1997-08-18 - Re: Picketing With Packets

Header Data

From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 70147157008a2ee94c131685c47c2a6a3fb0566e78e7a7f55935bdf923848464
Message ID: <1BBmBe2w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
Reply To: <Pine.LNX.3.93.970818024934.105G-100000@shirley>
UTC Datetime: 1997-08-18 06:43:06 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 14:43:06 +0800

Raw message

From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 14:43:06 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Picketing With Packets
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.93.970818024934.105G-100000@shirley>
Message-ID: <1BBmBe2w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} <dformosa@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> writes:

> On Sat, 16 Aug 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
>
> > In all fairness, in addition to Stanford Wallace, there are several
> > other spammers sending out junk e-mail. If you completely eliminate
> > Stanford and his company, you will STILL get junk e-mail.
>
> Of cause this is true,  but he is one of the beggest and thus gets the
> most attention.  If we can stop him we cut down alot of email spam and we
> can move on the smaller one.  Its like optimising code,  you find where
> its taken most of its time and you optimise that.

He's the loudest one. However in the week his system has been down,
the amount of shit from Quantcom, newvest, etc hasn't subsided.

> > Perhaps this will spark another round of a cypherpunk discussion of
> > technical solutions to junk e-mail...
>
> Hopefully,  the spammers are just as effective censors as the goverment
> is IMHO.

The answer is a technical solution that doesn't let the spammers drown
out a discussion, if that's what you mean by censorship.

> > I placed myself on a zillion "remove" lists.  Now I no longer get any
> > junk e-mail of interest (which I did on rare occasions),
>
> I'm haveing trubble parsing this message,  do you mean that you are not
> getting any junk e-mail that you are interested in?

I mean, I used to get more unsolicited junk mail, which I deleted, but
occasionally I saw something of moderate interest - say, someone
selling blank CDR media reasonably cheap (not that I'd buy them from
someone advertizing this way).  Now all I get is pure crap. :-)

> > but still get at least once a day an MMF
>
> I think this is a diffrent class of posting.  Thouse peaple who post MMF
> do it from ignorence and stupidity, while this dosn't make what thay have
> done any less harmfull, it means that it has to be fixxed in a diffrent
> way to normal UCE.

For reasons unknown, I seem to be on someone's mailing list for MMF's
- I get A LOT of them in e-mail :-(

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps






Thread