In article mailman.837.1251890913.2854.python-l...@python.org,
Tino Wildenhain t...@wildenhain.de wrote:
SNIP
Here is another idea: for spam senders pointing to servers under=20
jurisdiction, size the server and check all incoming requests
from users - if they try to do a deal, prosecute a few
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:07:48 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
Suppose that all over the world, people coordinated so that one in three
households paid ISPs while a neighbor on each side piggybacked (and
perhaps paid the paying househould their one-third share). Do you
really think that would have
And I would kindly appreciate it if you fellas wouldn't go solving
this little spam problem! Selling Anti-Spam industry leading
appliances has managed to put me in a rather nice house and I'd hate
to lose it just because you fellas went and solved the problem! ;)
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 11:24
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:22:08 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
the conclusion you do. But I read your argument as being that having an
open wi-fi connection was prima facie evidence of intent to commit crime
regardless of whether you were a public advocate or not. Perhaps I
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 04:01:54 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
ISP's price residential service based on average fixed cost and average
usage. Multiple homes using one connection push those averages up.
Is that meant to be a problem?
When people buy more, the unit price they
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:19:48 -0700, Ethan Furman wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 04:01:54 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
ISP's price residential service based on average fixed cost and average
usage. Multiple homes using one connection push those averages up.
Is that meant
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:19:48 -0700, Ethan Furman wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 04:01:54 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
ISP's price residential service based on average fixed cost and average
usage. Multiple homes using one connection push those
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:01:26 -0700, Ethan Furman wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:19:48 -0700, Ethan Furman wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 04:01:54 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
ISP's price residential service based on average fixed cost and
average
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
According to the theory increased usage leads to higher prices, we
should be paying more for Internet access now than we were in 1999, and
hugely more that from the early 90s when there were hardly any Internet
users.
You are confusing historical changed with
*ahem*! You guy's do remember this thread (?at one time in history?)
was about spam on this list, right? Not internet connection fees. ;-)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I have read more that one person advocating
leaving one's wi-fi base open for anyone to use as the 'neighborly'
thing to do.
That's a different kettle of fish. You don't do anybody any harm by
paying for Internet access for your neighbours (and anyone driving down
the
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 02:16:27 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I have read more that one person advocating leaving one's wi-fi base
open for anyone to use as the 'neighborly' thing to do.
That's a different kettle of fish. You don't do anybody any harm by
paying for
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:48:19 +0200, David wrote:
Il Tue, 1 Sep 2009 11:50:14 +0200, Andre Engels ha scritto:
What about mailing lists? There exist well-functioning mailing lists
with thousands of subscribers. Being a posting member of those will
significantly increase
On 2009-09-02, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I have read more that one person advocating
leaving one's wi-fi base open for anyone to use as the 'neighborly'
thing to do.
That's a different kettle of fish. You don't do anybody any
harm by paying for Internet
On 2009-09-02, Steven D'Aprano ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 02:16:27 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I have read more that one person advocating leaving one's wi-fi base
open for anyone to use as the 'neighborly' thing to do.
That's a
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 06:20:39 -0700, Emile van Sebille wrote:
On 9/1/2009 9:22 PM r said...
On Sep 1, 10:16 pm, Steven D'Aprano
Took me two weeks of elapsed time and around 30 hours of effort to
remove those suckers from the machine. Now I run Linux, behind two
firewalls.
Takes me less
Il Wed, 02 Sep 2009 10:22:50 +0100, MRAB ha scritto:
The preferred option these days is to slow down net access of the
offenders, not cut them off completely. I'm not sure how many ISPs
actually do that yet.
If they do, it doesn't look like it's working that much.
D.
--
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 02:16:27 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
The rationale I have seen is this: if one leaves the wi-fi router open
and illegal activity is conducted thru it, and there is no residual
evidence on the hard drives of on-premises machines, then one may claim
that
On Sep 2, 12:33 pm, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
(snip)
I learned one thing though. System Restore sounds like a good idea, but
in my experience it's only good for restoring malware when you reboot.
System restore is a joke! and a complete waste of HD space
On Sep 2, 4:22 am, MRAB pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
The preferred option these days is to slow down net access of the
offenders, not cut them off completely. I'm not sure how many ISPs
actually do that yet.
That seems to be the case with ISP and good users also in the form
of quotas ;-)
On 9/2/2009 7:07 AM Unknown said...
A spam/malware merchange who can't afford/arrange other
internet access? How is net access on the critical path?
Mailbots (a significant source of spam IMHO) thrive on net access -- for
them, is there anything _more_ critical?
Emile
--
On 2009-09-02, Emile van Sebille em...@fenx.com wrote:
On 9/2/2009 7:07 AM Unknown said...
A spam/malware merchange who can't afford/arrange other
internet access? How is net access on the critical path?
Mailbots (a significant source of spam IMHO) thrive on net access -- for
them, is
Il 02 Sep 2009 00:17:05 GMT, Steven D'Aprano ha scritto:
This can be done already, without the need for an email tax. ISPs could
easily detect spammers, if they cared to.
There are a few things that can already be done to cut the spam problem
to manageable size:
(1) Why aren't ISPs
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 21:53:15 +0200, David wrote:
As for the argument that home users who send spam are the victim,
that's true up to a point, but not very far. Here's an analogy: suppose
that terrorists sneak into your house after picking the lock -- or in
the case of Windows users with no
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:22:08 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 02:16:27 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
The rationale I have seen is this: if one leaves the wi-fi router open
and illegal activity is conducted thru it, and there is no residual
evidence on the
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:18 AM, David71da...@libero.it wrote:
Il Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:18:46 -0700 (PDT), casebash ha scritto:
So much of it could be removed even by simple keyword filtering.
I think there is only one final solution to the spam pestilence: a tiny tax
on email and posts.
Il Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:13:38 +0100, Nobody ha scritto:
Apart from the impossibility of implementing such a tax, it isn't going to
discourage spammers when the tax will be paid by the owner of the
compromised PC from which they're sending their spam.
I don't agree.
Each computer connected to
Il Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:08:46 -0700 (PDT), r ha scritto:
Yes i agree but your logic is flawed. If someone cuts my brake lines
and i cannot stop who is to blame? Or if someone throws nails on the
highway and i crash, who is to blame? Obviously you cannot blame the
car owner. However if i let
Il Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:04:27 +0200, David ha scritto:
Obviously the owner can not be charged
I mean: can not be jailed for crimes made by the thief using his car.
D.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Il Tue, 1 Sep 2009 11:50:14 +0200, Andre Engels ha scritto:
What about mailing lists? There exist well-functioning mailing lists
with thousands of subscribers. Being a posting member of those will
significantly increase your internet bill under your proposal.
It's an implementation issue, it
Il Mon, 31 Aug 2009 20:06:54 -0700 (PDT), r ha scritto:
Is the car owner not a victim too? :). i am ok with the filthy
insurance company paying as long as the owners rates don't increase.
He is, unless he left keys in the cockpit, but he is 'less victim' of the
people involved in the accident.
David wrote:
I'm not saying that criminals shouldn't being prosecuted, but we are talking
of something else: creating and environment that discurages criminals,
because present enviroment is pretty wild and criminals have a big
advantage.
The mail-tax proposal aims to change this situation.
I
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:48:19 +0200, David wrote:
Il Tue, 1 Sep 2009 11:50:14 +0200, Andre Engels ha scritto:
What about mailing lists? There exist well-functioning mailing lists
with thousands of subscribers. Being a posting member of those will
significantly increase your internet bill
On 2009-09-01, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
David wrote:
I'm not saying that criminals shouldn't being prosecuted, but
we are talking of something else: creating and environment
that discurages criminals, because present enviroment is
pretty wild and criminals have a big advantage.
On Sep 1, 6:33 pm, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
(snip)
I have read at least one person saying he did not mind his machine being
used to send out spam.
That's aiding and abetting and can be prosecuted!
I have read more that one person advocating
leaving one's wi-fi base open for
On Sep 1, 6:33 pm, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
(snip)
I have read at least one person saying he did not mind his machine being
used to send out spam.
That's aiding and abetting and can be prosecuted!
I have read more that one person advocating
leaving one's wi-fi base open for
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:33:47 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
David wrote:
I'm not saying that criminals shouldn't being prosecuted, but we are
talking of something else: creating and environment that discurages
criminals, because present enviroment is pretty wild and criminals have
a big
On Sep 1, 10:16 pm, Steven D'Aprano
ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au wrote:
(snip)
That's a different kettle of fish. You don't do anybody any harm by
paying for Internet access for your neighbours (and anyone driving down
the street with a laptop and wi-fi).
naughty, naughty! somebody's
casebash walkr...@gmail.com writes:
So much of it could be removed even by simple keyword filtering.
Use python-list@python.org [1], instead.
[1] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
--
He's a responsible man in his own way.
-- Michael Corleone, Chapter 25,
casebash walkr...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:7294bf8b-9819-4b6d-92b2-
afc1c8042...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
So much of it could be removed even by simple keyword filtering.
Funny, I was just thinking recently about how *little* spam this list
gets--on the other hand, I'm
Il Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:18:46 -0700 (PDT), casebash ha scritto:
So much of it could be removed even by simple keyword filtering.
I think there is only one final solution to the spam pestilence: a tiny tax
on email and posts.
Spammers send hundreds of thousands of emails/posts a day and a tax of
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 11:18:35 +0200, David wrote:
So much of it could be removed even by simple keyword filtering.
I think there is only one final solution to the spam pestilence: a tiny tax
on email and posts.
Spammers send hundreds of thousands of emails/posts a day and a tax of
0.0001$
So much of it could be removed even by simple keyword filtering.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Byung-Hee HWANG wrote:
casebash walkr...@gmail.com writes:
So much of it could be removed even by simple keyword filtering.
Use python-list@python.org [1], instead.
[1] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Or read python-list as a newsgroup via news.gmane.org, which mirrors
Nobody wrote:
Apart from the impossibility of implementing such a tax, it isn't going to
discourage spammers when the tax will be paid by the owner of the
compromised PC from which they're sending their spam.
It would encourge PC owners to not let their machine be used as a spambot.
--
On Aug 29, 7:18 pm, casebash walkr...@gmail.com wrote:
So much of it could be removed even by simple keyword filtering.
A more interesting question is what morons are responding to this spam
and enticing the spammers to proliferate their garbage? Do people
actually see a spam like Phallus
casebash walkr...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:7294bf8b-9819-4b6d-92b2-afc1c8042...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
So much of it could be removed even by simple keyword filtering.
Assuming this is a serious question:
1. comp.lang.python has relatively little spam, compared to others.
2.
47 matches
Mail list logo
