From: John McCormac (jmcc at domain hackwatch.com)
Date: Tue 07 Aug 2001 - 01:22:04 IST
Declan de Lacy Murphy wrote:
>
> I do accept that their has to be a line drawn somewhere to stamp out the
> abuses of email that cause us all to be bombarded with porn filled spam on a
> daily basis, but I think that a binding code of practice is the most
> appropriate solution. Such a code might include things like a maximum size
Yeah let's bind the bastards up and beat the shit out of them with 2x4s.
If they die - then that's one less asshole in the world! How's that for
a binding code of practice?
Sorry for the bad language but as a sysadmin I have to clean up after
the the scum you are proposing to protect. The users have to foot the
cost of downloading the spammer's rubbish. The spammer is stealing or
attempting to steal and should be treated as such. This is not
something that can be waffled about in the Irish Times by clueless
technology journalists who think that Spam is a good story. While a
spammer relaying through Eircom.net may not cause much of a problem for
Eircom.net, on a narrow bandwidth link, such spammers can easily cause a
denial of service attack.
Recently (past few days) I have seen spam from some muppet in Ireland
via Eircom's Castlebar POP promoting his web design service. Probably
22K spam e-mails sent via Eircom on that one. It went to every
info at domain [domainname].ie. I saw the same thing from some muppet in Precise
Communications Limited earlier this year. The muppet in question
continued to send these e-mails even after I had requested him not to.
The problem is not porn filled spam. That is a red herring thrown up by
those idiot technology journalists - a trigger to get people emotionally
involved in their articles. The vast majority of spam is non-porn.
If the relevant government Department, and the pro-spam scum that are
advising them, are advocating the use of Opt-Out spammer lists rather
than Opt-In then they will have to be blacklisted for this unforgivable
action.
You will, in the interests of balance and good order, no doubt want to
include the fact that the spammers can be invoiced for the abuse of
services, cost of clean-ups, waste of time. You wanted balance - that's
balance.
Regards...jmcc
-- ******************************************** John McCormac * Hack Watch News jmcc at domain hackwatch.com * 22 Viewmount, Voice: +353-51-873640 * Waterford, BBS&Fax: +353-51-850143 * Ireland http://www.hackwatch.com/~kooltek ******************************************** -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6 mQCNAzAYPNsAAAEEAPGTHaNyitUTNAwF8BU6mF5PcbLQXdeuHf3xT6UOL+/Od+z+ ZOCAx8Ka9LJBjuQYw8hlqvTV5kceLlrP2HPqmk7YPOw1fQWlpTJof+ZMCxEVd1Qz TRet2vS/kiRQRYvKOaxoJhqIzUr1g3ovBnIdpKeo4KKULz9XKuxCgZsuLKkVAAUX tCJKb2huIE1jQ29ybWFjIDxqbWNjQGhhY2t3YXRjaC5jb20+tBJqbWNjQGhhY2t3 YXRjaC5jb20= =sTfy -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:11:29 GMT