Good aviation forum I found

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Granted, it wouldn't *stop* spam. However, all reputable ISPs will
suspend Usenet access, if not cancel the account entirely, for posting
spam.

This is part of what I do for a living. Let me tell you....I've gotten
about 8,000 mails to the abuse address this month alone, and I have about
three hours a week to address them. The higher-ups just don't see a need
for full-time abuse management. Not only that, but about half of that IS
spam, but unlike other accounts, abuse admins can't filter spam or they'll
also filter complaints about spam.

So if one person complains about something somebody posted on the internet,
a policy administrator MIGHT actually see it and then triage it.
"That dude called me a jew" gets bit-bucketed with Scientology threats and
other minor issues and addressed IF I have time; generally, though, I have
bigger fish to fry such as the phishing scammers out of eastern europe,
pedophilia sites (NAILED an entire ring with the help of the FBI in March),
denial of service attacks, copyright infringement, etc. I get subpoenas
from Homeland Security, the FBI and, most recently, Al Jazeera. (!!)
Admins TRY to get it all, but because the friggin' gubmint confounds every
attempt to control spam (it's freedom of speech, you see, and people "want"
spam...just ask the spammers. And ignore the theft of services...)


-c

"gatt" wrote in
:

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Granted, it wouldn't *stop* spam. However, all reputable ISPs will
suspend Usenet access, if not cancel the account entirely, for posting
spam.

This is part of what I do for a living. Let me tell you....I've gotten
about 8,000 mails to the abuse address this month alone, and I have
about three hours a week to address them. The higher-ups just don't
see a need for full-time abuse management. Not only that, but about
half of that IS spam, but unlike other accounts, abuse admins can't
filter spam or they'll also filter complaints about spam.

So if one person complains about something somebody posted on the
internet, a policy administrator MIGHT actually see it and then triage
it. "That dude called me a jew" gets bit-bucketed with Scientology
threats and other minor issues and addressed IF I have time; generally,
though, I have bigger fish to fry such as the phishing scammers out of
eastern europe, pedophilia sites (NAILED an entire ring with the help of
the FBI in March), denial of service attacks, copyright infringement,
etc. I get subpoenas from Homeland Security, the FBI and, most
recently, Al Jazeera. (!!) Admins TRY to get it all, but because the
friggin' gubmint confounds every attempt to control spam (it's freedom
of speech, you see, and people "want" spam...just ask the spammers. And
ignore the theft of services...)

Geeez....tell that to the nuts over at Supernews. They take
spamming so seriously that their filters start taking out the
good stuff. Then, if you complain, you get bitched at for
complaining and asked why you want spam.

To be honest, I'd rather err on the side of getting some spam
in order to allow me to NOT miss ANY legit postings. I am an
adult and I know how to use a spam filter. If there's something
I don't like, I'll block it myself, thank you very much.

Besides, one persons spam is another persons gold.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

In article ,
Skywise wrote:

Besides, one persons spam is another persons gold.

hardly any of it could possibly qualify as gold for even the
most twisted mind.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

On Wed, 24 May 2006 04:02:44 -0000, Skywise
wrote in
::

Besides, one persons spam is another persons gold.

Patronizing spammers is what causes them to persist in their blatant
theft of service. Never do that.

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Wed, 24 May 2006 04:02:44 -0000, Skywise
wrote in
::

Besides, one persons spam is another persons gold.

Patronizing spammers is what causes them to persist in their blatant
theft of service. Never do that.


I think I used the term 'spam' too broadly. There are many posts
that I know people bitch about that I have no problem with...and
vise-versa. Yes, there's the obvious blatant spam and that should
be dealt with.

What I was really trying to say is that what one person may consider
to be crap/junk/spam may be exactly what another person is looking
for.

It should be up to the end user to decide what they want or don't
want to see instead of some third party deciding based on their
own whims.

Brina
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

"Skywise" wrote in message
...
[...]
What I was really trying to say is that what one person may consider
to be crap/junk/spam may be exactly what another person is looking
for.

It should be up to the end user to decide what they want or don't
want to see instead of some third party deciding based on their
own whims.

The beauty of the anti-spam movement is that is has nothing to do with
what's being advertised. A spammer could be advertising world peace, they'd
still be afoul of the anti-spam guidelines and would legitimately be
blocked.

It's true that some people over-user the term "spam". But the fact remains
that there's a time and place for everything, and advertising has a fairly
limited scope IMHO. If it's something I'm interested in, advertise to me in
an appropriate way. Until there is a standard for clearly marking
advertising and allowing me to automatically opt-out of all of it, none is
appropriate in Internet communications such as email, blogs, Usenet, etc.

To take any other stance is to render all of those communications useless,
as real, informative communications gets swamped by advertising. Up to your
email server, it already IS swamped; the only reason any of us can still use
email is because spam filtering is working reasonably well.

The only thing Larry is wrong about here is his misguided attempt to try to
get people to stop responding to spam. Not that he's incorrect about the
underlying facts, but that it's futile to even attempt to do so. Spammers,
taking advantage of Internet bandwidth paid for by everyone else, need only
the very tiniest response rate. Larry could get everyone he contacts to
stop replying, have them get everyone THEY contact to stop replying, and
have everyone those contacts contact to stop replying, and it still wouldn't
make a dent in the incentive to spam.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in news:1279p8lkkv75tb8
@corp.supernews.com:

Snipola
The only thing Larry is wrong about here is his misguided attempt to try to
get people to stop responding to spam.

A reply isn't even what the advertisers are after. They are after
someone seeing the ad and then visiting the place advertised. I
don't think the advertisers could care less whether anyone replies
to the post or not. I doubt that but a handful of advertisement
spammers even follow up to see if their posts are replied to or
not. Those that do are probably the small timers who are targeting
a very specific audience and have only posted to "appropriate"
groups. Then, they're probabyl only interested in the fact that
there ARE replies and not what is actually being said. It tells
them that people have paid some attention to the ad, whether good
or bad.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

"Skywise" wrote in message
...
"Peter Duniho" wrote in
news:1279p8lkkv75tb8 @corp.supernews.com:

Snipola
The only thing Larry is wrong about here is his misguided attempt to try
to
get people to stop responding to spam.

A reply isn't even what the advertisers are after. They are after
someone seeing the ad and then visiting the place advertised.

I'm not talking about email replies to the spam itself, nor is Larry.

Please take particular note of definitions 2 and 3:

re·spond (r-spnd)
v. re·spond·ed, re·spond·ing, re·sponds
v. intr.
1.. To make a reply; answer. See Synonyms at answer.
2.. To act in return or in answer.
3.. To react positively or favorably: The patient has responded rapidly to
the treatment

"Peter Duniho" wrote in news:127a276hanrnoa6
@corp.supernews.com:

"Skywise" wrote in message
...
"Peter Duniho" wrote in
news:1279p8lkkv75tb8 @corp.supernews.com:

Snipola
The only thing Larry is wrong about here is his misguided attempt to try
to
get people to stop responding to spam.

A reply isn't even what the advertisers are after. They are after
someone seeing the ad and then visiting the place advertised.

I'm not talking about email replies to the spam itself, nor is Larry.

Please take particular note of definitions 2 and 3:

I see the problem here. We're talking two different things. I'm
think of usenet only whereas you guys are talking everything,
usenet, email, etc....

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

"Skywise" wrote in message
...
I see the problem here. We're talking two different things. I'm
think of usenet only whereas you guys are talking everything,
usenet, email, etc....

Yes, that is a difference in what we're talking about.

Still, our comments do apply to Usenet, and the original issue Larry
mentioned is *specific* to Usenet (that is, Google Groups as a portal to
Usenet). Also, there are really two levels of spam-activity he

* the original message which may or may not be spam (technically it may not
be, but since the exact same message has been posted to a wide variety of
other forums, Usenet and otherwise, with only the topic replaced I think
it's arguable that it is)

* the spam email messages that will be sent to anyone who attempts to
register for this bogus forum

It's all part and parcel of the same issue. To fight spam means to counter
any behavior that is related to the sending of spam, including spam-like
advertisements for a forum that may or may not even be legitimate, and
potential email-harvesting activities.

Pete