|
Grex > Agora46 > #36: Increase yer penis size and look younger and eliminate credit card debt. | |
|
| Author |
Message |
pvn
|
|
Increase yer penis size and look younger and eliminate credit card debt.
| 
Jun 26 08:28 UTC 2003 |
Dunno about you, but I see these sort of shit in my email inbox more
than I see that one opportunity to work from home and become a
gazillionare and I worry that I'll miss out because of all the other
shit I am deleting.
Maybe you are not like me and don't have a penis that scares elephants
when interested and otherwise looks like an acorn between two olives.
Maybe you are like me and still get carded (by clerks with hearts of
gold, something like a mercy fuck). Maybe you are not like me and don't
have everything in somebody else's name.
I bet you are not like me and instead believe that passing laws to
regulate criminals actually accomplished anything. Dude! These are
criminals! They by definition and choice of lifestyle don't obey laws!
Duh!
Clearly the problem of the current proliferation of spam is all the laws
passed to prevent folk taking the law into their own hands. The
computer is the great equalizer, if the spammers were subject to
vigilante justice it would do a lot better than well meaning liberals
passing laws that criminals never have any intention of following in the
first place. Currently a 'spammer' can file suit against his or her ISP
who shut them down under a number of laws - eliminate all those laws and
let the marketplace dictate the remedy and all those problems go away.
Spammers are not good customers - likely as not they won't pay the ISP
bills in the first place.
|
| 50 responses total. |
animol
|
|
response 1 of 50:
|
Jun 26 15:01 UTC 2003 |
Spam sawks! Burn the spammers! In the fire! Wood fire! Tied on a vertical log!
Or give them the chance to go to the bottom of the lake for one hour and come
back.
|
other
|
|
response 2 of 50:
|
Jun 26 16:01 UTC 2003 |
Are you suggesting chasing spammers is comparable to a witch hunt?
|
jazz
|
|
response 3 of 50:
|
Jun 26 16:39 UTC 2003 |
I never got what the big deal is. I mean, there's definitely a
problem with people forging your address as the return address, so you get
all of the hate mail spam engenders. There's definitely a problem when it
consumes ten percent of the bandwidth of a very expensive pipe that someone
else paid for. And there's definitely a problem when it tries to install
spyware or destructive software and tries not to take "no" for an answer.
However, deleting the average workaday spam just isn't that much of
a hassle. I don't get why people get so up in arms over it.
|
mary
|
|
response 4 of 50:
|
Jun 26 16:48 UTC 2003 |
I'm confused by something in #0. Do elephants have
big members or memories? I'd hate to think I've
had that wrong all these years.
|
goose
|
|
response 5 of 50:
|
Jun 26 17:52 UTC 2003 |
yes
,
|
gull
|
|
response 6 of 50:
|
Jun 26 18:13 UTC 2003 |
Re #3: I think it's because the volume of it keeps increasing, and shows
no signs of slowing down. Also, I don't know about you, but a lot of
the spam I get at work these days is pornographic. That's a sexual
harassment lawsuit waiting to happen. In some cases I've gotten spam
with pictures of underage girls on it; with the current laws against
child porn just having that in my web cache (as a result of having
opened the message) could get me thrown in jail.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 7 of 50:
|
Jun 26 18:55 UTC 2003 |
What I dislike is that the junk is repetitious. I'd like to be able
to enforce a "do not write to me again" request.
|
tod
|
|
response 8 of 50:
|
Jun 26 19:44 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 9 of 50:
|
Jun 26 21:31 UTC 2003 |
I'm at 100 pieces of spam per day in my former favorite non-work
email box, and 40 per day in my work email. There is no reason to
assume that these numbers won't double or triple in the next year.
E-mail has largely ceased being fun or productive, and I'm starting
to avoid it if I can.
|
tod
|
|
response 10 of 50:
|
Jun 26 21:38 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
scg
|
|
response 11 of 50:
|
Jun 27 06:49 UTC 2003 |
One account I have gets a couple spams a day. Another gets a well known role
account for one of my consulting clients forwarded to it, and gets at least
50 spams per day, after passing through spam assassin and my own procmailrc
that filters out anything containing the word "penis" and some others. For
my account that gets a couple per day, I'll readily agree it's no big deal.
For my account that gets many, I spend a significant amount of time deleting
stuff, complicated by some spam now looking enough like legitimate mail that
I have to actually open it and look at it to make sure it isn't something I
want. It further causes problems in that my filters sometimes catch things
I wish they wouldn't -- I found that the string "hgh" was pretty common in
the encoding for legitimate Microsoft Word attachments.
|
pvn
|
|
response 12 of 50:
|
Jun 27 06:53 UTC 2003 |
SpamBuster et al are fine from the standpoint of puting lipstick on the
pig but do nothing to reduce the very real cost in bandwidth and storage
of spam. Its a potemkin village approach. Even if you successfully
ignore spam without missing mail you'd actually like to have seen you
are still paying the increased cost.
|
polygon
|
|
response 13 of 50:
|
Jun 27 07:19 UTC 2003 |
Re 3. Just ten percent? Where have you been?
Last I heard, spam and viruses accounted for about a third of Internet
traffic. And that was over a year ago. Maybe it's half by now.
|
gull
|
|
response 14 of 50:
|
Jun 27 13:02 UTC 2003 |
Re #12: The thing is, with how cheap bandwidth and storage is these days
that's a hard argument to make. The real valuable thing spam takes, in
my opinion, is time.
I think a lot of people don't realize the true magnitude of the problem.
To realize the huge quantities of spam that some of us get, you have to
either a) have an email address (or list alias) that's published on an
easy-to-access webpage, or b) have your email address in the WHOIS
record for a domain.
|
pvn
|
|
response 15 of 50:
|
Jun 28 06:18 UTC 2003 |
re#14re#12: Perhaps, but that is the only legal arguement that one can
make. Your time and emotional distress of having to weed out spam has
no legal standing. Whereas the theft of bandwidth and storage and
illegal access by the spammers does. (the illegal access arguement is
towards those that simply pound on an SMTP port generating random
characters to discover legit email address.)
|
oval
|
|
response 16 of 50:
|
Jun 28 18:21 UTC 2003 |
http://www.spamassassin.org
it works amazingly well, read the site.
|
sj2
|
|
response 17 of 50:
|
Jun 28 22:14 UTC 2003 |
I have subscribed to atleast four mailing lists on my work email id. I
get no spam on that.
I get a bit of spam on one of my yahoo accounts. None on the other
three. I have had these four accounts for years now.
On my hotmail account, I get 95% spam. However, deleting that takes
probably a few minutes a day, so I really don't mind. Apart from that
it gives me a good chuckle to read the subject lines.
We had a sales guy from a big managed mail service provider. The guy
told us how horrible spam is and how much resources it was consuming. I
have no way of determining if the statistics presented by him were
true.
To sum up, spam sucks but it isn't really a concern for me.
|
pvn
|
|
response 18 of 50:
|
Jun 29 06:16 UTC 2003 |
hifnfy
|
oval
|
|
response 19 of 50:
|
Jun 29 15:49 UTC 2003 |
increase your penis size.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 20 of 50:
|
Jun 29 18:32 UTC 2003 |
There is also the factor of those individuals, or employees
that do not delete email. Or ones who open every email and
let a virus on the loose. These Senior Programmer/Analyst in the
cube next to me help to propagate the "I Love You" virus. Even
one kind of geek can be not geeky savy.
|
sj2
|
|
response 21 of 50:
|
Jun 30 08:01 UTC 2003 |
In my experience most developers/programmers who work for software
production facilities know zilch about computers. They just know how
to make their own module work using some nice GUI tool like VB or VC++
or some fancy Oracle Application developer frontend. Their knowledge
of how the computing infrastructure (networks, servers, firewalls)
works is minimal.
On the other extreme are admins themselves with poor knowledge about
viruses and the like. A lot of them think that viruses can infect PCs
just by opening an infected file. Few know the fact that for a virus
to do damage, it has to be executed, meaning, the virus must be
attached to a file that gets executed like a DLL, EXE, COM or maybe
even a Macro. Other than this, a virus cannot magically infect a PC.
|
oval
|
|
response 22 of 50:
|
Jun 30 10:50 UTC 2003 |
ya so set your email program not to automatically open files!
i don't think it's a coincidence most M$ mail apps like outlook do this by
default.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 23 of 50:
|
Jun 30 15:14 UTC 2003 |
I use Outlook, it does open picture files, but I've never had it open
an exe file. Can it actually do this?
I think admins tell computer users to just not open the emails and
trash them to make it simpler for the user. It's hard to explain to
the secretary who uses computers to type in word docs and nothing
else, that certain files are ok to click on, and certain files are
exes and should no be clicked.
|
gull
|
|
response 24 of 50:
|
Jun 30 16:05 UTC 2003 |
There were bugs in some versions of Outlook that let an EXE attachment
automatically execute, under the right conditions.
It doensn't help that, by default, Microsoft hides the extension from
you, taking away that critical bit of information you need to decide
whether to open the file or not. There have been a spate of viruses
with filenames like "picture.jpg.exe" as a result.
|