Reisal Posted December 16, 2003 http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/36517 Discuss... Bush, you fucking suck. I'm not voting your ass for 2004 elections 0 Share this post Link to post
Ichor Posted December 16, 2003 Get a spam filtering program. I haven't received a single spam this past month after installing one. 0 Share this post Link to post
AndrewB Posted December 16, 2003 Bush signs first US anti-spam law President Signs Legislation Aiming to Stem Flood of Spam Bush signs US 'can-spam' law What are you on? 0 Share this post Link to post
Sephiroth Posted December 16, 2003 welcome to capitalism fellows. i know spyware has been getting even worse. spyware is usally what gets u the spam. sence i cut spyware out of my system spam is almost no exsistant 0 Share this post Link to post
Sephiroth Posted December 16, 2003 isnt there a creation of a "do not spam list"? if so sign up 0 Share this post Link to post
Epyo Posted December 16, 2003 If a couple thousand spams a day in my inbox is what it takes to keep a few companies alive, I'm all for it. 0 Share this post Link to post
gatewatcher Posted December 16, 2003 I think this has to do with the particular type of spam you would get from a company you have had dealings with, (eg) that little radio button at the end of an online order that says "yes I would like to receive blah blah blah." At least that's what I interpret from "legit." I'm positive Bush didn't sign off on porno advertisements being sent to AOL accounts, or those third party System Works or Viagra emails. And the national "do not call" list is still in place, afaik there is no "do not spam" list available. 0 Share this post Link to post
fodders Posted December 16, 2003 AndrewB said:Bush signs first US anti-spam law President Signs Legislation Aiming to Stem Flood of Spam Bush signs US 'can-spam' law What are you on? Last month, the pressure group Spamhaus denounced the bill, saying it would have the effect of legalising spam throughout the US. "Can-Spam says that 23 million US businesses can all begin spamming all US e-mail addresses as long as they give users a way to opt-out, which users can do by following the instructions of each spammer," said the group. "Anyone with any sense would of course realise that if Can-Spam becomes law, opting out of spammers' lists will very likely become the main daytime activity for most US e-mail users in 2004." 0 Share this post Link to post
AndrewB Posted December 16, 2003 Well, I wouldn't be surprised if a "can-spam" or "anti-spam" bill had the purpose of making it easier to spam, most notibly with the Bush administration. After all, they've authored such best-sellers as the "clear-air initiative" (which involved eliminating most industry pollution restrictions). 0 Share this post Link to post
insertwackynamehere Posted December 16, 2003 /me installs TigerTools, Norton, Spybot:S&D, every single hacker-grade anti-virus/anti-crap utility owned 0 Share this post Link to post
Bloodshedder Posted December 16, 2003 This law doesn't keep you from complaining to the spammer's ISPs, which is what really needs to be done. 0 Share this post Link to post
The Ultimate DooMer Posted December 17, 2003 It'll be even worse in the future...when everyone is force-fed TCPA, every spam company in the country will have no difficulty getting a licence. (if it helps companies, it's legal after all so the TCPA won't turn them all down, especially when they'll turn a huge profit from the fees they'll get) 0 Share this post Link to post
fodders Posted December 17, 2003 Bloodshedder said:This law doesn't keep you from complaining to the spammer's ISPs, which is what really needs to be done. Hard when you get 300 spams a day though? 0 Share this post Link to post
Bloodshedder Posted December 17, 2003 Actually, about 20 for me, and it only takes less than a minute on average for me to write up a complaint against them. 0 Share this post Link to post
Cyb Posted December 17, 2003 Bloodshedder said:This law doesn't keep you from complaining to the spammer's ISPs, which is what really needs to be done. but if their spam is now legal it doesn't matter (and I have yet to see an opt out that works) 0 Share this post Link to post
sargebaldy Posted December 17, 2003 I haven't decided whether I'm pro or con spam yet. It's a matter of privacy vs. free speech and I haven't thought about it enough to decide whether or not I'd want it banned. 0 Share this post Link to post
Bloodshedder Posted December 17, 2003 Cyb said:but if their spam is now legal it doesn't matter (and I have yet to see an opt out that works) There are plenty of things that are legal but can be disallowed by the ISP's terms of service. Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail is one of those things. 0 Share this post Link to post
Sharessa Posted December 17, 2003 Any kind of force-fed advertising is bullshit. 0 Share this post Link to post
Kaiser Posted December 17, 2003 AndrewB said:Bush signs first US anti-spam law President Signs Legislation Aiming to Stem Flood of Spam Bush signs US 'can-spam' law What are you on? He's too fucking dumb to know what he is doing. He doesn't even know what spam is... 0 Share this post Link to post
myk Posted December 17, 2003 Bloodshedder said: This law doesn't keep you from complaining to the spammer's ISPs, which is what really needs to be done. The ISPs of internet based spamming corporations? I'm sure they can have their own internet infrastructure/service to spam you with. But anyway, poor Dubya, he signed with "skepticism." 0 Share this post Link to post
DOOM Anomaly Posted December 17, 2003 Deathman said:He's too fucking dumb to know what he is doing. He doesn't even know what spam is... Hahaha I would laugh if after he signed all this he got a big report of all computers in the White House over loaded with spam and viruses and him just sitting there wide-eyed thinking he just legalized rubber meat in a can. :P 0 Share this post Link to post
Job Posted December 17, 2003 DOOM Anomaly said:...sitting there wide-eyed thinking he just legalized rubber meat in a can. :P Nice phrase. Is it an Aussie thing? ;) (heh, I forget if you live Down Under, so correct me if I'm wrong) 0 Share this post Link to post
sargebaldy Posted December 17, 2003 He lives in Canada, which is afaik not usually referred to as "down under" :P 0 Share this post Link to post
DOOM Anomaly Posted December 17, 2003 But if you go so far down south, you'll end up where I am! Because the world loops! I saw it in a video game once! :D 0 Share this post Link to post
DooMBoy Posted December 17, 2003 Deathman said:He's too fucking dumb to know what he is doing. He doesn't even know what spam is... Ouch, hurtful, hurtful words! 0 Share this post Link to post
netnomad312 Posted December 18, 2003 IMO, the issue with spam is not as much whether they send it to you or not, as which companies have the common courtesy to spam discriminately. I mean, I'd much rather have 10 spams per day from companies I may actually give a shit about, than 10,000 that I don't. The bastards send their spam indiscriminately, which may make 1% say "cool. *buys*," 9% say "thanks but no thanks," and the other 90% get pissed off because the spam's company has absolutely nothing to do with what the person needs. 0 Share this post Link to post
Bloodshedder Posted December 18, 2003 myk said:The ISPs of internet based spamming corporations? I'm sure they can have their own internet infrastructure/service to spam you with.Well, there are certain companies that advertise themselves as having "Bullet-proof" hosting. Usually these companies are based in countries like China and Korea, where many of the ISPs there don't really care about their users spamming. However, the majority of American and European ISPs, as well as backbone providers, take any violation of their terms of service, such as spamming, very seriously. 0 Share this post Link to post