.
Usenet (Such as it was at the time) was my first
exposure to a wider network when I started out. At that time the World Wide
Web wasn't all that 'wide' and the only browser was 'Lynx'. So I ventured
tentatively onto the newsgroups, lurking, seeking and reading FAQ's. I had a
few groups that I read as a rule, 2 to 15 messages a day propagation was typical.
However, things have changed for the worse.
Today I read groups and find people who can't
be bothered to read FAQs or lurk in the shadows to learn the ropes. No,
they jump feet first into the quagmire and do something stupid and lame (They
don't even know what XYZZY means!
A 'Colossal' mistake ; ) ). I've heard many sob stories to the effect of
.
'I didn't know you couldn't advertise about Making
Money Quick in alt.animals.bears!'
.
One might idly wonder why newsgroup names
are the group's title if they didn't have something to do with the
intended topic. As you can tell, I'm a fairly ardent anti-spammer. Off topic
SPAM wastefully uses bandwidth that could be used for other things, and it
uses up disk space that could be better used to keep articles longer. Current
levels indicate 3 to 3.8 out of every 4 posts to the usenet are spam. When
I'm in rec.video, I don't want to read about extasty.com's new XXX web site.
I want to read about things relating to video. There is a very simple
rule about what to post to a newsgroup. If your post contains the word bears
for example (Animal bears, not slang 'bears'), then the odds that it might
fit in alt.animals.bears are much greater. If you're posting to alt.collecting.teddy-bears,
your post better have something to do with stuffed toy bears.
Visit the UUnet archives for newsgroup charters.
They are a good way to learn what is a valid post to the newsgroup you are reading.
What can a responsible usenet user do to help curb usenet abuse by others?
Report em! It's easy and sometimes very satisfying.Click
on this text to go to a VERY good site that talks about dealing with email
abuse.
Despite what many may think of AoL, they have
a great legal team set up to deal with notorious spammers/junk emailers. Check
out their main page for what is in the scopes of their anti-spammer lawyers.
UBE
What is it?
UBE, UNSOLICITED BULK E-MAIL or JUNK EMAIL
is the email equivalent to postal junk-mail coming postage due. The primary
difference is in how it gets to you. Unlike the people who send you junk via
postal mail, these people don't (Or very poorly) research you at all. They may
take a 'harvesting' program and strip your email address from a news group or
your web page. They might buy a list of 'certified' addresses. What's even worse,
if you ask them to remove you from their lists permanently, odds are you will
still get mail from them (And sometimes you get even more!). You then say, so
what? It's not a big thing. I'll just delete it. Well, unless it's brought to
a stop folks it's going get much worse. Useless spam takes up bandwidth and
storage, which is already in short supply as it is. When I started on the net
I got zero junk emails a month. Six years ago I would get mayhaps one a day.
Currently I average five to 12 every day. I already get far more junk email
then legit email.
What does UBE look like? Here are some
samples....
spammers LOVE to quote the first amendment when they're talking
about sending you junk email. Lets read it through shall we?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Ok first off. 'Congress shall make no law'. In other words
'a governmental body can not make any law'
ISP's aren't governments, I'm not a government. Therefore I
can say, 'NO, you may NOT send me this junk email."
That single item is the crux of what I'm taking about. The
first amendment deals strictly with government law/controls.
Remember, NEVER buy a product or service from a spammer!
The Supreme Court has ruled in Rowan vs. Post Office that there
is no First Amendment right to send people unsolicited messages. "Nothing
in the Constitution compels us to listen to or to view an unwanted communication,
whatever its merit. . . . We therefore categorically reject the argument
that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted
material into the home of another. . . . We repeat, the right of the mailer
stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain."
.
Read the about email and Usenet spammers here. Some titles and links
are being kept even if they are now '404'.
Danish
spammer fined £37k
(USA)
Woman guilty of spam scam gets 46-month prison sentence.
Rise of the Spam
Zombies.
(USA)
$5.4m fine for spammer sending faxes.
-=-=-=-=-=-
Old News -=-=-=-=-=-
Symantec Suit
against spammer 'Dr. Fatburn'
AOL sues, 'Dr.
Fatburn' calls it quits.
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26420-2003Apr14.html
Xupiter Mongers
Deal Spam, Scams
wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,57553,00.html
CAUCE DOES THE
MATH -- WHY CAN'T THE MARKETING INDUSTRY?
cauce.org/pressreleases/math.shtml
(404)
DoubleClick Hires Private Eyes.
(@Home
is out of buiness)
Usenet
may block Excite@Home users
news.cnet.com/news/0-1004-200-1522444.html
TidBITS
Sues spammer
tidbits.com/tb-issues/TidBITS-439.html#lnk2
Mobile
Users Fear Wireless _spam_.
Summary:
the high cost of junk e-mail is making users reluctant to buy wireless Internet
features.
techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19980401S0013
.
4/8/05 2:32 PM
