Can NO ONE Stop the Plague of SPAM?

This Obscene, shameful waste of our resources has Got to stop!
This filth, this wanton disregard for anyone's sense of propriety.

Can our Congress do nothing? Even if it is only within our own borders-
are our politicians so helpless?

This is a disgrace that competes with the politician's vaunted "War On
Drugs" as the most glorious testament to their impotence. I hope that
our congressmen, at least, are getting as many solicitations for
"V1ag7a" as are their constituents- they NEED it!
--

Do you get junk mail in your home 'Post Office' box? I do.

Should we outlaw that junk mail too? The penny savers also?


How about road signs? Sky writers, how dare them disrupt my landscape with
some obscene message about viagra! Subway posters too.




relax!
someone's got to pay for it, certainly your tiny monthly fee to your ISP
isn't paying for the internets existence.

"Magg" <> wrote in message
news:8_uLa.39513$ et...
> This Obscene, shameful waste of our resources has Got to stop!
> This filth, this wanton disregard for anyone's sense of propriety.
>
> Can our Congress do nothing? Even if it is only within our own borders-
> are our politicians so helpless?
>
> This is a disgrace that competes with the politician's vaunted "War On
> Drugs" as the most glorious testament to their impotence. I hope that
> our congressmen, at least, are getting as many solicitations for
> "V1ag7a" as are their constituents- they NEED it!
> --
>

SST wrote:

> Do you get junk mail in your home 'Post Office' box? I do.

Since it is your box, did you ask for it? Does the producer of this "junk
mail" help you pay for the handling and disposal of it? Do you pay a tax in
your locality that goes indirectly toward the disposal of trash? Who *really*
foots the bill for junk mail? Who benefits from it?


>
>
> Should we outlaw that junk mail too? The penny savers also?

Saving pennies cost consumers and taxpayers money every day. Do you think
they do this to actually *save* you money?


>
>
> How about road signs?

What road signs. Do you mean traffic signs? Nah I guess not. Do you own the
property that the signs are on? If you did would you have them removed? Can
you ignore them?


> Sky writers, how dare them disrupt my landscape with
> some obscene message about viagra! Subway posters too.
>
> relax!
> someone's got to pay for it, certainly your tiny monthly fee to your ISP
> isn't paying for the internets existence.

It's all too easy to ignore "sky writers" or posters anywhere. I'm not paying
for them either. I pay for my computers, modems, ISPs, telephone line
maintainence, cable maintanence, computer desks, computer chairs and everthing
related to my inbox. No I don't pay for my newsgroups but my cable isp
provider does an excellent job of blocking spam. It comes at a cost though, in
missed messages that are not necessarily spam. My monthly isp fee for two
accounts on two different providers is almost $80 a month. So maybe your isp
fee isn't paying for the internet but it sure feels like mine is. No one
should have the universal right to intrude into your privacy or to make you
change the way you would normally do something because of their intrusion. I
get 200 spam e-mails a day on my other (cheap) isp. I have to deal with those
on a daily basis.




Roger



>
>
> "Magg" <> wrote in message
> news:8_uLa.39513$ et...
> > This Obscene, shameful waste of our resources has Got to stop!
> > This filth, this wanton disregard for anyone's sense of propriety.
> >
> > Can our Congress do nothing? Even if it is only within our own borders-
> > are our politicians so helpless?
> >
> > This is a disgrace that competes with the politician's vaunted "War On
> > Drugs" as the most glorious testament to their impotence. I hope that
> > our congressmen, at least, are getting as many solicitations for
> > "V1ag7a" as are their constituents- they NEED it!
> > --
> >

"SST" <> wrote in message
news:TvvLa.39926$ et...
> Do you get junk mail in your home 'Post Office' box? I do.
>
> Should we outlaw that junk mail too? The penny savers also?

There's some big differences:

- For junk in your mail box, the delivery is paid for by the advertiser,
which helps subsidising the postal service, and makes it possible to send
letters for a pittance and receive them for free.
Usenet spammers don't pay the Usenet admins, and use resources without any
compensation. The presence of their spam doesn't enable anything -- it
makes it more likely that providers have to start charging, or charge more
for news service, due to increased bandwidth and storage costs of the spam.

- I can reserve myself from receiving unsolicited mail in my physical
mailbox. I can't do that with Usenet spam -- it's not individual delivery,
but imposed on everyone.

- Snail mail advertisers don't send me the same flyer seven bloody times a
day!

> How about road signs? Sky writers, how dare them disrupt my landscape with
> some obscene message about viagra! Subway posters too.

As another poster said, this is not universal, and large parts of the world
work just fine without it.

> relax!
> someone's got to pay for it, certainly your tiny monthly fee to your ISP
> isn't paying for the internets existence.

My $110 a month pays a whole lot more than the dial-up account that most
Usenet spammers use. You don't need a big pipe to send a Usenet posting to
hundreds of groups. But it steals massive amounts of bandwidth and storage
space once AFTER it leaves the sender. Having run both ISPs and large news
servers, I know exactly how unwelcome these parasites are.

Anyhow, Russ Allbery, one of the Usenet admins who has helped give you and
the rest of the world this great service at personal cost, has said this
much better than me in <URL:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain >

Believe me, it's worth reading.

Regards,
--
*Art

well an enormous amount goes to the US Post office, I imagine.

Then the unread (and unwanted) mail goes into the recycle bin where it
eventually becomes more junk mail, in many cases.

More importantly, money is pumped into the economy in the form of
advertising dollars and manufacturing (of the junk mail) and all the related
industries to the manufacturing and distribution of the junk mail. Without
it there would be a whole lot more people unemployed.


"Roger M" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
>
> SST wrote:
>
> > Do you get junk mail in your home 'Post Office' box? I do.
>
> Since it is your box, did you ask for it? Does the producer of this "junk
> mail" help you pay for the handling and disposal of it? Do you pay a tax
in
> your locality that goes indirectly toward the disposal of trash? Who
*really*
> foots the bill for junk mail? Who benefits from it?
>
>
> >
> >
> > Should we outlaw that junk mail too? The penny savers also?
>
> Saving pennies cost consumers and taxpayers money every day. Do you think
> they do this to actually *save* you money?
>
>
> >
> >
> > How about road signs?
>
> What road signs. Do you mean traffic signs? Nah I guess not. Do you own
the
> property that the signs are on? If you did would you have them removed?
Can
> you ignore them?
>
>
> > Sky writers, how dare them disrupt my landscape with
> > some obscene message about viagra! Subway posters too.
> >
> > relax!
> > someone's got to pay for it, certainly your tiny monthly fee to your ISP
> > isn't paying for the internets existence.
>
> It's all too easy to ignore "sky writers" or posters anywhere. I'm not
paying
> for them either. I pay for my computers, modems, ISPs, telephone line
> maintainence, cable maintanence, computer desks, computer chairs and
everthing
> related to my inbox. No I don't pay for my newsgroups but my cable isp
> provider does an excellent job of blocking spam. It comes at a cost
though, in
> missed messages that are not necessarily spam. My monthly isp fee for two
> accounts on two different providers is almost $80 a month. So maybe your
isp
> fee isn't paying for the internet but it sure feels like mine is. No one
> should have the universal right to intrude into your privacy or to make
you
> change the way you would normally do something because of their intrusion.
I
> get 200 spam e-mails a day on my other (cheap) isp. I have to deal with
those
> on a daily basis.
>
>
>
>
> Roger
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > "Magg" <> wrote in message
> > news:8_uLa.39513$ et...
> > > This Obscene, shameful waste of our resources has Got to stop!
> > > This filth, this wanton disregard for anyone's sense of propriety.
> > >
> > > Can our Congress do nothing? Even if it is only within our own
borders-
> > > are our politicians so helpless?
> > >
> > > This is a disgrace that competes with the politician's vaunted "War On
> > > Drugs" as the most glorious testament to their impotence. I hope that
> > > our congressmen, at least, are getting as many solicitations for
> > > "V1ag7a" as are their constituents- they NEED it!
> > > --
> > >
>

I agree, mostly but 'another law' to 'protect me' ?!

Many legitimate offers and messages can be received through email. I
actually do read some of it and have responded to it. Making it illegal is
not the answer, making them (the sender) organize and allow the recipient
control over the inclusion of their address is.



"Arthur Hagen" <> wrote in message
news:bin2t-...
>
> "SST" <> wrote in message
> news:TvvLa.39926$ et...
> > Do you get junk mail in your home 'Post Office' box? I do.
> >
> > Should we outlaw that junk mail too? The penny savers also?
>
> There's some big differences:
>
> - For junk in your mail box, the delivery is paid for by the advertiser,
> which helps subsidising the postal service, and makes it possible to send
> letters for a pittance and receive them for free.
> Usenet spammers don't pay the Usenet admins, and use resources without any
> compensation. The presence of their spam doesn't enable anything -- it
> makes it more likely that providers have to start charging, or charge more
> for news service, due to increased bandwidth and storage costs of the
spam.
>
> - I can reserve myself from receiving unsolicited mail in my physical
> mailbox. I can't do that with Usenet spam -- it's not individual
delivery,
> but imposed on everyone.
>
> - Snail mail advertisers don't send me the same flyer seven bloody times
a
> day!
>
> > How about road signs? Sky writers, how dare them disrupt my landscape
with
> > some obscene message about viagra! Subway posters too.
>
> As another poster said, this is not universal, and large parts of the
world
> work just fine without it.
>
> > relax!
> > someone's got to pay for it, certainly your tiny monthly fee to your ISP
> > isn't paying for the internets existence.
>
> My $110 a month pays a whole lot more than the dial-up account that most
> Usenet spammers use. You don't need a big pipe to send a Usenet posting
to
> hundreds of groups. But it steals massive amounts of bandwidth and
storage
> space once AFTER it leaves the sender. Having run both ISPs and large
news
> servers, I know exactly how unwelcome these parasites are.
>
> Anyhow, Russ Allbery, one of the Usenet admins who has helped give you and
> the rest of the world this great service at personal cost, has said this
> much better than me in <URL:
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain >
>
> Believe me, it's worth reading.
>
> Regards,
> --
> *Art
>

Spam pays for nothing. The spammers are getting a free ride on the
internet, raising the costs for legitimate users, not to mention wasting
legitimate users time. Multiple copies of the same message spammed to
newsgroups amounts to a denial of service attack, and is probabally
malicious rather than comercial.

Phil Weldon



"SST" <> wrote in message
news:TvvLa.39926$ et...
> Do you get junk mail in your home 'Post Office' box? I do.
>
> Should we outlaw that junk mail too? The penny savers also?
>
>
> How about road signs? Sky writers, how dare them disrupt my landscape with
> some obscene message about viagra! Subway posters too.
>
>
>
>
> relax!
> someone's got to pay for it, certainly your tiny monthly fee to your ISP
> isn't paying for the internets existence.
>
> "Magg" <> wrote in message
> news:8_uLa.39513$ et...
> > This Obscene, shameful waste of our resources has Got to stop!
> > This filth, this wanton disregard for anyone's sense of propriety.
> >
> > Can our Congress do nothing? Even if it is only within our own borders-
> > are our politicians so helpless?
> >
> > This is a disgrace that competes with the politician's vaunted "War On
> > Drugs" as the most glorious testament to their impotence. I hope that
> > our congressmen, at least, are getting as many solicitations for
> > "V1ag7a" as are their constituents- they NEED it!
> > --
> >
>
>

Hey - the spammers do this in the hope of making money. So, they have
to leave a contact, be it e-mail or a phone #. (I haven't opened one
of the latest rashes of spams yet). So why not just politely contact
these numbers and tell the 'no, thank you, we don't want any!!' If
enough do it, it might affect them where it hurts the most - their
pocketbook as their contact lines would be virtually shut down.

-=t=-

The main effect of replying to spam to"opt out" is signaling that your email
address is valid.

Phil Weldon,

"Tom Orle" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Hey - the spammers do this in the hope of making money. So, they have
> to leave a contact, be it e-mail or a phone #. (I haven't opened one
> of the latest rashes of spams yet). So why not just politely contact
> these numbers and tell the 'no, thank you, we don't want any!!' If
> enough do it, it might affect them where it hurts the most - their
> pocketbook as their contact lines would be virtually shut down.
>
> -=t=-

Trouble is, they know the address is valid if it doesn't bounce - they don't
need any reply - that's how they create a 'valid email' list from an
'alphabet attack' on an ISP.

[UK]_Nick...


"Phil Weldon" <> wrote
> The main effect of replying to spam to"opt out" is signaling that your
email
> address is valid.
>
> "Tom Orle" <> wrote
> > Hey - the spammers do this in the hope of making money. So, they have
> > to leave a contact, be it e-mail or a phone #. (I haven't opened one
> > of the latest rashes of spams yet). So why not just politely contact
> > these numbers and tell the 'no, thank you, we don't want any!!' If
> > enough do it, it might affect them where it hurts the most - their
> > pocketbook as their contact lines would be virtually shut down.