More on Spam

"Mike Turco" <miketurco@yahoo-nospam4me.com> wrote in message
news:cj07it03r9@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
>
> "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote
>
> > Anyone connected to a
> > high speed DSL or cable modem who doesn't have a router/firewall, even
if
> > they only have one computer, is asking for trouble.
>
> Is there actually a difference between a router and a firewall? It seems
to
> me that just about every modern router out there now-days would do the
trick
> as a firewall.

Most would, if they block the proper ports. I haven't looked into what
vulnerabilities there are on the ports the average surfer uses that a router
would block. The newest routers advertise as both a router and firewall.
e.g. http://www.linksys.com/products/prod...id=23&prid=433
Someone may want to take a look at that and compare what it does as a
firewall with what it does as a router that it wouldn't otherwise do by
simply closing off certain ports.

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:cj0aiu09lr@enews2.newsguy.com:

> "Jim Logajan" <JamesL@lugoj.com> wrote in message
> news:cir5e90se@enews1.newsguy.com...
>> (1) In the last 24 months, have you ever followed up to an
>> unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement and considered buying or
>> actually bought a product or service in response to that e-mail?
>
> Certainly not and have even stopped doing business with companies that
> have spammed me. I'm sure I can guess the names of at least two
> posters to this group who will say they love spam and often buy from
> spam messages.

Why don't you stick to speaking for yourself instead of trying to paint
devil-horns on other people by misrepresenting their statements?

Even spammers would probably have more integrity than that! ;-)

"covot" <no@reply.com> wrote in message
news:cj07ka037k@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
>
> Personally, what I was considering is using spam as a "softener" before a
> cold call. Almost like I would use a post card. It would be targeted
> specifically at companies that I intended to call later that week. The
spam
> wouldn't be nonsense with weird words in it. It would say specifically who
I
> was, what I did, and what I wanted to offer them. Maybe it is a bad idea,
I
> don't know.

If you send it out from Earthlink, it may cost you your service. If it
advertises your web site, it may cost you your web hosting. Even if it
doesn't advertise your web site, you may hit someone who contacts you just
to find out what your web site is and will then complain to your web host.
Targeted spam is still spam.

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote
>
> I often go to a site advertised in spam so I can further trace the spammer
> and their support services. e.g. Credit card processor, redirection, fill
> out the form with a fake name to trace who replies.

Really? And then what do you do?

"Mike Turco" <miketurco@yahoo-nospam4me.com> wrote in message
news:cj1gsa01itj@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
>
> "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote
> >
> > I often go to a site advertised in spam so I can further trace the
spammer
> > and their support services. e.g. Credit card processor, redirection,
fill
> > out the form with a fake name to trace who replies.
>
> Really? And then what do you do?
>

The information is turned over to the ISP involved to let them know they are
providing spam support services. It is also turned over to a couple of DNSBL
operators and posted to Usenet to let admins know what networks are
providing services to spammers. Once an ISP finds portions of their networks
blacklisted and their mail starts bouncing they pay attention. The spammer
is soon looking for a new home.


--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

McWebber wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" <JamesL@lugoj.com> wrote in message
> news:cir5e90se@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
>>"covot" <no@reply.com> wrote:
>>
>>>What I am more interested in is measurable statistics on the efficacy
>>>of advertising via email. Espescially with regard to how targeted the
>>>original mailing list was.
>>
>>I found two links with numbers, explained below.
>>
>>But first I'd also like to do an unscientific survey of the readers:
>>
>>(1) In the last 24 months, have you ever followed up to an unsolicited
>>commercial e-mail advertisement and considered buying or actually bought
>>a product or service in response to that e-mail?
>
> Certainly not and have even stopped doing business with companies that have
> spammed me. I'm sure I can guess the names of at least two posters to this
> group who will say they love spam and often buy from spam messages.
>
>>(2) Same as (1), but substitute postal mail for e-mail.
>
> Why? The postal mail didn't steal from me. What does one have to do with the
> other?

spam costs me a mouse click. The unsolicited credit card offers cost me at
least the time to walk to the paper shredder and shred them. Worse yet, if
one gets stolen from my mail box it can cost me my credit rating, not to
mention real money.

>>(3) Same as (1), but substitute telemarketing call for e-mail.
>
> No. Same as above, although now I am on the DNC list so that problem has
> pretty much gone away.

you've never been woken up by a telemarketer at 4 a.m.?
Or burned your pork chops because you were in the middle of cooking?

Think again.

Maren
(BTW: you (McWebber) also apparently consider all UCE spam, including
offering the company that owns a web site something (I never did this yet,
but have been considering it many times, meaning sending _one_ email to
_one_ company) that they list as "out of stock" that you can supply? and
put it in the same category as those that offer me mortgages I didn't
apply for of which I get about 10/day, not to mention other things that

I have even less use for?)

"George Demmer" <nwsgrps@realityNOSPAMassociates.com> wrote in message
news:cj0k3v0fvp@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
> "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in
> news:cj0aiu09lr@enews2.newsguy.com:
>
> > "Jim Logajan" <JamesL@lugoj.com> wrote in message
> > news:cir5e90se@enews1.newsguy.com...
> >> (1) In the last 24 months, have you ever followed up to an
> >> unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement and considered buying or
> >> actually bought a product or service in response to that e-mail?
> >
> > Certainly not and have even stopped doing business with companies that
> > have spammed me. I'm sure I can guess the names of at least two
> > posters to this group who will say they love spam and often buy from
> > spam messages.
>
> Why don't you stick to speaking for yourself instead of trying to paint
> devil-horns on other people by misrepresenting their statements?
>

Why don't you stop trying to put words in my mouth.

> Even spammers would probably have more integrity than that! ;-)
>

Spammers like one of the other moderators?

Message-ID: ch3oh80dsg@enews4.newsguy.com
"And I make no apology for conducting advertising and unsolicited commercial
internet correspondence (a.k.a. spam)"

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

"Maren Purves" <m.purves@jach.hawaii.edu> wrote in message
news:cj4lkr02li1@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> McWebber wrote:
> > "Jim Logajan" <JamesL@lugoj.com> wrote in message
> > news:cir5e90se@enews1.newsguy.com...
> >
> >>"covot" <no@reply.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>What I am more interested in is measurable statistics on the efficacy
> >>>of advertising via email. Espescially with regard to how targeted the
> >>>original mailing list was.
> >>
> >>I found two links with numbers, explained below.
> >>
> >>But first I'd also like to do an unscientific survey of the readers:
> >>
> >>(1) In the last 24 months, have you ever followed up to an unsolicited
> >>commercial e-mail advertisement and considered buying or actually bought
> >>a product or service in response to that e-mail?
> >
> > Certainly not and have even stopped doing business with companies that
have
> > spammed me. I'm sure I can guess the names of at least two posters to
this
> > group who will say they love spam and often buy from spam messages.
> >
> >>(2) Same as (1), but substitute postal mail for e-mail.
> >
> > Why? The postal mail didn't steal from me. What does one have to do with
the
> > other?
>
> spam costs me a mouse click.

Ask your ISP what it costs you.

> The unsolicited credit card offers cost me at
> least the time to walk to the paper shredder and shred them. Worse yet, if
> one gets stolen from my mail box it can cost me my credit rating, not to
> mention real money.
>
> >>(3) Same as (1), but substitute telemarketing call for e-mail.
> >
> > No. Same as above, although now I am on the DNC list so that problem has
> > pretty much gone away.
>
> you've never been woken up by a telemarketer at 4 a.m.?
> Or burned your pork chops because you were in the middle of cooking?
>
> Think again.
>
> Maren
> (BTW: you (McWebber) also apparently consider all UCE spam, including
> offering the company that owns a web site something (I never did this yet,
> but have been considering it many times, meaning sending _one_ email to
> _one_ company) that they list as "out of stock" that you can supply? and
> put it in the same category as those that offer me mortgages I didn't
> apply for of which I get about 10/day, not to mention other things that
>
> I have even less use for?)
>
Since I have no publicly published email address that solicits email
contact, all UCE to me is spam. I have yet to see a single UCE that was sent
to me and me alone and was not bulk.


You're confusing content with consent. The content of the UCE/spam is
irrelevant to me.

--
McWebber
"Richter points to the lack of legal action against his company as proof
that he's operating appropriately."
Information Week, November 10, 2003

"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote in message
news:cj07i103pt@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
> "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > "Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
> > > "Jim Logajan" <JamesL@lugoj.com> wrote:
> > > > "Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
> > > > > "Jim Logajan" <JamesL@lugoj.com> wrote:
> > > > >> "Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
> > > > >> > However, it is like any other advertising medium.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> As has been pointed out, it is the receivers who bear the
> > > > >> brunt of the costs - that makes it unlike all other advertising
> > > > >> mediums. I can think of no other medium where the cost of
> > > > >> increasing the audience or the number of advertisers is
> > > > >> forced unwanted upon that audience.
> > > > >
> > > > > Try junk mail.
> > > >
> > > > It's not relevant: In the U.S. the U.S. Postal service is the only
> > > > entity allowed to place mail into your mailbox. You can file form
> > > > 1500 (see http://www.junkbusters.com/dmlaws.html#form for
> > > > details) to stop unwanted mail. Please please read that web page.
> > > > If a mailing is received that is a violation of the 1500 request, it
> > > > may be submitted to the Postal Service for possible enforcement
> > > > action.
> > >
> > > That ONLY applies to ***ually oriented material. "Please please"
> > > before you tell me to read your links, YOU should read your own
> > > links in their entirety and those links they link to. At the TOP of
> > > Form 1500
> > > (http://www.usps.com/forms/_pdf/ps1500.pdf) is this statement:
> > >
> > > "If you are receiving unwanted ***ually oriented advertisements
> > > coming through the mail to your home or business..."
> >
> > And only the recipient gets to make that determination. If you say
> > a piece of mail you have opened is offensive, the postmaster is
> > obligated to accept your Form 1500. They do not have the option
> > of examining the material and rejecting your Form 1500.
>
> First, such action doesn't mean anything. Nothing. All it means is that
a
> postal employee cannot refuse to take the form by examining what you
> consider to be ***ually oriented material at the time you hand in the form
> as to determine whether to accept or reject the form, but means nothing
> beyond that. The supposed ***ually oriented material will just be later
> evaluated by community standards ... NOT yours ... and if the postmaster
> does not agree that it is ***ually oriented, your complaint will be
trashed.

No, you are simply wrong. The material is not examined in any way. It is
solely up to the person filling out the form as to whether the material is
offensive. Once you fill out the form, that is it. The prohibitinary order
on that mailer goes through. There is no content determination by anyone
else.
"1. Under 39 U.S.C. 3008, titled Prohibition of Pandering Advertisements,
any addressee of mail who determines, "in his sole discretion," that
material received is "erotically arousing or ***ually provocative" may
direct the United States Postal Service to issue a Prohibitory Order
directing the sender to refrain from further mailings to the named
addressee."

Note "in his sole discretion" is the law. Nobody can overrule that. The
material is not judged by anyone.
Read the conclusions of law at:
http://www.usps.com/judicial/2004deci/03-393id.htm
"the statute gives a postal customer unfettered discretion, and the
reasonableness of his assertion ...is not subject to review."

>
> Second, repeated misuse of the Form 1500 can and has been dealt with in
two
> ways by the USPS:
>
> 1) They'll just continue to trash all the complaints you register against
a
> junk mailer that they have already determine is not someone that sends out
> ***ually oriented material. They'll eventually develop a file on you, any
> 1500 complaint by you will be red flagged, they'll see that it is against
> your local supermarket again for sending you a coupon booklet for soups,
and
> trash your complaint ... and likely without ever opening the mail in
> question since they've already determined you're just a crank.

Where do you get this stuff? Do you just make it up off the top of your
head? See the link above. The law is clear and has been upheld time and time
again. Of course you provide no cite or URL for your assertions.

>
> 2) They may eventually get tired of you constantly wasting their time and
> request you stop such activity. If you continue, they may view such
> activity by you as harassment by you of the sender(s), illegal misuse of
> government resources, and YOU could be charged with both crimes.

ROFL I would think readers of this group will get tired of you making this
stuff up with no cites to back up your claims.

<more nonsense snipped>

> > "Spam is based on theft of service, fraud and deceit as well
> > as cost shifting to the recipient. The great preponderance of
> > products and services marketed by UCE are of dubious
> > legality. Any business that depends on stealing from its
> > customers, preying on the innocent, and abusing the open
> > standards of the Internet is -- and should be -- doomed to
> > failure. " http://cauce.ca/about.html
>
> This is just an opinion and nothing more.

I guess you can disagree with the assertions regarding businesses that steal
from their customers, but that's not a viewpoint I think ethical business
people would not agree with you on.


--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:cj9smj0bui@enews1.newsguy.com:

>
> "George Demmer" <nwsgrps@realityNOSPAMassociates.com> wrote in message
> news:cj0k3v0fvp@enews1.newsguy.com...
>>
>> "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in
>> news:cj0aiu09lr@enews2.newsguy.com:
>>
>> > "Jim Logajan" <JamesL@lugoj.com> wrote in message
>> > news:cir5e90se@enews1.newsguy.com...
>> >> (1) In the last 24 months, have you ever followed up to an
>> >> unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement and considered buying
>> >> or actually bought a product or service in response to that
>> >> e-mail?
>> >
>> > Certainly not and have even stopped doing business with companies
>> > that have spammed me. I'm sure I can guess the names of at least
>> > two posters to this group who will say they love spam and often buy
>> > from spam messages.
>>
>> Why don't you stick to speaking for yourself instead of trying to
>> paint devil-horns on other people by misrepresenting their
>> statements?
>>
>
> Why don't you stop trying to put words in my mouth.

Excuse me? I simply described what you did. Unless you show me where two
posters said "they love spam and often buy from spam messages" you are
totally out of line.

>> Even spammers would probably have more integrity than that! ;-)
>>
>
> Spammers like one of the other moderators?
>
> Message-ID: ch3oh80dsg@enews4.newsguy.com
> "And I make no apology for conducting advertising and unsolicited
> commercial internet correspondence (a.k.a. spam)"

I must thank you for confirming my points for me in such a perfect way. I
even tried to let you partially off the hook with a winking smiley...but
no. You have to PROVE that you misrepresent people.

The full quote from Scott's post (with some brackets added to help you
identify the parts of the sentence that belong together -- since you seem to
be having trouble):

[And I make no apology for conducting advertising] and [unsolicited
commercial internet correspondence (a.k.a. spam) is just one form of it.]

Scott may not win a "Grammarian of the Year" award anytime soon for that
sentence, but it does not say what you have repeatedly insisted it says.

McWebber, I can appreciate that you are passionately opposed to spam, but
that really doesn't excuse these types of tactics.

Spam is an important and interesting topic, especially in a marketing
forum such as this. If you have something useful to add to the
discussion, great. But if all you can do is reiterate the same points and
throw around personal accusations, then there is no reason for you to
continue posting in this thread.

George Demmer
----------
Reality Marketing Associates
Vancouver, BC