|
|
| Re: Need your website? [message #171455 is a reply to message #171452] |
Tue, 04 January 2011 20:10   |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 1/4/2011 12:46 PM, apustilnik wrote:
> Need a website for your enterprise or personal profile?
> Contact us now iamaspammer(at)hotmail(dot)com
> http://www.iamaspammer.com.ar
> Yours sincerely.
lol, spamming a group of web site designers and other programmers
wanting to do their websites. And with a hotmail address, yet!
Also, I would suggest you get your own site in order before trying to
sell your services to someone else.
But then spammers never were very smart.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: Need your website? [message #171458 is a reply to message #171455] |
Tue, 04 January 2011 21:47 |
Derek Turner
Messages: 48
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 15:10:53 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
<spam not re-posted>.
>
> But then spammers never were very smart
OTOH if you had not responded I would never have seen it.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Need your website? [message #171460 is a reply to message #171458] |
Wed, 05 January 2011 00:34 |
Beauregard T. Shagnas
Messages: 154
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Derek Turner wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> <spam not re-posted>.
>>
>> But then spammers never were very smart
>
> OTOH if you had not responded I would never have seen it.
Ditto here. I don't know why Jerry continually posts replies to and
mostly quotes the spam. Maybe he thinks the spammer will actually see
his witty little comments? Yeah, like that's going to happen...
--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
|
|
|
|
| Re: Need your website? [message #171463 is a reply to message #171460] |
Wed, 05 January 2011 01:13 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 1/4/2011 7:34 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Derek Turner wrote:
>
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> <spam not re-posted>.
>>>
>>> But then spammers never were very smart
>>
>> OTOH if you had not responded I would never have seen it.
>
> Ditto here. I don't know why Jerry continually posts replies to and
> mostly quotes the spam. Maybe he thinks the spammer will actually see
> his witty little comments? Yeah, like that's going to happen...
>
Because it has been proven time and time again that ignoring SPAM just
encourages more - while calling it for what it is has a tendency to
discourage SPAM - at least for those who read before posting, anyway.
You don't like it? No one is forcing you to read it.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: Need your website? [message #171470 is a reply to message #171463] |
Wed, 05 January 2011 02:25 |
Beauregard T. Shagnas
Messages: 154
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> Derek Turner wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> <spam not re-posted>.
>>>>
>>>> But then spammers never were very smart
>>>
>>> OTOH if you had not responded I would never have seen it.
>>
>> Ditto here. I don't know why Jerry continually posts replies to and
>> mostly quotes the spam. Maybe he thinks the spammer will actually
>> see his witty little comments? Yeah, like that's going to happen...
>
> Because it has been proven time and time again that ignoring SPAM just
> encourages more
What?? You're going to need to find a cite for that.
> - while calling it for what it is has a tendency to discourage SPAM -
> at least for those who read before posting, anyway.
Methinks you definitely have this all backwards. Ignore the spam, they
will be discouraged and maybe stop. Reply to it, and they *know* you
read it, and will send you more. Especially if you give them web site
hits.
> You don't like it? No one is forcing you to read it.
I don't see any of it, nor know it exists -- until you *reply* to it.
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
|
|
|
|
| Re: Need your website? [message #171472 is a reply to message #171470] |
Wed, 05 January 2011 02:39 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 1/4/2011 9:25 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> Derek Turner wrote:
>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> <spam not re-posted>.
>>>> >
>>>> > But then spammers never were very smart
>>>>
>>>> OTOH if you had not responded I would never have seen it.
>>>
>>> Ditto here. I don't know why Jerry continually posts replies to and
>>> mostly quotes the spam. Maybe he thinks the spammer will actually
>>> see his witty little comments? Yeah, like that's going to happen...
>>
>> Because it has been proven time and time again that ignoring SPAM just
>> encourages more
>
> What?? You're going to need to find a cite for that.
>
Find it yourself. You're the one who's bitching.
>> - while calling it for what it is has a tendency to discourage SPAM -
>> at least for those who read before posting, anyway.
>
> Methinks you definitely have this all backwards. Ignore the spam, they
> will be discouraged and maybe stop. Reply to it, and they *know* you
> read it, and will send you more. Especially if you give them web site
> hits.
>
>> You don't like it? No one is forcing you to read it.
>
> I don't see any of it, nor know it exists -- until you *reply* to it.
> http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
>
So? Frankly, I don't give a shit.
Ignore it if you want. I've seen too many newsgroups go to hell because
spam is ignored. alt.computer.consultants comes to mind - it used to be
a good newsgroup. Try it now.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: Need your website? [message #171473 is a reply to message #171472] |
Wed, 05 January 2011 02:53 |
Beauregard T. Shagnas
Messages: 154
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> Because it has been proven time and time again that ignoring SPAM
>>> just encourages more
>>
>> What?? You're going to need to find a cite for that.
>
> Find it yourself. You're the one who's bitching.
What, you want _me_ to prove _your_ argument? <lol>
> So? Frankly, I don't give a shit.
That's obvious.
--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
|
|
|
|
| Re: Need your website? [message #171474 is a reply to message #171473] |
Wed, 05 January 2011 03:21 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 1/4/2011 9:53 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> Because it has been proven time and time again that ignoring SPAM
>>>> just encourages more
>>>
>>> What?? You're going to need to find a cite for that.
>>
>> Find it yourself. You're the one who's bitching.
>
> What, you want _me_ to prove _your_ argument?<lol>
>
Nope, you're the one who wants the citations. You look for them.
>> So? Frankly, I don't give a shit.
>
> That's obvious.
>
Glad you can see that.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: Need your website? [message #171485 is a reply to message #171470] |
Wed, 05 January 2011 15:14 |
Norman Peelman
Messages: 126
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> Derek Turner wrote:
>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> <spam not re-posted>.
>>>> > But then spammers never were very smart
>>>> OTOH if you had not responded I would never have seen it.
>>> Ditto here. I don't know why Jerry continually posts replies to and
>>> mostly quotes the spam. Maybe he thinks the spammer will actually
>>> see his witty little comments? Yeah, like that's going to happen...
>> Because it has been proven time and time again that ignoring SPAM just
>> encourages more
>
> What?? You're going to need to find a cite for that.
>
>> - while calling it for what it is has a tendency to discourage SPAM -
>> at least for those who read before posting, anyway.
>
> Methinks you definitely have this all backwards. Ignore the spam, they
> will be discouraged and maybe stop. Reply to it, and they *know* you
> read it, and will send you more. Especially if you give them web site
> hits.
>
This isn't about ignoring an offensive person that will eventually go
away when ignored. SPAMMERS are after money. They don't care whether or
not you ignore them.
>> You don't like it? No one is forcing you to read it.
>
> I don't see any of it, nor know it exists -- until you *reply* to it.
> http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
>
--
Norman
Registered Linux user #461062
-Have you been to www.php.net yet?-
|
|
|
|
| Re: Need your website? [message #171487 is a reply to message #171485] |
Wed, 05 January 2011 19:52 |
Thomas 'PointedEars'
Messages: 701
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Norman Peelman wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> - while calling it for what it is has a tendency to discourage SPAM -
>>> at least for those who read before posting, anyway.
>>
>> Methinks you definitely have this all backwards. Ignore the spam, they
>> will be discouraged and maybe stop. Reply to it, and they *know* you
>> read it, and will send you more. Especially if you give them web site
>> hits.
>
> This isn't about ignoring an offensive person that will eventually go
> away when ignored. SPAMMERS are after money. They don't care whether or
> not you ignore them.
Your logic is flawed. Because spammers are after money they do care a lot
about any feedback. For there is, eventually, no profit in sending messages
that nobody reads, however small the cost to do that (and the overall cost
to send spam is very small when compared to the receivers' costs: a 2001 CE
estimate was $0.00001 per message for the spammer against $0.10 per message
and receiver). Spam still exists at such a large percentage on the Net (the
2010 Internet backbone figure is that 97% of all Internet messages are spam)
because people are making profit from sending it, from others employing them
to do so. Feedback tells the spammer that the message is being read, and it
tells their (potential) customers that it still makes sense to relay their
message through the spammer and the spam. (That is why sophisticated
Bayesian spam filtering, when done everywhere, could easily mean the end of
electronic spam as we know it: in the end, spammers have to deliver their
message. As you can imagine, I have done a little bit of research on that
topic.)
Of course, ignoring spam should not be the end of it; you also need to tell
the service provider that people are abusing their service for spamming;
however unfortunately, many service providers appear to have given up
fighting spam and very often sending formal complaints to them is no longer
of use. This, too, is driven by money; it is often too expensive for them,
and cheaper to filter out spam or simply ignore complaints. Especially,
canceled accounts are too easily worked around by spammers through re-
registration. But if you do not try to fight spam, I daresay that you are
getting the Net that you deserve.
HTH.
F'up2 poster
PointedEars
--
Danny Goodman's books are out of date and teach practices that are
positively harmful for cross-browser scripting.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <cife6q$253$1$8300dec7(at)news(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk> (2004)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Need your website? [message #171499 is a reply to message #171463] |
Thu, 06 January 2011 19:52 |
Twayne
Messages: 135
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In news:ig0gj9$81c$2(at)news(dot)eternal-september(dot)org,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> typed:
> On 1/4/2011 7:34 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> Derek Turner wrote:
>>
>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> <spam not re-posted>.
>>>>
>>>> But then spammers never were very smart
>>>
>>> OTOH if you had not responded I would never have seen it.
>>
>> Ditto here. I don't know why Jerry continually posts
>> replies to and mostly quotes the spam. Maybe he thinks the
>> spammer will actually see his witty little comments? Yeah,
>> like that's going to happen...
>
> Because it has been proven time and time again that
> ignoring SPAM just encourages more - while calling it for
> what it is has a tendency to discourage SPAM - at least for
> those who read before posting, anyway.
> You don't like it? No one is forcing you to read it.
It has NOT been proven time & again that ignoring spam (SPAM is a trademark)
encourages more: Just the opposite, in fact.
Spam responses are of the following categories fo 98% of spammers:
1. Not responded to - That spam run was a waste of time; no responses means
there were no suckers willing to look at the spam's scam/lies/whatever.
There is no indication that the e-mail address even exists, because spammers
do NOT want to see bounces. When they send out a million addresses hoping
for up to say ten responses, the spammers specifically do NOT want to see
all those bounces. As a general rule they unload them onto some innocent
bystander by using an address from their spam listing. They don't care where
it goes as long as it doesn't go back to them.
Is of no value as something to sell to other spammers.
2. E-mail responded to: This is known as "Address Confirmation" to the
spammers. It means those people are known to have been read by someone at
the e-mail address and the address is a good one (it actually exists and
someone read the spams). These have value as they can be sold as "verified
spam addresses" to other spammers.
3. Spam bounces: Spammers have no interest in boune messages; they only want
"live" e-mail addresses. When you figure they're hoping for a max of say ten
responses per million spams sent, you can see why they don't want the bounce
notifications.
4. Spam resulted in x number of sales. The most valuable of all e-mail
address lists (if another spammer happens to believe the original spammer,
that is). These will pull in the highest prices for spam lists being sold.
Spammers do not write the software they use to send spam to a spam list of
possibly several million people at a time. They buy their software from
actual spamware designers. These people can actually make a lot more money
than any of the other metods of actually doing the spamming (e-mailing).
There are many criminals in the spam world, some of them pretty dangerous.
The 419 Nigerian and similar scams are often controlled by such criminals as
a few people have found out the hard way. The FBI has listings of people
actually murdered because they tried to follow the money to get their
swindled money back.
I would seriously suggest that you do some research on the many subjects you
like to proclaim a proficiency in; this one in particular demonstrates your
ignorance on these matters. MAPS and the .gov sites are good places to look
that are going to be safe. fbi.gov is one such site, ftc.gov another; both
have a LOT of information about spam and the FTC as you should know already
even invites people to send their spam to them.
Please stop with the volumes of misinformation you try to provide and
verify your facts before making yourself look less and less credible with
every response you give. When you don't really know, simply do not respond
rather than make guesses. Everything you say on the groups should be capable
of being backed up with reliable data sources. Meanwhile, go on responding
to your spams and be happy. Try some research and then match it up to your
own experiences, especially if the glut of Chinese spam has reached you. If
not, it will. Oh, and most o'seas spams originate right here in the good old
US of A.
And lastly, if you wish to do something about spam, read up on how to be a
spamfighter and kill their accounts & hit 'em in the pocket books, the only
effective thing you can do to a spammer. Keep chasing them from location to
location until they can't afford or have no further sites that wil accept
their business.
HTH,
Twayne`
|
|
|
|
| Re: Need your website? [message #171500 is a reply to message #171472] |
Thu, 06 January 2011 20:05 |
Twayne
Messages: 135
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In news:ig0llf$kl4$1(at)news(dot)eternal-september(dot)org,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> typed:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> But then spammers never were very smart
That's the second rule of spammers!
>>>> >
>>>> > OTOH if you had not responded I would never have seen
>>>> > it.
>>>>
>>>> Ditto here. I don't know why Jerry continually posts
>>>> replies to and mostly quotes the spam. Maybe he thinks
>>>> the spammer will actually see his witty little comments?
>>>> Yeah, like that's going to happen...
Obviously correct. Spammers aren't usually aware of even where their spams
go to let alone keep track of it.
>>>
>>> Because it has been proven time and time again that
>>> ignoring SPAM just encourages more
Total BS. See my previous response.
>>
>> What?? You're going to need to find a cite for that.
>>
>
> Find it yourself. You're the one who's bitching.
And you're the one making the claim, thus it is your responsibility to be
able to give citations for the information. Those who cannot are often
exposed as the nuts they (and you) are.
Credibility == 0.
>
>>> - while calling it for what it is has a tendency to
>>> discourage SPAM - at least for those who read before
>>> posting, anyway.
>>
>> Methinks you definitely have this all backwards. Ignore
>> the spam, they will be discouraged and maybe stop. Reply
>> to it, and they *know* you read it, and will send you
>> more. Especially if you give them web site hits.
>>
>>> You don't like it? No one is forcing you to read it.
True, but then again whenever someone posts misinformtion they cannot
provide a cite for, it's worth calling them on it. Most people, myself
included, appreciate a correction if they've actually mis typed or
misunderstood something.
>>
>> I don't see any of it, nor know it exists -- until you
>> *reply* to it. http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
>>
>
> So? Frankly, I don't give a shit.
If you don't give a sh_t, why did you respond? Why are you not admitting you
just made a bad guess, can't prove or provide any evidence to back up what
you said, and the claim is completely backwards?
>
> Ignore it if you want. I've seen too many newsgroups go to
> hell because spam is ignored. alt.computer.consultants
> comes to mind - it used to be a good newsgroup. Try it now.
And that is an out and out lie. You have never seen what you claim. Many
groups have been decimated over the last year, but ... not by simple
spamming. The best way to get rid of trollers and the like is to ignore them
because they feed off responses to their trolls. Idiots like you are the
ones that will keep them coming back. Take away their food (don't respond,
ever, to spam) and they will go elsewhere for their food. This I HAVE seen,
and participated in a few of them, all but one successful, one not so
because people wouldn't quit responding to the trollers - people like you
sound to be - and the group was dead within three weeks.
HTH,
Twayne`
|
|
|
|
| Re: Need your website? [message #171501 is a reply to message #171487] |
Thu, 06 January 2011 20:10 |
Twayne
Messages: 135
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
...
>
> Your logic is flawed. Because spammers are after money
> they do care a lot about any feedback. For there is,
> eventually, no profit in sending messages that nobody
> reads, however small the cost to do that (and the overall
> cost to send spam is very small when compared to the
> receivers' costs: a 2001 CE estimate was $0.00001 per
> message for the spammer against $0.10 per message and
> receiver). Spam still exists at such a large percentage on
> the Net (the 2010 Internet backbone figure is that 97% of
> all Internet messages are spam) because people are making
> profit from sending it, from others employing them to do
> so. Feedback tells the spammer that the message is being
> read, and it tells their (potential) customers that it
> still makes sense to relay their message through the
> spammer and the spam. (That is why sophisticated Bayesian
> spam filtering, when done everywhere, could easily mean the
> end of electronic spam as we know it: in the end, spammers
> have to deliver their message. As you can imagine, I have
> done a little bit of research on that topic.)
>
> Of course, ignoring spam should not be the end of it; you
> also need to tell the service provider that people are
> abusing their service for spamming; however unfortunately,
> many service providers appear to have given up fighting
> spam and very often sending formal complaints to them is no
> longer of use. This, too, is driven by money; it is often
> too expensive for them, and cheaper to filter out spam or
> simply ignore complaints. Especially, canceled accounts
> are too easily worked around by spammers through re-
> registration. But if you do not try to fight spam, I
> daresay that you are getting the Net that you deserve.
>
> HTH.
>
>
> F'up2 poster
>
> PointedEars
I can't say I 100% agree with you, but we're close enough that you've added
a good post here.
HTH,
Twayne`
|
|
|
|
Calendar
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
]