[thechat] conspiracy theory?: spam created to sell more anti spam software?[OT?]

[William Anderson]

Martin Burns wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2004, at 17:56, deacon wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>> I'm thinking that I want to start using an email address that is hooked
>>> to an autoresponder. When users mail to it, they get back the URL of a
>>> page where they can enter a message on a form. They'll have to type
>>> in a code word which appears in the form of a GIF.

That's so frickin' ugly that I can feel a dull pain emerging from behind my 
eye sockets.  OK, maybe one eye socket.

If I send a mail to someone and get one of those "please reply to me / visit 
this page / perform these incantations so I know you're real and that you 
exist" auto-replies, I tend not to bother unless my mail is of such 
life-and-death importance that I really should be picking up the phone or 
just driving/flying to the person and talking face-to-face.  I think these 
solutions, while interesting, don't actually solve the problem of the spam 
going out in the first place.

You need legislation in as many countries as stupidly possible, that hurts 
the potential or actual spammer so badly for sending out UCE or other types 
of spam that it's physically painful to pay the penalty and that they'd 
rather gouge their eyes out with a blunt instrument such as a magic marker 
or a dvd remote control than pay up.

I would rather people beefed up their local anti-spam solutions, or liaised 
with ISPs to provide effective anti-spam service, than lumber me with the 
responsibility of having to fire up a web browser just to have to read your 
mail.  If I wanted to do that, I'd use hotmail.  You'll note from my headers 
that I don't.

> http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html

Yup :)

-- 
_ __/|  William Anderson      | Brodie: The Force is strong with this one
\`O_o'  neuro at well dot com |    Jay: Dude, don't encourage him
=(_ _)= http://neuro.me.uk/   |  -- Mallrats, (1995)
    U  - Thhbt! GPG 0xFA5F1100 |