Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 04:10:58 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Bryant <jbryant@unix.tfs.net> To: Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com (Don Lewis) Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Forward all spam to UCE@FTC.GOV Message-ID: <199901151011.EAA08250@unix.tfs.net> In-Reply-To: <199901150810.AAA28286@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com> from Don Lewis at "Jan 15, 99 00:10:08 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In reply: > On Jan 15, 12:07am, Jim Bryant wrote: > } Subject: Re: Forward all spam to UCE@FTC.GOV > } > } it's what they asked for. really. their intent is clear. gathering > } evidence for use to obtain effective laws. > > Actually the FTC is more interested in fraud and deceptive practices. > See <http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/doznalrt.htm>; and > <http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/ruleroad.htm>. They've > announced a few crackdowns on fraud on the Internet and actually gone > after a few of the more notorious scamming spammers. their intent is to get new laws made. laws that mandate enforcement spending. also, have you ever seen a non-scam spam? i haven't. so what if they get the 0.01% of the spam that isn't a fraud scam. the 99.99% that is will reach the proper agency. dealing with onesies and twosies won't get anything to change. brutal enforcement of new and effective laws will. first, there must be incentive for effective laws and enforcement budgets. > } i realize they probably don't have the staffing to handle each one, > } and i'm sure they realize that too, the intent is clear. > > They don't even have the staff to enforce the existing laws ... gee, i wonder why? could it be all of the bribes from the direct marketing association that helped re-elect congress? when are people going to start holding their congressmen responsible for their actions? a lot of talk about integrity going on right now, unfortunately, we have the most corrupt congressional majority of the 20th century that just got re-elected. let's hope people have now waken up, as THE RECALL VOTES ARE A DONE DEAL. once the current anti-enforcement majority is out, we can have effective laws with bite. we can also organize and ratify international treaties dealing with the REAL problem issues. if spammers want to break the current feeble spam law, then they should be held to answer for it. unsolicited commercial email should have been made a felony, just like junk faxing is. it's only a matter of time before it is, because of the fact that the ftc has better things to do than deal with spam scams constantly. if effectively applied the current spam law will cost more money in taxes for enforcement than making it a felony would have ever cost with an effective opt-in law. unfortunately this integrity-challanged majority in congress refuses to fund ALL kinds of enforcement activities properly. thus a law without bite is worse than no law at all, and thus the problem blooms into the ROTTING CESSPOOL it currently is in MANY areas of life. they want fraudlant spam sent to them... by my experience and all those around me, 99.99% of all spam IS fraudlant. since internet regulation is only a matter of time, it's best that they understand the problem at the extent that it exists, so that intelligent regulation can be done. the sheer volume of what they are asking for will overwhelm them. it will only serve one purpose, to create new EFFECTIVE regulations that can deal with the problem, both domestically and internationally. what criteria would you use to determine what spam is good, when 99.99% of it is fraudluant? as a selectable option in sendmail.cf, fraud-friendly isps can easily leave the option deselected. but i'm sure the majority of decent people out there will agree with me and enable the option. if the problem gets much worse, joe blow down the street may be willing to boycott an isp that doesn't fully block and report fraudulant spam scams. boycott is such a nasty thing to do, but boycotts are effective in getting companies and governments to listen to the will of the people. since freebsd is used by many isps, we should offer the isp owners the option to block and forward such messages to the proper authorities. they will find it easier to do than deal with boycotts. someone has to be held responsible for the invasion of privacy that spam is. if i started an isp today and used the theme that we block spam and report each occurrance to the feds as our sole advertising point, then i guarantee that i will take over the majority of the internet market in kansas city in very short order. i'd be willing to bet a million dollars on that one, any interested investors, please contact me via email. i'm only suggesting a selectable option to automate delivery of what the ftc is asking for here in the usa. they didn't ask for filtration and selective submissions, they asked for unsolicited commercial email. period .-.-.- nowhere in the paragraph did it mention the word fraudulant, because these days, the word fraudulant is implied when talking about spam. the spammers have only themselves to blame. the people have both congress and the isps to blame. if you are not supporting people that want the problem solved once and for all, then you are part of the problem. unsolicited junk faxes are now pretty much a thing of the past, except in isolated incidents that are easily dealt with at the felony level. unsolicited commercial email can be too. people are serious. the ftc has provided the means, and they did not ask people to be selective except for the word "unsolicited". a selectable sendmail.cf option shipped in the distribution is acceptable to suit my proposal. isps that lack moral character can leave it deselected as they wish. to disagree with this is to admit that self-policing the internet [or anything else for that matter] is an utterly sophistic concept that needs to be relegated to the status of fairie tale. which, by the way is a circular concept anyhow, since to agree with my reasoning is to admit the same. at least i have enough moral character to admit it. sorry to bring politics into the issue, but due to the fact of the bribes from the direct marketing association to a certain party enjoying majority status on the hill, we have the law that has not only perpetuated the problem, but indeed has made it worse. thus to not bring politics into the discussion would be VERY NAIEVE. i think that the ftc can overlook the fact that one out of every 10,000 spams forwarded to them is not fraudulant. keep in mind that even if that 1 in 10,000 is not fraudulant, it was still unsolicited, and thus met the definition of what they are asking for. > This is really offtopic for -hackers. not really. given the percentages, there are probably more than a few -hackers subscribers that this is all about, at least they are not in the majority even though they may have helped buy a fraud-friendly majority on the hill. the only way to deal with criminals and hypocrites is to treat them as such. it's the only thing they understand. note the new Cc: to -chat. jim -- All opinions expressed are mine, if you | "I will not be pushed, stamped, think otherwise, then go jump into turbid | briefed, debriefed, indexed, or radioactive waters and yell WAHOO !!! | numbered!" - #1, "The Prisoner" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Inet: jbryant@tfs.net AX.25: kc5vdj@wv0t.#neks.ks.usa.noam grid: EM28pw voice: KC5VDJ - 6 & 2 Meters AM/FM/SSB, 70cm FM. http://www.tfs.net/~jbryant ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HF/6M/2M: IC-706-MkII, 2M: HTX-212, 2M: HTX-202, 70cm: HTX-404, Packet: KPC-3+ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901151011.EAA08250>