> So far, other than Jared Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'s calculation where
> he neither confirmed nor disputed $.02/email, I've yet to see *one*
> quantified per-message price bandied about..
>
> Are you also unsure of
Hello J.A. Terranson ,
On Sat, 4 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 4 May 2002, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
> > Theft/Taxes nearly the same . ;-) JimL
> Really? What's the difference?
I was giving the thief the benefit of doubt ;-) . JimL
+---
I've been roasted privately and called naive in thinking that pay-per-mail
is a valid solution.
Let me first say that the $0.02 I pulled "out of the air" was derived
simply by taking the $80/hr I bill to clients and dividing that by 3600
(number of seconds in an hour) thus $0.022. I'd say that
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
> Theft/Taxes nearly the same . ;-) JimL
Really? What's the difference?
>
>+--+
>| James W. Laferriere | SystemTechniques | Give me VMS |
>
Hello Randy ,
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Randy Bush wrote:
> > a cost that you are forced to pay in order to enrich somebody else is
> > theft
> i thought it was called 'taxes' :-)/2
Theft/Taxes nearly the same . ;-) JimL
+---
> a cost that you are forced to pay in order to enrich somebody else is
> theft
i thought it was called 'taxes' :-)/2
On 4 May 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:
> a cost that you are forced to pay in order to enrich somebody else is
> theft, no matter how microscopic the payment might be. "we all know what
> (they) are, now we're just arguing about the price."
"There will be a day when folks will need to pay to transi
*blink*
So far, other than Jared Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'s calculation where
he neither confirmed nor disputed $.02/email, I've yet to see *one*
quantified per-message price bandied about..
Are you also unsure of the per-message costs of email? I'd thought I'd
find *someone* who could quantif
>
>
> What do you guess for the amortized cost/spam?
>
>
a cost that you are forced to pay in order to enrich somebody else is
theft, no matter how microscopic the payment might be. "we all know what
(they) are, now we're just arguing about the price."
> I do find it amusing that nobody re
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 11:57:04AM -0700, Gary E. Miller wrote:
> Yo Scott!
>
> On Sat, 4 May 2002, Scott A Crosby wrote:
>
> > I'd like the costs quantified.. Servers and disks are expensive, but if
> > they handle a ten million messages during their lifetime, the amortized
> > cost PER MESSAG
Yo Scott!
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Scott A Crosby wrote:
> I'd like the costs quantified.. Servers and disks are expensive, but if
> they handle a ten million messages during their lifetime, the amortized
> cost PER MESSAGE is cheap.
I guess at a school you get free labor for setup, admin, backup,
On 4 May 2002, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> Scott Granados <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > No I think your message illustrates things pretty well. I guess the
> > fundimental differenc here is not only does it cost usually very little
> > to receive these messages it costs even less infact dra
Also sprach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>On 4 May 2002, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>> It does not cost "very little" to recieve spam.
>It costs the end-user very little to recieve spam.
>> [...]
>Whether we like it or not however, this is a cost of doing business
>now, and is a normal part of determining
At 08:21 PM 03-05-02 -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
> 456 05/03 "Big Brother" Protect your family on the Internet<< 457 05/03 "Big Brother" Protect your family on the Internet<< 458 05/03 "Big Brother" Protect your family on the Internet<< 459 05/03 "Big Brother" Protect your fa
At the moment I'm actually interested in statistics on size of spam
messages as compared to average size of mail message to try to caclulate
amount of mail bandwdith they really waste...
My own calculations show around 27% spam email and I'v seen statistics
from 20-30% from others (someone el
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It does not cost "very little" to recieve spam.
>
> It costs the end-user very little to recieve spam.
I'll echo Paul's comments about the cost of my time. In my case, a
half hour a day seems about right (compared to Paul's hour a day). I
suspect you may have
On Fri, 3 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Do you have data on approximate amount of this extra mail bandwidth due to
> spam per user? Actually lets be more exact, can some of you with 10,000
> real user mail accounts reply how much traffic your mail server is using
> and if you have spam fil
On 4 May 2002, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> It does not cost "very little" to recieve spam.
It costs the end-user very little to recieve spam.
> At my real job (ie,
> not seastrom.com), we're running a very nice (but expensive)
> commercial product to filter this stuff, and in a given time qu
Scott Granados <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No I think your message illustrates things pretty well. I guess the
> fundimental differenc here is not only does it cost usually very little
> to receive these messages it costs even less infact dramatically to send
> spam. It seems there is no
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 06:28:56AM -0400, Scott A Crosby wrote:
> [1]
> This raises an interesting question of how can you claim an email costs
> $.02 to receive, when the bandwidth to get it is about 3 orders of
> magnitude less, and diskspace costs 2 orders of magnitude less ($10/gig)?
>
> If
Subject: Re: anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?
>
>
>
> On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
>
> > What I envision is some sort of micropayment protocol
> extension to SNMP.
> -
Well I just started getting a *LOT* of these (read 30+ an hour) to my
nannog list address. Am I going to have to start filtering all emails
from net.tw ?:
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 38418 invoked from network); 3 May 2002 21:15:41 -
Rece
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
>
> I'm going to make a suggestion which I realize that today there isn't any
> easy way to do this. However, I want to throw this out because I think if
> we could figure out how to do it, I think the spam problem will go away.
>
> Anytime anyone
> Anytime anyone sends a mail to my server, I want to be paid 2 cents.
And then, no one will want to send _you_ email. Spam or otherwise.
> You would also want to be able to accept mail from certain senders for
> free.
Which I guess is how you would avoid killing off legitimate mass mailing (l
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
> What I envision is some sort of micropayment protocol extension to SNMP.
-
Make that SMTP :) I guess I've been working on network monitoring too
much recently.
- Forre
I'm going to make a suggestion which I realize that today there isn't any
easy way to do this. However, I want to throw this out because I think if
we could figure out how to do it, I think the spam problem will go away.
Anytime anyone sends a mail to my server, I want to be paid 2 cents.
2 c
When I re-read my post, I'd like to clarify the "clean" part a bit. I mean
technically clean, as in all of the parts working properly as best as the
fine people represented on this list can make it happen that is...so lets
say "properly operating"...to be a little more specific.
The Internet
I'm curious on this "extra traffic" data, since I'm somewhat involved with
antispam website, it'd be interesting to get the statistics and post it to
explain others how bad spam is for internet not only in annoyance but in
actual extra costs and wasted traffic.
Do you have data on approximate
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:13:52PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> Picture it as a fellow stopping by every night and filling your home
> mailbox with horse manure...I'm sure you'll get a feeling for how most of
> us regard it.
>
> A) it wastes bandwidth
> B) It wastes our time
> C) It's th
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 09:41:36PM -0400, PS wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2002, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > If I haven't made my point, this is it... NO ONE. NO BODY!
> > would be so lame or STUPID as to do something so assinine without
> > checking with me first. Anyone who did so was NOT
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
> Behalf Of Michael H. Warfield
> Sent: May 3, 2002 10:22 PM
> To: Vivien M.
> Cc: 'Paul Vixie'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com"
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> If I haven't made my point, this is it... NO ONE. NO BODY!
> would be so lame or STUPID as to do something so assinine without
> checking with me first. Anyone who did so was NOT someone with my
> best interest in mind and certainly not
> ... not only does it cost usually very little to receive these messages ...
even if i granted to a third party the right to determine the value of my
time, which i don't, the fact is that an hour or more of my time per day is
too high a price to pay "to receive these messages", by _any_ standa
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 05:08:44PM -0400, Vivien M. wrote:
> [snip]
> I hate to sound like the big idiot here, but what exactly in the email
> you received indicates no-ip.com spammed? It looks to me like you just
> have some secret "admirer" who thought you wanted a no-ip.com account,
> and no
I do agree here that using fake addressing and so on is really bad on
many levels. I know on one of the networks I was involved in recently
we had a customer who was a spammer and I pulled his services very
quickly, some might even say to quickly. I also realize that even
though I personall
uWell I tend to always error on the side of free expression verses
making something illegal and I definitely disagree with the statement
that its a clean internet otherwise but just like non electronic space
there are many differing standards and shades of things something I
actually think br
No I think your message illustrates things pretty well. I guess the
fundimental differenc here is not only does it cost usually very little
to receive these messages it costs even less infact dramatically to send
spam. It seems there is no real reason for the spammer to be concerned
with wh
Well the costs you mentioned with aol seem high but I suppose are
possible. Being a parent however and having three children who do use
the net extensively I see your point about the content they receive but
of course the ultimate responsibility for what they are exposed to on
the net lies
Friday, May 03, 2002 6:27 PM
> To: Mitch Halmu
> Cc: Paul Vixie; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?
>
>
>
> I realize this statement I'm about to make is going to open a huge...
> can o worms but ... and hoefull
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Scott Granados wrote:
> deal with spam is. Honestly sure I get it like everyone else, in some
> of my accounts more than others but I also get a real truckload in my
> snailmail box. Just as with all the pottery barn catalogs to pottery barn I guess>:) I have a delete key
Picture it as a fellow stopping by every night and filling your home
mailbox with horse manure...I'm sure you'll get a feeling for how most of
us regard it.
A) it wastes bandwidth
B) It wastes our time
C) It's the "litter" of an otherwise clean Internet.
D) It's a method of placing the costs f
> Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 15:27:08 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Scott Granados <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I realize this statement I'm about to make is going to open a huge...
> can o worms but ... and hoefully everyone knows I mean this in the most
> friendly responsible way ever but I'm not sure entirely
> ... I'm not sure entirely what the big deal with spam is. Honestly sure
> I get it like everyone else, in some of my accounts more than others
> ... I have a delete key ...
in the time between when you sent the above, and when i read it, the
following messages were added to my mailbox:
1+
Content providers have to recieve and hold spam mail before they
delete it. People and mailing lists who have well-published addresses
can recieve hundreds of spam messages a day. I know that, without my
filters, I would easily spend 30-45 minutes a day downloading,
identifying, and deleting s
e; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?
I realize this statement I'm about to make is going to open a huge...
can o worms but ... and hoefully everyone knows I mean this in the most
friendly responsible way ever but I'm not sure entirely w
I realize this statement I'm about to make is going to open a huge...
can o worms but ... and hoefully everyone knows I mean this in the most
friendly responsible way ever but I'm not sure entirely what the big
deal with spam is. Honestly sure I get it like everyone else, in some
of my accou
At 02:59 PM 5/3/2002 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
>At 05:25 PM 5/3/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>
>I got some of these a few weeks ago. I believe these test messages are
>sent to find the non-deliverables in their mailing list. Right after I got
>these test messages, they started sending quite a bit of
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > I hate to sound like the big idiot here, but what exactly in the email
> > you received indicates no-ip.com spammed? It looks to me like you just
> > have some secret "admirer" who thought you wanted a no-ip.com account,
> > and no-ip.com emailed you to
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
