In article <email@example.com>,
Lena <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Fred Atkinson wrote:
>> Lena wrote:
>>> I think an amendment to the Telemarketing Laws is in order, to
>>> prohibit any telemarketer, calling on behalf of any charity or
>>> political organization, from calling any number more than once a year.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But Lena, when you limit those people
> to 'one call per year', wouldn't that be like saying spammers and
> scammers and phishermen should be limited to one spam, scam or phish
> per year?
No one here has ever said spammers, scammers and phishers should be
free to do what they do. All we've done is point out the futility in
the approaches suggested here.
> Are you trying to dictate what people can talk about on their phone?
No, she and we are trying to dictate what people can talk about on OUR
phones. Big difference. My paying for a phone does not give someone
else license to unlimited use of it for THEIR purposes.
John Meissen email@example.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That would also be true regarding
_your_ computer accounts would it not? But finding the _legitimate,
bonadide_ guilty party and chopping off his fingers would not be so
futile, would it? But I have many readers here who consider me to be
an imbicile and unable to correctly idenfity spammers; apparently they
do not know how to geographically locate and match up IP numbers, and no,
you do _NOT_ rely upon what the "From:" has to say; you begin much
further up in the envelope. Start with the "from " at the very top and
carefully examine the first two or three lines as well as paying close
attention to the path lines showing how the message got to you. Some
of that stuff up there is much harder (but not impossible!) to forge.
Now, 'tis true that dial-up IPs tend to be quite dynamic and almost
useless, but really serious spammers have a solid line all the time
don't they? Please go look at http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/AP.html
to see an example of something I am working on in cooperation with the
geobytes.com database. Testing the accuracy of my 'welcome to visitors'
line has thus far shown a high degree of positive results. Just go
look at those lines on that page. I don't care if you bother to listen
to the audio or read the AP newswire. Some of you are probably too
smart to bother with that anyway. If the 'welcome to visitors from'
line produces really gross inaccuracies in your instance, I would like
to know about it. In a day or three, I am going to present here an
HTML 'form' in which you can cut and paste the top half dozen or so
lines from your favorite spam. I hope you will give it an honest
review, and report your results to the Tin Hat imbicile. PAT]