On Apr 18, 8:45 am, "Axel Grease" wrote:
I mostly lurk, but I have learned much from this NG.

It would be an awful shame to let it go to the SPAM trash without a fight.
I really do not understand why more is not being done by all levels to fight
the SPAMMERs. All they do is destroy.
They need to be destroyed... or at least put out of buisness. Same goes for
the countries that host or harbor them.


Which countries do think host or harbor spammers?

Now check out the top ten he

http://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/countries.lasso

The number 1 spam supporting country is, to my knowledge, the
only country that has passed legislation specifically to protect
spammers from prosecution.

--

FF

On Apr 19, 11:54 am, Maxwell Lol wrote:
Charlie Self writes:
What legislation?

He's talking about the CAN-SPAM legislation.

As I understand it:

If a spammer uses real e-mail addresses and contacts, and has
instruction on how to remove oneself from a mailing list, it is not
illegal. There are other rules, like labeling porn, etc.

If a spammer uses forged e-mail addresses from a botnet, it's illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003

According to the above page, only 1% if all spam follows these guidelines.

Now - some states have additional laws.

Yes BUT the (they) CAN SPAM (you) act of 2003 expressly
pre-empts (e.g. bars prosecution under) those state laws
other than provisions thereof addressing falsity.

That 99% of spam violates (they) CAN SPAM (you) is
illustrative of the absence of a Federal Budget to enforce it,
as well as the third rule of spam: Spammers lie.

I would guess that most common violations are falsification
of header information such as using a non-existent email
address in the "From:" or 'Reply-to:" headers or both.
(Falsifying BOTH is another example of rule 3). or failure
to provide accurate identification on physical location of the
business in the body of the spam.

Those, and an awful lot of spam is sent through proxies
(e.g. bot-nets)

--

FF

Charlie Self wrote in news:922f9c55-865b-4f31-9856-
:

On Apr 19, 2:05 pm, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:
On Apr 19, 8:02 am, Charlie Self wrote:



On Apr 18, 5:55 pm, Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:

...
Now check out the top ten he

http://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/countries.lasso

The number 1 spam supporting country is, to my knowledge, the
only country that has passed legislation specifically to protect
spammers from prosecution.

--

What legislation? Virginia recently sent one to jail. I'm no longer in
favor of jail terms for spammers. Fine 'em the total amount of
everything they own, and then execute the *******s.

The (they) CAN SPAM (you) act of 2003.

Spammers who are prosecuted under state laws are
prosecuted for other crimes incidental to the spamming,
typically some variation on fraud or theft of service from
an ISP, but never for spamming per se. Many COULD
be prosecuted by the Feds because they stupidly fail to
comply with the provisions in the Federal law.


I wonder if anyone, anywhere, has ever done a study on the
effectiveness of spam. I know it must be cheap, but is it at all
effective? You'd think that anyone in the world with even minimal
brain wave activity wouldn't respond, particularly since the odds are
probably even or better that it's some other kind of SOB loading up to
lay a virus or other fun program on the responder.



Charlie, If you think about it, spam is very much like telemarketing or
mass mailings. I don't know how net savvy you are, but sending a million or
ten million mailings is not expensive nor difficult (especially going
through certain countries). If just 1 percent (only a number, not meant to
be accurate) respond, you can do well on little investment. I would guess
there are many men with small peckers (in their own mind) or have
difficulty getting it up. I don't know about you, but at least twenty
thousand spammers thought I did and offered me many costly ways to solve
the problem. They keep doing it because enough people will buy. I know you
wouldn't, but I did. Now I can't find a pair of trousers large enough to
contain my massive member.
Reminds me of an old story.

An old gunny is sitting in a club in Diago slopping down suds and notices
this young marine a few stools down eyeing every woman that enters the
place. Every time the boot saw a woman he liked, he would say to them
"tickle your ass with a feather, lady?". The woman would reply with "What
did you say?" and the young marine would say "mighty bad weather we've been
having lately". The woman would reply "yes it is" and continue on. A few
more Sam Magoos later the old gunny went up to the young marine grabbed him
by the stacking swivel and said "what is this **** you're pulling on these
women?". You say to them "tickle your ass with a feather lady" and then
when they say "what did you say" you say "mighty bad weather we've been
having lately". The young marine shakingly said "I ask every woman I see if
I can tickle their ass with a feather; most say what did you day? And I
reply "mighty bad weather we've been having lately", but at least one will
say yes you can and I have a great night. The gunny thought for a minute
and told the youngster he was a disgrace to the Corps and get the **** out
of there.
A few brews later he was thinking "maybe the kid had something there and
I'll give it a try. A very attractive woman just happened to walk by. "Hey
lady" he said; "stick a feather up your ass?" "What did you say" she
replied. The gunny said "Oh it's raining like a **** out".

Hope that explains spam.

On Apr 19, 11:18 pm, Hank wrote:
Charlie Self wrote in news:922f9c55-865b-4f31-9856-
:



...

I wonder if anyone, anywhere, has ever done a study on the
effectiveness of spam. I know it must be cheap, but is it at all
effective? You'd think that anyone in the world with even minimal
brain wave activity wouldn't respond, particularly since the odds are
probably even or better that it's some other kind of SOB loading up to
lay a virus or other fun program on the responder.

I think there have been a few I don't see how one could gather
statistics or do a proper accounting without the cooperation of
the spammers. Quite frankly, I'd be skeptical of such data provided
by legitimate marketers and so am especially doubtful of anything
a spammer had to say about its profits. Keep in mind that many, if
not MOST spammers already had a criminal history before getting
into spam.

It seems plausible that supposed revenue from selling 'make
penis fast' pills are being used to lauder other illegal income.


Charlie, If you think about it, spam is very much like telemarketing or
mass mailings. I don't know how net savvy you are, but sending a million or
ten million mailings is not expensive nor difficult (especially going
through certain countries).

Such as the US.

Spam is a particularly egregarious example of cost-shifting.
The recipients are footing most of the cost for delivery. It's like
telemarketers calling collect. Hence the zeroth law of spam [2].

If just 1 percent (only a number, not meant to
be accurate) respond, you can do well on little investment.

I have heard numbers as high (yes, high, not low) as 1 /100,000
spams result in a sale, while the complaint rate has been
quoted as ten to one hundred times the sales rate.

...They keep doing it because enough people will buy. I know you
wouldn't, but I did. Now I can't find a pair of trousers large enough to
contain my massive member.


One fellow I know says he bought so much from the spammers that
he no longer had to leave the couch to go to the bathroom while
watching TV.

--

FF

[1] Rule 1 of spam: Spammers lie.

[0] The Zeroth law of spam: Spam is theft.