spam canned. - Page 2

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

Re: spam canned.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Actually they don't seem to send that sort of stuff, and genuine
companies that do desist when asked nicely or otherwise.

There is a precedent with fax, where I believe its illegal to send
unsolicited advertising that way in Germany.  Fax incurs local call
charges in Europe and normally a direct cost to the recipient in
paper. As it takes longer to send and involves cost it never took
on the same dimension as email unsolicited messaging although
it could be annoying.  we pioneered the idea of a fax bureau and
would get multiple copies of anyone trying it as an advertising
medium.  The telco generally leaned on people doing this and
in one case took their time reconnecting a line after it was
malciously cut by persons unknown.

In the case of MS, you are right that they should not be dictating
policy, however given their size they probably spend a lot of money
on research and employing good people so they have a valid
opinion.  It is also a healthy thing for Govrnments to consult
industry about legislation.  MS have the advantage of a global
view of things.

The root cause of the problem is, IMHO that the protocols for
email do not allow authentication of the sender.  Although
email is perhaps the most useful part of the Internet it needs
replacement.  That it should be replaced by a proprietry system
would be bad news for everyone.

In the meantime, I blame the carriers for allowing spammers to
exist and free email services which allow Chief Umboko & co
to offer me the proceeds of crime..
Jim Watt 

Re: spam canned.

Dazz wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Exactly. Microsoft will only be an advocate of something if that something
is aligned with their business strategy...

When investigating something, always look at the motives. It will always
reveal the truth.

So, I challenge anyone to come up with a reasonable explanation on what you
think Microsoft's motives are (if you do not believe me when I say they are
benefiting from spammers)


Quoted text here. Click to load it
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: spam canned.

Dazz Quoted:
Perhaps we should let Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group
head, Ryan Hamlin, tell us
Quoted text here. Click to load it

As Dazz Says, "Perhaps we should let Microsoft's Technology Care and
Safety Group head, Ryan Hamlin, tell us." And here goes Mr Hamlin:

"So let's go into the definition, though, of spam. And like I said,
there's no real universal definition. Spam has been described -- and
this is one that's fairly common -- unsolicited commercial e-mail,
unsolicited meaning I didn't subscribe to get this, it's commercial,
it's usually trying to sell you something, and that's the definition
that's pretty common and you see that quite a bit.

Then people came around and said, you know, it's actually more than
that though; it's bulk. It's not just one or two mails, it's when,
man, millions of mail are sent out, so let's standardize on
unsolicited bulk commercial e-mail; that's a good definition."

"There are two others. It's unwanted e-mail. This is a definition --
and I actually do like this one because this really takes the
perspective of a consumer and it says, you know what, it's just
anything that shows up in my inbox I don't want. That's really the
definition that we're really looking for."

Silicon Valley Speaker Series
Remarks by Ryan Hamlin, general manager of the Anti-Spam Technology
& Strategy Group
Microsoft's Anti-Spam Initiative
Thursday, May 29, 2003

You can read the whole caboodle at:

So what, precisely, does Microsoft want? Personally, I'm not waiting
around for Mr Gates to solve this or any other problem. Let him go
after the spammers if he wants but it's a bit like rats - there's
more of them than there are people!


Broadcasting to the environs

Re: spam canned.

Dazz wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

....exactly my point.


Re: spam canned.

Well, yes! But unfortunately recent history has taught us that that is
the only thing the US government has to offer to the world. On topic, I
wouldn't trust a Microsoft executive VP to push my grand-daughter's push
chair, nor any member of RIAA, Warner Bros, etc, etc.

They are ALL attempting to dictate to YOU what they consider computer
security is.... unfortunately, they seem to be hell bent on making it
safe from you - the computer owner and user, whilst still losing sight
of the fact that the 'bad guys' are persistently, and successfully
targeting in the main the third class offerings of the Microsoft

I don't do hacking, I study this from interest, but I have had for the
last few months a quiet personal bet that within 18 months a major
international player (company-wise) will go bust, thanks to their total
reliance on good-ol' M$ software.

I look forward to being proved wrong! (The local history of my employer
seems to indicate otherwise ;) )

David H. Lipman wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: spam canned.

Steve Welsh wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Even more funny is the fact that their plans are wide out in the open and
yet you have people say that's "FUD"...if people read more, you would not
have to explains things over, and over, and over again...

Site Timeline