I am sick and tired of spam, the lunch meat I share with my pets, being
associated with junk e-mail. I am forming S.P.A.M.M. (Sandwich People
Against Maligned Meat). All you spam lover's out there send me a donation
of $25.00 or more, and I will let Congress know we are "mad as hell, and we
are not going to allow spam to me misrepresented by the internet cult-ure."
Russel'r DSN_klr650@egroups.com '
Subject: RE: [DSN_klr650] Re: spam is litter nklr, was $250 Line Of Credit
You certainly have a valid point. I merely wanted to say that spam really
doesn't bother me & it's easy to deal with at the user's desktop. It does
sound a little silly, but it really is a First Amendment issue that has
recently been playing out in the U.S. Judicial System. Sure, at the local
list level where we all agree to certain rules; it doesn't hold. But when
you look at the entire spam issue & who deals with it and how, it certainly
is a First Amendment issue. Should it be blocked & how should it be
blocked?
Do you create organizations whose sole purpose is to block spam and make a
list of all offenders and publish that list? And does it stop with spam? Do
we create Internet spam police? Enough, sorry, getting carried away again.
It's because I haven't ridden my A13 in almost two weeks. It's been raining
too much. F&*k spam. I've got to go out and ride.
-Brian Shepard
A13
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Anderson
To:
DSN_klr650@egroups.com
Sent: 8/16/00 7:14 PM
Subject: [DSN_klr650] Re: spam is litter nklr, was $250 Line Of Credit
Brian,
I for one, do NOT want my email to become as USELESS as my front
mailbox. I
do NOT want any UNSOLICITED email, faxes, telephone calls, or snail mail
for
that matter. It is NOT a first amendment issue. Restricting content of
a
web site or newspaper may be, but me restricting access to MY ears or
eyes
(not YOURS) is my RIGHT.
If I have to weed through more junk than content, it becomes a waste of
my
time and money. I too have been in this business forever, and I get
extremely frustrated by unsolicited anything whether it is advertising,
a
survey, or simply the weather.
------------------
If spammers have their way, most of the messages will be spam.
------------------
I had to explain to my local newspaper company some of this. They kept
delivering a "Wednesday special" that I had in the past let them know
over
and over I didn't want. It's like this: I don't read it, but I am still
responsible for throwing it away, I will get a nasty-gram from the city
if I
let them pile up. From my perspective then, they are littering in my
yard,
hardly a first amendment protection issue. Spam is no different from my
perspective. Spammers are littering my email server and clients, and I
have
to spend MY time deleting them, and MY money to have adequate resources
in
my systems to get the items I want in addition to their junk. I will
fight
it every step. I finally got the newspaper to stop, by letting them
know
that if I got one more piece of their trash in my yard, I was going to
take
some nasty, smelly garbage that I produced, and drop it in their lobby.
I
should be able to this under first amendment if they can leave their
trash
in my yard. I wish I could do this to spammers, even if figuratively,
but
their email return addresses are seldom ever real, a good indication of
their intent. Typical spammers steal an AOL logon, get a hotmail
address,
and spam away.
If the first amendment is supposed to protect people in allowing them to
abuse MY resources that I pay for, than it is high time to rewrite or
repeal
that amendment.
Maybe we need to set up email for people like yourself that encourage
spam.
I don't want it, and I can't see what possible benefit to me OR society
there is by having to deal with it.
Steve (anti spam) Anderson
--- In
DSN_klr650@egroups.com, "Shepard,Brian" wrote:
> Please don't take this the wrong way. I have been a Systems
> Programmer/Administrator for almost 20 years and spam is nothing new.
Its
> been going on way before the Internet as we know it now. I used to
deal
with
> it a lot way back in the Eighties (remember BitNet anyone?). What
puzzles
me
> is how enraged people get about spam now. Sometimes I wonder if people
get
> angry because it's fashionable. Somebody sees what they think is a
computer
> pro getting angry about spam so they get angry when they're really not
> angry. They want people to think they're cool because they get angry
about
> spam. There is this little known secret in the IT community. Its
called
> DELETE. Its really cool. You just delete a piece of mail you don't
want to
> read.
>
> I'm more concerned about people "protecting me" from spam than people
> spamming me. Think about it. This is a First Amendment issue. I'd
rather
> choose for myself weather or not I want to read a piece of mail. Now I
know
> that the intentions of the list management is sincere and I'm not
asking
you
> to NOT block spam. I just think people need to think more about the
issues.
> Its very simple to delete. You can't delete something that's not
there.
> FREEDOM!
>
> -Brian Shepard
> A13
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Hink [mailto:moabmc@l...]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 2:43 PM
> To:
DSN_klr650@egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [DSN_klr650] $250 Line Of Credit
>
>
> Sick 'em ARNE!!
>
> Maybe it might be a good time to change your subscription options to
have
> you approve new subscribers before they can post to our list.
>
> Fred (I like Spam for lunch)
>