RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-22 Thread Alan Munday
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Dowell Sent: 21 January 2004 19:44 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam. When I say have more educated users, this is what I'm really talking about. I'm no expecting everyone to be an expert. There ARE, however

Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread AltGrendel
On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 18:28, Fred wrote: I can not imagine what it would be like to work for an abuse dept. at an internet company and receive hundreds or thousands of complaints about customers computers being hijacked or turned into spam zombies. Non-original joke: I think that job is

Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread Fred
AltGrendel wrote: On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 18:28, Fred wrote: I can not imagine what it would be like to work for an abuse dept. at an internet company and receive hundreds or thousands of complaints about customers computers being hijacked or turned into spam zombies. Non-original joke: I

RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread Chris Santerre
-Original Message- From: Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 9:39 AM To: AltGrendel; Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail) Subject: Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam. AltGrendel wrote: On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 18:28, Fred wrote: I can not imagine

RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread Pierre Thomson
; Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail) Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam. ... I'm trying to find some stats on spam origins. Particularly by ISP. I see very little spam coming from cox.net cable modems vs. a buttload from Comcast. Would be nice to know the biggest ones and start a movement one

RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread Pierre Thomson
-Original Message- From: Chris Santerre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 10:08 AM To: 'Fred'; AltGrendel; Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail) Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam. -Original Message- From: Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent

RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread James
; Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail) Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam. ... I'm trying to find some stats on spam origins. Particularly by ISP. I see very little spam coming from cox.net cable modems vs. a buttload from Comcast. Would be nice to know the biggest ones and start a movement one

RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread Chris Santerre
, January 21, 2004 10:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam. Not to flame anyone, but I sure do hope my isp never blocks ports. I don't pay for obstructed internet access. I do run a small mail server from my home dsl connection. I allow family

Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread Keith Dowell
- then it's your OWN fault. Think logically here folks. - Original Message - From: Pedro Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 11:44 PM Subject: Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam. I take an opposite view point. ISP's should disable a user's

RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread James
PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam. Importance: High Yeah, we have had this same conversation on another list a week ago. We are saying by DEFAULT and ISP should block the ports, BUT it should be removed if asked, and FREE of charge. I'm sure the percentage of users who would

RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread Chris Santerre
- From: Keith Dowell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 11:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam. I made this point on a mimedefang list. Some people didn't really like it. Computers are too complicated for people

RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread Larry Gilson
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:spamassassin-talk- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Santerre Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 11:27 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam. Yeah, we have had

Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread Keith Dowell
, January 21, 2004 11:13 AM Subject: RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam. I agree and disagree :) How many times have you heard this: I don't understand, I have antivirus software. When was the last time you updated it? Update? :-) I know tons of people with broadband connections

Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread Rubin Bennett
On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 11:43, Keith Dowell wrote: I made this point on a mimedefang list. Some people didn't really like it. And I made almost the exact same point here recently... Computers are too complicated for people to be responsible some said. IMHO, if it's too complicated, you

Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread Matthew Hunter
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 12:13:26PM -0500, Chris Santerre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know tons of people with broadband connections that might be on only a few times a week. Some don't even notice their cpu is slower. I also know some pretty intelligent people that despite what they try, still

RE: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread Bill
The most appropriate response would be to demand Microsoft fix their software. That is about as effective as trying to catch your breath in a vacuum. :) --- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open

Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread Keith Dowell
). And know that when it's making a funny noise it's time to visit the mechanic. Both go back to - user responsibility. - Original Message - From: Matthew Hunter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 11:38 AM Subject: Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state

Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-21 Thread Fred
Keith Dowell wrote: I made this point on a mimedefang list. Some people didn't really like it. I like your point but I have some minor points of interest. Computers are too complicated for people to be responsible some said. So I tried equating it to maintaining your car in that, if your

[SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-20 Thread Fred
ramble Today starts day 1 of a massive joe-job against my domain. Today also starts day 1 of my crusade to do something to help the problem. I feel that large providers of high speed internet services (Cable / DSL) need to do more to protect their customers. If the Cable / DSL providers

Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-20 Thread Richard Ozer
Based on the record, to date, it would be the easiest job in the world Kind of like being the safety officer on the Titanic. RO I can not imagine what it would be like to work for an abuse dept. at an internet company and receive hundreds or thousands of complaints about customers

Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-20 Thread Robert Menschel
Hello Fred, Tuesday, January 20, 2004, 3:28:24 PM, you wrote: F ramble F Today starts day 1 of a massive joe-job against my domain. F Today also starts day 1 of my crusade to do something to help the F problem. F I feel that large providers of high speed internet services (Cable F / DSL) need

Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-20 Thread Pedro Sam
I take an opposite view point. ISP's should disable a user's account, if that account is found to be launching any malicious attacks, regardless of whether that account was intentionally malicious or was simply hacked. It's time people own up to the responsibility of a presence on the

Re: [SAtalk] [OT] - The current state spam.

2004-01-20 Thread Bob Apthorpe
Hi, On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:44:35 -0500 Pedro Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I take an opposite view point. ISP's should disable a user's account, if that account is found to be launching any malicious attacks, regardless of whether that account was intentionally malicious or was simply